Fighters movement and landings

@Corbeau:

@timerover51:

Your shore bombardment idea has been picked up in the Anniversary Edition rules, evidently.

Ya, i saw that, that’s great news :)
I can only wish i was the one to propose it to the game designer but it really is a coincidence. That was a house rule we used way back then. Still great to see he thought of it too. :)

I like the also th idea of BB acting as artillery support. Good thinking there too. I would not allow it for planes too, i find them already too flexible as a unit acting both in land and sea. I’d rather have them seperated in 2 classes, Land based fighters and CV based fighters. They already have the different molds for some nations, german stuka and Bf-109 for exemple. anyways, that’s another discussion.

For the BB acting like an AA, that’s exactly what i meant. Would give a reason to have one in a fleet.

You need to remember that roughly 2/3 of a carrier’s aircraft were attack planes, dive bombers and torpedo bombers, that would be used in support of ground troops.  This is the basis for the flexibility in fighters in A&A.  If you had a dedicated attack plane, like the Stuka, you could reduce the fighter’s role by a little bit, but by the end of the war, the US Navy’s Corsair fighter was carrying a bombload heavier than that of the Stuka, and delivering it with comparable accuracy.

As for BB getting an AA roll, that makes a fair amount of sense, and is pretty historically accurate.  Quite simply, BBs normally acted as a magnet for air attacks, even if a carrier was around.  The US South Dakato shot down 26 Japanese aircraft while escorting the carrier US Enterprise at the Battle off Santa Cruz in October of 1942, while Adm. Raymond Spruance deployed his battleline in advance of his carriers at the Battle of the Philippine Sea in June of 1944 to deliberately absorb Japanese carrier plane attacks.  However, the US did have the best naval AA fire control systems of the entire war, so what holds true for the US does not hold true for everyone else.  The Bismarck had major problems with defending against a limited number of British Swordfish, while the Italian BBs had similar problems.  The British were so-so, and the Japanese were close to hopeless until late in the war.  You could make it a National Advantage for the US, but I suspect that would not be acceptable to a majority of Axis players.  Making it universal is a bit of a stretch.  It would be up to you.

Just to be thorough and make the point:

Fricking subs…

@OLver:

Thanks for the input guys. My oponent should really have landed in Africa with UK on the first turn.

I also thought that sending a Russian fighter in Anglo Egypt was a big mistake made by my oponent, so was it to not leave Leningrad completly empty.

My bad I said 1 inf and one art from Africa but of course it was 1 tank and 1 inf. I also forgot to say that my two subs in the baltic were moved in  seazone 7. I knew my navy was going to be destroyed, but it forced my oponent to split his airforce, and I saved a sub and killed one fighter with my transport/dest fleet.

There are two approaches to a non-Baltic fleet buy that I’ve seen and use.

1.  Stay put.  If the UK attacks with its air, the Germans kill UK air.  The Germans lose a lot of navy which they weren’t using a lot (they would have used the Baltic transport), and the UK loses its valuable and hard-to-replace air.

2.  Split into four groups.  If the UK splits its air up, German subs can surrender and German destroyer and/or transport have a better chance of bringing down some UK air.  If the UK doesn’t split its air up, then at least three German units survive.  Note that the US bomber will probably knock out another German naval unit.

I guess my oponent did not play really well  with Russia because even thought I had few land units on the Russian front, my fighters always allowed me to trade territories and to keep UK and US navy at bay for a while.

Yes, trading territories is - after a fashion - a strength of the German fighter buy, but REALLY, you should have been bled dry, especially with having to transport units to Africa.

Now I have to explain what were, in my opinion the advantages of such a move. UK and USA had to buy much more navy to protect their transports, so even thought my russian front was some kind of weak, Germany was almost never threatened, and the Allies coult not build any fleet in the Pacific. On UK1, my oponent send his Indian SZ Fighter to destroy my tank in Anglo-Egypt along with the Transjordan inf. He succeded, but my lonely Japan transport stayed alive, so I only had to buy one on J1 and could already build a factory in Mandchuria. On J1 I took China and Buryatia. Two turn later a factory was build in French Indochina, and another one in India a turn later.

German fighters have nothing to do with a fleet in the Pacific.  Nothing you have yet described prevents the Allies from building a fleet in Atlantic OR Pacific.  (Of course, if they build in the Atlantic, they’ll have to overcome that German air force, but I digress)

The UK can still send their carrier and destroyer against the Japanese transport at Kwangtung - and they should, too, in view of the fact they used the Indian fighter against Anglo-Egypt.  More weak play.  :wink:

I think you spent way too many IPCs on industrial complexes.  If you purchase 16 IPC of transports, you can move up to four units from Japan to the mainland, and vary between anywhere from Soviet Far East to French Indochina; furthermore, those transports can be used as naval fodder and to pick up Japanese infantry from isolated islands where they are doing no good.  Compare with a 15 IPC industrial complex that produces three units, cannot switch where units are placed, cannot be used as naval fodder, and do not solve the problem of wasted Japanese infantry resources sitting on isolated islands.  I know Caspian Sub states 2 transports 1 industrial complex is good, but I think I would prefer 3 transports 1 tank on J1 regardless of bid - if I can claim India and put an IC there with Japan, the positional advantage is huge.

–

In practice, those German fighters have limited range, exactly as I previously mentioned; you will probably end up having to split the German fighters between eastern territories and Western Europe.  This isn’t too bad in practice.  What you will probably see is the Allies building up a fleet off Eastern Canada; when the Allies feel like it, they will unite newly built naval units from Eastern US with the existing fleet off Eastern Canada and land at Algeria, where with no surviving Baltic fleet elements and your German Mediterranean fleet probably not in a position to counter, and insufficient German fighters at Western Europe (considering that you have to split between Western Europe and eastern territories), you can do nothing THAT TURN.

On the next turn, though, you can land 10 fighter 1 bomber (possibly 9 fighter 1 bomber) at Western Europe.  If the Allied navy stay off Algeria, you beat them up, if the Allied navy retreats from Algeria, you may have a problem.  Why a problem?  Because even a pretty tame Allied fleet will land 6 US and 4 UK ground units (2 starting UK transports and 2 starting US transports plus 1 US transport bought on US1); you may easily have to deal with a lot more.  And although you have air at Western Europe that can hit Algeria, you need cheap German ground units to act as fodder; you can get 2 German infantry in with the Mediterranean transport, but otherwise - well, you can see that you might have a problem to deal with.

So let us say that is what happens.  On the German turn, you fly all your fighters to Western Europe, and the Allies respond by pulling their navy back to Eastern Canada and buying another US carrier at Eastern US (I assume they bought one already on US1 after seeing the German fighter build).  Germany does nothing about the Allied forces in Algeria.

Germany’s next turn, you can only trade off Karelia and one other territory easily (that other territory being the one your German bomber can hit).  BUT now what?  If you fly away from Western Europe, the Allies will land MORE units at Algeria.  And if you do NOT fly away from Western Europe, the Allies STILL land at Algeria, with probable 6 transports (up to 7 or 8 easily), 2 destroyers, 2 carriers, 4 fighters, 1 battleship.  EVEN with that mighty air force, there is nothing you can do.  So let us say you GIVE UP Algeria and start harassing Russia with your mighty air force.  The Allies have sunk 32 IPC in carriers, and are just making their landing at Africa; they are out of position to help Russia.

So as you can see, what have you gained at best?  Nothing but TIME.  Time for Japan to push on Russia.  Time for the Germans to keep the IPCs they gained in Africa.  And that is EXACTLY why I recommend using African bid units instead of Ukraine.  You need to control Africa early while you still can; you WILL lose Africa eventually.

–

And remember these things too:

1.  The Allies can still go KJF (if they do, Germany has to try to control and keep control of Africa.)

2.  By buying so many fighters early, you lock yourself into a certain line of German play.  You may do better to stagger your fighter buys out (say 1 German fighter a turn or even 2 German fighters on G1) so you can have some early infantry to trade with Russia sooner.

In short - yes, if the Allies go KGF, German fighters are useful - however, I do not think that 4 fighters RIGHT AWAY is necessary or proper; I think 2 fighters is the most that the Germans can afford on G1.

:-)
If the second part of your question was, " If my AA gun defended in the combat phase can I move it on my (next) turn", then the answer is, of course you can.
Personally, I’d like to see AA guns be able to move in the combat phase, and attack defending aircraft. It would be very realistic to actual combat, and I don’t think that it would change the game that much, they rarely hit anything anyway. Well mine don’t that’s for sure  :roll:
  Remember, the more you play/practice something, the better yu will get at it.  :lol:
So, play often, and play well.
  See you around the game room. :wink:

BTW, that submarine does not become useless once the Germans lose the ability to win against the Allied navy/navies.

I like to send it to Southern Africa to ‘persuade’ Japan not to make a Brazil run, at least, force Japan to commit more to a Brazil run then what is normal and optimal.  It also keeps Japan honest by not leaving transports out there undefended.

And, finally, I’ve had a situation where Japan FORGOT the Russian submarine was down there by Madagascar and been able to attack his battleship and 3 transports with 3 fighters and a submarine. Odds are, he only gets one hit, you get 2, that’s a good trade!  Japanese transport which is useful for Russian submarine which is not so useful. (I actually got 3 hits to his 1 that time, but I was lucky.)

Actually, I WISH I had the flying Stukas.  I stupidly selected those IPC-sucking subs that do nothing but suck IPCs out of Germany!  :lol:  4 subs purchased x $8 a sub = a whole mess of land units I could use right about now.  :-P  Those subs did shave a fair amount of income from Britain and the U.S., but when you’re buying only 8 infantry a turn as Germany, it’s like your moving in slow motion or something.  Freaking Russia was going crazy in Europe because I had too little fodder to be aggressive (until recently, that is).

I think I’ll start a thread on NAs, come to think of it.

Nor does it count as a move to “take off” from a carrier to the occupied sea zone.  If the ftr is on a carrier, it can move 3 spaces maximum from the carrier, if it intends to land on the same carrier.  The carrier must then move 2 spaces toward the ftr in the non-combat move, while the ftr returns 1 space to land.  (It’s a lot easier to understand looking at the board.)

Your just not good enough to take America from me Doug…  I keep luring you in and step on your greedy hand…