Intentionally not move carriers to provide landing space for planes?

@genken said in Can Germany have more than 2 aircraft carriers in play:

I have searched for this on the forums and cannot find a reference to it. In the setup for Germany there are 2 pieces for aircraft carriers. I am axis and I started an Africa Korps movement but US entered the war in turn 1. Now I will need 2 carriers to guard the med in SZ 91 but I also want to place a carrier in SZ 113 to counter a possible Russian attack formulated by my cunning opponent. I can use a plastic chip in SZ 91. Is it permissible in the rules for Germany to have 3 carriers in play?

Why do you think that you need CV’s to protect the Med.?
I am curious, wouldn’t Bmbrs doing the same Job and give you more flexibility?
So now you spent 48 ipcs for three CV’s and 32 are lost compared to 48 = 4 Bmbrs plus your Ftr’s and the Allies player would have had to think about it sailing to Gibraltar…just my thoughts…

Thank you for the clarification

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.

I can see the math and I understand what you’re saying, I just never see the Germans come out with enough to chew through the stack of 14 infantry in their first round attacks, and my counter-attack is usually very devistating. Germany only has a very small window to pull of a sealion, if they can’t do it on the third turn, its not going to happen. Again, since this will take 3 turns to develop, there are too many variables to consider, what the Germans buy, what units they move to where, the effects of strategic warfare (bombings and subs), what the Russians are doing, but im confident that that stack of forces would be enough to hold London in the event of a G3 sealion, somewhat  :-D

Thanks for the clarification.  Makes sense now

@Krieghund:

Units belonging to other powers may not move into territories belonging to a neutral power.  The most recent alpha setup can be found here.

This is also the other way round, right? With the exception of sea units. And even then, the attacker could ignore the ‘neutral’ sea units if for example German launch naval attack on a UK fleet where there is also a neutral Russian or US ship.

They are at war, with Japan, per the original post.

@Natasin:

@zooooma:

I recal a concern about this that if UK is at war with Japan but Russia is not at war in Europe, Russia can land a fighter in Egypt, forcing Italy to ignore it or attack Russia.  This only really works if UK declares war on turn one or two, and Germany has not attacked Russia by turn two or three.  I don’t see this as a problem for the Axis:

Japan would love a DoW by UK

Germany tends to attack Russia anyway

UK can generally hold Egypt by turn two without the Russians

If it’s the ahistoric nature of the situation that bothers you, how do you feel about Japan helping Italy in the Med, or America ignoring a Japanese occupation of Hawaii?

I’ve seen it noted before ( I believe by Krieg) that the attacker can choose to not attack units that it is not at war with. So technically Italy could still attack and Russia would just watch from the sidelines. Because it isn’t a combat turn of Russia, then I doubt they could choose to go to war at that one moment especially if it’s before turn 4.

That only applies to sea zones. If Italy takes the territory, and the Russian plane remains, what happens?