AA50 Double Blind May 16 in East Hartford, CT

Hi, hope this can be find useful.
You have all the set-up for 1941 and 1942 scenarii.
Here is 1941 Set-up for Japan:

Japan Starting income: 17 IPCs
Okinawa: 1 Infantry
Manchuria: 3 Infantry, 1 Fighter
Japan: 4 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 AAA, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, Industrial Complex
Iwo Jima: 1 Infantry
Caroline Islands: 3 Infantry
Formosa: 1 Fighter
French Indo-China/Thailand: 3 Infantry
Kiangsu: 3 Infantry

NAVAL SETUP:
Sea Zone 51: 1 Destroyer, 2 Transports
Sea Zone 57: 2 Aircraft Carriers, 4 Fighters
Sea Zone 61: 1 Aircraft Carrier with 2 Fighters, 1 Battleship, 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport with 1 Infantry & 1 Artillery, 1 Transport with 2 Infantry
Sea Zone 62: 1 Transport

1942 Japanese scenario:

Japan Starting income: 31 IPCs
Okinawa: 1 Infantry
Manchuria: 2 Infantry, 1 Fighter
Japan: 4 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 AAA, 1 Tank, 1 Fighter, 1 Bomber, Industrial Complex
Iwo Jima: 1 Infantry
Caroline Islands: 1 Infantry
Formosa: 1 Fighter
French Indo-China/Thailand: 2 Infantry, 1 Fighter
Kiangsu: 3 Infantry
Wake Island: 1 Infantry, 1 Control Marker
Solomon Islands: 1 Infantry, 1 Control Marker
New Guinea: 1 Infantry, 1 Control Marker
Philippine Islands: 2 Infantry, 1 Control Marker
Borneo: 1 Infantry, 1 Control Marker
East Indies: 1 Infantry, 1 Control Marker
Burma: 1 Infantry, 1 Control Marker
Kwangtung: 1 Infantry, 1 Control Marker

NAVAL SETUP:
Sea Zone 38: 1 Aircraft Carrier with 2 Fighters, 1 Battleship
Sea Zone 46: 1 Submarine
Sea Zone 50: 1 Cruiser
Sea Zone 51: 1 Aircraft Carrier with 1 Fighter, 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 62: 1 Battleship, 1 Transport

Axis_Setup Chart.doc

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=23325.0

After further consideration I no longer feel the fighter escort/interceptor rule needs any fine tuning. In my previous posts I expressed the view that the rule nerfed strategic bombing too much but I’ve since changed my mind. After all, bombing raids over inland German targets without escorts was near suicidal, especially during the daylight. It wasn’t until the Allies had deployed long range escort fighters and had outnumbered the defending Luftwaffe aircraft, that the Allies were able to conduct bombing missions without terrible loses. The same is true with the fighter escort/interceptor rule as it stands now and it should stay that way.

hamachi network name: PinAAA
no password

someone join!

I created those tiles and yes, of course. That’s why I created them after all. Now if only the developers can work out their recent legal woes with Hasbro.

Flying Tiger is correct.  Sorry if my original post was unclear.  :oops: I’ll try again.

You place an existing fighter on a new carrier by moving the fighter in either combat or noncombat movement, whichever applies, into the sea zone where the new carrier will be mobilized.  Air units don’t actually “land” until the end of the Mobilize New Units phase, though they must be in the space in which they will land by the end of noncombat movement.  The active player may only move pieces from one space to another during the combat movement and noncombat movement phases.

In Classic A&A, you can’t place fighters (new or existing) on new carriers at all.  In Revised, you can place existing fighters on a new carrier in the way you described in your original post.  In LHTR, it works the same way as it does in AA50.

I am beginning to wonder if the Heavy Bomber rule that has some people bent so out of shape is in there to compensate for the large boost that attaining National Objectives gives the Axis.  As a guess, it is going to be easier for the Axis to attain their objectives, and more productive to them than for the Allies to attain their objectives, which do not appear to give them anywhere the same boost.