What happened to the US?

@The-Mink

Panther is right, but I’ll offer one more clarification. Your allies can help you defend, but not attack. Destroyers belonging to your ally don’t participate in your attacks, so they can’t help your air units hit subs even if they’re in the same sea zone.

When defending, they do participate, so a UK destroyer can help US planes hit subs if they’re defending the same sea zone.

@aardvarkpepper I think we’re talking about LH/3.0 setup with the 2-bomber india strat.

@Panther

Thanks for the reply.

Thanks again to @Krieghund too. :)

@PrivateerPuffin said in Rules question about Fighters in Sea battles:

1st question: Does the word may in excerpt #2 allow for fighters to be presumed as casualties?

No, but it allows for carriers to be.

2nd question: Does excerpt #3 mean that there can never be more fighters in a battle than you have spots on carriers (if there are no other islands or territories to land in).

Yes.

An example if my question is nonsensical.
Japan took Midway, Alaska, and Western Canada last turn. On the US turn. 4 US fighters from two carriers in SZ 56 used 2 movement to attack a fleet in SZ 64. 1 fighter from Western US then uses 3 of its movement to also attack the fleet. The Japan player says that isn’t allowed because the 4 fighters will need the carriers to land. The US player disagrees and says that they could take a fighter as a casualty, allowing for there to be an open spot on the carrier which the fighter from Western US can land on.

The Japan player is correct.

During combat movement, you must be able to demonstrate possible safe landing zones for all attacking fighters. Once the combat starts, you may take carriers as casualties so that these safe landing zones are not maintained, usually in order to maximize the effectiveness of the attacking force. Once combat is over, all fighters that can still be landed must be (attacker’s choice of exactly which fighters, if there is a choice), and any that cannot are lost.

@Krieghund Thanks. I’ll cite the “Defenseless Transports” on page 17 (for me), when making the case to the 1942 Online developers. Appreciate your taking the time to input, and especially the specific reference - most helpful.

I’m just as pleased that the AAA can shoot down the fighter before the fighter can get any automatic destruction effect. Simultaneous shoot-downs is weird.

Also thanks @Witt of course.

@aardvarkpepper

in global, SBR has +2 bonus. In the other editions, not. So you do an average of 3.5 damage (5.5 in global) per bomber while taking a $2 risk per attack. Since there is an opportunity cost because the bomber can’t do this and something else, its generally not worth it.

Its more likely that they grab moscow than hawaii, because I typically have a strong us navy in the pac.

and yes, you can kind of stalemate the game by trading karelia back and forth with UK forces, even if you start building up on that side late in the game and have a fairly weak force. But once moscow falls, the money is almost exactly even (85 vs 90) and that’s a loss over time for the allies.

Here’s one affordable way to beat back a casual Japanese invasion:

USA starts with a sub off the coast of Hawaii, which you can submerge if you want during Pearl Harbor, since Japan has no destroyers in range on Japan’s first turn. Build one more submarine for 6 IPCs, and park your 2 subs off the coast of San Francisco. Japan can’t sink your subs with carrier aircraft unless they bring a destroyer with them. Meanwhile, you can build a bomber each turn in the Eastern US as part of your Kill Germany First strategy. If Japan ignores you, the bomber can go east to harass Berlin. If Japan brings a small transport fleet toward San Francisco, you can hit it and kill it with 2 subs and a bomber.

Of course, if Japan brings its entire fleet toward San Francisco, you’ll need bigger defenses – but you’ll see that coming and have time to stop it, and if Japan swings its whole fleet east, then that’s so many more turns that Siberia and India are safe.