Quick rules Q: landing fighters on carriers

@bigfatal

Yes and no. The UK has a lot of earning potential, but a lot of it is vulnerable to attack or capture, making UK very “swingy”. If things are go well for the allies, UK will be pretty wealthy, if it goes badly UK can end up being very cash strapped indeed. Playing with national objectives (which is the way I prefer to play) will amplify this even further as the UK is the easiest ally for the Axis to prevent earning any bonuses.

Meanwhile the US has a huge does of IPCs that are rarely touched by the axis, even when things go badly for the allies, and is also the only nation with 20 ipcs of objective bonuses available, so the US is still very much the big spender of the game.

As to what’s in it for the US in the pacific: Its less about increasing US earnings and more about limiting Japan’s. Left unchallenged Japan can reach stratospheric income, bringing the UK economy to its knees as they drive to Moscow.

There are also two pacific based objectives for the US, so that adds 10 potential ipcs of direct incentive, plus the chance to pick up one more for the UK and prevent Japan from earning any, which stacks up to enough money to justify a US fleet investment.

I find allied players that are good with a slow push play style do well fighting it out in the pacific, but those that are better at a quick kill/knockout blow style will have more success trying to kill Germany before Japan gets too big. I also find a pacific allied strat is more likely to work in the 1942 set up than it does in 1941. (Part of the reason I like that set up better)

Without objectives it may be better for the allies to just fight a delaying action in the pacific and focus on Germany, but I have not played that way enough to say for sure.

@squirecam said in Anniversary Errata Optional Rule: Escorts and Interceptors:

@the_good_captain said in Anniversary Errata Optional Rule: Escorts and Interceptors:

@cernel I played three games against forum members that made a point to do this as Germany while I was the allies. After the final repetition and significant impact from the aforementioned, I had to insist on Escorts and Interceptors.

I consider it less significant than the USA bomber strategy but I’m confident enough to make it an axiom of my own axis strategy …and share it in a video, obviously.

The escort and interceptor rule is required for a fair game IMHO. Moreover, no bombing strategy succeeded in eliminating a country’s ability to build tanks and weapons during ww2, and certainly not without getting through fighter screens first.

This answered my question krieghund.

UK cannot land there because they did not own it at the beginning of their turn. US comes after them in the order.
You found the relevant rule and quoted it.

axis_roll is right, however i posted a topic on the reverse situation if you were interested to know that answer…

sala

P@nther, thanks for the quick reply….we are playing 1940 Global, so the long range aircraft only applies to initial movement.  The defending Aircraft from a sunk or damage aircraft carrier has a max of one movement regardless of long range tech.

@Sgt.:

But, can you move a fighter in non-combat to a territory which borders a seazone with a newly built carrier and have it land on said carrier? I’m guessing not.

You’re guessing correctly.  The fighter must end its movement in the sea zone in order to land on the carrier.

These answers are correct.