AA42 Rule Question

@PrivateerPuffin said in Rules question about Fighters in Sea battles:

1st question: Does the word may in excerpt #2 allow for fighters to be presumed as casualties?

No, but it allows for carriers to be.

2nd question: Does excerpt #3 mean that there can never be more fighters in a battle than you have spots on carriers (if there are no other islands or territories to land in).

Yes.

An example if my question is nonsensical.
Japan took Midway, Alaska, and Western Canada last turn. On the US turn. 4 US fighters from two carriers in SZ 56 used 2 movement to attack a fleet in SZ 64. 1 fighter from Western US then uses 3 of its movement to also attack the fleet. The Japan player says that isn’t allowed because the 4 fighters will need the carriers to land. The US player disagrees and says that they could take a fighter as a casualty, allowing for there to be an open spot on the carrier which the fighter from Western US can land on.

The Japan player is correct.

During combat movement, you must be able to demonstrate possible safe landing zones for all attacking fighters. Once the combat starts, you may take carriers as casualties so that these safe landing zones are not maintained, usually in order to maximize the effectiveness of the attacking force. Once combat is over, all fighters that can still be landed must be (attacker’s choice of exactly which fighters, if there is a choice), and any that cannot are lost.

@SuperMasterMind Afternoon. You have understood correctly.
Enjoy your game.
Be aware, however, any other Russian territories remain Russian. An ally of Russia cannot collect their income, until either Japan or Germany first capture them. Then they are fair game for her allies. All territories would revert to Russia, once Moscow is liberated.

@Bigtasty:

Ok just want to make sure I understand this 100%. If a land unit such as a tank or infantry is attacked by an airplane, it can return fire as if it were being attacked by other land units?

Yes!

Probably best to stick  to ground units. Germany can hit you hard, then Japan comes at you from behind too.

Thanks for the responses and welcome, guys!  I love the game and am glad to be here.

I have heard that Phillipines IC is good too, I haven´t tried it yet though.

Because I don’t have enough time to play Global.

I like to have an historical style A&A.
Convoys rules are interesting for representing the economical effect on UK of U-Boats warfare ETO and on Japan of USA subs warfare PTO.
It is an interesting alternative to SBR.
Subs can be useful outside direct naval battle.

I put some HR and new units in 1942.2 (like antisub Escort Carrier, mechanized infantry, TacBombers) because it is a smaller scale than Global but still complex.

When I have only 2 or 3 hours with friends, we play 1941.
But it is not a game intended to have HR because even OOB rules from 1942 can ruined the balance.
We play it OOB rule only.

@Global-commander:

@Hobbes:

@Imperious:

He can play poker with 1941. His point is are the two games just different versions 41 and 42 of the same game, same rules?

The games are not compatible and are stand alone games with no relation.

I understood that he is expecting that the new ruleset would be the same for 1942 2nd Ed.

Anyways, he can play poker or he can take the 1941 ruleset and try it on Spring 1942 2nd Edition. I’ve done it myself with Spring 1942 1st Ed. :) did it shorten the game?

What shortens the game on 1941 is the smaller map and the reduced income. The changes in game play (no strat bombing, etc.) have no almost no effect on the speed of play.