Carrier and Fighter Movement

Yes.

What if we count “landing on a friendly carrier” as one move? That might solve the “overmovement” problem.

For example, a UK fighter should first enter the sea zone controlled by a US carrier, then “land on the US carrier”, this landing process should count as two consecutive moves.
After landing, the UK fighter is treated as cargo and could be transported by the US carrier in US turn.
As to take off, a UK fighter should first move to the sea zone controlled by the US carrier, then move out of the sea zone, wich also should count as two consecutive moves.

In this scenario, the UK fighter could at most move through 8 sea zones during two turns, 3 in the first turn, 2 carried by the US carrier, 3 in the next turn.

Only fighters and carriers of the same power could be considered as “in close cooperation” in the same sea zone (but not as cargo/transporter as in the different power scenario), thus don’t require the land/take off move.

@theROCmonster:

G1 Egypt without the fighter is 2 infantry arty tank fighter bomber vs inf tank fighter… not that big of a risk at all.

When I am Germany it is.  :-P :wink:

When I would play Revised more often, I had a penchant for having that battle go horribly wrong. We usualyl had 7 bids for Germany which meant inf/art in Libya

The best example.
With 3 inf, 1 art, 2 tanks, 1 ftr, 1 bmb, I rolled 12 out of 13 6’s the first 2 rounds. He got 4 hits the first two rounds. I wish I still had the screenshots.

I eventually I had ftr/bmb left and I think all he had was ftr, but I still retreated. Sometimes you just gotta know when the dice hate you and it is futile to object.

@jiman79:

I have a follow up question in the same category.
What if there is a place to land the figs, but this territory is also to be attacked in the same round.
Will the figs then be able to land there and take part of the defense - or will they be lost (with only taking place in the naval battle) if the territory is lost?

The fighters only land after all combats are resolved, meaning that if the territory has been taken it is not longer a valid landing spot

Ah yes, that was exactly the conversation I was thinking of.  You are quite right, I was thinking of a defending air unit.  In combat the air units would retreat during the non-combat movement phase and of course not have movements allowed and would crash.

Yes, it’s legal, as long as the carrier has a landing spot that’s not spoken for.  However, if you end up having to retreat your fighter will be lost, as it has no movement left.

@Patton5:

Other problems… against a canny opponent the UK cannot build a factory in India.  Japan has a huge fleet and troops right next door and so this old time tactic is useless.  I’m struggling to find any effective strategy for the UK in this new version of the game.

Very true. The only way that the UK can put an IC in India against a Japanese player that doesn’t want him to have one there, is if Germany doesn’t take Egypt on G1 for whatever reason.

However, if by some miracle Germany doesn’t attack Egypt on G1, an IC for India is an outstanding buy IMO. Sacrifice the Cruiser in your Pacific fleet to take out the Japanese transport in SZ59. Then on your non-combat move, move your infantry from Persia into India, take your transport and pick up the tank from Egypt and the infantry from Trans-Jordon, and drop them off in India as well. Lastly, take the fighter off of your Carrier and the fighter from Egypt, and land those in India as well.

Then retreat your carrier to whatever SZ you deem safe for future use. You can even move it through the Suez in an attempt to link it up with your Atlantic fleet if the Med is clear of German ships.

This gives you a total of 5 infantry, 1 tank, 2 fighters, and an AA gun to defend your India IC which you’ll place at the end of your turn. The maximum the Japanese will be able to attack India with on J1 is 2 infantry, 4 fighters, and 1 bomber. The chances of a Jap victory are almost non-existent (around a 10% likelihood I believe), and even if they do, you will have completely decimated their entire air force.

Combine the well-defended India IC with an American IC in Sinkiang which is supported by a garrison of 4 Russian troops, and you have a good starting point to your JTDTM defense.

I’ve yet to have a Japanese player even attempt an attack on India on their first turn when I use this strategy. Yes, you’ll be sacrificing a cruiser and a transport….But you’re eliminating a Japanese transport, and establishing a firm grasp in Asia with an IC in India and a large force to defend it.

Now obviously you leave Africa open for an attack which the Germans will no doubt take advantage of on their second turn, but I usually remedy this by purchasing a South Africa IC a turn or two later. Pump out a few tanks in Africa in addition to the three you’re putting in India each turn, and you’re golden.

If anyone ever wants to play a game of AA42, hit me up. I’d love to play via TripleA, or just play by forum (which I’ve never done, but I’m sure I could learn quickly).

Now that I’ve read up on sub vs sub, I’m happy to know that the defender has to declare submersion before the megalomaniacal attacker rolls. Upon exploring this escort/interceptor rule, hearing that escorts without defending interceptors are useless, I got to thinking. Does the defender declare if he is using interceptors before the strat bombing? It would suck to bring your airforce in to risk aa fire and not be of use due to the defender deciding not to use his fighters as interceptors. I suggest
1. Declare strat bombing
2. Defender declares interceptors
3. Attacker declares escorts
4. combat ensues.

I know it won’t fly, so to speak, but just as my pals were waiting to see if my attack sub would miss before deciding to submerge, a rule I will have to school them on… I feel the defender has an opportunity to dupe the attacker into sending fighters into a trap. I understand the defender needs the advantage, but I would like the opportunity to turn my escorts around when there is no resistance. Pros?