Taranto and Axis responses to Taranto in G40(A3 final)

[seth4god]

The bomber can reach from UK and 2 fighters as well if you really want/need them. Use the carrier to soak up hits and land the air in Malta. Hit the lone dd/trn with fighter/cruiser from gibraltar. If you’re feeling spunky just use the cruiser and send the figter against sz97. As long as the dice are fair, you might end up with a ship or two left in sz96/97, 2ftr/tac/bomb in malta, the french fleet, and the italians are left with one transport and a handful of ships. You’re also poised to sink what’s left of the italian fleet should it leave the safety of it’s airbase.

The italians might scramble, especially if Germany flew some air down to help. Great! Now the italians are left with a 1/3 of their fleet and no airforce to help them expand. Yeah, you might start to lose some air, but I’ll trade British air for no italian fleet and airforce any day of the week. Italy will also probably take more ship losses taking out the french fleet without those fighters to assist.

Squash italy before they’re getting 30+ ipcs and you’re well on the way towards getting a victory. Why huddle in sz96? Italy will be able to combine it’s fleet and suddenly they’re a real threat to the med. Force them to start from scratch instead of giving them a fleet core to build around.

[Cow]

There are no strategic problems with taranto.

You don’t need your stuff on london to begin with. 1) usa can buy bombers, if japan declares war (which he should or face serious delay in the pacific) then G3 sea lion will not work as up to 5 bombers fly into london 2) you sink sz 97 and if germany wants to do sea lion he can’t send all his air down to sink your ships… this means italy is screwed for a long time.

[questioneer]

@Cow:

anzac fighter makes it to sumatra dawg, it can make it to malaya or siam alternatively. it has 5 movement.

Duh…what was I thinking…sorry Cow.

[Noll]

I completely agree with who says Axis victory lies in Italy success, something achievable only with heavy German effort in the Medi.
I’m currently tinkering an Axis strategy that involves the neutral crush to close gibraltar via land forces, defend norway from sweden and build mostly land units with Italy, pushing the middle east and Egypt from Turkey.

[soulfein]

@Noll:

I’m currently tinkering an Axis strategy that involves the neutral crush to close gibraltar via land forces, defend norway from sweden and build mostly land units with Italy, pushing the middle east and Egypt from Turkey.

since uk can drop middle east fac(s) n spend most -if not all- income there, gertaly should move fast in med.
earliest ita can crush turkey via land units is 5th or 6th round, so no middle east threat till 7th or 8th round for axis.
that s really late for any success imho

getting spain to close gibraltar means u just added 2 more territories (gib n spa) to defend against an amphibi and gotta trade portugal to prevent usa droping a fac. without even counting the time n resources getting spain I dont think that will be a good strategy overall.

also ger can defend norway with novgorod fac. ofc that s only avalaible if ger doesnt go for london, but assuming ger did an optimal london, than u ll have a navy to defend norway.
btw even a finn fac, which is really suboptimal imho, is a better-than-sweden way to defend norway.

so take home message: leave neutrals alone :)

[questioneer]

Some thoughts,

1. Cow- this is really dumb but kinda funny, I was flying that Zftr to Java all this time, not realizing that it could go to Sumatra.  Probably b/c I didn’t see the need to.  Thanks for pointing that out.  Just when you think you know the map and the moves, you always learn something new.  You’re right, its those things that cost you the game.  Should’ve known that.  I usually pick up those things.  Probably the cause of 8 games (actually 7 now) I’m playing.  Easy to get mixed up and miss things.

2. Taranto- I like this if you know Germany shows Sealion b/c they can’t really afford the air cover.  US bombers is also a good though I think Japan is fine with a J2 DOW, then US would be late arriving, unless you take a chance and buy them anyway.  Yes, against Sealion, Taranto is optimal- that was really always the case in the other Alphas.

3. Tobruk attack- Right now, I’m very fascinated with perfecting the Tobruk attack.  I think this is equally playable and strong.  Like in my game with Cow, I attacked Tobruk, get rid of a butt-load of Italian land units.  Which means if Italy really wants Egypt that are gonna have to transport them and protect them.  That’s more money spent on Africa campaign and less towards doing can opening crap on the Eastern Front.

Takes the pressure off of Russia, which is really the main goal of the Allies- they put pressure on Russia, Allies put counter with hard pressure in other places.  The advantage with Allies is that they can do it with multiple countries combined. Â

Also with the Tobruk attack you can block them from Egypt like I did in the game with Cow and land the planes in Egypt.  Looking back on round 1, I should have bought a minor IC or even a major.  Lock it down with 10 units, bring reinforcements from India etc and that’s that.  If the battle is won or lost in Africa, Med, Middle East region, which I believe it is, then the Tobruk attack helps the Allies as the assualt is a move that gains tempo.

So later in the game IF Germany succeeds and takes Moscow (cause they will have to go balls to the walls along with Japan air help) then the 8th VC (Cairo) is sucurely in Allied hands and now Rome and Paris will be receive full pressure by US monster.

US can send planes to Russia or go on a witch hunt of the Japanese navy in the South Pacific- dealer’s choice.  Yes, chase them to Africa.  ANZAC can help pave the way for US faster by dropping naval and/or air bases.

The only counter seems to be a strong Sealion threat in which case US bomber can help or if not then go to plan B- Taranto.

What do you think???  Is Taranto really standard???  For Sealion maybe, but for Barbarossa I think Tobruk is a solid move.  Yes you keep the Italian navy in tact but the land forces in Africa are gone and you have the same option of securing Cairo- the vitally needed 8th VC.  If Cairo is secured with a Brit major IC for the get-go, then US can spend rounds 1-2 protecting Hawaii and Sydney- not too hard and spend there 75 bucks a turn on Europe from round 3 out.

Tell me what I’m missing here.  Is there not merit to this???  Better question is- have you tried it this way???

[Spendo02]

I don’t like the Tobruk move.

The Italians have a hard enough time mounting an offensive in Africa if the UK can sink two of their three TT on UK1.

Don’t needlessly give up units to take Tobruk which realistically isn’t much of an economic threat to the UK or a boon to Italy.  Stack up on Egypt - you need it later if/when Moscow falls to Germany and the focus becomes Egypt for the VC win.

I know starting at square 1 for Italy is a good thing, but the same can be said about the UK in battles that decide the game that contain less than 6 units on a side.

Besides, a sunk Italian Navy = trouble for the Axis.  An empty N.Africa does not do much for the Allies, particularly if Italy cannot afford to A: Reinforce them with TT and B: protect those TT at the same time.

I view it the same way I view Japan:  Once its Navy is dead, the nation becomes impotent for the majority of the game and can generally be ignored/convoyed into oblivion.

[soulfein]

first looking at what we got at the start:
ita land units in tobruk, with only limited options avalaible to them: they can either push for egy or (mech n tank) go for morocco.
ita navy in med, with the ability to shuttle units anywhere in med. plus they can defend seazones.

with skipping sz97 ita suddenly has a large fleet of warships, which can take out smaller forces without any losses (thx to bb) and use transports without the fear of being sunk. also with each passing round ita can add some ships to its navy (even using cheesy ita ac-get ftr tactics) n and thx to the “stacking snowballs” effect it ll be exponentially harder to sink it.

on the long run ita s not losing tempo, right on the contrary ita s gaining tempo cause now ita doesnt need to waste time to create a fleet decent enough to protect med shuttles

so trading some landlockd units over the core of a mighty fleet is not a good trade imho.

btw I agree that games are decided in middle east/north africa.

[questioneer]

But if the goal is to keep hold Cairo, you can take out the land units in Africa (you’re forgeting the Gib and Malta ftrs and possibly the CZ in z91) and block (with AC, DD and possibly 2CZs), giving you time to buy maybe even a Major IC right from the get go and stack 10 units or minor IC and 3tnks on it a turn.  They wont’ have the material to invade it.  Fly planes from India etc to solidfy it.  I think there is some serious potential here if Germany shows an early Barbarossa.

Lock down Cairo til US pressure comes in full force by round 8 and the momemtum swings.  Yes the Italian navy is stronger but they lose Africa and Cairo for good.  That’s the return.  What good is a navy in the Med if you can’t land in Cairo and take it back in time, before the US brings the heat???

[soulfein]

yep goal is keeping cairo, and not saying hitting tobruk is a bad move, it s just inferior compared to hitting sz97.
I advise u playtest it a lil bit more, doing similar moves, only differing by hitting sz97 or tobruk vs different axis strategies. playing against yourself should yield better results, unless your allies gameplay isnt too superior compared to your axis.

ps: cant put a major on cairo, since cairo income s only 2.

[Noll]

In the games where I’m trying this axis neutral crush I get Turkey G3, defend spain and gib with Italian units, Then get middle east and Egypt with Germany. Check my games vs Vance, Anchovy, Axisplaya. They’re still experimental. I’m still working on it. I also put a minor in greece G3.

[Spendo02]

@questioneer:

What good is a navy in the Med if you can’t land in Cairo and take it back in time, before the US brings the heat???

Italian Navy in the Med = US has to help UK clear that fleet out or face the potential threat of it hindering US movement into Africa or Europe.  Basically an Axis navy in Europe sets back the Allied advance.

Sinking it as soon as possible opens up the Sea Lanes for the US to not have to heavily invest in ships to protect TT flotilla rotations.  In example, I played a game yesterday where Germany took Moscow and the battle came down to Egypt.  As soon as Moscow fell, Germany spent two rounds putting 9 and then 8 SS in the Atlantic.  The German’s had a CV with 2 Ftr along with an Italian CV and Ftr/Tac all in the Med.  The Allies had to spend time in fleet builds to address the potential merging of those fleets in SZ91 and locking the door to the Med while Germany pushed through the Middle East to Egypt.

In no way do you want the Axis to ever have ships in Europe after the mid to late game.  It extends the game multiple rounds to buy Germany time to get into Egypt even with a full UK purchase in Cairo / Iraq / Calcutta to stop the Germans.

[questioneer]

@soulfein:

yep goal is keeping cairo, and not saying hitting tobruk is a bad move, it s just inferior compared to hitting sz97.
I advise u playtest it a lil bit more, doing similar moves, only differing by hitting sz97 or tobruk vs different axis strategies. playing against yourself should yield better results, unless your allies gameplay isnt too superior compared to your axis.

ps: cant put a major on cairo, since cairo income s only 2.

Yeah that’s right no Major IC there- still could hold it with 3tnk placement for a several rounds.

Right, still playtesting.  It would seem to only work with an early Barbarossa like G1, maybe G2.  If there is a chance of Sealion though than Taranto is better as UK just won’t have the cash to burn on Egypt.

[questioneer]

@Spendo02:

@questioneer:

What good is a navy in the Med if you can’t land in Cairo and take it back in time, before the US brings the heat???

Italian Navy in the Med = US has to help UK clear that fleet out or face the potential threat of it hindering US movement into Africa or Europe.�  Basically an Axis navy in Europe sets back the Allied advance.� Â

Sinking it as soon as possible opens up the Sea Lanes for the US to not have to heavily invest in ships to protect TT flotilla rotations.�  In example, I played a game yesterday where Germany took Moscow and the battle came down to Egypt.�  As soon as Moscow fell, Germany spent two rounds putting 9 and then 8 SS in the Atlantic.�  The German’s had a CV with 2 Ftr along with an Italian CV and Ftr/Tac all in the Med.�  The Allies had to spend time in fleet builds to address the potential merging of those fleets in SZ91 and locking the door to the Med while Germany pushed through the Middle East to Egypt.

In no way do you want the Axis to ever have ships in Europe after the mid to late game.�  It extends the game multiple rounds to buy Germany time to get into Egypt even with a full UK purchase in Cairo / Iraq / Calcutta to stop the Germans.

True I’ve pulled off the z91 united Axis naval block before- that’s tough to break open.  However, that move exhausts a lot of aircraft which means much less aircraft if any on the Eastern front = Russia stays alive longer. Â

Another issue though, the Cairo IC would have to be continually invested in all the time by UK as it sits isolated and far from Allied support except maybe planes.  I guess Russia/India would need to support in some way.  Remember, Germany has to get Moscow first and thats a whole different subject.  So you got 8-10 rounds to put that pressure on the Med/Europe for US.

[questioneer]

Anyway this is tough to playtest b/c you really gotta go deep into rounds to see if the results pay off.

[Spendo02]

@questioneer:

@Spendo02:

@questioneer:

What good is a navy in the Med if you can’t land in Cairo and take it back in time, before the US brings the heat???

Italian Navy in the Med = US has to help UK clear that fleet out or face the potential threat of it hindering US movement into Africa or Europe.� � Basically an Axis navy in Europe sets back the Allied advance.� �

Sinking it as soon as possible opens up the Sea Lanes for the US to not have to heavily invest in ships to protect TT flotilla rotations.� � In example, I played a game yesterday where Germany took Moscow and the battle came down to Egypt.� � As soon as Moscow fell, Germany spent two rounds putting 9 and then 8 SS in the Atlantic.� � The German’s had a CV with 2 Ftr along with an Italian CV and Ftr/Tac all in the Med.� � The Allies had to spend time in fleet builds to address the potential merging of those fleets in SZ91 and locking the door to the Med while Germany pushed through the Middle East to Egypt.

In no way do you want the Axis to ever have ships in Europe after the mid to late game.� � It extends the game multiple rounds to buy Germany time to get into Egypt even with a full UK purchase in Cairo / Iraq / Calcutta to stop the Germans.

True I’ve pulled off the z91 united Axis naval block before- that’s tough to break open. � However, that move exhausts a lot of aircraft which means much less aircraft if any on the Eastern front = Russia stays alive longer. �

Another issue though, the Cairo IC would have to be continually invested in all the time by UK as it sits isolated and far from Allied support except maybe planes. � I guess Russia/India would need to support in some way. � Remember, Germany has to get Moscow first and thats a whole different subject. � So you got 8-10 rounds to put that pressure on the Med/Europe for US.

Exactly the issue I ran into with the UK.  With an investment into a minor in Egypt, you have to continually invest in it.  This created an issue where I was basically doing the following:

I had TT based out of Calcutta and S.Africa.  Two sets at each, shuttling units into the Iraq IC where I was building units as well.  This totally shut UK off from threatening landings in mainland Europe which allowed Germany to fully invest into taking and holding the Middle East as the US just couldn’t get enough units to take and hold any French Territories.

I eventually as the US took Norway and built an IC there and SBR’d the German IC’s to nothing.  I was even able to take Leningrad back as the US, but immediately lost it the ensuing round.  It ended up  buying the UK enough time to reinforce itself in the Middle East as German resources went into cutting off the US in Norway.  I stopped after round 20 as it kept see-sawing into what felt like WW1 Trench Warfare in Iraq.

[Guest]

One advantage I see to Tobruk versus taranto is that UK planes might be deployed elsewhere.  If the plan is to send UK fighters to Russia for example, then Tobruk would be preferable.

[Cow]

The egypt minor is for convoying sz 97 in the long run and taking italy out of the game.

[Spendo02]

@Cow:

The egypt minor is for convoying sz 97 in the long run and taking italy out of the game.

That can change when Germany (if) takes Moscow and turns towards Egypt.  In my most recent game, Germany ended up taking Moscow and redirected the prior round’s purchase of Armor towards Egypt along with a Ukr Arm purchase Germany had something like 9 tanks sitting in Ukraine ready to blitz ahead of whatever survived Moscow.

UK went on the defensive at this point, but Italy was already convoyed to death with minimal effort.  It really goes to show how important sinking the Italian fleet is if Germany is going to Moscow first when Italy is stuck from round 6-7 on being able to only put 1 or 2 Inf out a round at best.