Carrier Mobilization

Okay, so technically you are right, you don’t have to move or mobilize a carrier to provide a safe landing place for surviving fighters and tacs.

However, it is the fighters and tacs that are actually restricted. You can NOT move any fighter or tac into a combat situation where they would not have a safe place to land. So, if you send any fighter or tac into a combat situation, you have to declare where they will land. In this case, if the landing would involve either an existing carrier moving in the NCM or a new carrier being mobilized, then you would have to declare that movement or mobilization.

If the fighters or tacs in question are killed in the combat, then the existing carriers are no longer committed to the NCM and new carriers are no longer committed to being mobilized in the specific sea zone where the fighters/tacs would have landed.
You simply can not plan on the fighters/tacs being destroyed when you make your combat movement. Even if it is a large battle and you are sure that you will experience casualties and plan in your mind that the fighters/tacs that you send to the limit of their movement will be among your first casualties, you still have to declare that they could land somewhere.
I guess you could consider this more a question of etiquette than actual game mechanics. When you make your combat move, you declare where your planes will land as a matter of consideration to your opponent regardless of your actual plans for those planes.
However, if the battle goes much better for you than expected and those planes in question survive, then it changes from simple etiquette to a mandatory move. In other words, then you are “stuck” moving or placing the carrier so those planes have a place to land.

@kcdzim:

No, it does, very explicitly. P21 Pac 2nd Edition- where units can move.

“A fighter or tactical bomber can land in a sea zone (even a
hostile one) that is adjacent to an industrial complex you own
if you will be mobilizing an aircraft carrier that you previously
purchased in that zone during the Mobilize New Units phase.”

“You must have a carrier move, remain in place, or be
mobilized (new carriers only) to pick up a fighter or
tactical bomber that would end its noncombat movement in
a sea zone. You can’t deliberately move an air unit out of
range of a potential safe landing space.”

This passage is also in the 1st edition rules.

@knp7765:

Okay, so technically you are right, you don’t have to move or mobilize a carrier to provide a safe landing place for surviving fighters and tacs.

Yes, you do.

@knp7765:

I guess you could consider this more a question of etiquette than actual game mechanics. When you make your combat move, you declare where your planes will land as a matter of consideration to your opponent regardless of your actual plans for those planes.

This is not etiquette - it is the rules.  During combat movement, you must demonstrate that each of your air units has a valid potential landing place or the move is illegal.  However, as you say, those landing spaces are only required to be provided if the air units in question still need them during noncombat movement.

To put a finer point on this (and since we also ended up discussing carrier movement in addition to placing one), it doesn’t even have to be “likely” for there to be a landing place, just a non-zero chance.

For instance: If the only way a carrier can make it to pick up planes at the end of their range is for you to win a battle with 1 sub against 146 battleships and then the carrier NCMs through the cleared seazone for the planes to land, then that’s a valid landing place as long as you attack with that sub…

@Fortress:

To put a finer point on this (and since we also ended up discussing carrier movement in addition to placing one), it doesn’t even have to be “likely” for there to be a landing place, just a non-zero chance.

For instance: If the only way a carrier can make it to pick up planes at the end of their range is for you to win a battle with 1 sub against 146 battleships and then the carrier NCMs through the cleared seazone for the planes to land, then that’s a valid landing place as long as you attack with that sub…

hmmmm…once the combat phase starts, could the attacking sub submerge instead of firing?

I believe Larry or Krieg answered this over at HGD, or Krieg answered it in a previous FAQ thread here. And I believe the answer was that the SS, if that battle went first, had to at least make an attempt for one round before submerging. Of course, you could just run the battle with the planes first, I suppose, and when the carrier wasn’t needed anymore, just submerge the SS in the first combat round? Krieg?

It is my understanding that Submarines may ALWAYS submerge as long as there isn’t an opposing Destroyer involved in the battle. I have never heard of Subs having to undergo one combat round first; must be a house rule?

@Fortress:

I believe Larry or Krieg answered this over at HGD, or Krieg answered it in a previous FAQ thread here. And I believe the answer was that the SS, if that battle went first, had to at least make an attempt for one round before submerging. Of course, you could just run the battle with the planes first, I suppose, and when the carrier wasn’t needed anymore, just submerge the SS in the first combat round? Krieg?

Doesn’t sound like something I would say.  Lozmoid’s right.

Geez, I feel guilty now.  I was only kidding.  I did not mean to reveal a new sleaze tactic.  :-( :oops:

Hmmm… I wonder where I read that.

@Fortress:

To put a finer point on this (and since we also ended up discussing carrier movement in addition to placing one), it doesn’t even have to be “likely” for there to be a landing place, just a non-zero chance.

For instance: If the only way a carrier can make it to pick up planes at the end of their range is for you to win a battle with 1 sub against 146 battleships and then the carrier NCMs through the cleared seazone for the planes to land, then that’s a valid landing place as long as you attack with that sub…

I don’t think this is correct, since you are supposed to assume that all of your units will miss and all the defenders will hit.  That is, you have to assume that you are going to lose every single battle so you can’t over-stack in this way in anticipation of victory (I know this is explicit in the rules, but don’t have one handy to quote chapter & verse).

@Eqqman:

@Fortress:

To put a finer point on this (and since we also ended up discussing carrier movement in addition to placing one), it doesn’t even have to be “likely” for there to be a landing place, just a non-zero chance.

For instance: If the only way a carrier can make it to pick up planes at the end of their range is for you to win a battle with 1 sub against 146 battleships and then the carrier NCMs through the cleared seazone for the planes to land, then that’s a valid landing place as long as you attack with that sub…

I don’t think this is correct, since you are supposed to assume that all of your units will miss and all the defenders will hit.  That is, you have to assume that you are going to lose every single battle so you can’t over-stack in this way in anticipation of victory (I know this is explicit in the rules, but don’t have one handy to quote chapter & verse).

You’ve actually got it backwards.  You’re permitted to task fighters assuming you’ll WIN every battle.

You’re right, the exact quote is:

In order to demonstrate that an air unit might have a safe landing zone, you may assume that all of your attacking rolls will be hits, and all defending rolls will be misses.

Maybe I’ll have better luck double-checking the sub rule: since the surprise attack OR submerge round comes before the general combat round, you could in fact start a battle with a sub against a DD-free opponent with no intention of finishing the fight since the sub is free to submerge before any opponents fire.