Rocket Strike and Strategic Bombing Question

You don’t have to take the fighter first.  It’s perfectly legal to take the carrier and leave the fighter stranded.  In order for the fighter’s move to not be a suicide mission, the only requirement is that it have a possible place to land (assuming the defender never hits).  Once the battle actually starts, it’s up to the owning player which casualties are taken.

The rules dealing with suicide missions address movement only.  There is nothing in the rules that indicates that casualties must be taken in a certain order to preserve fighters’ landing spaces.

Nice. Thanks!

@Amon:

i know its odd

but

is it allowed to remove( some )of your units from the board

i mean to simply destroy them

or is it against the rules

thanks :lol:

i know its odd

but

is it allowed to just put (some) of your units from the board

i mean to simply create them

or is it against the rules

thanks :lol:

–

Generally, if it ain’t in the rules, you can’t do it.  You could HOUSERULE it, but that would be a houserule.

I still like my cat bioweapon weapons development research houserule.

Thanks for the quick responses that was exactly what I needed to know.

@newpaintbrush:

@Jennifer:

How do you plan to invade England when they have 2 fighters, 2, armor, 2 infantry, 1 artillery and 2 bombers + 2 infantry, 1 fighter, 1 bomber, 1 artillery, 1 armor from America on it?

Keep in mind you have maybe 6 fighters, 1 bomber, 2 transports and 1 battleship to use on Germany 2 and that’s making some assumptions that you did not loose any of those assets prior to your second turn and that you landed all those aircraft in France somehow knowing that England was going to buy a bomber and an IC instead of something else.

How is it that every time I propose a move, that the Allies mysteriously pop up with these shadow forces in the ideal place?  That’s why I really dislike Jennifer’s responses.  Somehow the Allies always watched to see what Germany would do, and did something that would otherwise be almost retarded to counter Germany’s response.  But in that case, Germany can just have done the other thing.

Hmm, possibly because you keep changing what Germany does to fit the actions of England who moves after Germany???

However, I’ve never changed my English strategy.  They always end up with 5 fighters, 1 bomber, 2 infantry, armor and artillery + America can land more if Germany appears to be setting up Sea Lion.

Not my fault you’re not capable of seeing the short falls in your own plans.  I’d say I’m sorry, but I’m not.  You need to pay closer attention to details that are posted instead of assuming.

I presume you assumed England sent her bomber to Egypt, retook Egypt with the SZ 35/India equipment, landed troops in Algeria, leaving their capital with only a few infantry to defend it, huh?  Because, unless that’s exactly what England does, Germany hasn’t a chance in hell of taking it on G2 and everyone on the board knows it.

I’ve used them a few times to bomb Germany into the stone age.  Especially on a KJF strategy.

England pumping out 1 or 2 bombers a round up to 3, America keeping 2 or 3 bombers in England and then blowing the heck outta both Germany facilities will severely limit his production.  Heck, 6 bombers vs Germany herself is still 20 damage, that’s 6.66 infantry they are not buying to prosecute the war.  And remember, those rounds you don’t loose a bomber, you don’t build one, you build fighters or transports or land units instead.

Meanwhile, America is more then capable of taking out Japan.  If Japan switches to building navy they do not have the man power to make significant gains against Russia/America/British stonewalling and thus America can easily out produce them, especially when America starts grabbing islands.

thanks

Thank you so much! =D