Why is Taranto raid so popular?

[taamvan]

@Caesar-Seriona In the case you do poorly, you still shot down Axis air.

In the case you did well and there is still a UK AC with planes on it, then they have to sacrifice the rest of their air to kill it

If you did OK, there is usually a stack of planes that land on syria, or scatter to malta and points all over the eastern med but in either of those two latter scenarios, Italy has too many things to do on I1 to accomplish them all safely.

[weddingsinger]

I’m a believer in a UK scramble out of London on G1, if it will kill 3+ German planes.

Taranto can include the bomber from London and the fighter from Scotland.

Benefits: the goal is to kill 2/3 of Italy’s fleet (along with destroyer/transport at Malta).

Best case scenario: It costs italy/Germany both ships and lots of planes and UK still has 1 fighter, 1 tactical, 1 bomber left, possibly a ship or 2.
Worst case: Italy/Germany scrambles 3, the dice go poorly, but you still win but only have a bomber left.

If you do this (Taranto and scramble sz 110) U.S. buy will be 100% Atlantic for US 1-3. Though I believe it should be no matter what.

I’m a believer in any strategy that costs the Axis both their opportunities (Italy with no transports has few opportunities) AND costs the Axis their planes, especially early when the effects will linger through out the game for longer.

Also, if you’re able to get rid of Germany and Italy’s navies their only threats to US/UK naval power is their planes. If you ALSO killed half their planes on G1/UK1, they are both weaker attacks against your navy, meaning buying fewer carriers, for instance, but also they have to make a choice whether those planes should be over in Russia or back home in Germany.

If you’re really lucky, Italy will keep buying ships for UK to sink instead of helping against Russia, and Germany will have to spend a fortune replacing planes or just not have any to harass you on the Atlantic side.

Often, after Taranto, UK can keep Italy in check with existing units once they’ve gathered at Cairo, and a little help on the Atlantic side from the U.S. to reach Gibraltor/Morroco.

[Caesar-Seriona]

Yeah the problem is that I don’t like to spend cost against Axis strategic resources if the end game is for Germany to rush to Moscow which 9/10, that’s going to be the plan. I’ve already spent too many games as UK liberating France and having a Dunkirk 2.0 in the hopes of stopping Germany from going one more territory east.

[taamvan]

@Caesar-Seriona At least what dave does is keep all the US forces together without wasting even 1-2 guys on taking any of continential Europe—he takes Norway, builds a US factory there, takes Finland, builds a factory there, and then goes-back and forth liberating Karelia “over the top” with UK and US so that the Germans may at that point have Moscow but there is a huge wilburforce of UK stuff coming up from the south (and retaking those factories as UK while having 2 of UK’s own over there in Iraq and Persia).

That’s really the only KGF that works reliably, other plans like kill Italy or retake France seem to play into Germany’s strengths and especially after Moscow falls it gets a second huge burst of money it can use to stymy the Western Alliance.

[Caesar-Seriona]

@taamvan Sure but I wish I could of saved the game where I can show you an insane battle of France being liberated with US and Italy/Germany trading Rome with UK playing middle earth and Greece has a minor with US control on top of 80% of German units next to Moscow. The point is that Taranto works when it works but it can fail easy even if you want to chew up Axis aircraft.

[JDOW]

Taranto is a viable option, but any odds below 90% are a bad idea. UK ships are more precious than Italian ships, IF UK wants to make an attack at the Italian fleet, it should be highly profitable for UK. Even trades between Italian fleet/planes vs UK are good for the Axis.

Also, the decision to make Taranto or not also depends on what Germany bought on G1 and how it went. I recently tend to keep my fleet in the game and prefer the sz92 move with a Gib AB but I might play Taranto again, soon.
The trade-off is: Taranto shuts down Italy quicker, sz92 stack keeps more UK planes on the board and allows the Allies to maintain a position in 110 (which is crucial) quicker.

[Aaron_the_Warmonger]

Does anyone have a count of what the typical SZ92 stack count consists of at the EoT1 if you don’t do Taranto?

[weddingsinger]

@Aaron_the_Warmonger

It can and maybe should include

1 UK dd from sz 109
1 UK cruiser from sz 91
1 UK carrier and cruiser from sz 98
And either 4 fighters and a tactical or 5 fighters split between Gibraltor and the carrier

My issue with the stack is IF Germany takes S. France then Italy can attack with
1 BB
2 cruisers
1 DD
1 sub
1 bomber
2 fighters

This is not a win for Italy except that it can usually wipe out UK’s fleet and some planes but gets to keep an extra transport in the deal.

[weddingsinger]

@JDOW

I’m inclined to say I disagree with you about the UK ships being more precious.

The UK’s ships are incredibly useful BUT not necessarily required for creating opportunities. Italy’s ships are desperately needed in order for them to expand. Thus, if you’re able to trade the UK’s fleet for Italy’s the net result is a push for UK and Italy, but Italy only makes 10-15 ipcs and stays there. The UK can continue to expand into the middle east or piggy back the U.S. fleet in the Atlantic.

Taranto leaves Italy 1 transport and few warships vs the 92stack leaves Italy 2 transports and most of its fleet.

[JDOW]

@weddingsinger said in Why is Taranto raid so popular?:

@JDOW

I’m inclined to say I disagree with you about the UK ships being more precious.

The UK’s ships are incredibly useful BUT not necessarily required for creating opportunities. Italy’s ships are desperately needed in order for them to expand. Thus, if you’re able to trade the UK’s fleet for Italy’s the net result is a push for UK and Italy, but Italy only makes 10-15 ipcs and stays there. The UK can continue to expand into the middle east or piggy back the U.S. fleet in the Atlantic.

Taranto leaves Italy 1 transport and few warships vs the 92stack leaves Italy 2 transports and most of its fleet.

I think what you describe is one of the key reasons, why many people struggle with the Allies: Too much focus on the med and middle East and not showing enough dedication to establish a strong position in 110, EARLY!
And as said, Taranto is an ok option but it should certainly not be made at 70% odds, risking to lost and to allow Italy to absorb a hit for free with the BB that repairs automatically.

However, IF someone wants to show dedication to remove any Italian influence in the med, there are more efficient ways to blow the Italian fleet away entirely. Italy can’t do anything in case UK is focusing on crushing the Italian fleet.
Axis might try to prevent this but it would require German support with eg airbases or fighter to equip Italian carriers. Things Germans usually don’t want to do as it distracts from the real and only enemy in the first 6 turns, which is Russia.

However, focusing on the med too much always comes with the price to relieve Germans from pressure on Normandy and Norway which is very good for them.

One key in successful Allied strategy is to establish a position in 110 BEFORE the Germans manage to push the Russians off Bryansk. This is the squeeze, Germans must face: Either pushing Russians back and sending the planes in range of Bry or risk the Allies to establish a beachhead in Normandy or Norway.

So in the end, Taranto or not, Allies need fleet AND Air, AND transports in order to establish a position in 110. If they lose too many ships and planes due to Taranto, the mission is harder.

Additionally: The 92 move requires some experience in the balancing act to not lose Egypt early. Losing Egypt carelessly is a nail in the coffin for the Allies.
So there is certainly a downside and UK needs to be aware of a couple of details. I would go too far to explore them all but there are plenty of nuances in G1, and J1 and UK1 that affect how good or less good Taranto or stacking 92 is.

[JDOW]

Why btw don’t we have a cool name for the “stacking 92 with airbase Gib” UK1 as we have for the attack in 97? :-)

Any suggestions?

[taamvan]

@JDOW

Rock of Gibraltar

[JDOW]

@taamvan good idea but I think “rock of Gibraltar” does not flow well.

How about “Gib defense” or how about: “I played a “Gib 92” in UK1 :-)”

[taamvan]

@JDOW Then how about “I rocked Gibraltar” lol

A defensive stack isn’t as exciting as a battle. The technical terms are Bastion or Fleet-in-Being so maybe we can riff off that…Britty Bastion?

[JDOW]

You are right about an attack vs a defensive move. but “bastion” is great

So we are coming close. I would now prefer “Gib(raltar) Bastion”

[aequitas-et-veritas]

“UK1 92 stack” is what i think could anybody understand what is meant by that.

I did a UK1 92.
Oh ya, i know what you mean…

[simon33]

@Wizard said in Why is Taranto raid so popular?:

@barnee followup question: why is taranto raid so popular? What are the pros and cons?

Ok, a few points, first one being it’s not that popular any more.

@weddingsinger said in Why is Taranto raid so popular?:

I’m a believer in a UK scramble out of London on G1, if it will kill 3+ German planes.

Agreed.

@weddingsinger said in Why is Taranto raid so popular?:

Taranto can include the bomber from London and the fighter from Scotland.

Which gives odds of 82%, 4% draw, 14% loss. That loss is really devastating. Even failing to kill the Italian transport (draw) is bad.

Also, you’re only leaving the SZ91 cruiser and Gibraltar fighter for SZ96, which is 96%. These odds sound good but you need both battles to succeed so really you’re uphill in just over 20% of games, is it worth the risk? Perhaps.

The SZ92 stack can be better because it neutralises the Italian navy which can be finished off later, although it has a lot of risk in the event that Germany takes Southern France G1, especially if a plane is lost in SZ96. This is what @weddingsinger was pointing out.

[Caesar-Seriona]

The point is that Taranto is a do or die move. Because the Italians can’t complete their African campaign without their fleet. Doing Taranto and having it work means that Egypt is basically secured. Hence why it is fails, you weaken your air power and Germany and Italy both reap the benefit of this.

[oysteilo]

I think this is an interesting discussion. Of course JDOW is right when it comes to, to do Taranto or not. I like to do Taranto as I find it difficult to both establish a position in 110 and kill of the Italians. If you are going to do Taranto, scrambling G1 is off the table as you need 3 fighters and all the other usual stuff, unless there is a sub bid or similar

In the official G40 2nd edition you might let the italian sail on their own as the med is not worth as much, but you soon look at +10 for Italy. It is really not good. Then they buy a carrier a destroyer and some subs. It soon becomes a decent fleet with the 3 fighter scramble. In BM3 it is even worse as there is another 3 IPC for Italy as well as -3 for the british (med islands). So if you dont do Taranto and focuses on early 110 presence, how do you typically deal with the growing Italian fleet? The fleet is vulnerable if it leaves 97, but it also does a nice job there to protect 97 from the destructive convoy damage @JDOW

[simon33]

@oysteilo said in Why is Taranto raid so popular?:

If you are going to do Taranto, scrambling G1 is off the table as you need 3 fighters and all the other usual stuff, unless there is a sub bid or similar

As discussed above, you can scramble 110, you just can’t scramble both 110 and 111.