Landing planes on carriers during noncombat
-
Planes attacked Philippines, moved carriers down to their sea zone but unable to actually put them on the carriers they go to the sea zone instead. What am I missing with this mechanic?
-
@g40newb Hey. Are you new to TripleA? In that case, welcome.
It's just that the way TripleA handles cargo is lame: there is no representation of fighters being cargo, meaning that they are shown as being in the sea zone on their own even when they are actually cargo, meaning that they'll become cargo as per rules (beside being unable to choose on which carrier) but without this being displayed.
Unfortunately, this is just a problem as old as TripleA which no developer ever addressed (at least successfully).
-
@cernel never realized this was a problem
-
@ubernaut It is a substantial problem almost only when having the option to land on carriers owned by an other player.
I said almost because, for example, there can be marginal cases like having 2 British carriers and 2 British fighters in the same sea zone in which you may want to be able to decide whether to have both fighters on one carrier or one per carrier (and TripleA neither does allow you to decide that nor does let you know where the fighters are), but even cases like this one are related to different ownerships: in this case, to the possibility of having American or Russian fighters landing on one or both of these carriers before the next British turn.
Long story short, this is not a problem only if you have a game in which none of the players each of which has access to carrier units and-or air units able to land on carriers can be in an "allied" relationship with an other such player.
-
-
@cernel gotcha thanks for clarifying
