Sent lone fighter to battle it lived… do i have to land it or can i crash it?

@Scalenex:

I recently had to get a new computer.  I re-downloaded Triplea and Axis and Allies Revised isn’t on it.  Is it still available?

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=18278.0

You’re welcome.

FYI - LHTR is a variant ruleset developed by Larry Harris (the game’s designer) and officials from tournaments and on-line clubs.  It fixes some rules and balance issues in the box rules, and it’s probably the most widely-played Revised variant.  Most of its concepts were integrated into the 50th Anniversary Edition rules.  If you’re interested in trying it, the rules can be found here.

i guess it’s also acceptable to have one of the players conceed and let their team mate roll for them (i have some lazy, lazy friends)  :wink:

@Corbeau:

@timerover51:

Your shore bombardment idea has been picked up in the Anniversary Edition rules, evidently.

Ya, i saw that, that’s great news :)
I can only wish i was the one to propose it to the game designer but it really is a coincidence. That was a house rule we used way back then. Still great to see he thought of it too. :)

I like the also th idea of BB acting as artillery support. Good thinking there too. I would not allow it for planes too, i find them already too flexible as a unit acting both in land and sea. I’d rather have them seperated in 2 classes, Land based fighters and CV based fighters. They already have the different molds for some nations, german stuka and Bf-109 for exemple. anyways, that’s another discussion.

For the BB acting like an AA, that’s exactly what i meant. Would give a reason to have one in a fleet.

You need to remember that roughly 2/3 of a carrier’s aircraft were attack planes, dive bombers and torpedo bombers, that would be used in support of ground troops.  This is the basis for the flexibility in fighters in A&A.  If you had a dedicated attack plane, like the Stuka, you could reduce the fighter’s role by a little bit, but by the end of the war, the US Navy’s Corsair fighter was carrying a bombload heavier than that of the Stuka, and delivering it with comparable accuracy.

As for BB getting an AA roll, that makes a fair amount of sense, and is pretty historically accurate.  Quite simply, BBs normally acted as a magnet for air attacks, even if a carrier was around.  The US South Dakato shot down 26 Japanese aircraft while escorting the carrier US Enterprise at the Battle off Santa Cruz in October of 1942, while Adm. Raymond Spruance deployed his battleline in advance of his carriers at the Battle of the Philippine Sea in June of 1944 to deliberately absorb Japanese carrier plane attacks.  However, the US did have the best naval AA fire control systems of the entire war, so what holds true for the US does not hold true for everyone else.  The Bismarck had major problems with defending against a limited number of British Swordfish, while the Italian BBs had similar problems.  The British were so-so, and the Japanese were close to hopeless until late in the war.  You could make it a National Advantage for the US, but I suspect that would not be acceptable to a majority of Axis players.  Making it universal is a bit of a stretch.  It would be up to you.

Sanya33, you may see the thing in the following way if the fighter belong the same nationality of the Aircraft Carrier.
At the start of that nation turn fighters from carrier are launched and start their “fly operations”. They are in the air upon the same sea zone in wich the carrier is. From that moment they can go in combat, the same in wich you, in case, send the AC or in another, on sea or on land. They can also stay in air in the sea zone until the end of non combat move.
At the very end of non combat move you must land your fighter somewhere. So they must reach a territory or a sea zone in wich they can legally land: a territory you own from the start of the turn or the same carrier from wich they start, or another carrier, even one of an allied nation.
Or, if they moved to fight a battle in a sea zone, without the carrier, the AC can move and they perform a “rendez vous” to land.
Summarizing the fighters and the AC act independently for all the turn and are not bound in doing the same movement.

@ShadowHAwk:

Can i agree with the fact that in the current rules the carrier does NOT have to move if the fighter was destroyed, but at the same time not agree with the rules itself ?

Because it is not logical that the carrier does not start its move to meet up with the figher at the same time since it it start after the figher completed its move in a normal situation it would not be there on time to catch the aircraft.

Basicaly the time it takes for the carrier to get there is the same as the time it takes for the fighter to get there and since the carrier needs to be there at the same time in order for the pilot to remain dry it logical should start sailing in the general direction of the pickup point.

Since the Fighter in question could be “flying” from Gibraltar to the Caucus in one turn, I don’t think the model of aircraft taking off and landing as part of a days flight operations on a Carrier quite applies.  Especially since Naval aircraft are built very differently from land based aircraft yet the game makes no difference between the two.

I think the most important battles are:

Germany: Egypt, clearing the Med of british shipping

everyone else depends on their strategy.

I just realized I neglected to mention that Caucuses has an IC, which is of great importance.