Is it worth it?

@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.

@vodot Yeah, definitely seems like the US would need some kind of economic boost if they have a split economy. I bet playing like this would be more historically accurate and more fun, especially with more than 2 players.

@Panther Thanks!

@jpciv

Welcome to the forum :slightly_smiling_face:

I have moved your topic here, assuming that your question is about 1942 Second Edition. Please let us know in case you targeted another 1942 edition.

What do you mean by “counterattack”?

Scrambling planes is not part of the 1942 rulesets.
Also the rules don’t allow defender’s movement during the attacker’s turn.

Of course units can “counterattack” when it is their turn. But remember that planes can’t hit submarines unless there is a friendly destroyer in the battle, too.

@aardvarkpupper

Agreed.

If you liked the first addition get the second.  At first blush the differences don’t look that big, until you play it.  I’ve only played the second version a small fraction of the number of first addition games but only due to a lack of time.  Luckily a friend  bought it and left it at my place when it first came out.  Of course I did buy the other 3 versions of AA our group has access to!

It seems the first game was slanted towards the allies the second game has a slight axis advantage.  Those slants may take several games for you to notice.  I would recommend that if you have a local group you play face to face with to get it, don’t study the forums for what others think but rather just play it in your group.  I love how strategies can change so quickly when feeling out a new game.  What worked the first game might look plain silly in the forth game!  It’s not often you get a change to do that with a new board game so have fun with this one!