If i destroy a sub

@krieghund
ok tks

@Krieghund:

It implies that they are not cargo, as they are not lost as cargo would be.

Oh, ya, I guess it does. :-)

My impression of that sentence was that it intended to speak to fighters on the deck of the carrier (which led to all that other rigamarole I asked about). Didn’t feel to me that fighters in the air in same sea zone as carrier during Combat phase would need mention of the carrier being sunk at that time. But your adjust of my focus provides clarity. Thank you, Krieghund! Your presence here makes our gaming experience better. Take care.

That is correct.

See this thread for a house rule from Krieghund on subs. Linked and then copy/pasted further down.

@frimmel:

@AA:

sorry for the long intro. :-D

Long intros are fine but they usually go better with proper punctuation.  :wink:

I know,lol,my mom keeps telling me that.

As 'Switch said, there are no “official” variants, but you can try these on for size.  I’m also working on another one, but I’m not ready to publish it just yet.

Not Sure about Subs getting sunk by Artillery… But I remember in Vietnam, at the Battle of Khe Sanh,  There were major problems with getting in any kind of air support.

The American Base at Khe Sanh was being so heavily shelled by Artillery,  that incoming aircraft were almost garunteed to be struck down by regular artillery shells.

Let’s not forget that Artillery is very versatile, and that a common combat theme in WWII (which still applies today) was to be creative.  Sometimes you just use what you gotta use to get the job done.

Thanks for your quick answer  :-), I think that I will be able to play without any rules ambiguities now (it seems fewer ambiguities are present in this version’s rules than in A&A revised one, even if they are some) . I’m happy to learn that my English isn’t that bad too, thank you very much for all!