Certainly not all aircraft and pilots could land on a carrier. So, need to make a distinction on the purchase. Naval vs. Army. Cost is same, but capabilities are not: Naval tactical bombers and fighters can land on carriers, Army cannot. Army tactical bombers get the combined arms bonus, Naval do not. Naval fighters changed to D3 on non-island territories (remain D4 in sea zones and islands). All type fighters are D4 when scrambling.
Can you be more specific?
What is the defense ability of each aircraft in their alien environment?
A naval Fg defend @3 on land and an army defend @3 when scrambling at sea?
All scrambling aircraft get their normal defense of D4. Only naval fighters defending in a territory get D3. **OPTIONAL: **The air superiority rule can only be used if both aircraft type are attacking over their native environment. (Army/territories; Naval/sea zones.)
The intent of naval vs army, was that naval aircraft are getting the extra capability of landing on a carrier. So, what is the trade off for buying army? Decided to take away the combined arms rule from naval tac bombers, and for naval fighters made them D3 on land.
I dont think island TT should be treated as land for naval plane.
A lot of Marines F4U Corsair were both stationed in Pacific Islands and Carriers.
That way, naval can attack @3 and combined with TacB on PTO island airfield and defend @4.
Yes - that would make sense.
