ITALY IS SCREWED!

Everybody sings the praises of Taranto.  Me personally I never use it, it’s too risky.  If Germany doesnt fly a fighter there then it’s a different story but when the German player does you’re looking at A cruiser, Battleship, and three fighters for Italy vs. A fighter, Tac, Cruiser, Destroyer, and Bomber from London.  Those odds are definately in Italy’s favor.  I like the attack on Tobruk much better.  I use that and it really hurts the Italians and makes expansion through Africa very difficult.  I have though seen a Taranto work before but the British player got very lucky and won the battle and Italy was screwed.  If Taranto works it’s devastating but it’s a huge gamble with the odds against you and if it fails Italy should be able to capture Egypt and spread throughout N. Africa and the Middle East especially if Germany also flies in a Tac so they can help clear the med of any allied scragglers.

I find that, but realistically Italy doing well(30 +IPCs) is a bit silly. Should not have 3 NOs to  UK’s 1 either. Whenever we fought we were soundly defeated. Did not have the German or Japanese will to fight, especially against the US.

As Britain, I don’t care for Taranto either, even if Germany doesn’t fly a fighter down there. Unless UK gets REALLY lucky dice, most times they are successful in killing the Italian BB, CA and fighters but at a great loss to the British Navy in the Med. Usually they will only have the carrier and 1 fighter left. Then Italy still has a strong force of 1 CA, 1 DD, 1 SS and 1 bomber in N Italy. So, the UK ends up losing any naval presence in the Med and Italy could take advantage of that if they do things right.

I also like hitting the Tobruk force. Once that is gone, then it’s just a little mopping up to get the Ethiopia and Italian Somaliland troops and Italy has no presence in Africa except for the small force in Libya. With the CA and DD as blockers in SZ 96 and SZ 99, you can keep Italy from going after Egypt long enough to build up some defense there, maybe even put down a Minor IC.

Why save the carrier?  hit soak.

@guy:

and if you induce sealion, russia gets huge  :evil:

Exactly.  You could actually send 2 fighters and the bomber from UK if you want to.  They crash if the carrier sinks but sometimes you get lucky and have the carrier sitting there with a plane or 2 on it.  Its good if Germany left the cruiser in z91 too because it and the Malta fighter clear z96.  Lose the fighter if the destroyer hits and with the carrier in z97 you have both routes from z95 into Syria blocked for the time being.

Beg Germany to help you.

How about 2 fighters, 1 tac to z93 and land in Rome (lose tac first).  Use poland tac in yugo and land in Rome. Take southern france with 3 mech and hungary fighter.  Scramble German planes to save Italian planes.  Build subs in z93 G2

Italy is meant to get screwed and convoyed out of the game in sz 97.

russia would need to get the old 2 inf a turn in that spot behind russia otherwise as compensation or something.

I don’t follow that logic, Cow.

And in other versions, Taranto was a weaker strategy because Sealion was stronger than the currently impotent strategy that it is.  So it is very possible for Taranto to not be done and have the game still be balanced.
And really it made Italy and UK way more fun, since you had to actually fight one another for every territory, waiting for the green gorilla to arrive from the west.  UK simply stomping all over Italy before their first turn gets old when it is the uncontestedly standard move.
Taranto always/Barbarossa always gets boring if you ask me.

yeah and allies usually lost in the old +3 , barring any crazy dice. You had to like charge for rome or germany with russia and be crazy and hope for the best. The hell man.

the fight in the Medi is too one sided.

Either Italy becomes a real monster (in the 40s) or gets screwed and becomes useless.
This is a big flaw in the game (UK and Italy becomes boring nation to play), but works for balance purposes.

To who said Italy always lost battles, that’s not true, we had our victories too. They’re not very well publicized tho’.

@Alsch91:

I don’t follow that logic, Cow.

And in other versions, Taranto was a weaker strategy because Sealion was stronger than the currently impotent strategy that it is.  So it is very possible for Taranto to not be done and have the game still be balanced.
And really it made Italy and UK way more fun, since you had to actually fight one another for every territory, waiting for the green gorilla to arrive from the west.  UK simply stomping all over Italy before their first turn gets old when it is the uncontestedly standard move.
Taranto always/Barbarossa always gets boring if you ask me.

This is a good point.  It seems very difficult to achieve the right balance.  In OOB, Sea Lion was essentially the only good strategy for Germany, and that got boring quickly.  The goal when balancing Global ought to be making both Barbarossa and Sea Lion viable (with Barbarossa perhaps a bit more viable).

But even in Alpha 3.9, if Germany is in position to Sea Lion, Taranto could be a mistake.  Especially if the G1 naval battles went well for Axis.  It would definitely be a shame if Sea Lion has been weakened to the point where United Kingdom should always attack Tarranto.  But I’m skeptical whether that’s actually the case.  It seems to me that Tarranto is only advisable in cases where the Sea Lion threat is weak or non-existent.

haha, because people aren’t buying all infantry or 6 inf 1 fighter for uk round 1. Also helps if usa buys a couple bomber to fly in (that way if germ does go through with sea lion it will most likely cause pacific to be postponed by japan).

longer the japs wait to DOW the harder taking anzac and uk pac becomes. uk 2 and anzac 2 you can dow on japan if you want, just keep in mind usa loses combat but still gets to collect his NO / war money USA 3 (sometimes japan will dow on USA just to get phil out of the way). Depends really, but typically pacific is really weak when japan puts off war for so long.
~
Way I see it, if I got to buy all infantry or 6 inf and a fighter when I am uk, then I should be screwed with italy… that is balance right there.

In global it is very rare to see uk drop a bunch of men on europe, unlike aa50.

[quote author=Vance link=topic=27485.msg968367#msg968367 date=1338653564]
Beg Germany to help you.
[/quote]
Well most of the time Germany doesnt help much. Just 1 inf and 1 tank, Italy does fine by itself most of the time. Sometimes takes over the middle east and southern Russia.

if italy gets the middle east, allies lose unless japan is not pulling his weight.

[quote author=Zhukov44 link=topic=27485.msg968458#msg968458 date=1338680429]
But even in Alpha 3.9, if Germany is in position to Sea Lion, Taranto could be a mistake.  Especially if the G1 naval battles went well for Axis.  It would definitely be a shame if Sea Lion has been weakened to the point where United Kingdom should always attack Tarranto.  But I’m skeptical whether that’s actually the case.  It seems to me that Tarranto is only advisable in cases where the Sea Lion threat is weak or non-existent.
[/quote]

imho sealion is already weak enough to a point where uk should awlays attack taranto. if uk skips taranto than denying ita getting egy/middle east is almost impossible, which combined with an optimal barbarossa means gg.

so I do taranto in uk1 regardless of g1. pays back on the long run even if ger captures london in g3

[quote author=soulfein link=topic=27513.msg970119#msg970119 date=1339000786]
usually a g3 london is kinda good-ish for axis, while a g4 london is almost a gg.

the biggest factor why sealion is a bad move for axis is that after a proper usa response (bmbrs), japs cant dow till london s captured, which most of the time (-if not always) means no pac victory for axis. so japs play gets really restricted. might be the only occasion where going heavy into siberia with japs is a more optimal move than going for india.

the general outcome also depends on a number of minor factors:

-can ita grab egy before (or at the same round) usa gets a stack in sz91? with london gone it s almost impossible for uk to send reinforcements to egy + relatively later involvement of ussr means it will take a longer time for ussr to get involved in africa.

-how long can ussr stack romania? romania is the usual optimal base for ussr stack, trading slovakia/yugoslavia plus dispatching some guys to bulg for greece and albania means, after a successful sealion, ger will find itself outproduced by ussr.

-how lucky was ger in london? having a lucky attacks with many land units left means ger can remove ussr from eastern europe. many air left further means ger can probably delay usa fleet london for 1 or 2 more rounds.

-is iraq italian or russian soil? a 9 ipc territory plus enables pressure on cau or egy. no further need to emphasize its importance imho.

with all those things said, I really think sealion is a very “specialized” option for axis, which must be only used with in depth analysis of the board, even it s possible for ger to take london in g3.

so in return, uk doesnt have to solely turn london into a fortress to deny a selion. depending on overall situation, with careful management, making ger grab london can be a game-winner move for allies on the long run.
[/quote]

ps: copy-pasting your own post is kinda lame, anyone know if I can get a link to a single post (instead of the whole topic)?

ps2: based on my fail quote + empireman s fail quote above, I assume there is something wrong with “quote”?