Carrier question…..

[KINGPIN_DK]

As i just recently started playing this great boardgame, a lot of questions regarding rules have come up. Since the rules are somewhat confusing from time to time i would like to ask other players instead, so here goes…
The situation is the US attacking a japanese battleship in seazone 60 of the coast of Tokyo with a smaller fleet from Hawaii. This fleet consists of among other, a carrier with 2 fighters on it. My question is…can i launch the 2 fighters towards zone 60 (2 move) then let the empty carrier sail alongside the rest of the fleet from Hawaii to engage in battle (1 att.) in the same zone (60), and at the same time fly 2 landbased fighters from Western USA (i think…do not have the board with me) also attacking the battleship in seazone 60 (4 move for the fighters) ?
In the following non-combat move, the plan is to let the 2 fighters from the carrier fly back to Hawaii to land, and let the other 2 fighters from the W.USA land on the carrier in seazone 60 after the battle, despite the risk of the carrier being lost in battle ?
Is all of this possible…i mean, it will not be a deliberate “suiciderun” for the fighters since i plan for the carrier to be in the same zone as the fighters at the non-combat turn ?

[OLver]

from what i understood, yes it is possible to do so.

[gerard]

@KINGPIN_DK:

As i just recently started playing this great boardgame, a lot of questions regarding rules have come up. Since the rules are somewhat confusing from time to time i would like to ask other players instead, so here goes…
The situation is the US attacking a japanese battleship in seazone 60 of the coast of Tokyo with a smaller fleet from Hawaii. This fleet consists of among other, a carrier with 2 fighters on it. My question is…can i launch the 2 fighters towards zone 60 (2 move) then let the empty carrier sail alongside the rest of the fleet from Hawaii to engage in battle (1 att.) in the same zone (60), and at the same time fly 2 landbased fighters from Western USA (i think…do not have the board with me) also attacking the battleship in seazone 60 (4 move for the fighters) ?
In the following non-combat move, the plan is to let the 2 fighters from the carrier fly back to Hawaii to land, and let the other 2 fighters from the W.USA land on the carrier in seazone 60 after the battle, despite the risk of the carrier being lost in battle ?
Is all of this possible…i mean, it will not be a deliberate “suiciderun” for the fighters since i plan for the carrier to be in the same zone as the fighters at the non-combat turn ?

yes that move is perfectly allowed, its ok as long as you have where to land all your aircraft at the moment that you assign all attacking units

[KINGPIN_DK]

Thank you for your help. Gotta go…have a battleship to sink ! :D

[Jule]

I’m not a natural english speaker, so maybe I got something wrong, but I’d say NO, you can’t do this!

You can attack with 2 Ftrs and a carrier from 52 to 60 (2 moves) and you can attack with 2 Ftrs from WUS (4 moves) too. But when it comes to land anywhere you get the problem. The two Ftrs from WUS absolutely need to land here on the carrier (only if the carrier is sunk in battle they can land in JAP or BRY if they belong to the allies, else they will crash).
Now the 2 Ftrs from 52 need to land somewhere in the range of 2 spaces. They can land in BRY, FAR, YAK and they can fly back to 52 if you move another carrier there in your NCM, but they can’t land on Hawai itself because to land on an island needs another (fith) move.

I hope I got everything right and explained it in a way you can understand.

[KINGPIN_DK]

I’m no natural english speaker either, so maybe i wrote some of it a bit wrong ?
Let me get this straight…. what you are saying is : it takes no move to “launch” ftrs from either a carrier or a landzone, but it takes 1 move to land a ftr on a landzone, in this instance, Hawaii ?
Wouldn’t it take a move to land on a carrier to ?, i mean, if i fly the 2 ftrs from WUS to seazone 60 (4 move) to engage in a battle, and my carrier is sunk during battle in the very zone (60), won’t both of these planes crash instantly ?

[Jule]

I tried to say: It takes a move to launch a Ftr from a Island (Hawai to EPO is one move), but it takes no move to launch a Ftr from a carrier.
For example: HAW-EPO (1), EPO-NPO(2), NPO-EJS(3), EJS-NPO/BRY(4). A Ftr from the island of Hawai could attack EJS and land on a carrier in for example NPO or in BRY, if it belongs to your side.
If they start from a carrier in EPO, it would look like this: EPO-NPO(1), NPO-EJS(2), EJS-NPO(3), NPO-EPO(4). So they could land on a carrier in EPO, but not on the island of Hawai.

And, well, you’ve just shown me a mistake of mine. The two Ftrs from WUS can engage EJS and land on your carrier that would be in EJS after the battle. If your carrier is sunk, your Ftrs won’t die instantly, but at the end of your Non Combat Move. They will participate till the end of the battle, but crash afterwards. So in this case I’d advise you to take your planes from WUS as casulties first and not the Carrier.

Only defending planes can retreat 1 move to a landzone/island, if their carrier is sunk in battle and they survive.

[KINGPIN_DK]

…before continuing this topic, i need to clarify a few of your abbreviations.
Haw = Hawaii (figured that one out for myself)
NPO = North Pacific Ocean (i suppose…)
BRY ? (Buryatia)…maybe ?
EPO ? (East pacific Ocean) or…?
EJS ? (East Japan Shore) or… ?

The reason that i am asking this, is that my board do not have a zone called EPO or EJS…but then again, maybe it’s just me who is a newbie… :roll:

How come we aren’t simply using zone numbers instead ?

[Jule]

Oh, I’m sorry, ich used the acronyms used in the “ABattleMap” which are very common to use on the internet. It’s easier to remember the acronyms than the numbers of the seazones.

HAW = Island of Hawai
EPO = Z52
NPO = Z57
EJS = Z60
BRY = Buryatia
WUS = Western US

[Afrika Korps]

Can’t reach 60 in 2 moves from Hawaii. Hawaii is a seperate area from the sea zone surrounding it.