Man I don’t know where I got the idea that fighters could retreat… we’ve been playing that way this whole time.
For the AA, I was pretty sure that was right but I knew that it would be an issue at some point.
Thanks for the responses.
Attacking ftrs can retreat. It is just on defense they can’t.
Man, I think this is going to be a personal “house rule”… defending fighters retreat. I just can’t imagine poring money into them otherwise.
This makes me wonder what else we’ve been messing up. I would like to get in here eventually and play with some of you, or against you lol. I guess I should really look into these rules some more.
Thanks agian.
Yea thats an AARHE idea. more realistic.
@ncscswitch:
Jen is correct.
If India was “friendly” to the units in Caucuses, then an NCM of units from Caucuses to India after WINNING in Persia is completely legal.
I thought units can’t move in both phases, except aircraft.
ARM from Caucuses that did NOT engage in combat can move in NCM and roll through the recently occupied Persia to a friendly India.
@ncscswitch:
ARM from Caucuses that did NOT engage in combat can move in NCM and roll through the recently occupied Persia to a friendly India.
So in the instance that I had, they couldn’t capture because it is non-combat that it’s moving in. I see what your saying.
Exactly.
It would have required new Combat Movement and new Combat AFTER both Combat Movement and Combat phases had already been completed if India was enemy occupied.
@ncscswitch:
ARM from Caucuses that did NOT engage in combat can move in NCM and roll through the recently occupied Persia to a friendly India.
Oh, I thought you were referring to the armor that attacked Persia.
wait a second, so fighters and bombers can attack, then move in non-combat in the same turn?
yes air units can move in non-combat with remaining movement points
this is the only case where a unit can move in both combat and non-combat move
eg. fighter at UK can move to attack Norway in Combat Move, and move to Archangel with remaining movement points in Non-combat Move
wait a second, so fighters and bombers can attack, then move in non-combat in the same turn?
well they have to land, so that is a non-combat move.
They can only move the remainder of their movement points during this non-combat landing portion of their movement.
So if a ftr came three spaces into a battle, it has to land one move away.
Ok, I see. For a second I thought a fighter could move 4 spaces in an attack, land and then move another 4 spaces in non-combat. We usually just complete the fighter or bomber’s moves all at once. It tends to speed things up and we never forget to move it etc.
Is there any reason not to move the fighters or bombers in this way? What I mean to say, should my buds and I be moving in attack, then wait for non-combat to land?
What I mean to say, should my buds and I be moving in attack, then wait for non-combat to land?
well aside form rules prespective,
you should wait cos the strategic situation might be different after you see the results of the combat
also, although you are not going to lose control of a territory during your turn, you may lose a carrier and then your fighters won’t be able to land in the sea zone you wanted to
wait a second, so fighters and bombers can attack, then move in non-combat in the same turn?
Maybe. This is a point of confusion, as the rule is different in LHTR than it is in the box rules.
In the box rules, air units that are involved in combat finish their movement immediately after that combat is over. However, they only move to their destination at this point. They don’t actually “land” until the end of the Noncombat Movement phase, so carriers have a chance to rendezvous with them before they land. Under these rules, they may not move in both Combat and Noncombat Movement.
In LHTR, air units that are involved in combat stay in the contested space (whether they win or lose) until the Noncombat Movement phase, during which they finish their movement and “land”. Under these rules, they may move in both Combat and Noncombat Movement. (A fighter may “land” in a sea zone that doesn’t contain an eligible carrier if that sea zone is adjacent to an industrial complex from which a new carrier will be placed that turn, if there is sufficient landing space available on that carrier. The carrier is simply placed under the fighter.)
I hope this clears things up.
At least the fighters only cost 10 now, not 12. :P
And yea, I like the idea that defending fighters and bombers who survive the first round can retreat with any movement points they have left after their turn.
Alright, good info guys/gals. We’ll probably just continue to complete their movement inside the combat phase. If I saw a plane sitting by it self, I would be less likely to miss it’s destruction ;) .
I played the original when I was 11, I forgot how different it was lol.
We usually play that the fighters and or bombers can only retreat one space adjacent to the territory they’re currently in. Obviously that retreating area has to be friendly.
We’ve also been playing that the fighters/bombers could defend more than once. So if they retreated into another area, and you wanted to attack that area in the same turn then they would defend there as well. I don’t know how I feel about this though. At the risk of complicating this further I suppose it would be better to have a fighter defend on a 3 in the second defense position. Bombers would still defend on a 1, I can’t see any reason to totally nerf them.
We usually play that the fighters and or bombers can only retreat one space adjacent to the territory they’re currently in.
That is an interesting house rule. I assume it works the same with ally fighters too. Like if you have 2 UK fighters in a Russian territory they are also able to retreat? If so that would really open the door to a new strategic angle of parking ally fighters in newly captured territories. I can picture having a whole fighter rotation going just for that purpose. ~ZP
Thats one of the tactics the Allie player usually uses. I actually used it inside Africa with Japan fighters helping to defend a German position. I lost them all though. We usually don’t retreat them unless it’s a lost cause.
I prefer to play this way but we’re just starting a game now and are going to give the LTR rules a try.
Well, it seems as though this personal house rule effects the allies more so than the Axis. As far as I can tell the allies are doing quite a bit more defending in the first 4 rounds.
We use to commit more forces to try and kill off the fighters but without a def withdraw option they’re not much of an issue.
Usually what happens is during pearl harbor, the one fighter retreats to Hawaii and the china fighter retreats if the japs get a bad roll. The rule way doesn’t give much of a chance for them and it makes it quite a bit easier to deal with them. I think I like the house rule better.
