Carriers and fighters

@Col.:

@Scarapis:

@LeonidasBush:

The game starts in Spring of 1942, after the attack on Pearl Harbor. �� If it were the Attack on Pearl Harbor there would be at least a battleship there and, as you mentioned, no aircraft career. �� History takes a hit with this board game, but if the Japanese do attack Pearl Harbor on their first turn it isn’t December 7th, 1941.

yes but not aware of any more Japanese occursions on Hawaii after the attack on Pearl Harbor

Do you only make moves that are historically accurate during a game?

I pick the Allies then!

PS:  Awesome name and picture, Col. Ty Webb.

@P@nther:

Just read the FAQ carefully. The scenarios are different.
Subs can never hit planes.
I think you refer to a case, where a fighter and a destroyer attack a sub and a cruiser.  Here both hits can (and must) be assigned legally. Sub hits destroyer and cruiser hits fighter.

In the above scenario there is only one hit that can be legally assigned - as subs never can hit planes.

Ah, I see.

@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

Looks great, I was thinking of having the 1942 map printed onto a plaque about the same size.

Nice work.

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.

Thank you so much for the clairification, I greatly appreciate it!

@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?