I was playing my 1st ever game of A&A. I was playing as the Allies and during the game there was contention between me and the Axis player because of the confusion created by these rules.

#1- “You cannot deliberately send air units into combat situations that place them out of range of a place to land afterward. In the
Combat Move phase, prior to rolling any battles, you must be able to demonstrate some possible way (however remote the
possibility is) for all your attacking air units to land safely that turn.”

#2- “In order to demonstrate that an air unit MAY have a safe landing zone, you may assume that all of your attacking rolls will
be hits, and all defending rolls will be misses.”

#3- "Once possible landing spaces for all attacking air units have been demonstrated, you have no obligation to guarantee those landing zones for air units in the course of battle. For example, aircraft carriers may freely retreat or be taken as casualties, even if this leaves air units with no place to land after combat (such air units will be destroyed at the end of the Noncombat Move phase). "

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

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).

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.

(sorry if this was long and confusing and thank you for taking the time to read this)

Okay, so if it is possible to do a sea combat and amphibious assault on the same turn

1. If you don’t kill the surface warships. Do you lose your transports or do you have to retreat?

2. Does 1 surface ship prevent ALL naval units from taking place in the amphibious assault (i.e a battleship/cruiser). Or can you make 2 separate groups for the sea combat and assault

These are the only other things I don’t understand, and thank you for answering the original prompt

I hope you’re having a good day on the internet!

I just lost a game as the Axis because of an interpretation of this rule

“The sea zone may be either friendly or hostile, but if it’s hostile, it
must be made friendly through sea combat before the amphibious assault may commence.” (p.12)

Does this mean that for example. If there is 1 destroyer in SZ 8.
Could Germany attack with a battleship from SZ 9, and kill the destroyer, as well as invade UK on the same turn.

The reason I’m asking this is because there is another line from the rule-book that says

“: If there are defending surface warships, sea combat occurs.” (p.15)

" Land combat can only take place if there was no sea battle or the sea zone has been cleared of all defending enemy units" (p.15)

More specifically the use of “has been cleared” makes it seem that there can be a simultaneous sea combat and subsequent amphibious assault

(What I’m asking is; if there is a defending surface warship in a tile adjacent to a land territory. Can you attack a defending surface warship with a unit AND do the naval invasion IF the attack is successful ON THE SAME TURN)

I was playing my 1st ever game of A&A. I was playing as the Allies and during the game there was contention between me and the Axis player because of the confusion created by these rules.

#1- “You cannot deliberately send air units into combat situations that place them out of range of a place to land afterward. In the
Combat Move phase, prior to rolling any battles, you must be able to demonstrate some possible way (however remote the
possibility is) for all your attacking air units to land safely that turn.”

#2- “In order to demonstrate that an air unit MAY have a safe landing zone, you may assume that all of your attacking rolls will
be hits, and all defending rolls will be misses.”

#3- "Once possible landing spaces for all attacking air units have been demonstrated, you have no obligation to guarantee those landing zones for air units in the course of battle. For example, aircraft carriers may freely retreat or be taken as casualties, even if this leaves air units with no place to land after combat (such air units will be destroyed at the end of the Noncombat Move phase). "

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

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).

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.

(sorry if this was long and confusing and thank you for taking the time to read this)