Thank you for watching Part 2 of 5 as we explain Aircraft Carriers for Axis & Allies! Part 3 is out now. We tackle Transports. What questions do you have about Aircraft Carriers?
Complete newby here. Your videos are really helpful. Quick question though, at 7.49 why couldn’t the American fighter land in West Indies with its 1 move?
I'm glad you've found the videos helpful! Crossing from one sea zone to another is one move, and then crossing from a sea zone to an island is a second move. For the fighter to land on the West Indies, the carrier would have needed to be in the surrounding sea zone. I hope that helps! Thanks for watching!
If everything is happening "at the same time" it makes sense. If you could springboard, then you would be launching the fighters at the end of the turn. This is how I made sense of it in any case.
think about it, the carrier is slow, the planes are fast, it isn't realistic or historic to say the carriers and planes each have their independent movement, in WW2 you couldn't realistically or historically attack India from the West Coast...with your rule change you are saying it would be possible, you would be springboarding units that is not physically possible and preventing Japan from responding to the threat, there is no way realistically that the USA could transport carriers and planes to India from the West Coast and not allow Japan to respond with their carriers!!! It is a poorly thought out rule change that makes NO sense if you are really think about it critically.
you would really have to figure out what the time period is for each move? i guess I am used to PACWAR by Gary Grigsby where each round was 2 weeks long, you couldn't just bypass the rules and change physics and carrier/aircraft capabilities to increase the range of attack or transport of your planes from the USA to India....Japan would see this and have plenty of time to react, changing the rules to allow the USA to move units around like that without any sort of response from Japan is cheating in my view and changes the dynamic of the game....why not just change the game to allow carriers to carry troops as well...I mean it is technically feasible for a WW2 aircraft carriers to carry thousands of troops, why not change the game rules and allow carriers to carry 2 or 3 troops as well? I wouldn't like it because it just sounds stupid to me, carriers are carriers, troop carriers are troop carriers, you spend your production on units with specific abilities, you shouldn't be able to just change the game and say oh well carriers and planes can now move the planes 6 spaces when it isn't realistic based on their real life range capabilities.
This past summer I finally decided to create a different version of the board game Risk, and decided to use a few things from Axis Allies to integrate into Risk, such as Aircraft Carriers. so this video tutorial was helpful in thinking through some of the rules I want to add to my Risk game. One thing we are going to do is allow a player to do a retro-fit of the ship, by paying a fee to the bank to turn an aircraft carrier into a troop transport, and vice-a-versa. the ship would have to remain docked at a naval base for a period of one complete turn, then you can load up to 25 armies and sail anywhere to launch an amphibious assault. sp this tutorial was very helpful
Wow! That's sounds like a lot of fun. I'm glad you found the video helpful. We are working on a couple a videos now that will focus on a few house rules for Axis & Allies. Keep an eye out for those. Thanks for watching! We hope you'll consider subscribing to the channel!
@@BoardGameNation I'm interested to see if sea zones are to be fought over, controlled, convoy zones is a bit of a stretch. Are there ocean and sea spaces...ie.. different movement requirements...are there many boats ?
You might like Axis and Allies Miniatures. It's a hard game to find, but it incorporates some of those concepts and it a lot of fun. Thanks for watching!
hi ! again some fog ... at 2', can't you move your japenese carrier with 2 fighters as a cargo from sea zone 50 to 57 in order to engage a combat : 1 carrier + 2 fighters VS 1 carrier + 2 fighters ? even in the case where fighters would have a friendly territory in the range for retreat or non-combat move ? if no, this means carriers could only attack without any cargo ? in which situation could we find 1 carrier + 2 fighters in an attacking position (there is no example of this in your "one giant example") ? thanks again and a very nice day
Thanks for watching! I think understand your question. Perhaps this would be a better example of something you are NOT allowed to do: _A Carrier with a Fighter in SZ 36 could NOT move to SZ 50 and then launch the Fighter to attack SZ 56. The Fighter would have to start the combat move in SZ 36._ Meaning that leaving SZ 36 for any adjacent territory would count as the first of its four moves. The movement of a Carrier during the Combat Move is unrelated to the Fighter move. However, players must still show that all air unit will have a place to land during the Non-Combat Move phase. That is where the Carriers are likely to do most of their moving. To answer your question more directly, in the example that I offered, yes the Carrier and the two Fighters in SZ 50 could have moved to SZ 57 and attacked, but they would be moving as three separate units rather than as a Carrier with "cargo." During the turn of the player controlling a Carrier, the only "cargo" it could have would be another power's Fighter/s. Otherwise, it is best to think of the Fighters and the Carrier as "in the same sea zone" rather than as "cargo." I hope this helps! Let me know if you have any more questions.
@@BoardGameNation many thanks for answering ! rule is very clear now but i find it not intuitive neither realistic .. fighters spending fuel (movement points) as they are loaded on a moving carrier feels weird but never mind .. maybe in reality carriers can't move with fighters landed on it due to some Coriolis reasons .. design is design and i prefer to respect it :) relieved to hear i can launch a carrier & 2 fighters attack in the given example (SZ 50 to SZ 57) very nice day to you !
I think they are all great, depending on the experience you are after. 1942.2 is good for a slightly faster game, Anniversary if you want a bit more, and if you want the mega experience 1940 is the way to go. Also, 1941 is perfect to teach new players how to play and prepare them for the bigger experience. Thanks for watching!
Something that is really annoying me is that if you have a naval base, your fleet moves +1 but your carrier based fighters do not. This makes zero sense to me and really handicaps the Japanese amphibious assaults that are supported by carriers. Is there anything in the rules to apply the +1 to the carrier based fighters when the fleet is moved with +1 for an amphibious assault? Or am I screwed?
It is correct that a naval base doesn't add +1 to movement of fighters, but a carrier would still only move three spaces with the bonus. So, you would be able to use a fighter to attack a territory three sea zones away and still be able to land the fighter safely. I would say that definitely speeds up the opportunity for amphibious assaults. Or am I misunderstanding your question?
@@BoardGameNation With my current understanding of the rules, fighters get 4 movement points, starting at the Marshall Islands as Japan, you cannot move your fleet to Hawaii and begin an amphibious assault with fighter support..
If the fighters started on the Marshall Islands, that is correct. But, if the fighters were on a carrier in sea zone 32, they could use three moves to get to Hawaii as a combat move and (if it survived) the carrier could move into SZ 26 to give it a place to land. More to your earlier question, you are right that a fighters on a carrier at a naval base doesn't help much with the amphibious assaults on islands three sea zones away. I find the benefit really comes when you have multiple friendly carriers in the area. You can use them to quickly move air units to forward positions, especially if you can land fighters on carriers belonging to another power. They can move them during their turn giving them enormous mobility. The other benefit is the ability to move battleships and cruisers along with transports three SZ to land and perform offshore bombardments. I hope any of that made sense. Have fun!
Is it possible to do am amphibious attack with a submarine and a transport against a defensive aircraft carrier with an airplane? My thought is that if the fighter lands a hit then it must be to the transport due to not being able to hit the sub. Would the Aircraft have to be defeated before the transport can land (eg. The sub hits the carrier in the surprise attack and the fighter does not hit the transport on that turn)? How would it be different if the attacker had multiple subs and defense had a destroyer present? Would the attacker be able to take the first hits from the fighter onto the subs as long as the destroyer is present and then back to the earlier case?
Thanks for watching! That's a lot of questions. Let's see if I can get them all. No, a sub and transport could not perform an amphibious assault in a sea zone with a carrier and fighter in it. Even if the sub hit and killed the carrier, the fighter is still in the zone (making it hostile) until the non-combat phase. It would be the same if the attacker had multiple subs and if the defender had a Destroyer for the same reason. I hope that helps. Let me know if I missed anything! Thanks again for watching!
You said that airplanes can land in friendly aircraft carries and it got me thinking can you move land units into friendly territories say move units of USA into Britain or say Canadá? And can airplanes do the same?
@@BoardGameNation I wonder why A&A Online didn't consider the rule of plane landing on friendly carriers. It sure changes the game, but even with that, online A&A is really worth it....I learned a lot playing there!
That's a good question. I think it may have been a way to balance the game a bit more. Allowing fighters to land on friendly carriers can really speed up the Allies movement towards Berlin. The Axis rarely uses this ability. It does make a noticeable difference in the game, but I think it gives the Axis boost. It might be one of the reasons that the Axis wins 55% of the time. :)
you would then be artifically increasing the range of the planes....which wouldn't make sense historically or realistically....I mean all combat you have to figure is taking place almost simultaneously, the carriers being slow as hell compared to the planes should not be extending their range, and like in the games rules are only designed as a safe place to land when no safe land is nearby on the ocean.
@@jamesw71 Admittedly this would be for a higher resolution game board, I've been working on that, with ships moving 4 instead of 2 and the dark blue seas take 2 movement to enter, these are mostly all below the equator, light blue seas take just 1 movement to enter. My south pole is in the center of this flat earth map.
@@jamesw71 i would point out that planes are allowed to be "picked up" by a carrier in the noncombat phase so no its not increasing the range of the plane because it was factored in at the time that it was possible to land anyways. so the only thing that moving the carrier does first is performing a step earlier than technically it was supposed to
3:20 you shouldn't have those planes on the carriers, kind of confuses new players. The planes are actually on the sea zone and can never be legally carried on the carrier, they have to make their own movement and be able to legally land, so you can move the carrier without moving the planes but the planes have to move on their noncombat phase to somewhere safe....they technically are never ON the carrier but are in the sea zone where the carrier is located.
from your video you made it sound like you could move the carrier with the planes on it and they couldn't attack...this is not true...because otherwise you would be setting up noncombat phase for those same planes to then fly 4 spaces basically increasing their movement speed from 4 to 6 (2 from the carrier move and 4 from the planes noncombat move) All units move independently with the planes being allowed to stop in a sea zone that has a carrier (2 per carrier) but then also having to find a safe place to land after battle, so you can't send 3 planes to a sea zone that only has 1 carrier, if at least one of the planes doesn't already have enough movement points to safely land somewhere else if the carrier is destroyed.
Thank you for watching and for your comments. I think we might have our wires crossed a little bit. At 3:20 in the video, we are talking about the role of friendly fighters on a carrier, rather than fighters belonging to the owner of the carrier. The 1942.2 rulebook: _Carry Fighters_ : An aircraft carrier can carry up to two fighters, including those belonging to friendly powers. Fighters from friendly powers can take off and land from your carriers, but only during that power’s turn. Any fighters belonging to the aircraft carrier owner move independently of the carrier. These fighters can make a combat move from the carrier’s original sea zone, or they can remain in the original sea zone until the Noncombat Move phase. *Fighters belonging to friendly powers on attacking carriers are always treated as cargo, because it is not their turn.* Your aircraft carrier can move to or remain in a sea zone where one of your fighters will end its noncombat move (and in fact, it must do so if it is able). So, you are absolutely right that fighters belonging to the owner of the carrier move independently and the fighter's max movement is always only 4 per turn (which I tried to make clear at 2:02). However, in the section of the video you mentioned, we are talking about friendly fighters on a carrier and when it is the owner of the carrier's turn, the onboard friendly fighter is only cargo and will move with or face the same fate of the host carrier. I hope this helps! Let me know if you have any more questions. Thanks for watching!
Thanks for watching! Good question! Sadly, no. You can only spawn new Fighter on to your own Carrier. This ability does not extend to friendly carriers. So, in your scenario the UK would need a Carrier of it's own to spawn the Fighter in a sea zone.
@@BoardGameNation really I knever read that in the rules, always thought it just had to be an allied aircraft carrier. Do you have game version and page number for that rule which states it has to be your own carrier?
@@BoardGameNation thanks! Also are the rest of the sea combat rules the same? (I know that the costs and attack/defens values are different, and that there are no cruisers) :)
Yes, in 1942.2 carriers can attack, but it isn't typically a good idea because they only attack at a 1. Typically, you will see this if the player has maxed out the movement for fighter to get them to the battle. As for Europe/Pacific 1940, you are correct. Carriers don't have an attack value, but they do defend at a 2 and take two hits to sink. In 1942.2, Carriers sink with one hit, but can engage in an attack. Honestly, I like the rule for 1940 better, but it requires including Naval Ports for repair. So, I get the trade off. Thanks for watching! We hope you will consider subscribing. :)
@@BoardGameNation I already subscribed :) I like your videos a lot! I became A&A Europe 1940 for Christmas and already played it 2 times, both games took about 10 hours and it was very intense ;)
@@schmutza_5426 - I like 1904 Europe/Pacific. I have played them separately and together a few times and they are a lot of fun, but man ... they take a long time to play. I prefer 1942.2 or Anniversary Edition. You get a similar game feel without giving up an entire weekend. Thanks for subscribing! What other types of videos would you like to see?
Thank you for watching Part 2 of 5 as we explain Aircraft Carriers for Axis & Allies! Part 3 is out now. We tackle Transports.
What questions do you have about Aircraft Carriers?
Great series!
Thanks! I'm glad you enjoyed it. What other types of content would you be interested in?
Great video series. Thank you.
We are glad you are enjoying. Thanks for watching and for subscribing!
What other videos could we make that would be helpful?
I love this channel!!!!!
Thanks for watching!
What else would you like to see?
@@BoardGameNation still exploring all the goodness in your channel, and will let you know!
I appreciate that. Let me know if you have any questions along the way.
Thanks again for watching!
Complete newby here. Your videos are really helpful. Quick question though, at 7.49 why couldn’t the American fighter land in West Indies with its 1 move?
I'm glad you've found the videos helpful!
Crossing from one sea zone to another is one move, and then crossing from a sea zone to an island is a second move. For the fighter to land on the West Indies, the carrier would have needed to be in the surrounding sea zone.
I hope that helps! Thanks for watching!
Random Question: Do you think Beamdog will ever bring in rule variants like the old school Weapons Development?
That would be fun, but probably not. Beamdog got sold a couple of years ago and they haven't been doing much with A&A since.
Thanks for watching!
I never knew why you can't "spring board" planes to extend their range. The carrier has fuel, the planes have fuel. I mean c'mon! lol
Good news. If you are playing the tabletop version and all the players at the table agree, you can play the game how ever you'd like! Have fun! :)
If everything is happening "at the same time" it makes sense. If you could springboard, then you would be launching the fighters at the end of the turn. This is how I made sense of it in any case.
Also that. 😀
think about it, the carrier is slow, the planes are fast, it isn't realistic or historic to say the carriers and planes each have their independent movement, in WW2 you couldn't realistically or historically attack India from the West Coast...with your rule change you are saying it would be possible, you would be springboarding units that is not physically possible and preventing Japan from responding to the threat, there is no way realistically that the USA could transport carriers and planes to India from the West Coast and not allow Japan to respond with their carriers!!! It is a poorly thought out rule change that makes NO sense if you are really think about it critically.
you would really have to figure out what the time period is for each move? i guess I am used to PACWAR by Gary Grigsby where each round was 2 weeks long, you couldn't just bypass the rules and change physics and carrier/aircraft capabilities to increase the range of attack or transport of your planes from the USA to India....Japan would see this and have plenty of time to react, changing the rules to allow the USA to move units around like that without any sort of response from Japan is cheating in my view and changes the dynamic of the game....why not just change the game to allow carriers to carry troops as well...I mean it is technically feasible for a WW2 aircraft carriers to carry thousands of troops, why not change the game rules and allow carriers to carry 2 or 3 troops as well? I wouldn't like it because it just sounds stupid to me, carriers are carriers, troop carriers are troop carriers, you spend your production on units with specific abilities, you shouldn't be able to just change the game and say oh well carriers and planes can now move the planes 6 spaces when it isn't realistic based on their real life range capabilities.
This past summer I finally decided to create a different version of the board game Risk, and decided to use a few things from Axis Allies to integrate into Risk, such as Aircraft Carriers. so this video tutorial was helpful in thinking through some of the rules I want to add to my Risk game. One thing we are going to do is allow a player to do a retro-fit of the ship, by paying a fee to the bank to turn an aircraft carrier into a troop transport, and vice-a-versa. the ship would have to remain docked at a naval base for a period of one complete turn, then you can load up to 25 armies and sail anywhere to launch an amphibious assault. sp this tutorial was very helpful
Wow! That's sounds like a lot of fun.
I'm glad you found the video helpful. We are working on a couple a videos now that will focus on a few house rules for Axis & Allies. Keep an eye out for those.
Thanks for watching! We hope you'll consider subscribing to the channel!
I'd like to see the sea zones, I always felt like it could be more like than it is
How do you mean? What would you like to see?
@@BoardGameNation I'm interested to see if sea zones are to be fought over, controlled, convoy zones is a bit of a stretch. Are there ocean and sea spaces...ie.. different movement requirements...are there many boats ?
You might like Axis and Allies Miniatures. It's a hard game to find, but it incorporates some of those concepts and it a lot of fun.
Thanks for watching!
hi !
again some fog ...
at 2', can't you move your japenese carrier with 2 fighters as a cargo from sea zone 50 to 57 in order to engage a combat :
1 carrier + 2 fighters VS 1 carrier + 2 fighters ?
even in the case where fighters would have a friendly territory in the range for retreat or non-combat move ?
if no, this means carriers could only attack without any cargo ?
in which situation could we find 1 carrier + 2 fighters in an attacking position (there is no example of this in your "one giant example") ?
thanks again and a very nice day
Thanks for watching!
I think understand your question. Perhaps this would be a better example of something you are NOT allowed to do:
_A Carrier with a Fighter in SZ 36 could NOT move to SZ 50 and then launch the Fighter to attack SZ 56. The Fighter would have to start the combat move in SZ 36._
Meaning that leaving SZ 36 for any adjacent territory would count as the first of its four moves.
The movement of a Carrier during the Combat Move is unrelated to the Fighter move. However, players must still show that all air unit will have a place to land during the Non-Combat Move phase. That is where the Carriers are likely to do most of their moving.
To answer your question more directly, in the example that I offered, yes the Carrier and the two Fighters in SZ 50 could have moved to SZ 57 and attacked, but they would be moving as three separate units rather than as a Carrier with "cargo."
During the turn of the player controlling a Carrier, the only "cargo" it could have would be another power's Fighter/s. Otherwise, it is best to think of the Fighters and the Carrier as "in the same sea zone" rather than as "cargo."
I hope this helps! Let me know if you have any more questions.
@@BoardGameNation many thanks for answering !
rule is very clear now but i find it not intuitive neither realistic .. fighters spending fuel (movement points) as they are loaded on a moving carrier feels weird but never mind ..
maybe in reality carriers can't move with fighters landed on it due to some Coriolis reasons ..
design is design and i prefer to respect it :)
relieved to hear i can launch a carrier & 2 fighters attack in the given example (SZ 50 to SZ 57)
very nice day to you !
Happy to help! Let me know if you have any more questions.
Thanks again for watching!
In your opinion, is 1942 SE the best A&A version? If yes, why? I have only played Revised.
I think they are all great, depending on the experience you are after. 1942.2 is good for a slightly faster game, Anniversary if you want a bit more, and if you want the mega experience 1940 is the way to go. Also, 1941 is perfect to teach new players how to play and prepare them for the bigger experience.
Thanks for watching!
Something that is really annoying me is that if you have a naval base, your fleet moves +1 but your carrier based fighters do not. This makes zero sense to me and really handicaps the Japanese amphibious assaults that are supported by carriers.
Is there anything in the rules to apply the +1 to the carrier based fighters when the fleet is moved with +1 for an amphibious assault? Or am I screwed?
It is correct that a naval base doesn't add +1 to movement of fighters, but a carrier would still only move three spaces with the bonus. So, you would be able to use a fighter to attack a territory three sea zones away and still be able to land the fighter safely. I would say that definitely speeds up the opportunity for amphibious assaults. Or am I misunderstanding your question?
@@BoardGameNation With my current understanding of the rules, fighters get 4 movement points, starting at the Marshall Islands as Japan, you cannot move your fleet to Hawaii and begin an amphibious assault with fighter support..
If the fighters started on the Marshall Islands, that is correct. But, if the fighters were on a carrier in sea zone 32, they could use three moves to get to Hawaii as a combat move and (if it survived) the carrier could move into SZ 26 to give it a place to land.
More to your earlier question, you are right that a fighters on a carrier at a naval base doesn't help much with the amphibious assaults on islands three sea zones away. I find the benefit really comes when you have multiple friendly carriers in the area. You can use them to quickly move air units to forward positions, especially if you can land fighters on carriers belonging to another power. They can move them during their turn giving them enormous mobility.
The other benefit is the ability to move battleships and cruisers along with transports three SZ to land and perform offshore bombardments.
I hope any of that made sense. Have fun!
Is it possible to do am amphibious attack with a submarine and a transport against a defensive aircraft carrier with an airplane?
My thought is that if the fighter lands a hit then it must be to the transport due to not being able to hit the sub.
Would the Aircraft have to be defeated before the transport can land (eg. The sub hits the carrier in the surprise attack and the fighter does not hit the transport on that turn)?
How would it be different if the attacker had multiple subs and defense had a destroyer present? Would the attacker be able to take the first hits from the fighter onto the subs as long as the destroyer is present and then back to the earlier case?
Thanks for watching! That's a lot of questions. Let's see if I can get them all.
No, a sub and transport could not perform an amphibious assault in a sea zone with a carrier and fighter in it. Even if the sub hit and killed the carrier, the fighter is still in the zone (making it hostile) until the non-combat phase.
It would be the same if the attacker had multiple subs and if the defender had a Destroyer for the same reason.
I hope that helps. Let me know if I missed anything! Thanks again for watching!
You said that airplanes can land in friendly aircraft carries and it got me thinking can you move land units into friendly territories say move units of USA into Britain or say Canadá? And can airplanes do the same?
Absolutely! It is one of the best Allied tactics!
@@BoardGameNation what happens if they are attacked who controls which damage goes to what
The defending players discuss it and decide as a team. If they can't agree, the attacker decides. :)
@@BoardGameNation thx
No problem! Let me know if you have any more questions.
Thanks for watching!
Can a US factory in Norway build a fighter "offshore" and on an empty English aircraft carrier?
Gold star question! 🌟
No. A fighter can only mobilize on a carrier of the same power.
Thanks for the question and for watching!
very good
Thanks for watching!
@@BoardGameNation I wonder why A&A Online didn't consider the rule of plane landing on friendly carriers. It sure changes the game, but even with that, online A&A is really worth it....I learned a lot playing there!
That's a good question. I think it may have been a way to balance the game a bit more. Allowing fighters to land on friendly carriers can really speed up the Allies movement towards Berlin. The Axis rarely uses this ability.
It does make a noticeable difference in the game, but I think it gives the Axis boost. It might be one of the reasons that the Axis wins 55% of the time. :)
@@BoardGameNation interesting your point of view! Thanks
Aircraft carriers are the Queen's of the sea, I feel the carrier should be allowed full movement before launching it's aircraft to attack.
If everyone that is playing agrees with you, go for it!
Thanks for watching!
you would then be artifically increasing the range of the planes....which wouldn't make sense historically or realistically....I mean all combat you have to figure is taking place almost simultaneously, the carriers being slow as hell compared to the planes should not be extending their range, and like in the games rules are only designed as a safe place to land when no safe land is nearby on the ocean.
@@jamesw71 Admittedly this would be for a higher resolution game board, I've been working on that, with ships moving 4 instead of 2 and the dark blue seas take 2 movement to enter, these are mostly all below the equator, light blue seas take just 1 movement to enter. My south pole is in the center of this flat earth map.
@@jamesw71 i would point out that planes are allowed to be "picked up" by a carrier in the noncombat phase so no its not increasing the range of the plane because it was factored in at the time that it was possible to land anyways. so the only thing that moving the carrier does first is performing a step earlier than technically it was supposed to
3:20 you shouldn't have those planes on the carriers, kind of confuses new players. The planes are actually on the sea zone and can never be legally carried on the carrier, they have to make their own movement and be able to legally land, so you can move the carrier without moving the planes but the planes have to move on their noncombat phase to somewhere safe....they technically are never ON the carrier but are in the sea zone where the carrier is located.
from your video you made it sound like you could move the carrier with the planes on it and they couldn't attack...this is not true...because otherwise you would be setting up noncombat phase for those same planes to then fly 4 spaces basically increasing their movement speed from 4 to 6 (2 from the carrier move and 4 from the planes noncombat move) All units move independently with the planes being allowed to stop in a sea zone that has a carrier (2 per carrier) but then also having to find a safe place to land after battle, so you can't send 3 planes to a sea zone that only has 1 carrier, if at least one of the planes doesn't already have enough movement points to safely land somewhere else if the carrier is destroyed.
Thank you for watching and for your comments. I think we might have our wires crossed a little bit. At 3:20 in the video, we are talking about the role of friendly fighters on a carrier, rather than fighters belonging to the owner of the carrier.
The 1942.2 rulebook:
_Carry Fighters_ : An aircraft carrier can carry up to two fighters, including those belonging to friendly powers. Fighters from friendly powers can take off and land from your carriers, but only during that power’s turn. Any fighters belonging to the
aircraft carrier owner move independently of the carrier. These fighters can make a combat move from the carrier’s original sea zone, or they can remain in the original sea zone until the Noncombat Move phase. *Fighters belonging to friendly powers on attacking carriers are always treated as cargo, because it is not their turn.* Your aircraft carrier can move to or remain in a sea zone where one of your fighters will end its noncombat move (and in fact, it must do so if it is able).
So, you are absolutely right that fighters belonging to the owner of the carrier move independently and the fighter's max movement is always only 4 per turn (which I tried to make clear at 2:02). However, in the section of the video you mentioned, we are talking about friendly fighters on a carrier and when it is the owner of the carrier's turn, the onboard friendly fighter is only cargo and will move with or face the same fate of the host carrier.
I hope this helps! Let me know if you have any more questions.
Thanks for watching!
If there is a US carrier next to England, and the English player builds a new fighter, can it spawn on the US carrier next to its industrial complex?
Thanks for watching! Good question!
Sadly, no. You can only spawn new Fighter on to your own Carrier. This ability does not extend to friendly carriers. So, in your scenario the UK would need a Carrier of it's own to spawn the Fighter in a sea zone.
@@BoardGameNation Thanks!
No problem!
@@BoardGameNation really I knever read that in the rules, always thought it just had to be an allied aircraft carrier. Do you have game version and page number for that rule which states it has to be your own carrier?
are these rules also true for Revised?
The movement and mobilization rules are the same, but carriers cost 16, attack at a 1, and defend at a 3.
Hope this helps! Thanks for watching!
@@BoardGameNation thanks! Also are the rest of the sea combat rules the same? (I know that the costs and attack/defens values are different, and that there are no cruisers) :)
I don't have the rulebook in front of me anymore, but as far as I know, they are the same.
@@BoardGameNation thanks! Will use this next time we play :) the rulebook doesn’t explain everything
Aircraft carriers can attack? In Europe 1940 they cannot attack I guess
I mean an aircraft carrier alone without planes
Yes, in 1942.2 carriers can attack, but it isn't typically a good idea because they only attack at a 1. Typically, you will see this if the player has maxed out the movement for fighter to get them to the battle.
As for Europe/Pacific 1940, you are correct. Carriers don't have an attack value, but they do defend at a 2 and take two hits to sink. In 1942.2, Carriers sink with one hit, but can engage in an attack. Honestly, I like the rule for 1940 better, but it requires including Naval Ports for repair. So, I get the trade off.
Thanks for watching! We hope you will consider subscribing. :)
@@BoardGameNation I already subscribed :) I like your videos a lot! I became A&A Europe 1940 for Christmas and already played it 2 times, both games took about 10 hours and it was very intense ;)
@@schmutza_5426 - I like 1904 Europe/Pacific. I have played them separately and together a few times and they are a lot of fun, but man ... they take a long time to play. I prefer 1942.2 or Anniversary Edition. You get a similar game feel without giving up an entire weekend.
Thanks for subscribing! What other types of videos would you like to see?
Man the fighters average great union.
I have argued that they are the most valuable and powerful unit in the game. Thanks for watching!