I think I did the right thing.

@Panther

Thanks for the reply.

Thanks again to @Krieghund too. :)

@PrivateerPuffin said in Rules question about Fighters in Sea battles:

1st question: Does the word may in excerpt #2 allow for fighters to be presumed as casualties?

No, but it allows for carriers to be.

2nd question: Does excerpt #3 mean that there can never be more fighters in a battle than you have spots on carriers (if there are no other islands or territories to land in).

Yes.

An example if my question is nonsensical.
Japan took Midway, Alaska, and Western Canada last turn. On the US turn. 4 US fighters from two carriers in SZ 56 used 2 movement to attack a fleet in SZ 64. 1 fighter from Western US then uses 3 of its movement to also attack the fleet. The Japan player says that isn’t allowed because the 4 fighters will need the carriers to land. The US player disagrees and says that they could take a fighter as a casualty, allowing for there to be an open spot on the carrier which the fighter from Western US can land on.

The Japan player is correct.

During combat movement, you must be able to demonstrate possible safe landing zones for all attacking fighters. Once the combat starts, you may take carriers as casualties so that these safe landing zones are not maintained, usually in order to maximize the effectiveness of the attacking force. Once combat is over, all fighters that can still be landed must be (attacker’s choice of exactly which fighters, if there is a choice), and any that cannot are lost.

@Panther Thanks!

@jpciv

Welcome to the forum :slightly_smiling_face:

I have moved your topic here, assuming that your question is about 1942 Second Edition. Please let us know in case you targeted another 1942 edition.

What do you mean by “counterattack”?

Scrambling planes is not part of the 1942 rulesets.
Also the rules don’t allow defender’s movement during the attacker’s turn.

Of course units can “counterattack” when it is their turn. But remember that planes can’t hit submarines unless there is a friendly destroyer in the battle, too.

@aardvarkpepper

in global, SBR has +2 bonus. In the other editions, not. So you do an average of 3.5 damage (5.5 in global) per bomber while taking a $2 risk per attack. Since there is an opportunity cost because the bomber can’t do this and something else, its generally not worth it.

Its more likely that they grab moscow than hawaii, because I typically have a strong us navy in the pac.

and yes, you can kind of stalemate the game by trading karelia back and forth with UK forces, even if you start building up on that side late in the game and have a fairly weak force. But once moscow falls, the money is almost exactly even (85 vs 90) and that’s a loss over time for the allies.

Thanks for the answers everyone! :-)

Hey all,
I’ve been around the forum for about three, four years and am just now starting to post haha. I have about 6-7 of these games including global, and I have to say that AH really got this one right.
Around here, I see alot of people rightly complaining about the 1914, just in general. The lack of pieces, the asinine IPC chart (who thought that was a good idea?) and the laughable “balance” of the game OOB. I for one, did not care for the original 1942 because the board was too dang cramped! Pieces piled into Germany and sea zones in the pacific got crowded after three ships.

But, although I am a active member of the BMW (bi+ch, moan and whine) society, I do want to take the time to tell Larry and the folks at AH (although they will never really see this) that they really did a fine job with this game! Germany finally has some space, the IPC chart isn’t larger than the board, the new chips are small enough for the game spaces and the balance is perfect. Sure, the allies could use 4-5 IPCs, but that is pretty dang good! I’ve only played it a couple times (gotta love Christmas gifts) but already it is one of my favorites. The map really allows for more strategies but still allows me to have a life.
In all, I have seen a lot of people (me included) quite fairly say that some games were out of wack (pacific 1940?). But, if I get pissed then, I think it is only fair that I say that this game is quite possibly my favorite out of 7ish games, and that AH really got it right!  :-D