More G 42 Questions

@andrewaagamer said in Quick question about airplanes:

@zbox said in Quick question about airplanes:

@panther

So a follow up question on this topic that we have debated in our games.

If you have a carrier carrying two fighters along with two fighters on land, in range of your sea zone battle, can the two fighters from your carrier land safely elsewhere(non-combat movement) while the two fighters from land end up on the carrier? A Swaperoo if you will. Is that legal?

Yes

Swapping fighters is a key battle tactic for success. So is utilizing additional carriers, as you can move a carrier 2-3 spaces away to pick up those fighters (but in truth intend not to do so because the fighters will be the first losses).

This gets more airforce in a battle than you otherwise would be allowed. As an example, you could do the Taranto raid, not bring in the carrier, take the london fighter as a loss, and then move the carrier through the canal.

The following link might be of help:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30776.0

:mrgreen:

Why not ask if you need a transport to cross the Tasman sea. Heck, people can swim the English Channel so therefore no transport should be required, right?

Fair dinkum. This has got to be one of the weirdest A&A questions I’ve heard.

Perhaps my explanation in the video was confusing in that sense, my goal was to help people use the rule properly, but yes… the hits are applied to the convoy zone, and it’s the total value of the adjacent territories that cap the damage.

@WILD:

I think that if the the allies were allowed to just NCM in to take control of a fallen allied powers tt’s (collect the income) it would swing to much income to the allies and break the game. Plus if your getting paid for all those tt’s why would you Liberate your former allies capital (kinda like how Paris is now). It is better to leave things as they are and they only get paid if they liberate them from the enemy. That makes a pretty good cat & mouse game of how much tt the axis want to take vs how many of them they will be able to hold later on.

Â

If that were the case, then I feel the Axis original TTs should be worth double to Axis powers only.  Sort of like the Russian NO, but reversed.  But yes, I concur with your analysis, in-so-much in regard to Dutch/Netherlands.

I always viewed that rule as a way to not automatically give the income to England but not deny it to Japan either.  It really only plays in the Pacific campaign, as your only chance to get the income is to invest enough to push Japan out (otherwise, Japan will crush any resistance and take it.)

Just Italy vs UK.

In AAR and AARe it is perfectly likely that Russia will push into Eastern Europe and the Balkans before Germany falls.  Especially if they go on the offensive very early in the game.

In classic it is also perfectly likely that Russia could take Ukraine and Eastern Europe (or at least trade E. Europe) before Germany falls and Japan gets to Moscow.

In 1940, it is a bit harder, but I have seen some games where  Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Yugoslavia fall, Hungary, W. Poland and S. Germany are traded with Russia.  In this one, I am not sure if this is “normal” or not, because the game is so new.

However, in each game I have played (Classic, Revised, Anniversary, 1940, etc) it seems plausible that Russia could press on Germany before Germany or Moscow fall.  It really depends on the strategy being used (Turtle in Russia to slow the Germans down, killing them by attrition and stretching their lines vs Attack like mad, ignore Japan, and push as hard on Berlin as possible before losing Moscow to Japan) whether or not Russia can, or does, invade and control significan portions of Europe.

Convoys occur in the collect income phase of the country you’re raiding.