@trig There are a set of sequential phases in each player turn. Certain things happens in each of these phases. The planes must land during the non-combat phase, and since the Carriers are not there - due to their placement in a later phase - the planes can not land. It’s as simple as that. No need to complicate things.
I have seen countless problems arise because people brought their G40 “assumptions” to GW36. Needless to say, it’s not a good idea.
@munck Thank you for confirming my assumption. This is most definitely not Axis and Allies.
Just to confirm, you cannot place airplanes on a carrier immediately after it is built, correct? This is the part that seems to be causing to most contention.
@trig
"Units must be placed at a factory you have possessed since the start of the turn”
11.1 also specifies that ships are placed at Shipyards.
As Carriers can not be placed at a Factory, aircraft can not be placed directly on Carriers.
Using optional rule 15.3 changes this. Part of that rule is about placement.
I fundamentally disagree with the idea of placing a carrier purely to ‘catch’ aircraft, but if it’s in the rules, so be it.
That being said, I agree with @Munck, you can’t ‘catch’ aircraft in GW’36, and those that think you can (15.3 be damned) must be purged.
@aftertaste said in Aircraft carrier rules in v3- a New Way of Thinking.:
I fundamentally disagree with the idea of placing a carrier purely to ‘catch’ aircraft, but if it’s in the rules, so be it.
That being said, I agree with @Munck, you can’t ‘catch’ aircraft in GW’36,
and those that think you can (15.3 be damned) must be purged.
Ya That’s the correct way. Planes already landed in non combat.
@gen-manstein @aftertaste
Thank you all for you input! This confirms my understanding.
@trig As you say, the designers can do as they want, moving forward with feedback. Putting carriers out to sea without aircraft, for 6 months, seems like a poor choice.
@captainnapalm
Not necessarily. Carriers are infamous for long shakedown cruises and crew training periods. For instance, the USS Ford has taken almost 3 years to get to operation status. (grated, there were other problems.)
Not allowing planes to be placed directly just encourages using your air bases, and really only hurts tactical bombers or plans to use MAP.
Also, if you don’t like it, just use 15.3. Yes, it gives less flexibility, but allows you to place directly on carriers.
@trig I understand there are ways around protecting naked carriers. It just doesn’t seem like it is realistic, or should be necessary, to anyone in our group, so far. So, we will probably not play that way.
@trig I agree the rules as currently written do not allow you to use newly purchased carriers as potential landing sites for planes returning from non-combat. I note that most places where an aircraft carrier will be built are adjacent to airbases, so if you are not using optional rule 15.3, you can still offer them air cover. I’m not particularly bothered that you cannot build carriers with automatic planes on board if you don’t use that optional rule. I am content with the rules as currently written.
With that said, you and I are absolutely on the same page. If you had the ability to clarify the rules on this issue, would there be anything you would change?
@hbg-gw-enthusiast I would just add italicised texta clause saying something on the lines of “aircraft may not be placed on carriers during the place units phase” in that section, and a clause saying “newly built carriers may not be used to guarantee landing spots for fighters and tactical bombers.”
It is rather obvious is you look for it, but I think a FAQ or a additional clause is needed.
