• I like to put mine on the carrier pieces, sometimes I knock other pieces over by accident trying to balance those fighters on the carriers!


  • Just looks better you know?


  • here i was thinking of strategy :lol:

    i place them on the carrier


  • For some reason i thought most people wouldn’t because it’s so annoying to place them there, they are so small. Yeah this is basically a pointless poll, but I was wondering. Also in pacific it might be needed if some are on carriers and others on cap.


  • I put 'em on the carriers unless it’s got chips underneath
    to seperate cap and non cap put the carriers at one side of the sz. and noncap fighters beside them


  • …and the CAP ftrs on the other side of the sz.

    Right?
    Right.

  • '19 Moderator

    @mat:

    I put 'em on the carriers unless it’s got chips underneath
    to seperate cap and non cap put the carriers at one side of the sz. and noncap fighters beside them

    When I have chips under I put them on the carriers too. :D


  • what if there are chips under the carriers?
    3 carriers and 3 fighters, how do you know there isn’t 1,1,1, or 0,1,2?


  • does it matter?


  • yes actually it does because if they are allied fighters, and you want to move the carriers, (split them up) It will matter, you would not be able to switch which carriers the allied fighters are on at that point. So if you want 1 on each, but before you thought you would want 2,1,0 then you are stuck right?


  • @lnxduk:

    yes actually it does because if they are allied fighters, and you want to move the carriers, (split them up) It will matter, you would not be able to switch which carriers the allied fighters are on at that point. So if you want 1 on each, but before you thought you would want 2,1,0 then you are stuck right?

    ahhh
    i figgured you were talking about monocromatic carriers and fighters.

  • '19 Moderator

    I suppose that is true, However one of my oddities is that I very rarely have a carrier that does not have two planes on it and I never have an empty Carrier except for the turn its built.

    So to answer your question that situation has vever hapend to me. If it did I would probably not use chips at all.


  • asthetically, fighters are good on carriers, and can be used effectively against Japan, especially in amphibious landings:

    1. fighters attack at same strength as battleships
    2. once the carrier is produced their a lot cheaper
    3. Battleships only fire once in amphibious assaults

    that and their great for taking out subs trying to get thier “first shot attack” in before they get a chance


  • @M-4_Sherman:

    1. fighters attack at same strength as battleships

    :o


  • @M-4_Sherman:

    asthetically, fighters are good on carriers, and can be used effectively against Japan, especially in amphibious landings:

    1. fighters attack at same strength as battleships
    2. once the carrier is produced their a lot cheaper
    3. Battleships only fire once in amphibious assaults

    that and their great for taking out subs trying to get thier “first shot attack” in before they get a chance

    Kobu – read the bold portion…


  • OK. I read it. Now what?


  • Kobu is right …

    It does read wrong. Fighters attack at 3, while battleships always attack at 4 (even in amphibious landings). Perhaps M-4 Sherman meant that they defend at the same strength as battleships?


  • Mistabiggs is correct, sorry Kobu, my mistake. i have a bad habit of switching numbers around in my head if im trying to work too quickly :)


  • That’s better. :)

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

29

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts