Bismarck or Taranto?

[TheDesertFox]

@marshmallowofwar

You’re absolutely right, who would care about a Battleship sitting in Dry dock not doing squat? I wouldn’t.

What I would care about though and frankly what a lot of other players playing the UK would care about is if the Germans plan to utilize that alive battleship for a Sealion attack or an Afrikakorps attack, then the UK is gonna’ be caring. He’s gonna be caring a lot about the demise of that German Battleship if used properly by the Germans. That’s what this whole discussion is about, whether it’s better to destroy the German battleship or Italian fleet for what they can do against you in the long run if kept alive. Who would care about an Italian fleet that sits in dry dock and doesn’t do anything, who would care about a German battleship that participates in 1 fight then runs away back to dry dock? Nobody would. But people would care if either of these are properly and effectively used against them.

And again, one would think that turn 3 would be the sweet spot to remove the Italian navy you did not destroy earlier, and frankly their ain’t any better time to strike at it then that time, if Japan didn’t exist, but they do exist, and they’re comin’ for Calcutta hard and fast so don’t expect to be diverting any fighters to go take out what is already a decently sized Italian fleet.

Believe me when I say it, Germany and Italy really don’t have to spend much to keep these things alive, they genuinely just don’t. 16 IPC’s out of Germany’s turn 1 bank to build a carrier and maybe add a destroyer to that and you’ve already got a formable navy that won’t be easy to take down. Italy will already start with the battleship and cruiser that you didn’t destroy, to go along with another cruiser, sub and destroyer. With this navy, they’ll clear the Med out of Allied ships, the Axis will capture Gibraltar, Southern France and Greece, and conquer the entirety of North Africa from Morocco to Alexandria. What do all these things have in common? They all give Italy national objectives. 3 to be exact, coming out to a whopping 15 IPC’s to stack on top of Italy’s average 15+ IPC’s that they should be getting. (10 to start, 2 for Yugoslavia, 2 for Greece, and 1 for both Algeria and/or Tunisia.). Italy can be making 30 IPC’s every turn and the UK can’t even take this away that easily with all of Italy’s money in close proximity to the main capital of Rome and each of the National Objectives in same Axis hands, allowing Italy to pump out another Battleship or a carrier to put fighters on or whatever they need to increase the size of the navy, and if Britain is wasting their time screwin’ around playing patty cake with Italy’s navy than that’s valuable time and money lost.

The Allies are gonna have to do a bit more than just lift a finger to defeat the Axis on this one.

[Cornwallis]

@marshmallowofwar
Marsh, what do you do then on UK1 if i may ask?
And what do you buy?

[MarshmallowofWar]

@cornwallis said in Bismarck or Taranto?:

@marshmallowofwar
Marsh, what do you do then on UK1 if i may ask?
And what do you buy?

I rarely do Taranto. Killing the ground forces in Ethiopia and Tobruk is much more devastating to Italy than killing its fleet, but you can’t be too predicatable.

First, the bid includes a fig in Scotland, a DD in sea zone 91, and a sub for sea zone 111. This makes it too risky for Germany to take out two sea zones on G1 and gives me one more surface ship to use in the Med on UK1.

UK1 build Atlantic is pretty much always is a minor IC for Egypt, two infantry and a fighter for the UK. If Germany wants to do Sea Lion it will be very expensive (the US will liberate London and Russia will effectively kill Germany by R9 or so).

I probably would kill the wounded German battleship, but again it’s not an absolute. If I’m stretched for resources, I’ll let it go.

The UK Pacific fleet and two planes from India goes to support the Ethiopia battle in sea zone 76, along with the CV/CC from sea zone 96. The DD from sea zone 99 blocks the Italian fleet from reaching Egypt via sea zone 99 and the ship left in sea zone 96 blocks the Italian fleet from reaching Egypt that way. Italy’s strat bomber is not enough to take on the sea zone 76 fleet and in any event could not land. (If Germany prepositioned her strat bombers on Southern Italy, they might do some damage but that precludes them from doing many other fire missions on G1.)

If Japan doesn’t kill it on J1, the BB for sea zone 37 will also wind up in the Med one turn after the rest of it unless I deem that I need it to head east to pair up with an Allied Pacific fleet.

Italy now has a very low chance of clearing the Med on I1, since it must clear three sea zones of four units using only eight nine units and while there’s a reasonable chance for each individual battle, added all together Italy generally fails at one of the attacks. To make these three attacks, Italy must distribute it’s fleet and air force across three different sea zones. The Allied ships are certain to kill at least one of those eight units and have a reasonable chance of getting as many as three! (For those not counting, that means Italy’s fleet is not massed together for defensive purposes and can be severely damaged with air and ship attacks on UK2 – so much for the “massed” Italian fleet.)

The UK2 build drops a CV and two DDs into sea zone 96, and the sea zone 76 fleet moves to sea zone 96. The UK now has two fully loaded CVs, two CCs, and three DDs in sea zone 96.

The surviving Italian fleet is now totally defensive on I2, with the survivors forced to retreat to the sea zone 95/97 where it has air cover. If it ventures out, it will die. If it doesn’t go back under air cover on I2, it dies on UK3.

The factory on Egypt now begins pumping out ships to make the UK fleet large enough to at least take the entire Luftwaffe with it, moving to sea zone 97 when it’s large enough (typically UK4 or 5). Fighters in the UK can now use sea zone 97 as landing zone one for a three step jump into Moscow.

Italy now has the unfortunate situation where it wants to protect its fleet but has to spend its paltry income to continue building ships for as along as possible to keep its paltry income. Any money spent on ships is money not spend defending Europe and not spent attacking Russia.

Defensive thinking is Axis death. If the Axis players want to protect their fleets, let them spend their time and resources doing so. They’ve lost the initiative at that point.

Marsh

[squirecam]

@marshmallowofwar said in Bismarck or Taranto?:

@cornwallis said in Bismarck or Taranto?:

@marshmallowofwar
Marsh, what do you do then on UK1 if i may ask?
And what do you buy?

I rarely do Taranto. Killing the ground forces in Ethiopia and Tobruk is much more devastating to Italy than killing its fleet, but you can’t be too predicatable.

First, the bid includes a fig in Scotland, a DD in sea zone 91, and a sub for sea zone 111. This makes it too risky for Germany to take out two sea zones on G1 and gives me one more surface ship to use in the Med on UK1.

UK1 build Atlantic is pretty much always is a minor IC for Egypt, two infantry and a fighter for the UK. If Germany wants to do Sea Lion it will be very expensive (the US will liberate London and Russia will effectively kill Germany by R9 or so).

I probably would kill the wounded German battleship, but again it’s not an absolute. If I’m stretched for resources, I’ll let it go.

The UK Pacific fleet and two planes from India goes to support the Ethiopia battle in sea zone 76, along with the CV/CC from sea zone 96. The DD from sea zone 99 blocks the Italian fleet from reaching Egypt via sea zone 99 and the ship left in sea zone 96 blocks the Italian fleet from reaching Egypt that way. Italy’s strat bomber is not enough to take on the sea zone 76 fleet and in any event could not land. (If Germany prepositioned her strat bombers on Southern Italy, they might do some damage but that precludes them from doing many other fire missions on G1.)

If Japan doesn’t kill it on J1, the BB for sea zone 37 will also wind up in the Med one turn after the rest of it unless I deem that I need it to head east to pair up with an Allied Pacific fleet.

Italy now has a very low chance of clearing the Med on I1, since it must clear three sea zones of four units using only eight nine units and while there’s a reasonable chance for each individual battle, added all together Italy generally fails at one of the attacks. To make these three attacks, Italy must distribute it’s fleet and air force across three different sea zones. The Allied ships are certain to kill at least one of those eight units and have a reasonable chance of getting as many as three! (For those not counting, that means Italy’s fleet is not massed together for defensive purposes and can be severely damaged with air and ship attacks on UK2 – so much for the “massed” Italian fleet.)

The UK2 build drops a CV and two DDs into sea zone 96, and the sea zone 76 fleet moves to sea zone 96. The UK now has two fully loaded CVs, two CCs, and three DDs in sea zone 96.

The surviving Italian fleet is now totally defensive on I2, with the survivors forced to retreat to the sea zone 95/97 where it has air cover. If it ventures out, it will die. If it doesn’t go back under air cover on I2, it dies on UK3.

The factory on Egypt now begins pumping out ships to make the UK fleet large enough to at least take the entire Luftwaffe with it, moving to sea zone 97 when it’s large enough (typically UK4 or 5). Fighters in the UK can now use sea zone 97 as landing zone one for a three step jump into Moscow.

Italy now has the unfortunate situation where it wants to protect its fleet but has to spend its paltry income to continue building ships for as along as possible to keep its paltry income. Any money spent on ships is money not spend defending Europe and not spent attacking Russia.

Defensive thinking is Axis death. If the Axis players want to protect their fleets, let them spend their time and resources doing so. They’ve lost the initiative at that point.

Marsh

Well this assumes OOB since a 24 bid is high for a BM game. That said, I would buy a carrier and still attack both fleets in 110 and 111. If you want to scramble then go ahead. I’ve still got over 70% wins on both battles even with them.

If you scramble and the dice go bad, you cant go through with your Egypt IC. If you dont scramble then the attacks aren’t even a risk.

I also think it would be foolish for the Italian player to throw away the fleet you just gave him trying to chase a first round bonus. Far better to wipe the french fleet (assuming no Vichy) and work on getting bonuses on the second turn.

I’m sure you’ve won games with this. But I think its poor strategy to just give away the IT fleet.

[MarshmallowofWar]

@squirecam I don’t play “Balanced Mode”. I refuse to address any issues you raise regarding that particular house rules variant, which has its own sub forum and should not be discussed here.

Marsh

[squirecam]

@marshmallowofwar said in Bismarck or Taranto?:

@squirecam I don’t play “Balanced Mode”. I refuse to address any issues you raise regarding that particular house rules variant, which has its own sub forum and should not be discussed here.

Marsh

I assumed OOB as stated.

[MarshmallowofWar]

@squirecam It would be better for Italy to not divide its fleet on I1, but then doing so would mean it never gets it’s NO other. Again, the primary job of the UK to secure the Med is done – Italy’s income is nerfed and Italy is on the defensive.

Marsh

[MarshmallowofWar]

@squirecam said in Bismarck or Taranto?:

Well this assumes OOB since a 24 bid is high for a BM game. That said, I would buy a carrier and still attack both fleets in 110 and 111. If you want to scramble then go ahead. I’ve still got over 70% wins on both battles even with them.

To this I will add a “Yippee” from the Russians, since that’s four mechs/four art/five infantry not coming to attack Russia. And I assume since you build a carrier you are planning to keep planes on it, and to also probably put a DD with it. Russia happy! I can now go for Iraq and other Axis territories in Africa, hold my territory longer and keep the Axis out of the Middle East.

And if Germany builds a carrier, I will probably not use this build for UK 1. I would probably go 5 infantry and a minor IC for Egypt, and you can be darned sure that the US is coming to liberate London and that the Russians start advancing towards Germany.

[TheDesertFox]

@marshmallowofwar

Well that explains why it’s so easy to win then as the Allies for yourself. The British don’t need that high of a bid to beat the Germans, and even with the bid they’re still likely to lose both 110 and 111 with the scrambles.

I also don’t know if I need to mention this but the carrier cruiser and destroyer you previously did not use to take out the Italian fleet will be destroyed unless moved out of the Mediterranean which you did not mention whatsoever in your post, in turn these ships will be immediately destroyed by the Italian battleship, 2 cruisers, destroyer, sub, 2 fighters, and bomber.

To me it seems most of this UK strategy you’ve got going is just forced to happen, in other words you’re basically relying on Italy and Germany to do certain things in order for it to work.

Tobruk or Taranto have been incredibly controversial topics on whether one is better than the other and to me Taranto is because who cares about units on Tobruk? They’ll be replaced with new units on the spot and all those units you had previously sent in to Tobruk are now dead in the desert.

Like I previously stated, as far as Im concerned I dont think aircraft carriers or cruisers could grow 2 legs to walk straight for Berlin, so spamming out ships really isn’t going to get you anywhere as Italy will just continue to destroy these ships over and over again until you run out of airforce to put on carriers. And it doesn’t even matter if Italy loses that fleet at the end of the day, them having gotten you to waste money on ship after ship to get one over on them in the Pacific means they’ve already won. Ground forces, the British and the Americans NEED ground forces, you’re not getting yourself anywhere by investing in a huge navy only for it to sit in dry dock for the rest of the game pal.

Finally, if the UK is to put an industrial complex on Egypt turn 1, then Sealion all the way. I don’t care if Russia will get one over on me, I don’t care if America will try to liberate the British Isles, it’s Sealion all the way, and having poorly spent your turn 1 money on a complex in Egypt, you’re gonna lose London because 2 infantry and a fighter isn’t enough to protect it, it just isn’t, and with such little territorial gains made by the UK and such little forces being built up on Britain than I’ll have units left over from Sealion to either keep there for defense or turn them around to attack Russia.

[TheDesertFox]

@marshmallowofwar

I’m not sure if you’re joking here or if you’re actually being legit in what you’re saying.

Who cares about 4 mech or 4 artillery not going to Russia? If you think that’s going to be the difference maker on the Eastern Front, then I hate to be the bearer of bad news but you’re sadly mistaken my friend. Because who cares about 4 mech and/or 4 artillery going to Russia when Im about to have 15+ tanks moving in for Moscow that all roll 3 for attack and defense?

Building a carrier and 2 transports for heaven’s sake wouldn’t even be taking away from your Barbarossa attack. Because quite literally everybody that first played Germany, spent their first 2 builds on nothing but ground units, sent them over to Russia, completely obliterated them and said “That was too easy, I could do that blindfolded and spend half as much money on units.” And they were correct. Because your turn 1 build you can pretty much build whatever you want to impose your will on the UK or the Soviet Union. But hey, that’s just what literally everybody else says.

[MarshmallowofWar]

@thedesertfox I’ve won many, many games this way and lost only a few. If you’re not willing to throw dice (PM me your address and we’ll do a game. I’ll take the Allies with a 30 bid.), I’m done with this thread.

Marsh

[TheDesertFox]

@marshmallowofwar

I guess we won’t be playing then because I don’t play with bids pal. Bids should only be used for people of different skill level and as far as I’m concerned you nor I played this game yesterday for the first time. (that could be questionable for you but I have no intent to inflict conjecture upon you)

I’m glad you’ve won many games buddy, that shows a sign of understanding and veteran style of playing from you, but that only proves your opponents to be pretty skimpy and weak at A&A 40’.

[TheDesertFox]

@squirecam

So I’ve done some test rolling and found some good results out of the Taranto Raid if both were to bring in the max amount of forces.

The UK, having brought in a destroyer, cruiser, carrier, 2 fighters, a tac bomber and strategic bomber against a cruiser, battleship and 3 fighters can honestly typically go 2 way for either side, though I’ve found that the Axis do have a small advantage.

Having done multiple test rolls, I’ve found the UK is likely to only score around 2 to 3 hits on the first round combat, maybe 4 or 5 if they get some lucky dice rolls, but 2-3 is around what happens for the most part.

The Axis tend to score themselves 4 hits (either the cruiser missed and the BB and fighters hit or the cruiser hit and 1 fighter missed) or even 5 hits which is definetly on the more lucky side for the Axis but not unheard of to happen since they’re rolling 1 for 3 and 4 for 4. I’ve found with the average roll around either 2-3 hits from the UK and 5 hits from the Axis would ultimately stop the Taranto Raid in it’s tracks. Like I said this is speculation for what kind of dice rolling an Axis player would want for the Taranto Raid to go their way and it surprisingly isn’t that farfetched of dice rolling. With 5 hits landing on the UK they’d be left with a fighter, tac bomber and strat bomber while their 2-3 hits would leave Italy with the battleship and 2-3 fighters reamining rolling 3 at 4 or 4 at 4. And with that the battle is still pretty much a coin toss with the odds favoring the Axis in a 3 on 3 with the UK rolling 1 at 3 and 2 at 4 and the Axis rolling either 3 at 4 or 4 at 4 so it all really depends for what goes on but the Axis can’t really go wrong in dice rolling when they’re rolling 4 at 4 for dice, where as the UK can.

[squirecam]

@thedesertfox said in Bismarck or Taranto?:

@squirecam

So I’ve done some test rolling and found some good results out of the Taranto Raid if both were to bring in the max amount of forces.

The UK, having brought in a destroyer, cruiser, carrier, 2 fighters, a tac bomber and strategic bomber against a cruiser, battleship and 3 fighters can honestly typically go 2 way for either side, though I’ve found that the Axis do have a small advantage.

Having done multiple test rolls, I’ve found the UK is likely to only score around 2 to 3 hits on the first round combat, maybe 4 or 5 if they get some lucky dice rolls, but 2-3 is around what happens for the most part.

The Axis tend to score themselves 4 hits (either the cruiser missed and the BB and fighters hit or the cruiser hit and 1 fighter missed) or even 5 hits which is definetly on the more lucky side for the Axis but not unheard of to happen since they’re rolling 1 for 3 and 4 for 4. I’ve found with the average roll around either 2-3 hits from the UK and 5 hits from the Axis would ultimately stop the Taranto Raid in it’s tracks. Like I said this is speculation for what kind of dice rolling an Axis player would want for the Taranto Raid to go their way and it surprisingly isn’t that farfetched of dice rolling. With 5 hits landing on the UK they’d be left with a fighter, tac bomber and strat bomber while their 2-3 hits would leave Italy with the battleship and 2-3 fighters reamining rolling 3 at 4 or 4 at 4. And with that the battle is still pretty much a coin toss with the odds favoring the Axis in a 3 on 3 with the UK rolling 1 at 3 and 2 at 4 and the Axis rolling either 3 at 4 or 4 at 4 so it all really depends for what goes on but the Axis can’t really go wrong in dice rolling when they’re rolling 4 at 4 for dice, where as the UK can.

I wouldn’t count on those dice. If you scramble you should get 3 hits. Which to me isnt worth it.

If I want to play risk/reward then I’ll do so with the Germans. They should wipe the UK fleet in one round during their counter. The italian fighters are needed for Italy to kill the french fleet with minimal risk.

[TheDesertFox]

@squirecam

True that, though I can do that easily with the bomber.

As Italy I like to go for that NO of no boats in the Med, clear out any British ships that attack Taranto, its fine if airforce is left, and more than likely the cruiser that attacks the destroyer and transports near Malta will survive unless you’re lucky so what I do is I send the bomber to that cruiser and the destroyer sub and cruiser at the French ships to clean em up which should do the job, are you risking the bomber? yeah, but granted what else are you really gonna use it for atleast for that time being.

And then I’ll attack Greece on turn 2 since I don’t want to put the transport at any risk to the British airforce.

[FlyingBadger]

@MarshmallowofWar @squirecam @TheDesertFox
As an inexperienced player, it’s been really interesting tracking this debate and hearing about different players’ thoughts on what to do with the UK and Italy in the Med. Whilst there are bigger battles going on in other theatres, control of this theatre does feel like it is critical to how the mid/late game goes on the Europe board.

[TheDesertFox]

@flyingbadger

Absolutely badger.

While we may see the fight in the Mediterranean from different perspectives, what we inevitably all agree on is that it’s one of the more significant fronts that can easily sway the game for one side or the other all down to the results of a simple raid on Italy.

For me I stick by my philosophy that every Axis piece on the board should be doing something, or playing some sort of role. Which is why I’m a firm believer that scrambling the fighters into the Taranto Raid as the Axis should be done every single time because fact of the matter is, a lot of people tend to say that it’s better to save those fighters for something new but in the end nobody really knows what they’re saving them for, and that’s what causes Axis players to lose. I mean granted Squire had previously said earlier to save those fighters against the French ships or the remaining British ships in the Med but for me the Taranto Raid is the only time I’ll really be able to take of British Planes if I scramble these fighters and when they’re throwing this many planes at me then that’s my objective. Obviously you won’t be able to have absolutely every unit doing something and playing some sort of genuine authentic role but you can get very close to having every single unit active on the board, which is what wins you games.