Old planes - new carriers

@panther

Gotcha, so it’s just a matter of whether or not you wanna lose such an expensive item.

@variance:

I remember a game where soulblighter suprised me by making a mad rush on Egypt with luftwaffe supporting Italy.  On G1 he took South France, G2 he built 3 carriers, G4 the fleet moved to Egypt, G5 they were out into the Indian Ocean, and from there he just pushed me back to Hawaii and then Japan got India and Hawaii. It was well timed and creative.

Well, there are 3 Top level German plans to start the war.

#1 Go all in on Sea Lion, you are invading.
#2 Set up for a G2 or G3 Russian Invasion, this would include a sea lion fake.
#3 Go all in on the Med. This would include Germany taking the S. France factory or Building one in Greece or Yugo. This usually means a G4 invasion of Russia.

Option #3 does not get much “play” because it is a slow play plan of attack. Most Germany strategies revolve around a quick strike at Russia and knocking them out before G8.

Option #3 is the most optimal plan of attack IF you are going for a Axis victory in the long term, Turn 10-14. Germany sweeps into the middle east, forms a navy to support the invasion of India, collects around 25+ IPC in NO’s in the middle east and Cacuss and crush Moscow from the south.

There is big upside also to option #3. That means Italy gets full support from Germany and usually will get all its NO’s also and be pumping out 25+ IPC a turn themselves. A very strong italy coupled with a crushing Germany economy never leads to bad things for the Axis powers and usually a Turn 8-10 concession speech from Chamberland.

it would be interesting to see how the famous UK Middle Earth plan of attack works out with a strong Italy and a full effort from Germany pushing in the Middle East.

@Hepps01:

Yah, I agree with you.  Especially in the situation provided where there was literally 0% chance of success.  The sub attack was simply an “Offensive fodder” attack done to make the fighter move “quasi-legitimate”.

To me (on a personal level) the rules should stipulate that Carriers be required to move during the combat phase into the only potential landing zone and thus force the attacking player to win the secondary battle in order to ensure the fighter can land.  Otherwise this just enables people to do this kind of weak ass fodder tactic in order to get to the transports  that would otherwise be out of range.   This would then also mean that an attacker has to potentially sacrifice very valuable units (carriers) to accomplish these kind of delaying actions.

Just my opinion though.

From an emotional point of view I am with you here and as a fun fact in a current game I face exactly the ugly site of that move as he has Carrier plus sub in place which creates theoretical threats for all my transports. He can sac just a sub and then theoretically kill TTs in many seazones (for the price of saccing the Air of course).

However I like this rule because it gives the game some more dynamics and makes blocking a bit less powerful which I think is good for the game and does make you a bit less dependent on can openers and gives a power to overcome blocking at least a bit better without an allied power.

Okay cool. Thanks. We’re still playing the 1st edition rules where Italy goes before the US BTW, but the point is still the same. Thank you again. That’s what I thought

Thank you IL!

@creeping-deth87:

I’m surprised there isn’t a more definitive answer. I CAN’T be the first person to think of doing this.

I’m not seeing anything in the rules that would disallow it. A carrier is a valid landing space for any fighter or tac bomber, the rules don’t mention ensuring sufficient capacity for landings.

It is pretty much definitive. It says you can’t send them on suicide missions (or some wording akin to that).

As the others have mentioned. You need to have a potential landing spot to send aircraft to fight. If only having 2 potential landing spots (assuming perfect rolls), you can only dedicate two air planes.

@Maddog77:

What’s w/ all the whining going on about the “new” tank rule? It’s not a new one either. 3-2-2-5 is the “old” rule since the game was marketed in the early '80s. It’s only a buck more now. Big deal. Simmer down folks and relize it’s only a game. Getting you panties all bunched up and calliing names is pretty lame and infantile. Do some of you need a time out? Or do I have to get the belt out?  :-D

As far as the “rule” goes, I like the current 3-3-2-6. Only for the defense factor. But when I play the original, it’s 3-2-2-5. So I don’t rely on tanks for defense as much as I do a stack of Infantry.

Amazing! when tanks defend at three I use them for defense
when tanks defend at two I use infantry for defense

@AdmiralNagano:

The way I remember it is that, if a plane can theoretically land at the very end of the turn, it can attack.

The only exception to that is a retreat. If you use a carrier in an attack, you can’t assume that you will retreat on some combat round and thus allow your fighter land on it. Other than that, yes, if it can theoretically land, even if a battle is required to be won (like 1 sub versus 1000 battleships) then it can land.