Correct.
Fighters landing on newbuild Carriers
-
@ncscswitch:
The FIG so “hovering” does not change territories or sea zones as it would under OOB.
Thus it only has 4 territories of movement, period.
Where’s the hammer to hit you on the head….
You could NEVER do this ‘hovering’ prior to the revised rule that you can place fighters on newly built carriers. Correct?
It was not a legal combat move until Revised, correct?
fighters had (and still have) a range of 4 movement before Revised, correct?Now this
Perfect example: US IC in Norway, USA has ftrs in Eastern USA. German navy is sitting in SZ3… USA can use these two fighters in Eastern USA to attack the German navy IF they buy an a/c on their turn.
is legal in Revised, correct?
How do you explain this now being a legal move? The only way I can think to explain it is that the ftr now has greater range. range is defined via movement capability.
Does my logic make sense. I am trying to understand your thinking in the same fashion as I am trying to get you see how I percieve this difference in Revised.
IS a legal move in revised,
-
LHTR prevents the FIG from moving AFTER the “place new units” phase, when a FIG would miraculously move from say Berlin to the Baltic Sea after all other movement is completed, placements are completed, and just prior to collect income.
With LHTR the FIG ends up on the new AC in the same SZ that the FIG occupies at the end of NCM.
LHTR does not allow for miraculous post-placement movement of a FIG from one territory to another, OOB does allow for such miraculous movement.
-
@ncscswitch:
LHTR prevents the FIG from moving AFTER the “place new units” phase, when a FIG would miraculously move from say Berlin to the Baltic Sea after all other movement is completed, placements are completed, and just prior to collect income.
With LHTR the FIG ends up on the new AC in the same SZ that the FIG occupies at the end of NCM.
LHTR does not allow for miraculous post-placement movement of a FIG from one territory to another, OOB does allow for such miraculous movement.
Have you played A&A before Revised was released?
-
Yes, I have played Classic for about 20 years.
But the rules are VERy different between the two games, as they are different between Pacific and Revised (totally different SUB/AF engagement rules).
Revised is a 100% distinct game from Classic.
Now, do you wish to continue this based on some comparison of Revised vs. Classic rules, or do you want to focus on the differnces between OOB and LHTR (which both are are rulesets for Revised)?
-
How different 2nd edition and Revised rules are is subjective (how does one measure that?)
IMHO, I would’ve call them 100% distinct games.
I must not be the only one who thinks so as the game was released as Axis & Allies “REVISED”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/revisedGenerally that term means to alter/improve something.
The new release is a better game… but it’s not so different from previous versions to call it distinct. Again, we’d argue subjective interpretations…
My ‘adding movement’ statement was based on my line of thinking that Revised was an improved version of ‘Classic’. It is these rule difference that were the basis for my observation.
-
Classic does not allow moving fighters (new or old) on newly built carriers. This is a NEW rule in revised. I don’t see how you can really compare it to classic.
When I look at the difference between the OOB and LHTR for this rule, there is no difference in the purchase or placement of the carrier. In both cases, the fighter ends up in the sea zone with the new carrier. The only difference is HOW the fighter got to the sea zone.
In OOB, the move was legal if the fighter could reach the complex (but not necessarily the sea zone).
In LHTR, the move was legal if the fighter could reach the sea zone (but not necessarily the complex).
Which is better? Which is more fair? I suppose it depends on your perspective. For me, I think of the 4 movement for fighters as being the hard and fast rule unless long range aircraft, then it’s 6 movement (I played classic for many years). In OOB Revised, this quirky new rule bent the old rules that I had become accustomed to, so definitely seemed odd. The LHTR Revised ruleset seems to intuitively make more sense to me, and doesn’t bend that rule. So for me I like this rule change made in LHTR.
I think about it like this: If I wanted to send my fighter to combat, with the intention of landing it on a carrier that was not yet fully launched, when it returned from it’s mission would it return to the shipyard, or would it land on the carrier once it was launched? I think the answer would be to the carrier once it was launched. And that’s how I justify this rule change.
Rob
-
Clayton has a handle on it!
-
…
Which is better? Which is more fair? I suppose it depends on your perspective. For me, I think of the 4 movement for fighters as being the hard and fast rule unless long range aircraft, then it’s 6 movement (I played classic for many years). In OOB Revised, this quirky new rule bent the old rules that I had become accustomed to, so definitely seemed odd. The LHTR Revised ruleset seems to intuitively make more sense to me, and doesn’t bend that rule. So for me I like this rule change made in LHTR.I think about it like this: If I wanted to send my fighter to combat, with the intention of landing it on a carrier that was not yet fully launched, when it returned from it’s mission would it return to the shipyard, or would it land on the carrier once it was launched? I think the answer would be to the carrier once it was launched. And that’s how I justify this rule change.
Rob
Personally, having seen the pain of trying to get a bunch of fly boys onto a real live ship, I prefer the requirement that the planes land at the airbase closest to the shipyard(IC) and embark on the carrier when it launches (is built). I find it ridiculously unrealistic to have those planes “meet” and land on a CV that is still trying to figure out if all the bilge level alarms work and why they get seawater out of number 3 A/C refueling station instead of JP5.
Heck, if I really wanted to argue this I would say that CVs can only embark new aircraft if the aircraft are built on a CV. No carrier next to the IC? No new naval avaiation units. Your naval aviators get waxed far from home? Don’t go expecting those Army Air guys to figure out how to land on a bouncing postage stamp after they have gotten so used to 1500’ long runways that don’t move and are wider than a carrier is long. I might be convinced that land based air can convert to sea based air in a Non Combat Move but during Combat??? I can see it now, the FTR pulls up next to the refueling plane, fills up his tanks after combat and orders a side of tailhooks. Of course, all of this is trading playability for complexity. If I really wanted to do that, I would would not be playing A&A.
Give me OOB rules of FTR at the IC can move to the fresh built CV and stop giving the FTR an extra range of space during the combat move if they happen to grow tailhooks and figure out how to land on new carriers on their way back from the fight.
Suggested Topics
