Aircraft Carriers strong attacking move



  • I have looked, but can’t find this attacking question on the forum…or book.

    You have a USA Aircraft Carrier with two USA fighters on board. You move the AC to an attacking SZ.

    The question I am asking:

    Do the fighters and AC both take place in the battle to give you a more stronger attack?

    I think yes, but I have a hunch this move can take place BUT will only make your fighters as cargo. If my hunch is correct, this stops fighters staying on board for this advantage attack.

    They can take off from the AC and land in the SZ where the AC is going to goto move in non combat move.

    When defending in a sz in the same situation with friendly or own fighters, i know you can use the fighters as defence in reverse situation.

    Thanks, in a debate with players…~!~ Sala



  • In Anniversary Edition the aircraft carriers attack on a one and defend on a two or less. The two fighters will attack on a three or less. You may attack with the planes and the carrier all at once, but the carrier cannot take hits like a battleship.

    To answer you second question, the planes can also take off from the carrier, move to attack, and then noncombat to a different sea zone to land on the carrier. However, if you want to land them in the same sea zone the battle takes place in, you MUST have the carrier participate in combat as well.


  • Official Answers

    The fighters and carrier may attack together.  The fighters must take off before the carrier moves, so they are not considered cargo.

    @gobydude:

    However, if you want to land them in the same sea zone the battle takes place in, you MUST have the carrier participate in combat as well.

    This is not necessarily true.  The carrier may wait until noncombat movement to move into the sea zone, assuming that the attacker wins the battle.  If the attacker retreats and the fighters don’t have enough movement left to reach safety, they will be lost.



  • Thanks troops. 😉



  • If the attacker retreats and the fighters don’t have enough movement left to reach safety, they will be lost.

    Really? My friends and I have always played where the aircraft must have a safe landing zone in range before engaging in combat. This way, the only way you can lose your planes due to not having a landing zone is if the carrier is destroyed during the combat phase.


  • Official Answers

    @gobydude:

    Really? My friends and I have always played where the aircraft must have a safe landing zone in range before engaging in combat.

    That’s correct.

    @gobydude:

    This way, the only way you can lose your planes due to not having a landing zone is if the carrier is destroyed during the combat phase.

    Not entirely.  For purposes of having a safe landing zone for fighters, you may assume that all of your rolls will be hits and all of your opponent’s rolls will be misses.  You may also plan a noncombat move by a carrier that is dependent on your winning the battle, or even another battle.  Given that, your fighters could move their entire four space movement allowance in combat movement with the understanding that a carrier will move into the sea zone in noncombat movement after the battle is won.  However, if the battle goes badly, you may retreat, leaving the fighters with no movement and the carrier unable to make the rendezvous to pick them up, as the sea zone is still hostile.  Of course, the loss of the fighters would only be worth it if the retreat saved enough other units to justify it.


  • TripleA '12

    While we’re on the subject, I had a situation come up last night whereby I was the US and my opponent was Japan. I attacked the isalnd of Japan with some land and air units. I had more Fighters than I could find a place to land. I wanted to bring in 6 of them. I had Long Range Aircraft tech, and so some of them could land on nearby friendly islands. I had 1 Aircraft Carrier in the sea zone surrounding Japan as well.

    My opponent and I have always played it that you cannot bring more aicraft into an attack than you have valid landing places. Is this true? As it happened, we agreed to stick to this and so I only brought in 4 of my 6 Fighters (two would land on the carrier, and two would land on a nearby friendly isalnd - assuming they survived). I wanted to bring in all 6 though, even saying that my Fighters would absolutely be the first casualties, because I wanted to take the territory with land units. My opponent’s argument was that I could not assume that all his defence rolls would miss.

    But surely, if you’re Fighters have nowhere safe to land at the end on the noncombat move phase then they are destroyed? Is this not a kamikaze thing? I could not find it in the rule book (albeit we were playing Anniversary; not 1942). It caused much consternation last night, but needless to say I still took Tokyo with 1 Tank and 1 Fighter remaining. He was gutted.

    Anyway, appreciate your thoughts on this.



  • @Lozmoid:

    While we’re on the subject, I had a situation come up last night whereby I was the US and my opponent was Japan. I attacked the isalnd of Japan with some land and air units. I had more Fighters than I could find a place to land. I wanted to bring in 6 of them. I had Long Range Aircraft tech, and so some of them could land on nearby friendly islands. I had 1 Aircraft Carrier in the sea zone surrounding Japan as well.

    My opponent and I have always played it that you cannot bring more aicraft into an attack than you have valid landing places. Is this true? As it happened, we agreed to stick to this and so I only brought in 4 of my 6 Fighters (two would land on the carrier, and two would land on a nearby friendly isalnd - assuming they survived). I wanted to bring in all 6 though, even saying that my Fighters would absolutely be the first casualties, because I wanted to take the territory with land units. My opponent’s argument was that I could not assume that all his defence rolls would miss.

    The rule is that all fighters need to reserve part of their movement to get back to a safe landing zone. (pg 14 - Air Units), thus if those 2 extra fighters can’t get to the territory and land back then you cannot bring them.

    But surely, if you’re Fighters have nowhere safe to land at the end on the noncombat move phase then they are destroyed? Is this not a kamikaze thing? I could not find it in the rule book (albeit we were playing Anniversary; not 1942). It caused much consternation last night, but needless to say I still took Tokyo with 1 Tank and 1 Fighter remaining. He was gutted.

    Anyway, appreciate your thoughts on this.

    It’s not a kamikaze since the fighters needed to have a safe landing spot when they performed their combat moves, which validates their movement, regardless of what happens during combat.


  • Official Answers

    @Lozmoid:

    But surely, if you’re Fighters have nowhere safe to land at the end on the noncombat move phase then they are destroyed? Is this not a kamikaze thing?

    No, it isn’t.  This rule is there to cover the instances in which a planned landing space “disappears” because of the outcome of combat.

    Say you attack a sea zone with a small fleet, which includes a carrier.  At the same time, you also attack another sea zone with two fighters, planning to land the fighters on the carrier (their only possible landing space) after winning both battles.  This is perfectly legal, as you may assume that all of your units will survive combat.  As it turns out, however, the fighters sink their target, but the other battle doesn’t go well and you lose your carrier fleet.  Now your fighters have no place to land, and are lost.


  • TripleA '12

    Thank you Hobbes and Krieghund , I appreciate your answers.

    The rule is that all fighters need to reserve part of their movement to get back to a safe landing zone. (pg 14 - Air Units), thus if those 2 extra fighters can’t get to the territory and land back then you cannot bring them.

    But that’s my point exactly. In terms of actual physical aircraft movement points, my Fighters did have enough, between them, to potentially land on safe/friendly spaces. 2 Fighters had enough range to get to a nearby island, but the other 4 Fighters had only 1 movement left each. Now, theoretically all 4 could potentially land on the carrier in SZ62 as it is a legal safe/friendly space.

    My opponent argued that if ALL my Fighters survived, then 2 of them would have nowhere to land as the carrier would already be filled. Was he right? I think so, and at least, that’s the way I’ve always concieved the rules to be… Not usually such a big deal until it came to conquering an Axis Captial Territory and thereby vastly tipping the balance of the game…

    So Krieghund - am I right in assuming I was correct in trying to bring all 6 Fighters to the battle for Japan, even though only 4 of them had the capacity to land somewhere?


  • Official Answers

    All attacking air units must have a potential landing space.  A carrier can only hold two fighters at a time, so each carrier can only provide a landing space for two fighters.  In your example, only four fighters may attack.


  • TripleA '12

    Okay - so it is illegal to bring more Fighters than have potential legal landing spaces, even if I promise to use the extra Fighters as casualties? Even if those extra Fighters survive the battle and then have to crash into the sea?

    Interesting stuff!  🙂



  • @Lozmoid:

    Even if those extra Fighters survive the battle and then have to crash into the sea?

    Interesting stuff!  🙂

    The thing is, you don’t know if those fighters will have to crash into the sea. They may end up on non-combat move without a valid landing spot but when you perform your combat moves there’s always a statistical change that the carrier will kill the 100 battleships (even though it should be about the same as you de-materializing while reading this message and materializing on the next room) thus the combat move satisfies the rule of a valid landing spot (regardless of how improbable it might be).

    Combat moving 2 extra fighters to a battle goes against that same rule because there’s simply no possibility for those fighters to land during non-combat as they are moved (unless a carrier magically pops up out of nowhere into the middle of the battle board - odds for that happening should be the same as you teleporting yourself to another room) .


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games

33
Online

13.4k
Users

33.8k
Topics

1.3m
Posts