Thx and rule question

@chickenwire said in Aircraft Landing After Carrier Destroyed Question:

Welcome to the forum.

For your scenario only this quote is relevant for defending Japan, as the other quotes address the active player (whose turn it currently is):

“A fighter based on a defending carrier must land on the same carrier if possible after the battle. If that carrier is destroyed in combat, it must try to land elsewhere. It must land on a different friendly carrier in the same sea zone, move 1 space to a friendly territory, island, or aircraft carrier, or be destroyed. This movement occurs during the Noncombat Move phase, before the acting player makes any noncombat movements.”

Now the Japanese fighters (on US NCM phase) can move to an at that time friendly territory/island.

@tranaas

What you can do is eliminate the units, then noncom into newly captured territory.

This isn’t a blitz.

By holding mechs and tanks back during combat movement, you could potentially noncom them into zones (newly captured or not) they could not have reached during combat. you often need all your firepower so this isnt all that common but it is helpful

@greyleaf3

Don’t confuse yourself by introducing the term “retreat” to the situation you describe.
The decision to retreat occurs during conduct combat phase (Step 6 of the General Combat Sequence).

Your scenario is at the beginning of the Combat Move Phase - and the “Sea Units Starting in Hostile Sea Zones”-rules (rulebook page 12) apply. So this is about combat movement, not about retreating.

And in this phase sea units can move their full range.

The enemy destroyer of course has no effect on the submarine’s movement here - as the submarine is already there - and does not enter or move through a hostile seazone containing an enemy destroyer.

@Panther oh lol duh, me! Thank you for taking the time to read and answer, Panther. I appreciate it greatly. Thanks, and have a great day and/or game if you’re playing!

I don’t think any of that stuff would have been immediately apparent to me either, it’s just hard to parse the rulebook sometimes, and the official wording. In TripleA you get a clear visual, like the first time you see Karelia or Caucasus or Soviet Far East turn from Gray/Yellow to Green! and it opens up this whole other world of the endgame, post Moscow collapse. Or if you’ve ever played long enough post KGF to see Japan take control of Italy, or long enough in KJF to see Germany take Manchuria. Then it starts to make a lot of sense in the 2v2 match up, why sometimes it makes sense NOT to take certain territories from a vanquished enemy. Similarly if you still have Russian ground units alive, who could conceivably retake a place like Caucasus, but there’s just no point if the Germans already hold Moscow, better to leave it alone for UK or America to take, so they can collect the income for it :)

The stuff is kind of weird to be honest, and can definitely change the situation on the ground, once capitals start falling.

I am just curious about the balance….in previous thread I saw a few discussion saying it favors Axis but there are also folks saying the game is balanced without bids… Are any change on the opinion since then?  It seems to me Axis is strong at the beginning (it always is ;-)) but I haven’t play enough to come into any conclusion.

@Cow:

well yeah, the beta for trip a takes awhile, because of new rules etc. takes time.

Actually I heard it’s already playable, the only issues remaining are graphic and some missing territory connections.

I think it is called… v5?

@Canuck12:

Thanks for the hard work DJ! I read the forums but love the articles too ;)

Any official word yet on whether Honalulu is a VC or not? Book says no, map says yes. I have heard 2 different stories now about which to trust.

Ditto!  I’m hoping there is at least an official word on this before the game arrives, preferably a FAQ. :)