@Phelan-Kell said in Submarine Surprise Strike and Carrier:

@SteveO You don’t understand how a previously damaged carrier should not have planes on it? I’m think the rule about stranded planes finding an alternate landing spot is covered in Pacific rules p21, Europe p22.

I’m not really sure what you even are trying to say here and I think honestly, confusing the issue.

The original question was merely missing the point that during the conduct combat phase, an attacking submarine performing a surprise strike against a defending Carrier “carrying” a fighter does not also destroy that fighter. That fighter is not “on board” the carrier, they are considered in the air… defending.

Sure, if the Carrier is lost after combat is resolved, that fighter may then also be lost due to being stranded, but that wasn’t the original question was it.

Oh yes I didn’t notice this was in respect to Global 1940, so both the BB and CV have two hit points and a sub would need to hit a Carrier twice to of course remove it from the board.

However, I don’t understand your comment “no aircraft aboard”… there isn’t ever a situation where aircraft are “aboard” a carrier in combat… saying this gives the impression a Carrier can’t be lost with planes on board which is not true. The Carrier and planes are seperate entites once combat has begun, they are only “onboard” the carrier when landing in the non-combat move/air units land phase of the game turn.

I’ll chip in a little here myself

Look at it in this way:
As soon as this battle begins, the fighter scrambles and is in the sea zone along with all the other ships. You represent this in the game by putting all the pieces on the battle board. From this point on the fighter isn’t “on the carrier”.

Also, why is the carrier lost due to the surprise strike? You could take this on the Battleship instead. The surprise strike is like a series of rolls (subs roll surprise attack & defend) that happens before the other normal units, but only when their special power is not negated by an enemy destroyer of course, and so the defending Battleship could take the hit before the loss of the carrier (as long as it still has it’s 2 hit points).

It gets interesting in the subsequent combat waves. The surprise attacks still continue each and every ‘wave’ (attack roll, defend roll) and so that sub could cause a big loss for the defender, if the Battleship is damaged and the sea group is positioned away from a landing zone for the fighter. Lose the carrier, meaning the plane is lost regardless of the outcome, or lose the Battleship and the roll of 4, to have a chance at keeping the carrier (and hopefully the fighter to put back on it!). I love this mechanic in the game, subs are cheap and are hopeless on defense but a well placed torpedo can decimate a naval group.

As for the fighter, it still rolls on defence as it always would. It just cannot hit a submarine unless there is a friendly destroyer present. It can roll defensive rolls to hit the attacking surface ships, and at the end of the battle it has a movement of 1 (Can land in the sea on the carrier, or move 1 to a friendly territory to land.)

So happy to finally get the clarification on this. It’s been bugging me. As usual, it’s in the rulebook somewhere, just needed to find it!

Experienced 1942 AA player… still getting used to Europe nuances.

Can someone explain the: “2 IPCs per territory if Germany controls Iraq, Persia, and/or Northwest Persia.” NO rule… my game partner and I settled on you needing to have Iraq, and then one of the other two for a minimum of 4 IPC, up to 6 bonus. Of course one argument is that it is simply 2 IPCs each?

Similarly for the NO rule:
5 IPCs per territory if Germany controls Novgorod (Leningrad), Volgograd (Stalingrad), and/or Russia (Moscow). Do you require Novgorod for any bonus?

We’re also still a little confused if Germany can transport into Finland in non-com from SZ 115 in turn 1, when the Ruskies still have their ships there even if there is no declaration of war against USSR?

Thanks,
Axis fans in Australia

Im in Melbourne and I am a 1942 player…
Definitely let me know if you are still looking for games.

Steven

Read the rules of general combat very carefully.

Remember also, “As many hits as possible must be assigned”. (General Combat, Step 3). It clarifies here as well with an example that submarines cannot hit air.
This essentially answers a lot of questions for you… if you had destroyers and submarines firing you’d want to seperate these out because it may be a case that the submarines score hits against a mixed force including air and you will need to know exactly what hits assign to what, according to sub/air rules.

The presence of the destroyer takes effect at the start of the rolls… so if a destroyer disappears, submarines special abilities that would otherwise be cancelled kick in.
This is always interesting when the carrier or battleship is the last surface ship… so it could end up being a costly casualty if the opponent has still got a surprise strike up his sleeve.
I think this adds a lot ot the gameplay, as there are often very tough decisions to make

Again this is all clarified in the general combat rules. Just read them carefully.

@taamvan:

This rule is incredibly cheezy, since it violates the turn order.   However, it seems to be intended to address the problem of defending newly built ships/fleets at sea which has been a constant problem since the 1984 edition.

I don’t really feel it violates the turn order massively. If you consider the NCM as the phase fighters carryout their remaining movement, as opposed to landing, then the fighters are simply returning to their landing spot in the NCM.

@taamvan:

“With only a few drops of fuel left after the raid, Honzo piloted his shining Kate onto towards the Kure Naval Yard, and just as the last few planks of teak decking were laid on Zuikaku and she was being pushed out of the drydock, he made a spectacular landing into the wind, taxing past the cheering shipyard workers.”

Is this an actual real world event? 

Hi Axis & Allies fans…

I had an idea for my games with my friend, to add a unit purchase option, the “Escort Carrier”.
As you will all probably know, merchant vessels were modified to become light carriers.
Poorly defended and slow, the carriers could also only hold a limited number of fighters.

I was thinking to add a escort carrier as an option to purchase in the game, when you haven’t got enough left for a full size carrier!

Specifics:
IPCs: 8 - 11 IPCs, not sure. Looking for comments on what you think here.
Carry one plane only.
Attack value: 0
Defense value: 0 or 1.

Thoughts?

Steve

Flying the fighter to the US Carrier? Ooh, never actually considered that.

Although, I think no matter what you do, you must kill the defenseless Japanese transport, slowing their onslaught into Asia.
I tried Borneo, but in all honesty, the UK can’t hold it, so is it going to work in the long term?

I am thinking about this for my next game…

• Amphibious assault into French Indo-China with 3 infantry & fighter & cruiser bombard.
• Carrier destroys transport.
• Fighter lands in China, optionally with the one from Russia for 2 infantry & 3 fighter defense.
• US factory in Sianking.

In our games, we are in a trend where the US builds a factory in Sianking with Russian (two inf.) support, which is making the games more even as it stops the Japanese steamroll to Moscow.
I am sure three planes in China will be taken as a sure sign of a US factory in Sianking.
Even if the amphibious fails, wiping out the French-Indo infantry leaves Japan with 2 fewer men to attack China. Manchuria needs some defense from the Russians, and they need something to attack French-Indo, if the attack was successful.

Japan may retaliate with an all-in to China, which is 1 Bomber, 4 Fighters, but assuming at least one man is left behind for Manchuria, only 4 infantry going in.
With three fighters (one US, one Russian, one UK) the Japanese may take enough losses so that it: a) cannot not take China, b) take with one or two men.

It then would have very few if any men actually on the land territories of Asia, and Russian, English and American troops able to challenge the three 3 IPC territories.
Japan may even hold off on a factory purchase if it thinks it may lose the factory?

In any case, this is taking a lot of attention away from attacking the US, and any attempt to do so would result in an even stronger hold of China.
The US can observe what Japan does, and possibly even hold China for a 2nd factory there, if things go horribly on the Japanese open.