• Who thinks it would be fair to allow 1 bomber to use a carrier. Fighters could not be on the carrier at the same time. You play with no tech, so US can’t strat bomb japan. It is just to add the potency of bombers to naval combat without needing a near island.


  • well perhaps but only as a balancing NA for USA.

    I guess they just get placed on the CV at the start of the turn and once launched they cannot return and must land somewhere else. That would be realistic.


  • I play with that same rule, but in my version the bomber cannot defend and always goes down with the ship ( they’re considered to slow to take off)


  • Good idea.
    The Doolittle-raid against Tokio have some merit. Now since a fighter unit represent 2000 planes and a bomber unit represent 50 planes, I let 4 bombers land on a carrier, or one fighter and one bomber. Makes the naval campaigns more fun.


  • @Adlertag:

    Good idea.
    The Doolittle-raid against Tokio have some merit. Now since a fighter unit represent 2000 planes and a bomber unit represent 50 planes, I let 4 bombers land on a carrier, or one fighter and one bomber. Makes the naval campaigns more fun.

    if you were taking number of the planes into account, wouldn’t you also have to say that the bombers are bigger?


  • i think that because the bomber can not defend, a fighter should be allowed with the bomber, if the carrier unit represent’s a number of carrier’s, i think that a fleet of bomber’s would be accompanied by fighter’s for defence, that would represent a fleet of carrier’s with 50 bomber’s, and 1000 fighter’s


  • Use Doolittle raid as example.  Bomber to big to fit below deck.  Bomber take up flight deck so Fighter not able to take off or land while Bomber on Aircraft Carrier.  Fighter could be carry while Bomber on carrier, but be cargo since Fighter be below decks.

    Bomber not able to land on Aircraft Carrier.  Bomber load by crane in dock so Bomber would have to load while Aircraft Carrier next to land that have Bomber in it.


  • it could be that there would be some carrier’s that carry bomber’s, and some carrier’s that carry fighter’s, if the fleet of carrier’s is represented by 1 carrier unit, i think that a fighter and a bomber could be placed on a carrier unit,

    i think that a ww2 carrier could carry at least 10-15 bomber’s, the fighter would represent the carrier’s with the fleet that have no bomber’s


  • I think that what I’m going to do is allow bombers to operate off carriers, including landing, but only one can be carried at a time, along with a fighter, and if the carrier goes down, the fighter survives, but not the bomber.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    The Dolittle raid, eh?

    I’ve toyed with the idea myself.  I like IL’s interpretation with a bit of modification:

    Carriers and Bombers would have to be built simultaneously
    Bombers would not be able to defend with the carrier
    Once launched, bombers would not be able to land on the carriers again.


  • 1 bomber per carrier, but can’t “land” on a carrier out at sea.  It must be “loaded” from land onto the carrier in an adjacent sea zone, similar to how fighters can be immediately deployed on to a built carrier.

Suggested Topics

  • 23
  • 13
  • 1
  • 7
  • 9
  • 18
  • 8
  • 18
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

26

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts