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

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.

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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

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

@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.

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.

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

@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.