Planes vs. Sub

@taamvan

True.

That happened in the actual war at one point, intentionally rather than because the CV was sunk I mean. USS Enterprise had a broken (front?) elevator and couldn’t land planes rapidly enough so they landed on Henderson Field in the Solomons campaign.

@knp7765:

Okay, I know this goes against the rules, but it seems to me that your planes stationed on an Airbase or even on an Aircraft Carrier should be able to scramble to defend adjacent territories. Now, planes on a regular territory (no Airbase) could not do this because they are considered “in the field” and would not be available for a quick response (lack of communications, etc.).

Still, doesn’t this seem logical to you guys? That an occupation force would call for air cover from a carrier or air base if counter-attacked?

Here is the HR I can probably use:
An adjacent operational Air Base provides up to 3 planes (Fg or TcB).
Each carrier can provide 1 plane in an adjacent land territory (Fg or TcB).
An adjacent territory can provide 1 plane (Fg or TcB).

In any situation, keep this limitation:
it is up to 3 planes (Fg or TcB) max which can be scrambled into an adjacent territory under attack.

In addition:
any territory under attack can allow an aerial retreat for 1 single plane (Fg, TcB or StB) or up to 3 planes (Fg, TcB or StB) if there is an operational AB, the range is only 1 territory or SZ move.

Does anyone see some specific drawback to this limited two ways: inward air-support/ outward air retreat?

If the rule is kept within the same limit as the scramble rule in a SZ, players are already taking account of this special air reinforcement, it shouldn’t be difficult to watch it even if it is applied on land territories. What do you think?

@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.

Lesson: bring a DD along when there are Subs around and you are serious about landing!
Brilliant scenario though.

Europe Rulebook, page 13:

Air units attacking territories that have antiaircraft guns will be fired upon.  This doesn’t include territories containing antiaircraft guns that are only being flown over.

Europe Rulebook, page 26:

An antiaircraft gun can only fire at an air unit when that unit attacks the territory containing that antiaircraft gun.

Thanks for the clarification. I still want my game Noll!

How many subs do you recommend attacking SZ106 with? 2 subs or 3 subs? If the answer is 3 subs that leaves only 2 subs to attack SZ109 with, along with one FTR and one S. Bomber. I don’t see any other aircraft that can reach SZ109 on the first turn. Attacking SZ109 w/only 2 subs seems a little light, as the UK can scramble 3 FTR’s to help rescue SZ109. So I’m guessing the best strategy is to attack SZ109 w/3 subs to help absorb casualties, in case the UK player scrambles? And only attack SZ106 w/2 subs? If only Germany had one more sub…