Sub vs carrier and plane

@Panther

Yep…

The carrier is simply something to help give your fleet a backbone and protects everything in 112 and means you don’t have to land a t bomber in Holland (from Germany).  It protects your transports if you are threatening sea lion and can be used to protect sea units at Gibraltar or 127 (Archangel).  If you can get it to the Mediterranean Sea it can really help Italy too.  The only con is that it does virtually nothing against Russia. 
So basically, do you think being in 112 is useful?  Do you like to threaten (not take) Sea Lion to help Itake?  Do you like hoping Italy in the Med?  Do you like taking Gibraltar? Maybe getting South Africa every ten games?  Do you like feigning Sea Lion then hitting Leningrad? If you answered yes to any of these, a carrier can be useful.

@oysteilo:

Does this work? and it is worth the spending of a minor, carrier and transport?

yes, it might work somehow.
And No, it is miles away from being worth those 35 IPCs. Against a good Allies player that move brings Axis to the certain road of defeat.

@Young:

I believe that the celestial energy running from my third eye, through my chakras, and into my dice… allowing me to roll a 1 at will when facing an enemy strategic bomber raiding my factory… can’t be achieved with the automatic random dice roller machine used online.

So it’s table top for me all the way.

Let me have what your smokin…you need to share!!

@Hepps01:

Yah, I agree with you.  Especially in the situation provided where there was literally 0% chance of success.  The sub attack was simply an “Offensive fodder” attack done to make the fighter move “quasi-legitimate”.

To me (on a personal level) the rules should stipulate that Carriers be required to move during the combat phase into the only potential landing zone and thus force the attacking player to win the secondary battle in order to ensure the fighter can land.  Otherwise this just enables people to do this kind of weak ass fodder tactic in order to get to the transports  that would otherwise be out of range.   This would then also mean that an attacker has to potentially sacrifice very valuable units (carriers) to accomplish these kind of delaying actions.

Just my opinion though.

From an emotional point of view I am with you here and as a fun fact in a current game I face exactly the ugly site of that move as he has Carrier plus sub in place which creates theoretical threats for all my transports. He can sac just a sub and then theoretically kill TTs in many seazones (for the price of saccing the Air of course).

However I like this rule because it gives the game some more dynamics and makes blocking a bit less powerful which I think is good for the game and does make you a bit less dependent on can openers and gives a power to overcome blocking at least a bit better without an allied power.

Thanks very much.

Yes you can. Move your existing aircraft over the sea zone that the CV is about to be built in and then land them on the newly built carrier.

Lucky indeed….thats is why I have never had this question before…sub always dies…