@axis_roll:
Agree with SAS, when would it matter if the US 2 ftrs are split on two US carriers or both ftrs are on one carrier?
It matters as soon as an ally lands in the same sea zone. You may not have anticipated this (the allied landing) when previously allocating the 2 fighters to 2 carriers. That’s why it should always be stated (or shown on the map by using a bordering area) how exactly the fighters have landed (on what carrier(s))
When defending, the ftrs are in the air. When attacking, the ftrs are launched from the carrier… so what is the scenario(s) in which it is important to list that the ftrs are split / on one carrier?
Whenever another ally may possibly be landing on the same carrier group.
I guess only if another countries ftrs (more than 1 in my example) intend to land on the US carriers in my example. Is there another scenario?
Right, you answered your own question. No, the only scenario where it makes any difference is multi-national, because if they’re all the same country, the fighters are flying (moving) at the same time as the carriers.
Apparently I wasn’t clear enough. Anytime there are multiple carriers and 2 or more open slots, the player should specify what carriers the fighters are on. Then, whether anticipated or not, another ally flies a fighter to the carrier group, there is no doubt what carrier is available. It matters, because if the carriers go separate ways and/or enters battle (on attack) what fighters are on what carriers becomes important. It’s not soon enough to declare this when the ally lands planes on the carriers, because then the owner of the fighters and carriers can effectively choose whichever situation is to his advantage.
Again, this is a distinction that is only an issue with online play, because FTF the planes are physically on the carriers! See, when the ally lands planes on another power’s carriers, the other power’s fighters cannot move! The owner of the carriers should not have the luxury of deciding the fighter situation on a later turn.