Do you each write down your attack/withdraw perogative on paper and show it at the same time… I mean, how ELSE could you do it simultaneously?
That’s about the only way I can think of. As TimTheEnchanter pointed out, this is an ambiguity in the rules. There is no FAQ entry, and as far as I know no “official” ruling on this, and that’s why I answered the way I did. My personal inclination would be to follow the “natural” order of things and let the attacker decide first, as in LHTR. If anyone cares enough, I can ask Larry Harris, though I suspect his answer would agree with LHTR (for obvious reasons). Just one more reason to use LHTR rather than the OOB rules.
The movement points of an aircraft are TOTAL movement. They must take off AND land within the alloted total movement points.
So in your example, a FIG could non-combat move to land in Land 2, but could not attack it because it takes 4 points to get there, the FIG has to be able to land, and you cannot land in newly captured territory.
1) Any one territory of your choice (that doesn’t already have one, of course). It works like any other IC.
2) Your sub must either fight or move away in combat movement.
3) His ships must either fight or move away in combat movement.
4) No, nor after being offloaded.
5). Fighters launch before their carrier moves, so they both begin their movement in the same sea zone. Likewise, fighters land after their carrier moves, so they must both end their movement in the same sea zone.
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.