Carrier Mobilization


  • 2017 '16 '13 '12

    Assume that you send fighters that can only reach a sea zone if a new carrier is placed in a zone adjacent to an industrial complex.

    If the fighters die in battle, must the carrier be placed in the sea zone that would have made the landing possible, or can the carrier be placed in a second adjacent sea zone that is also next to the complex?

    Alternatively, must the sea zone of placement be declared at the beginning of the turn anyway?


  • Customizer

    You don’t have to declare where you are placing the carrier when you purchase it.
    However, when you make your combat move, then YES you have to tell your opponent that you plan to place your new carrier where those fighters can land on it.
    If both of those fighters are destroyed in the battle, then you are once again free to place that new carrier wherever you like, of course as long as it’s a sea zone adjacent to one of YOUR complexes.

    It’s the same concept as if you were planning on moving an existing carrier so that planes could land on it. If those planes survive, then you have to move that carrier in the NCM so they can land. If they are destroyed in the battle, your carrier is no longer committed to that space and you may move it elsewhere or leave it where it is in the NCM.


  • 2017 '16 '13 '12

    @knp7765:

    You don’t have to declare where you are placing the carrier when you purchase it.
    However, when you make your combat move, then YES you have to tell your opponent that you plan to place your new carrier where those fighters can land on it.
    If both of those fighters are destroyed in the battle, then you are once again free to place that new carrier wherever you like, of course as long as it’s a sea zone adjacent to one of YOUR complexes.

    It’s the same concept as if you were planning on moving an existing carrier so that planes could land on it. If those planes survive, then you have to move that carrier in the NCM so they can land. If they are destroyed in the battle, your carrier is no longer committed to that space and you may move it elsewhere or leave it where it is in the NCM.

    Very helpful.

    So if the carrier is “off the hook” (i.e., the planes it was intended to catch die), then the carrier could even go adjacent to a different complex than the one that was chosen in the first place?

    So in summary, you have flexibility to place units anywhere you want, but if you make combat moves that depend on a carrier being placed, you need to announce that intent and need to follow through if the planes survive.



  • That is the size of it.


  • '16 '15 '10

    ACs are :evil:

    Whenever you are defending a naval position from enemy aircraft, some of which can’t reach, you have to consider whether the enemy can enable the use of extra aircraft by buying an ac (or acs) and placing it (them) in the same zone or an adjacent zone.  A typical example for Global would be Japan enabling extra fighters to make an attack on sz6 by purchasing an AC for sz6.


  • Customizer

    Hey Zhukov44,
    One has to be careful in planning to use a carrier like that too. One time, as Japan, there was a large US fleet in SZ 6 which included about 6-7 submarines (they were Super Subs too). Japan was kind of low on warships but still had a lot of planes. So, I bought 2 shiny new carriers to allow 4 extra planes into that battle. Japan was the only complex I had where I could put those carriers.
    Well, in the course of the battle, Japan lost it’s destroyers which meant that Japanese planes could no longer hit US subs. When the battle was all over, all US surface ships and planes were killed but so were all Japanese warships. There were only some Japanese planes left. That left the US with 3 or 4 Super subs left in SZ 6 and Japan with no destroyers.
    So, in my “Place Units” phase, I plopped down the 2 new carriers (32 IPCs worth!) and landed my Japanese planes on them.
    On the US “Combat Move” phase, the US promptly did a “Surprise strike” with her Super Subs @3 and blew those shiny, expensive carriers out of the water. At least the planes could land on Japan. It just kind of made a big expensive battle a little more expensive for Japan.



  • Subs are my preferred ship of choice when addressing Japan.  They are a great counter to all those Japanese aircraft that require a DD to hit the subs.  The best part is for every 6 IPC I spend as the US, Japan has to spend 8 IPC for a DD to deal with it.

    Japan cannot keep up by trading 8 IPC for 6 IPC, and with the basic goal of just sinking Japan’s ships to blunt the pacific victory, there is no better choice.  Particularly once you obtain sea dominance and start the convoy operations to nullify all/some of that DEI income without having to stage invasions.

    Economically speaking, subs crush Japan like they crush Italy in the Med.  Now I’m not saying not having a surface ship fleet is the way to go, because you need some of that too, but in general you want to be purchasing SS after the initial stages of capital ship purchases in the first few rounds.



  • as I read the rules, you don’t have to say where you plan to build your carriers. It gives ALOT of very specific rules on how you can MOVE your carriers, and what airmoves are legal, but NO rules on how to build your carriers.

    the rules for airmovement says that you have to be able to land all your planes if you take 0 losses in every battle, and with possible carrier build.

    it states that you have to follow through with carriermoves if they where decleared,  also states that any carrier with movementpoint left in Non Combat have to move to help a ftr/tac land (even the ones not declared, example; the carrier you planned to land on was damaged).

    it does however NOT state that you actually have to build your carrier in a seazone to safe a survived ftr.

    so IMO, you dont have to mobilize a carrier anywhere, all you have to do is to be ABLE to mobilize it.

    the main reason you might want to do this is if your carrier will be dead if you do it. example scenario;
    , japan hits some US boats in sea of japan, kills all but the subs., US have like 20 subs in left, but no surface and japans fleet is next to indochina, then japan might want to let the ftr die, instead of moblizing in the sea of japan.
    or, for some reason anzak have used some ftrs at maximum range to kill japanese boats next to sidney, but the seazone is not safe, Anzak had paid for 3 inf + 1 carrier, now that the Mobilisation phase comes, anzak have to chose which unit to get reimbursed for, so they chose the carrier.

    and a number of other ways.



  • @Kreuzfeld:

    it does however NOT state that you actually have to build your carrier in a seazone to safe a survived ftr.

    so IMO, you dont have to mobilize a carrier anywhere, all you have to do is to be ABLE to mobilize it.

    No, it does, very explicitly. P21 Pac 2nd Edition- where units can move.

    “A fighter or tactical bomber can land in a sea zone (even a
    hostile one) that is adjacent to an industrial complex you own
    if you will be mobilizing an aircraft carrier that you previously
    purchased in that zone during the Mobilize New Units phase.”

    “You must have a carrier move, remain in place, or be
    mobilized (new carriers only) to pick up a fighter or
    tactical bomber that would end its noncombat movement in
    a sea zone. You can’t deliberately move an air unit out of
    range of a potential safe landing space.”


  • Customizer

    Okay, so technically you are right, you don’t have to move or mobilize a carrier to provide a safe landing place for surviving fighters and tacs.

    However, it is the fighters and tacs that are actually restricted. You can NOT move any fighter or tac into a combat situation where they would not have a safe place to land. So, if you send any fighter or tac into a combat situation, you have to declare where they will land. In this case, if the landing would involve either an existing carrier moving in the NCM or a new carrier being mobilized, then you would have to declare that movement or mobilization.

    If the fighters or tacs in question are killed in the combat, then the existing carriers are no longer committed to the NCM and new carriers are no longer committed to being mobilized in the specific sea zone where the fighters/tacs would have landed.
    You simply can not plan on the fighters/tacs being destroyed when you make your combat movement. Even if it is a large battle and you are sure that you will experience casualties and plan in your mind that the fighters/tacs that you send to the limit of their movement will be among your first casualties, you still have to declare that they could land somewhere.
    I guess you could consider this more a question of etiquette than actual game mechanics. When you make your combat move, you declare where your planes will land as a matter of consideration to your opponent regardless of your actual plans for those planes.
    However, if the battle goes much better for you than expected and those planes in question survive, then it changes from simple etiquette to a mandatory move. In other words, then you are “stuck” moving or placing the carrier so those planes have a place to land.


  • Official Q&A

    @kcdzim:

    No, it does, very explicitly. P21 Pac 2nd Edition- where units can move.

    “A fighter or tactical bomber can land in a sea zone (even a
    hostile one) that is adjacent to an industrial complex you own
    if you will be mobilizing an aircraft carrier that you previously
    purchased in that zone during the Mobilize New Units phase.”

    “You must have a carrier move, remain in place, or be
    mobilized (new carriers only) to pick up a fighter or
    tactical bomber that would end its noncombat movement in
    a sea zone. You can’t deliberately move an air unit out of
    range of a potential safe landing space.”

    This passage is also in the 1st edition rules.

    @knp7765:

    Okay, so technically you are right, you don’t have to move or mobilize a carrier to provide a safe landing place for surviving fighters and tacs.

    Yes, you do.

    @knp7765:

    I guess you could consider this more a question of etiquette than actual game mechanics. When you make your combat move, you declare where your planes will land as a matter of consideration to your opponent regardless of your actual plans for those planes.

    This is not etiquette - it is the rules.  During combat movement, you must demonstrate that each of your air units has a valid potential landing place or the move is illegal.  However, as you say, those landing spaces are only required to be provided if the air units in question still need them during noncombat movement.



  • To put a finer point on this (and since we also ended up discussing carrier movement in addition to placing one), it doesn’t even have to be “likely” for there to be a landing place, just a non-zero chance.

    For instance: If the only way a carrier can make it to pick up planes at the end of their range is for you to win a battle with 1 sub against 146 battleships and then the carrier NCMs through the cleared seazone for the planes to land, then that’s a valid landing place as long as you attack with that sub…


  • '12

    @Fortress:

    To put a finer point on this (and since we also ended up discussing carrier movement in addition to placing one), it doesn’t even have to be “likely” for there to be a landing place, just a non-zero chance.

    For instance: If the only way a carrier can make it to pick up planes at the end of their range is for you to win a battle with 1 sub against 146 battleships and then the carrier NCMs through the cleared seazone for the planes to land, then that’s a valid landing place as long as you attack with that sub…

    hmmmm…once the combat phase starts, could the attacking sub submerge instead of firing?



  • I believe Larry or Krieg answered this over at HGD, or Krieg answered it in a previous FAQ thread here. And I believe the answer was that the SS, if that battle went first, had to at least make an attempt for one round before submerging. Of course, you could just run the battle with the planes first, I suppose, and when the carrier wasn’t needed anymore, just submerge the SS in the first combat round? Krieg?


  • TripleA '12

    It is my understanding that Submarines may ALWAYS submerge as long as there isn’t an opposing Destroyer involved in the battle. I have never heard of Subs having to undergo one combat round first; must be a house rule?


  • Official Q&A

    @Fortress:

    I believe Larry or Krieg answered this over at HGD, or Krieg answered it in a previous FAQ thread here. And I believe the answer was that the SS, if that battle went first, had to at least make an attempt for one round before submerging. Of course, you could just run the battle with the planes first, I suppose, and when the carrier wasn’t needed anymore, just submerge the SS in the first combat round? Krieg?

    Doesn’t sound like something I would say.  Lozmoid’s right.


  • '12

    Geez, I feel guilty now.  I was only kidding.  I did not mean to reveal a new sleaze tactic.  😞 :oops:



  • Hmmm… I wonder where I read that.


  • '12

    @Fortress:

    To put a finer point on this (and since we also ended up discussing carrier movement in addition to placing one), it doesn’t even have to be “likely” for there to be a landing place, just a non-zero chance.

    For instance: If the only way a carrier can make it to pick up planes at the end of their range is for you to win a battle with 1 sub against 146 battleships and then the carrier NCMs through the cleared seazone for the planes to land, then that’s a valid landing place as long as you attack with that sub…

    I don’t think this is correct, since you are supposed to assume that all of your units will miss and all the defenders will hit.  That is, you have to assume that you are going to lose every single battle so you can’t over-stack in this way in anticipation of victory (I know this is explicit in the rules, but don’t have one handy to quote chapter & verse).



  • @Eqqman:

    @Fortress:

    To put a finer point on this (and since we also ended up discussing carrier movement in addition to placing one), it doesn’t even have to be “likely” for there to be a landing place, just a non-zero chance.

    For instance: If the only way a carrier can make it to pick up planes at the end of their range is for you to win a battle with 1 sub against 146 battleships and then the carrier NCMs through the cleared seazone for the planes to land, then that’s a valid landing place as long as you attack with that sub…

    I don’t think this is correct, since you are supposed to assume that all of your units will miss and all the defenders will hit.  That is, you have to assume that you are going to lose every single battle so you can’t over-stack in this way in anticipation of victory (I know this is explicit in the rules, but don’t have one handy to quote chapter & verse).

    You’ve actually got it backwards.  You’re permitted to task fighters assuming you’ll WIN every battle.


  • '12

    You’re right, the exact quote is:

    In order to demonstrate that an air unit might have a safe landing zone, you may assume that all of your attacking rolls will be hits, and all defending rolls will be misses.

    Maybe I’ll have better luck double-checking the sub rule: since the surprise attack OR submerge round comes before the general combat round, you could in fact start a battle with a sub against a DD-free opponent with no intention of finishing the fight since the sub is free to submerge before any opponents fire.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 4
  • 25
  • 4
  • 3
  • 9
  • 11
  • 14
  • 7
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

57
Online

14.0k
Users

34.4k
Topics

1.4m
Posts