Can I move more fighters to a SZ for a fight than your carriers have capacity?

@Panther

Thanks for the reply.

Thanks again to @Krieghund too. :)

@PrivateerPuffin said in Rules question about Fighters in Sea battles:

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

No, but it allows for carriers to be.

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).

Yes.

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.

The Japan player is correct.

During combat movement, you must be able to demonstrate possible safe landing zones for all attacking fighters. Once the combat starts, you may take carriers as casualties so that these safe landing zones are not maintained, usually in order to maximize the effectiveness of the attacking force. Once combat is over, all fighters that can still be landed must be (attacker’s choice of exactly which fighters, if there is a choice), and any that cannot are lost.

@chickenwire said in Aircraft Landing After Carrier Destroyed Question:

Welcome to the forum.

For your scenario only this quote is relevant for defending Japan, as the other quotes address the active player (whose turn it currently is):

“A fighter based on a defending carrier must land on the same carrier if possible after the battle. If that carrier is destroyed in combat, it must try to land elsewhere. It must land on a different friendly carrier in the same sea zone, move 1 space to a friendly territory, island, or aircraft carrier, or be destroyed. This movement occurs during the Noncombat Move phase, before the acting player makes any noncombat movements.”

Now the Japanese fighters (on US NCM phase) can move to an at that time friendly territory/island.

They may also put in affect of the amount of water distance in a sea zone where subs are not around.

I agree with u Wolf. If you don’t want to add Barons rule to game, I like the idea of 1 d6 roll and if sub rolls a 2 or less transport has to stop combat or non combat move.

DD is a Destoyer. Sorry for The confusion

Thanks.

Max Fighter buy on India is an interesting idea. I’ve had two more games since my posts the other day and will consolidate my experiences in the other thread I started. I did a KGF and a KJF both with slightly more success than my ‘traditional’ strategies.

I play with the same guy constantly so I think sometimes it puts me in a bubble in terms of seeing variations in Axis strategy. For instance, he’s never even tried Sea Lion.

The attack on SZ 37 typically succeeds with anywhere from a Cruiser + Fighter left, to Fighter only, to mutual destruction. A failure that leaves his Battleship, and I’d be tempted to surrender Round 1. Not something I’m proud of, but, Allied Round 1 is a precarious thing and adverse results with Russia or UK Naval efforts near India to me are unrecoverable. At least against this guy.

What he does Round 1 with Japan is he parks his transports in SZ 61, staging for a Round 3 or Round 4 take, out of range of Fighters on India. India has to follow the traditional retreat from Burma Round 1. So the 3 fighters, while providing defense power, will offer little in the way of threat to his Navy. I guess it’s nice that they can get to Russia next round, but, I can have Fighters in W. Russia in a single round from UK and that’s usually where I need them most anyway.

I should also add he is a very conservative player - he will never attack without overwhelming odds, whereas I’ll gamble routinely. So there’d never be a situation where he lands on India, my fighters survive, and hit his Navy. He simply wouldn’t attack if there were a chance of that. Similarly, his surviving transport in SZ 61 will be immediately reinforced and remain so, negating a Bomber zerg raid….

More thoughts about Allied fleets against this particular player in my other thread. Unless you’re talking about an Allied Fleet as in, INDIA building a naval fleet?

I will say, as to the rest, that there is a clear Russia Round 1 sequence of attacks that you mentioned in the other thread that absolutely must succeed, and also, Russia can’t lose West Russia for at least 4 rounds, offering plenty of time to convey Fighters over from UK, stop in W Russia , and continue on down to India. On balance, I’m not sure it changes things all that much to put the UK fighters there so early, since W. Russia shouldn’t seriously be threatened enough early on for it to matter. To compensate for 3 fighters round 1 India, you’d need a heavy ground force buy India round 2, especially if you’ve transported troops away to reinforce Africa etc…

Anyway let me lay out a few things in the other thread that may shed light on how I better managed India in both recent games…