Amen Brother… Axis need to be offensive, axis have shorter supply lines and can take losses a little bit better then the allies.
Italian Strategies
-
german airforce kills the UK ships off of Egypt, load up 1inf onto a transport, and support the landing with my crusiers
HUH?
This is the 1941 scenario forum
There ARE no UK ships off Egypt
oh, sorry didn’t notice that nervous laughter :-o
Either way, you still move the tranny next to Gibraltar, invade, and use your warships to cover it
It’s a solid strat. 2 Infantry, Artillery, 2 Armor, Bomber vs the 3 Infantry, Artillery, Armor, Fighter defending is in your favor. (If all you want is to clear Egypt, then it’s way in your favor, I don’t like Germany to own Egypt, I prefer it for Italy so they have a place to put up an Industrial Complex.)
But what if you want to do something different?
You could theoretically still do good damage with 2 Infantry, Artillery, 2 Armor at Egypt and use the bomber in SZ 2 with the submarines (me liky this one. I like Bomber, Submarine, Fighter to SZ 2 and Submarine, 2 Fighters to SZ 12 too.) It’s probably not enough to win, but you should do enough damage that England cannot hold it against Italy.
But then again, now you’re putting that Transport were the British can, and will, sink it. (Assuming the British fighter is alive in Egypt, which it probably will be.)
Or you could invade Gibraltar which has perks. At least it prevents England from getting the NO, but that has problems too. Taking Egypt also prevents the NO, but necessitates the use of the bomber to have stellar odds of success and that takes it away from SZ 2 which leaves England with a BB, something I’m not entirely happy about. And taking Gibraltar really means the loss of a transport and a stranded infantryman.
You see the dilemma.
-
I know its a bit of a waste but i’ll do just about anything to buy Italy time
-
I know its a bit of a waste but i’ll do just about anything to buy Italy time
If you’ll do anything, you can always buy a German IC for France G1, enabling Germany (who can afford it) the chance to help the Med navy by plopping down an A/C (and land her ftrs on it) or whatever else little brother’s navy might need (Italy)
-
I know its a bit of a waste but i’ll do just about anything to buy Italy time
If you’ll do anything, you can always buy a German IC for France G1, enabling Germany (who can afford it) the chance to help the Med navy by plopping down an A/C (and land her ftrs on it) or whatever else little brother’s navy might need (Italy)
But that also invites England and America to invest in an SBR campaign since you can do 32 IPC in damage to the Germans each round. It’ll cost them at least 7 IPC before they can build one unit (repairing France down to 5 Damage so the complex can build 1 unit.)
-
@Cmdr:
I know its a bit of a waste but i’ll do just about anything to buy Italy time
If you’ll do anything, you can always buy a German IC for France G1, enabling Germany (who can afford it) the chance to help the Med navy by plopping down an A/C (and land her ftrs on it) or whatever else little brother’s navy might need (Italy)
But that also invites England and America to invest in an SBR campaign since you can do 32 IPC in damage to the Germans each round. It’ll cost them at least 7 IPC before they can build one unit (repairing France down to 5 Damage so the complex can build 1 unit.)
not if you are playing interceptors, SBR-Jenn
Plus the response was to BBRETT3, as he said he would do ANYTHING, so I listed anything
-
@Cmdr:
I know its a bit of a waste but i’ll do just about anything to buy Italy time
If you’ll do anything, you can always buy a German IC for France G1, enabling Germany (who can afford it) the chance to help the Med navy by plopping down an A/C (and land her ftrs on it) or whatever else little brother’s navy might need (Italy)
But that also invites England and America to invest in an SBR campaign since you can do 32 IPC in damage to the Germans each round. It’ll cost them at least 7 IPC before they can build one unit (repairing France down to 5 Damage so the complex can build 1 unit.)
not if you are playing interceptors, SBR-Jenn
Plus the response was to BBRETT3, as he said he would do ANYTHING, so I listed anything
Yea, but I don’t know anyone who plays with Interceptors. It sort of breaks the game, IMHO.
And yes, I know you replied to Brett with “anything” I was just pointing out that it had major flaws because I didn’t want him to think it was a great move without any drawbacks. Technically, every move and non-move has a drawback.
Anyway, Interceptors are unneeded. If you do the math and work out the statistics you’ll see that SBRs only work in the attacker advantage until the opponent gets Radar or Improved Factories and then they work against you. And when they are working for you, it’s only a 5 IPC advantage, you’d be better off killing enemy infantry with those bombers since they’d probably never die and you’d do 3 IPC in damage everytime your bomber killed an enemy infantryman.
-
@Cmdr:
Yea, but I don’t know anyone who plays with Interceptors
Hmm. You don’t know ANYONE who plays with interceptors (and I guess that would include you), but yet you know that it “It sort of breaks the game, IMHO”
How do you know these things? Are you clairvoyant?
See, you need to try the rules first BEFORE you can say they break the game.
BTW, I have played WITH and WITHOUT escorts.
@Cmdr:
Anyway, Interceptors are unneeded. If you do the math and work out the statistics you’ll see that SBRs only work in the attacker advantage until the opponent gets Radar or Improved Factories and then they work against you. And when they are working for you, it’s only a 5 IPC advantage, you’d be better off killing enemy infantry with those bombers since they’d probably never die and you’d do 3 IPC in damage everytime your bomber killed an enemy infantryman.
Hmm. You can offset SBRs with Radar or improved factories (tech that cost money) or play the interceptor rule which costs nothing. Which is more fair to the axis?
The key is that early on, the allies only really have one way to slow down the axis machine: SBRs. Unfortunately, it is TOO effective for the allies so then it becomes a game of “who can roll more ones” on bombing runs.
-
I know its a bit of a waste but i’ll do just about anything to buy Italy time
If you’ll do anything, you can always buy a German IC for France G1, enabling Germany (who can afford it) the chance to help the Med navy by plopping down an A/C (and land her ftrs on it) or whatever else little brother’s navy might need (Italy)
IMHO this defeats the purpose of having Italy as a separate power, they fight in the Med. so that Germany doesn’t have to. I should have said:
“I know its a bit of a waste but i’ll do just about anything to buy Italy time, short of getting the Germans largely involved”
-
I know its a bit of a waste but i’ll do just about anything to buy Italy time
If you’ll do anything, you can always buy a German IC for France G1, enabling Germany (who can afford it) the chance to help the Med navy by plopping down an A/C (and land her ftrs on it) or whatever else little brother’s navy might need (Italy)
IMHO this defeats the purpose of having Italy as a separate power, they fight in the Med. so that Germany doesn’t have to. I should have said:
“I know its a bit of a waste but i’ll do just about anything to buy Italy time, short of getting the Germans largely involved”
All I can say is that I have seen the France IC used quite effectively, regardless of the ‘SBR’ target Jen maintains it is. France is a huge territory for the axis to lose. It’s an $11 IPC swing (using NO’s) and an IC allows units to be dropped without having to move backwards from Germany, amongst other uses.
Face it, Italy NEEDS Germanys help. They are the little brother who can be very needy when picked on. And the allies can easily pick on Italy. If Italy gets itself going (and ‘grows’ up) for 2+ rounds of $20+ IPCs, they can THEN take care of themselves. If I am the allies, I will prevent lil’ bro from ever growing up whenever I can.
-
Yea, I never played the rule. But I can take what I have heard from others and apply my intellect and come up with a logical conclusion that they are an overly complex set of rules (the way I read them) that are not really needed given the other rules in the game.
I get the feeling WOTC put it out in a knee jerk reaction to early online play. Same with closing SZ 16. Early in the game’s history Russia wasn’t being played right and Italy was getting Caucasus early giving the German’s the NO, so WOTC closed SZ 16 as a optional rule. Of course, they did that after Russian players were playing Russia better and Caucasus was no longer under any serious threat from Italy.
Same with SBRs. Early in the game history people were blowing the crud out of German factories and so WOTC came up with the Interceptor rules as an optional rule. Now people don’t really go hot and heavy SBR action, they’ve adapted to play the Allies in a stronger position. (note: when the allies were going SBR heavy, the Axis were winning more games. Now they are going more traditional and the allies are winning more games.)
Honestly, I don’t see the need to use either of the optional rules. It’s like using the Axis Power optional rules in Second Edition. It’s nice, but a better solution had been found, IMHO.
-
@Cmdr:
Yea, I never played the rule. But I can take what I have heard from others and apply my intellect and come up with a logical conclusion that they are an overly complex set of rules (the way I read them) that are not really needed given the other rules in the game.
I bet the same can be said about any rule. And to that I say, your conclusion is BUNK.
The ONLY way to tell if a rule is good or not is through game play testing, not brain waves making an interpretation, which is susceptible to subjection. Game play outcomes are objective, hard cold outcomes. Game play therefor is the only true way to tell if a rule is good or not.
-
@Cmdr:
Yea, I never played the rule. But I can take what I have heard from others and apply my intellect and come up with a logical conclusion that they are an overly complex set of rules (the way I read them) that are not really needed given the other rules in the game.
I bet the same can be said about any rule. And to that I say, your conclusion is BUNK.
The ONLY way to tell if a rule is good or not is through game play testing, not brain waves making an interpretation, which is susceptible to subjection. Game play outcomes are objective, hard cold outcomes. Game play therefor is the only true way to tell if a rule is good or not.
I respect your opinion, but I disagree with it.
There’s no real way to win this argument for either of us. (Between whether or not you can see a rules, hear stories about it and make a decision or if you must play the rule before you can tell if it is good or not.)
What I can say is this:
The Rule is optional. That means it was not needed enough to make it mandatory. That tells me there is a strong consensus of players who think the rule is unneeded.
There are ways, in the game, to negate the impact of SBR without using Interceptors.
Revised:Enhances (and AA50:Enhanced) have a better solution, IMHO, to the SBR issue through the use of “interceptors” of a sort.
Even in games where the optional rule of Technology is not played, the cost benefit to SBR over thousands and thousands of games is minute at best. (1.5 IPC a round advantage per bomber.)
The suggestion of putting bombers back to 15 IPC (or I think someone said 14 IPC) reduces that cost benefit. If 15 IPC bombers then the cost benefit drops to 1 IPC a round advantage per bomber. IF 14 IPC bombers then the cost benefit drops to 1.2 IPC a round advantage per bomber.
We’re not talking a huge benefit over the course of many games. And remember, that’s just the average, you could find yourself losing a bomber every round and doing no damage, you could find yourself never shooting down a bomber and taking massive damage. It’s the blessings of using dice instead of Low Luck.
-
Back on topic here, I believe that an industrial complex in the Balkans would be a good means of getting infantry and artillery into the Ukraine, but the problem is Italy doesn’t start with enough money to buy one. Securing the national objectives seems to be the greatest source of income for Italy from my experience, and they aren’t all that difficult to get.
I am going to try building a complex in the Balkans and use it to move infantry and artillery against Russia. After I have seized Egypt that is.
-
@Vall:
Back on topic here, I believe that an industrial complex in the Balkans would be a good means of getting infantry and artillery into the Ukraine, but the problem is Italy doesn’t start with enough money to buy one. Securing the national objectives seems to be the greatest source of income for Italy from my experience, and they aren’t all that difficult to get.
I am going to try building a complex in the Balkans and use it to move infantry and artillery against Russia. After I have seized Egypt that is.
If the allies ignore Italy, then yes, you might utilize the Balkans IC enough to make it worth it.
I think Italy would be better served with 3 tanks or 5 inf that will, in only one turns delay, be in the Balkans. -
yea if you think about it you could build an IC in the Balkans and then 5 inf there next turn, or build 5 inf and move them to the Balkans next turn, either way you have 5 inf in the Balkans.
-
Yes, but in the long run it makes shuffling units into Russia much quicker. Its the same as Germany putting a complex in Poland really.
-
No, it is not quicker at all, in any sense, unless you need to build more than 6 units. Just as if Germany could only afford 10 inf, it would be pointless to put an IC in Poland to get troops to the front faster, now if you have an IC in Poland and one in Germany, yeah you would build inf in Poland and armor in Germany, but they wouldn’t get to the front any faster than if you built them in Germany the round you built the IC.
-
I know its a bit of a waste but i’ll do just about anything to buy Italy time
I agree with you that Italy is quite important, so this is what I’ve been doing lately, and I think it’s great.
G1 - hit Egypt with everything including the bomber. Take Egypt losing the bomber if necessary. Germany loses 12 IPCs, but gains 2 and England loses 7. This is a net loss of 3 IPCs, but I feel that the tempo gain is more than worth it.
I1 - buy 1 fighter, take Trj, retake Algeria if needed with 2 inf, 1 fig - collect 21 IPCs.
I2 - buy 1 cv, 1 tr unless you need more ground troops. In that case, 1 cv, 1 inf, 1 art. Collect 21+ IPCs.
I3 - buy 1 tr if you didn’t buy it on I2, 1 ca, 1 dd, or 1-2 ss, and 4 ground units. Collect 23+ IPCs.
-
See I think Italy does best to shore up Germany’s weakness. France needs taken or defended? On it. Russia needs threatened with can opener to keep her in check? On it. Southern Europe needs traded with Russia? On it. Allies need slowed down in Africa? On it. Allied fleet in SZ 12 needs thinned out for the German planes to sink? On it. Now granted I cant do it all, but whatever Germany is struggling with, I can be that little bit that tips the odds in Germany’s favor. It really depends on the individual game.
-
italy is way cool. here is why:
2 tanks in bulgaria/ epl or 2 inf in EPL with ftr in range will nullify the effect of a 1inf russian blitzblocker in EUK and BEL. that means whenever theese units are in range, russia cant press germany with north/south push from KAR,BST / CAU,UKR . this eases fighting for gerrmany alot imho, as it ristricts the red army.
of course italy will have to get their NOs as often as possible but how you do that really depends on what british / US are doing.
but i prefer italy pumping out ground units as much as possible. maybe a trn+ inf round one is best. this way you get 12 units at end of turn 3 to africa.
Suggested Topics
