@WILD:
That’s why I was complaining about SZ 91 being able to be hit with planes on Germany’s first turn. There is no plane that can reach SZ 91 on round 1
Yea, she meant attack the French in sz93 with Luftwaffe, and sz91 w/2 subs. Took me a minute too lol
Sorry, I did get the sea zone numbers backwards.
The probable loss of the cruiser off the coast of Spain/Portugal/Gibraltar will help immensely. The French fleet I was thinking more of making life a lot easier on the Italians, but if they escape I guess it’s okay. My hopes were to be proactive in hurting the allies in the Med and in turn making life easier on the Italians. You know, to save the Italian fleet?
There’s absolutely no solution to save the Italian fleet.
A competent UK player will sink it no matter what you do.
I agree with you on that one BUT! also want to point out that at least as German and Italian player you should do the best out of it in:
Clearing out the Med combined with German Air Forces (2Ftr and 1 Tacbom) and Italian remaining Fleet and Air forces!
To Cmdr Jennifer
Agreed, Germany using 2 subs to take out the English cruiser off Gib in sz91 will help Italy a lot, although it can’t make the sz97 Taranto raid. If still alive the UK generally sends sz91 cruiser and probably the fighter from Gib to hit sz96 (Ita dd & transport) to make sure they get it. If the sz91 cruiser is dead (German subs) then the UK will most likely still send in 2 units into sz96 to make sure to kill it (preferably in one round), which means one less unit going to sz97 Taranto raid. Plus the fact if the UK sz91 cruiser is left alive to hit sz96, and survives, then it is one more ship that the axis need to kill to clear the Med (Italy’s NO).
The other part:
I can see the pros of the German Luftwaffe killing the French fleet in sz93 G1, and landing 3 planes in S Italy to scramble all German air in def of sz97 Taranto raid (preserves Ita air force for counter attack). Plus you could choose not to scramble all the planes, or just 1-2 Germ ftrs in a ploy to trap/weaken the UK in sz97 for a counter attack once they send in everything that can reach it. It would defiantly help the Italians out so they can clear the Med (Ita NO) on their turn in a counter strike on the surviving UK Med fleet (Med should be clear). Plus if the Italians clear sz97 on their turn the UK can’t convoy them.
The cons are leaving sz110 (1 bb, 2 cruisers) to do it, and loosing German air power in the scramble (if you do scramble). Neither of those things hold well for the axis long term for obvious reasons. The UK feels less threatened by Sea Lion keeping half its Atlantic fleet, and knows the Germans need all their air power to take London. So, I can’t see how this would stop the UK from doing sz97 Taranto in the first place (save the Italian fleet). It gives you some different options for being proactive about the raid, and the counter attack/recovery though.
Personally, I don’t ever think Sea Lion is worth it, at least not if it is going to cost what it usually does (most of the air force and almost all of the ground troops, plus rounds of income for transports.)
The threat is nice, but I find myself generally sticking with 3 transports (dunno, I like odd numbers, sure 2 would work just as well) in the North Sea mostly for getting extra foot soldiers into Russia faster. Those transports, in a pinch, MIGHT be useful in a light Sea Lion assault, if England leaves itself under-defended, but I don’t think it would be my primary focus.
My hope was more in line of making Taranto less appealing for England, or if failing that, saving the other portions of the Italian fleet. After all, there are two transports, uhm, a submarine, cruiser? and destroyer or 2? in the other two sea zones that won’t be hit if the Cruiser off Gibraltar is gone and maybe the French fleet is down as well. England only has so much firepower to use. The German air, on the other hand, being available was more of a deterrent for England. Now they know that if they do attack, the Axis might not scramble any Italian fighters - so if they go in, they go in full bore instead of going in light in hopes of getting Italian fighters to scramble and relying on the dice to both let them win AND kill Italian air, but yet having other forces available for hits in other locations.
Just my thoughts on the matter. I know a lot of players play the odds on their attacks, happily going in for 72% or better odds and figuring, even if they lose those battles, they hurt the enemy more than they are hurt in return. Germany is more able to recoup the loss of 1-4 aircraft in round 1 than Italy is in recouping 2 aircraft lost in round 1. England is also more able to recover from the loss of planes than Italy is. (Italy, IMHO, is more able to recover than Russia.)
Yeah I agree that Sea Lion can be a winning strat (for the allies lol).
As Germany I like to buy a carrier G1 to keep my options open and keep the allies guessing (as many do). After that a Sea Lion attempt would depend on how things went in the sea battles around England, what UK bought, and how much navy/air they still have that can get to England to def. Many UK players will buy a ftr and half doz inf just to secure England and not have to worry about it, others might go a little lighter, and maybe buy a transport or something for S Africa (or IC for Egypt). If UK does a Taranto raid, much of their available air power is in the Med and can’t get back in time, so Sea Lion might be a viable option especially if they don’t max buy for London UK1.
I also think that if the right situation arises you almost have to do Sea Lion at times just to keep your opponents honest. If you don’t take some risks or get to complacent you tip your hand. You need to keep an edge so they are always thinking “that SOB just might try that”
So you build a CV and two Transports G1 ( 30ipc)?
@Imperious:
So you build a CV and two Transports G1 ( 30ipc)?
Not necessarily, you could buy the carrier, 1 transport 1 inf/1art; or carrier 2 inf/2art; carrier save the rest……
If you (Germany) did buy the carrier and 2 transports though as UK you would defiantly think twice about sending the RAF to do Taranto raid, and would be more cautious sending your main line of defense (RAF) into the MED UK1.
Buying a carrier puts some doubts in their head, If UK is smacking the Italian navy on a normal bases UK1, then as the Germans you need to throw something different their way to get them out of their comfort zone. Take a look at some online games, I’m sure you’ll see quite a few G1 carrier buys, w/o SL follow through.
Conversely, If you keep buying say a minor IC for Romania, and/or all inf/art for German IC G1, then the UK is more likely to smack the Italian navy, because they are feeling all warm and fuzzy inside (thinking Barbarossa).
You don’t have to follow through w/SL, just make it an option G1. A carrier G1, and a transport G1/G2 could get you Leningrad a turn earlier because the Russians can’t air attack your navy when you come over (like they can if you lose the BB G1, and only have the cruiser for protection). You might be able to kill Russian inf if they def Len, and dead inf don’t save Moscow.
I know that buying a carrier G1 is a trade off making Barbarossa a bit weaker (fewer ground units). You also need to be flexible, and keeping the Italian navy around does that, and so does a beefed up German fleet in the North Sea/Baltic. The allies have to account for these mini axis navies, because combined with air power can be a deadly combo. Also having the ability to move ground units around in these axis ponds is a plus.
Conversely, If you keep buying say a minor IC for Romania, and/or all inf/art for German IC G1,
But that’s the point of buying the transports, your shucking 1 space movers to Finland. The investment in transports replaces the Factory buy for Romania and also makes UK thing twice
@Imperious:
Conversely, If you keep buying say a minor IC for Romania, and/or all inf/art for German IC G1,
But that’s the point of buying the transports, your shucking 1 space movers to Finland. The investment in transports replaces the Factory buy for Romania and also makes UK thing twice
Generally save carrier build until later when America is about to enter the war. Earlier isn’t worth it IMHO, submarines would be better since England is NOT attacking the remaining German fleet - not that early when they are still fighting for Africa/Med anyway.
I guess my idea of saving the Italian fleet is making it expensive for England to take the Med and maybe saving 2 transports, if that is possible.
The question is: How to save Italian fleet
And the answer as hard as it sounds and for the moment is NO!
IF: the purpose is to sink the RN in the Meds and clear the Meds off the RN, then the Italian Navy def. did her duty to the fullest.
BUT: it needs the support of German players Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine!
(it must sink the Cruiser sz 91 and prevent a landing on Gibraltar)
The Luftwaffe should land after their Task (whatever you spotted for, options are diffrent) with at least 1 Ftr and 2 Tacboms) in Italy, not engageing in any Scramble on U.K.'s turn. Write those airplanes off for the Meds and Africa only.
This setup will allow you to deal with the RN accordingly, because every U.K. player will take his chance given to perform a Toranto, no matter what! Ask your self what would you do, there you got your answer!
I read in this thread of saving up one round on G1, sounding good.
The benefit are imense of performing a full Operation on G3,G4 also saving So. France for Italy so they can get add 3ipc’s plus Bulgaria and fighting of Greece them selfs to round the ipc up to 14ipc’s Italys round 1 and 16 on I2.
And maybe get a U.K. ftr land in So. France and knock him out ,too.
@Cmdr:
@Imperious:
Conversely, If you keep buying say a minor IC for Romania, and/or all inf/art for German IC G1,
But that’s the point of buying the transports, your shucking 1 space movers to Finland. The investment in transports replaces the Factory buy for Romania and also makes UK thing twice
Generally save carrier build until later when America is about to enter the war.� Earlier isn’t worth it IMHO, submarines would be better since England is NOT attacking the remaining German fleet - not that early when they are still fighting for Africa/Med anyway.
I guess my idea of saving the Italian fleet is making it expensive for England to take the Med and maybe saving 2 transports, if that is possible.
To IL, exactly that’s why I said “conversely” as in you shouldn’t buy a Romanian IC, or drop a bunch of slow moving units in Berlin because it tips your hand (Barbarossa). I agree the carrier and 1-2 transports works just as well as a Romanian IC for getting slow moving units to the front, and might keep UK honest as far as keeping the RAF at home (sparing the Italian fleet).
To Jen, if you intend to buy a carrier at some point, why not just buy it G1 to cause some anxiety for the UK? They could go max defense, and keep the RAF in London. If that happens then they aren’t hitting the Italian fleet.
aequitas et veritas has a very good point. If the UK doesn’t do Taranto, they keep their Med fleet. This can be even a worse predicament for the Italians/Germans long term. The UK can just wait for the Italians to make a move away from the safety of their home waters (air cover), then drill em.
Many ppl believe that hitting sz97 UK1 is a bad move (to costly). In global 1940 UK can bring in the Indian fleet to replace losses though. IL said he was playing Europe only, and that isn’t an option for the UK in E40. But the US is coming full tilt Europe, so maybe the UK Med fleet is expendable, and trading fleets will slow Italian expansion if the RAF is hanging out in the Med afterwards.
I generally buy 10 infantry round 1 for Germany. Just because it gives you one more round on Russia and might scare Russia into not blitzing into China to help the Chinese if they are worried about an early German invasion.
As for Italy, I think the consensus is that you will lose the Taranto fleet, but you might be able to save the Maltan fleet and you might be able to severely damage the British by forcing them to use everything at Taranto and thus they cannot retreat the surface ships from the Luftwaffe.
The question is, if you can take out the British and French fleets before Russia 2, even if you lose the Taranto fleet, are you ahead?
Yes Jen I believe your ahead with Italy if the British fleet in the Med is destroyed. If they run away you may have problems later as others have stated. Even if Italy loses their fleet you can always save money from I2 and buy a CV, and 2TR or TR and DD on I3. I think getting UK to send their planes from the capital is the key. It makes Sealion so much easier. You only need 4-5 TR for a good Sealion. Buy 2 on TR on G1 and 3 more on G2. On G2 Take Scotland with 6 inf. UK is in no position to attack it if they only bought 6inf and a fighter which is the usual buy for UK suspecting Sealion. If they scrambled their fighters or moved them to Italy and have only 1-2 plus the French fighter then Sealion is a 100% go. This threat of Sealion is what saves the Italian fleet but to ignore the Italian fleet completely is a failure IMO. You have to try to take out the DD and TR, that’s easy but if Germany is preparing a sealion you cant send the fighters from London. Without those fighters Italy and Germany can scramble and save the BB and TR.
Yes Jen I believe your ahead with Italy if the British fleet in the Med is destroyed. If they run away you may have problems later as others have stated. Even if Italy loses their fleet you can always save money from I2 and buy a CV, and 2TR or TR and DD on I3. I think getting UK to send their planes from the capital is the key. It makes Sealion so much easier. You only need 4-5 TR for a good Sealion. Buy 2 on TR on G1 and 3 more on G2. On G2 Take Scotland with 6 inf. UK is in no position to attack it if they only bought 6inf and a fighter which is the usual buy for UK suspecting Sealion. If they scrambled their fighters or moved them to Italy and have only 1-2 plus the French fighter then Sealion is a 100% go.  This threat of Sealion is what saves the Italian fleet but to ignore the Italian fleet completely is a failure IMO. You have to try to take out the DD and TR, that’s easy but if Germany is preparing a sealion you cant send the fighters from London. Without those fighters Italy and Germany can scramble and save the BB and TR.
Cyan, according to my battle calculator 4-5 TRS ain’t enough :-(
It will give you a decent shot at London, but only 5 German units will survive the battle for London on average. I found out (the hard way) that the dice can easily make GE loose that battle with this prediction, and winning it with 5 units is also bad news because it makes London very easily liberated by USA. Plus, buying fleet protection GE1 and also loosing 2/3 of the Luftwaffe in London is a disaster for Germany’s defenses against Russia.
In order for Sea Lion to be a success, GE must ‘plan’ to win London with about 18units surviving. Usually this means attacking London by surprise, or the UK-player to be, hmmm, sleeping :evil:
ItIsILeClerc - I don’t think I ever had more than 5 units taking London. If your taking London with 18 units who is playing UK? Is it the AI. lol. I know what you mean though and I tend to agree. I have yet to play a game after taking London. Players usually quit after that in my experience. What it does do though is give Japan a good shot at taking India once and for all. UK-Europe will not be around to liberate it which means all Japan has to do is sack Anzac or Hawaii and its the game. But how is USA going to protect Hawaii and Anzac if they are liberating London? Only recently with the step approach of doing a Sealion in stages with 2 CVs do you stand a chance of holding back USA or making them spend more to liberate London. Russia is strong but I am gambling they cannot take Berlin before Japan takes Anzac or Hawaii.
Lol, I hope my previous opponents will not read your post as this is exactly what happened to them :-D.
They 100% believed we went for Barbarossa and this is what the Uk did:
*1DD (from sz109) + CA (sz91) 1FTR (London) -> sz106, attacked 2GE subs there
*2FTR (London, Malta) + 1STR (London) 1TAC (CV) + CA + DD + CV -> Attacked Taranto
*1FTR (Gibraltar) -> attacked sz96.
UK placed a TRS in Canada, a FTR + MECH in South Africa and 2inf in London. 2 ‘Original’ FTR remained in London (including the French). All the rest really doesnt matter, GE took London with 19 survivors…. We even did not bomb anything in London. At all.
The number I mentioned is a calculation of what GE needs against what I know the US can come up with as a liberation force US3 without building anything else in Europe in later turns. The number of German units surviving may vary a bit according to what the US is doing (or can do, given that Japan is also doing evil deeds). If the US cannot mount a large liberation force, 13 German survivors may be enough. If the US can, 15 to 18 German survivors are needed to keep the USA out.
If Japan goes for India, the USA has an easy job. It needs 2 turns to form a good liberation taskforce, but it needs elements of the pacific fleet for it. With Japan bullying India this is NP. The trick is, USA must spend (near) 100% of its income from turn 3/4 and on in the Pacific again, untill able to defend Hawai/Sydney. The hard part for the USA may be when Japan goes for Hawai and Sydney right away, somewhat ignoring India. But can the Japanese take both Hawai and Sydney and hold it, when USA starts 100% Japan from turn 3/4 and on? Japanese income should be a lot lower than usual in this approach (with Hawai taken, that of the USA is also a bit lower) but India + China are having a good time and cannot be ignored for long (Japan must hold its VCs there as well).
Russia cannot take Berlin indeed (unless GE spent too much on ships!), but it can grow so strong that it can hold off GE + IT a very long time before it gets in danger (giving the USA, say, 10+ turns, a lot of time). If GE lost a lot of Luftwaffe in London, Russia may even never need to retreat anymore… It can also at the same time liberate China if need be.
Hopefully I will get an opponent that will want to play it out someday. :)
Yeah,
I have found out that against any strong, working axis strategy it is hard to find allied players that ‘want to play it out’.
A lot of allied players (that I know personally) want to defeat the axis in 7 to 9 turns max. If they can’t, they loose hope and give up.
I can rave about that for quite a while as I believe it takes at least 14 turns to get an idea who will win the game, longer if you want a clear, undisputable victor :roll:. I think most people here on the forum more or less agree with me on this one so I won’t  :wink:.
