Rule clarification: FTR lands on newly-built AC

thanks for the reply

@Mazer:

Hey LT04.

Close, but there is one odd exception: if your capital falls (say Moscow to Japan) and you take another capital (say Berlin to Russia) then Russia gets the money from the Germans and can spend it the next turn.

Very minor point, but I just wanted to note the oddity.  You can’t collect income in the collect income phase, but you can collect someone else’s income  :-D

Peace

@Krieghund:

Actually, in that case you do get the IPCs, but you can’t spend them until your capital is liberated.

Well you learn something new every day.  :-)

LT

I strongly suggest don’t bid if you are 4 or 5 players and playing face to face. Those games are complex to play and allies struggle to coordinate. Any bid could easily unbalance the game and favor the Axis. Even 1 ipc to Japan can mean 1 IC, 2 trannies in Japan 1, a very important change.

I play one FtF game with another 3 guys each week and believe me, I know what I’m saying. Last time, without any bid, Axis bought 1 bb and 1 ac for Mediterranean sea  :-o and they gave us the Allies the fight of our lives mainly because of bad coordination

:lol: he he you made it funny  :lol:

-LT04

@rjclayton:

…
Which is better?  Which is more fair?  I suppose it depends on your perspective.  For me, I think of the 4 movement for fighters as being the hard and fast rule unless long range aircraft, then it’s 6 movement (I played classic for many years).  In OOB Revised, this quirky new rule bent the old rules that I had become accustomed to, so definitely seemed odd.  The LHTR Revised ruleset seems to intuitively make more sense to me, and doesn’t bend that rule.  So for me I like this rule change made in LHTR.

I think about it like this: If I wanted to send my fighter to combat, with the intention of landing it on a carrier that was not yet fully launched, when it returned from it’s mission would it return to the shipyard, or would it land on the carrier once it was launched?  I think the answer would be to the carrier once it was launched.  And that’s how I justify this rule change.

Rob

Personally, having seen the pain of trying to get a bunch of fly boys onto a real live ship, I prefer the requirement that the planes land at the airbase closest to the shipyard(IC) and embark on the carrier when it launches (is built).  I find it ridiculously unrealistic to have those planes “meet” and land on a CV that is still trying to figure out if all the bilge level alarms work and why they get seawater out of number 3 A/C refueling station instead of JP5.

Heck, if I really wanted to argue this I would say that CVs can only embark new aircraft if the aircraft are built on a CV.  No carrier next to the IC?  No new naval avaiation units.  Your naval aviators get waxed far from home?  Don’t go expecting those Army Air guys to figure out how to land on a bouncing postage stamp after they have gotten so used to 1500’ long runways that don’t move and are wider than a carrier is long.  I might be convinced that land based air can convert to sea based air in a Non Combat Move but during Combat???  I can see it now, the FTR pulls up next to the refueling plane, fills up his tanks after combat and orders a side of tailhooks.  Of course, all of this is trading playability for complexity.  If I really wanted to do that, I would would not be playing A&A.

Give me OOB rules of FTR at the IC can move to the fresh built CV and stop giving the FTR an extra range of space during the combat move if they happen to grow tailhooks and figure out how to land on new carriers on their way back from the fight.

if it were free for all trading may work. you would need countries to have difernt units. like and japanese fighter defending on 5 and russian fighters on a 3. then russia could be like i’ll buy a japaese fighter for m japanfor 10 ipcs. japan would (if it were to trade) buy on figther and  put it on a transport or in a bomber. the transport/bomber would have to drop the fghter off somewhere in russia.

No change, that is a legal move.

Yep… I had that argument with Tri in one of our earlier games…  I was using the box rules which implied somethign else, he was using LHTR, which are explicit.