Re: mobilization of new fighters/carriers

I have another question concerning valid landing spaces for fighters on CVs.

Assume that there is a fully loaded CV in a SZ. In the adjacent zone, there is an enemy SS. The SZ two spaces away is empty, three spaces away, there is an enemy Transport.

Is it possible to attack the Transport with the fighters, declaring that the CV will move two spaces into the empty zone in non-combat even though there is a SS blocking it? I would say no, as is it not legally possible to get the CV there in noncombat.

Is it possible to attack the Trn with one of the fighters, and the SS with the other one, declaring the SZ two spaces away as a landing zone? I would say yes, as the SS is either submerged or destroyed in combat against the fighter, so the CV can in any case move legally to the assigned landing zone in noncombat.

What if it would be any other ship blocking the move? Is it allowed to declare a fighter attack on the Trn 3 spaces away? Theoretically the fighter attack on the blocking ship could succeed, opening the way for the CV in noncombat. Of course, if the attack on the blocking ship doesn’t succeed, the other Fgt would also be lost, as there is no landing zone available (CV cannot move to pick it up). But is it even allowed to do so in the first place?

@Complex:

I have another question concerning valid landing spaces for fighters on CVs.

Assume that there is a fully loaded CV in a SZ. In the adjacent zone, there is an enemy SS. The SZ two spaces away is empty, three spaces away, there is an enemy Transport.

Is it possible to attack the Transport with the fighters, declaring that the CV will move two spaces into the empty zone in non-combat even though there is a SS blocking it? I would say no, as is it not legally possible to get the CV there in noncombat.

Is it possible to attack the Trn with one of the fighters, and the SS with the other one, declaring the SZ two spaces away as a landing zone? I would say yes, as the SS is either submerged or destroyed in combat against the fighter, so the CV can in any case move legally to the assigned landing zone in noncombat.

What if it would be any other ship blocking the move? Is it allowed to declare a fighter attack on the Trn 3 spaces away? Theoretically the fighter attack on the blocking ship could succeed, opening the way for the CV in noncombat. Of course, if the attack on the blocking ship doesn’t succeed, the other Fgt would also be lost, as there is no landing zone available (CV cannot move to pick it up). But is it even allowed to do so in the first place?

It is my understanding that claiming your landing spot is a CV to be moved in non-combat, pending clearing of the path in combat is ok.  Furthermore, I can’t find a reference to this in the LHTR, but I have seen it mentioned on these boards on more than one occasion that you can assume a “perfect” attack when declaring the move, even if it is unlikely to succeed.  The way I’ve seen it described, even if 20 battleships block the way for your CV to get to the landing zone, so long as you send one sub to contest that sea zone, you can claim your CV will sail through on non-combat to provide the landing area.  Essentially, you sacrifice an additional unit (in this case, a sub) and you get to kamikaze your planes.  Obviously if you do win the battle, you have to move your cv where you said you would.

@TimTheEnchanter:

I can’t find a reference to this in the LHTR, but I have seen it mentioned on these boards on more than one occasion that you can assume a “perfect” attack when declaring the move, even if it is unlikely to succeed.

It’s on page 25 under “Air Units”.

@TimTheEnchanter:

Here’s a question. Do you have to move the CV? Or can you abandon your fighters to a watery death? It happens all the time in the movies.

Yes.  If you can move them, you have to move them.

@sdafilli:

Can someone help me by answering TRUE or FALSE to the following statements and if there is any difference between the 2nd ed revised rules and the Larry Harris Tournament Rules:

AC= air craft carrier; IC=industrial complex

1. Regarding the mobilization of new fighters:

1.1 They CAN be deployed to new ACs (yours) in an adjacent sea zone to your IC
1.2 They CAN be deployed to existing ACs (yours) in an adjacent sea zone to your IC
1.3 They CAN be deployed to existing ACs (friendly- not own) in an adjacent sea zone to your IC

Under LHTR 2.0, 1.3 is False, you may not deploy new fighters to other countries carrier’s.

To sum up:

@sdafilli:

1. Regarding the mobilization of new fighters:

1.1 They CAN be deployed to new ACs (yours) in an adjacent sea zone to your IC

OOB - true
LHTR - true

@sdafilli:

1.2 They CAN be deployed to existing ACs (yours) in an adjacent sea zone to your IC

OOB - false
LHTR - true

@sdafilli:

1.3 They CAN be deployed to existing ACs (friendly- not own) in an adjacent sea zone to your IC

OOB - false
LHTR - false

@sdafilli:

2. Regarding the mobilization of new ACs:

2.1 Newly deployed fighters (yours) CAN be landed on them

OOB - true
LHTR - true

@sdafilli:

2.2 Existing fighters (yours) CAN be landed on them from adjacent site containing your IC

OOB - true
LHTR - false (Existing fighters may land on new carriers only if they were moved into the sea zone of mobilization during the turn.)

@sdafilli:

2.3 Existing fighters (friendly- not own) CAN be landed from adjacent site containing your IC

OOB - true
LHTR - false (See 2.2.)

@sdafilli:

2.4 Existing fighters (yours) on a friendly(ie not own) AC in same sea zone, CAN be reshuffled and CAN land on the new AC

OOB - false
LHTR - true (They can move out of and back into the sea zone, or just within it, in order to remain “hovering” until the new CV is placed per 2.2.)

@sdafilli:

2.5 Existing fighters (friendly- not own) on a friendly (ie not own) AC in same sea zone, CAN be reshuffled and land on the new AC (don’t know why one would chose to do this but rying to exhaust all possibilities  :wink: )

OOB - false
LHTR - false (It’s not their turn, so they can’t move in order to take advantage of 2.2 above.)

I have to agree… those rules declarations are well written, complete, and TOTALLY ACCURATE!

@Craig:

Krieghund- Your sooooo smooth!!! :-D :-D

Get a room!  :wink:

Seriously, though, Kreighund is gettin it on with those answers.