Man up….attack a strict neutral.

@panther said in Stranded Attacking Fighters:

If no landing space can
be found, they are lost

sadly they ditch into the ocean and hope they can paddle to java :)

@genken

No

If I am playing a non-balanced mod game of G40, I always bring Russian mech/tanks and a couple of planes to help out China.  They often can help fortify Yunnan for a critical round, or have an opportunity to blitz into Malaysia for the big bonus and additional headache.  If things are not looking promising in China, the fast movers can make it back to Moscow before they are needed for a final assault on the capitol.  If China has more income and Japan is hurt in the mainland of Asia, USA can spend additional income in the Atlantic.  That more than compensates for the reduced units in the European theater.  In fact, if the Allies can keep and fortify Yunnan, they have a very high chance of winning.

No.

@Hepps01:

Yah, I agree with you.  Especially in the situation provided where there was literally 0% chance of success.  The sub attack was simply an “Offensive fodder” attack done to make the fighter move “quasi-legitimate”.

To me (on a personal level) the rules should stipulate that Carriers be required to move during the combat phase into the only potential landing zone and thus force the attacking player to win the secondary battle in order to ensure the fighter can land.  Otherwise this just enables people to do this kind of weak ass fodder tactic in order to get to the transports  that would otherwise be out of range.   This would then also mean that an attacker has to potentially sacrifice very valuable units (carriers) to accomplish these kind of delaying actions.

Just my opinion though.

From an emotional point of view I am with you here and as a fun fact in a current game I face exactly the ugly site of that move as he has Carrier plus sub in place which creates theoretical threats for all my transports. He can sac just a sub and then theoretically kill TTs in many seazones (for the price of saccing the Air of course).

However I like this rule because it gives the game some more dynamics and makes blocking a bit less powerful which I think is good for the game and does make you a bit less dependent on can openers and gives a power to overcome blocking at least a bit better without an allied power.

thanks again

Each airbase can only scramble 3 fighters.  If you have more than one sea zone serviced by that airbase, you have to choose from the 3 planes which ones go to which sea zone.  Yes, you can split them up if you want to (2 to SZ 109, 1 to SZ 110, etc.).

@Flashman:

For us history pedants I’m putting together a spreadsheet detailing the historical allegiances of each Global40 territory as of June 1st in 1939, 1940, 1941 & 1942.  May add December 1941 to this.

Some problems here, for example do I treat “Bessarabia” as Bessarabia proper (Romanian in 1940) or Transnistria?

Also, Poland in 1939: strict neutral or pro-Allied?  Can we treat the Soviet invasion of East Poland as Stalin “activating” a friendly territory?

My Global 1940 map analysis contains dates that might be useful for your project:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36590.0