To Taranto, or not to Taranto

It really depends on if Germany looks like they are going after London or straight after Russia. If Germany is clearly going after Russia, you can use planes from England to help in the Taranto raid.
While I don’t usually care for the Taranto raid because you usually lose the Med fleet, it is a good way to really cripple the Italian fleet and set back their aspirations in the Med. Leaving Italy that battleship, cruiser and 2nd transport can mean a lot of trouble for the Allies.

I am not a big proponent of Taranto, as I appreciate neither the vacuum it creates nor the RAF casualties I must sustain. However, if the germans haven’t even lent a single fighter to support the italians, I can rarely resist. Likelyhood of Sealion has little effect on my decision, as I generally must withdraw the shattered royal navy to canada or the med for the first few turns either way, until i can reinforce it. Mostly I just do it when i dont feel like having fun with a combined british fleet in the indian.

IMHO, Taranto is a must every game. Most Allied players get at least +6 IPC’s bid every game, which is an extra Brit Sub in SZ98. That eliminates the need to bring both Brit fighters from the UK.

I really wanted to vote for 2 options, but alas only 1 allowed ;-).
For me, it depends on GE1 actions and how I know my German opponent (is he strong, experienced at Sea Lion and so on). Apart from that, destroying the Italian fleet UK2, or even being patient untill its fleet sails out to accomplish something is also something I like to do. Italy’s navy can usually sortie only once, because it will be leaving its aircover by doing so.

@ItIsILeClerc:

I really wanted to vote for 2 options, but alas only 1 allowed ;-).
For me, it depends on GE1 actions and how I know my German opponent (is he strong, experienced at Sea Lion and so on). Apart from that, destroying the Italian fleet UK2, or even being patient untill its fleet sails out to accomplish something is also something I like to do. Italy’s navy can usually sortie only once, because it will be leaving its aircover by doing so.

Great point. I have found it is usually much better for UK to let the Italian fleet start moving around then pounce on them round 2 or 3. Even then it is really hard for Italy to rebuild any navy.

I personally like to destroy it because it really sets Italy back some.  It first eliminates all but one of their transports and then it convoy’s their sea zone with whatever ships you have left over from the attack.  This really hurts Italy and they can be looking at less than 10 IPCs next round.

Commando Brado - This is the exact reason why I dislike the bid system even when I’m playing UK.

ItIsILeClerc  - As much as I like to destroy those ships on round 1 it makes the most sense to wait until Italy uses the navy and is not under fighter cover.  The first time I used your strategy to preserve those ships I was so worried about Italy that I rushed and attacked them on round 2 and destroyed it but took heavy losses from UK. The second game I played with the strategy and I did not attack Italy’s navy but instead used it to setup a trap in Gibraltar while waiting for the US and other UK ships to join the combined fleet in SZ 91.

@Commando:

IMHO, Taranto is a must every game. Most Allied players get at least +6 IPC’s bid every game, which is an extra Brit Sub in SZ98. That eliminates the need to bring both Brit fighters from the UK.

This is the correct call here.  Taranto is standard with the bid.  There are other options (Tobruk gambit and Med evac for example) but this is really the best against stronger players…it helps out the Allies in the longrun.

What would the extra fighter(s) from London hit?  I’m not sure what they would be able to reach in the Med that’s within 5 spaces of London…

Taranto every time.
I feel anxious if I leave it undone. Anxious Italy will become a monster with the beginnings of a fleet and starting with two Transports, not one.

The fighters from London can reach but have to land on the CV so you can only send 2 plus the bomber but most only send 1 fighter and bomber like YoungGrasshopper posted above.

@Young:

I am curious about what happens during G1 that would prevent some of you from attempting this strategy.

One reason has already been posted: If Germany is looking Sea Lion heavy. Perhaps a no-brainer but still.
2nd reason would be for me: If I have a German opponent that is known for throwing a surprise Sea Lion and I cannot make sure that Germany takes London with <16 survivors.

Do it unless Germany saves at least 21+ IPC or buys CV and 2 AP.

I checked “Depends on what happened G1”.

This would include:

**If the Luftwaffe took a hit or not.

**Is the Kriegsmarine in tact (did they lose the BB, or purchase any ships)

**Is the German navy a better target?

**How much of the RN survived (sz91 UK cruiser alive?)

**Did the UK scramble, and lose some planes?

With that said, we see a UK1 Taranto in most games. UK cripples the Italian navy, but is subject to a pretty lethal counter attack by one of the Euro Axis, so the UK Med fleet will go down. This slug fest costs both sides a lot of valuable expensive units.

I’m starting to like the wait and see if with enough rope Italy can hang itself approach. They have to leave port sometime……

BTW, about the bid for the allies.  This game is pretty balanced IMO, and as others have pointed out a patient allied team can win w/o a bid. Games won by the allies tend to be much longer 15+ rounds (barring bad dice, or horrible axis play). The allies shouldn’t have the option of placing a unit at set-up that can be used right away for the purpose of changing the odds or out come of a major battle. The set-up is how it is so that there are consequences for certain battles. Giving the UK a sub in the Med at set-up just so they can sink the Italian fleet easier, and with less risk to the RAF just seems wrong IMO.

If one was to use a bid for the allies, I would think that the unit placed shouldn’t effect the first round of play. The fighter in Canada would be much more acceptable to me if a bid was to be used.

I chose always. But I’d have chosen something like ‘almost always’ or ‘most of the time’ if it was up there.

Even in tabletop (no bid) games or games where I put a fighter in say Scotland, I almost always go after the Italian fleet. And I’ll land all air in Malta afterwards to save that much of the Brit units. I really don’t care about losing the British fleet as long as the Italian fleet is nuked first. UK can lock down Egypt and the ME without a fleet. Whereas Italy needs a fleet if it has any hope of contesting the Brits in said locations.

Neutralize Italy as a presence in the med and you’ll go a long way towards winning in Europe. Let Italy get into the 30-40 IPC range for a couple of turns and the allies will have problems. I don’t mind a SL threat that much, depending on Pacific situation. Even if Germany goes SL, Russia will become a beast and US will eventually pry London away from Berlin. I want Africa and the ME secured first thing as the allies because it gives the allies a really strong choke point/fallback position if/when Moscow goes down. I can’t count how many times British factories in the ME or Egypt have stalled the German army short of victory.

@Young:

Besides, the UK should be taking out SZ#97 especially if Germany is threatening Sealion, how else will they deal with a strong Italy after they lose their capital? best to weaken them early IMO.

Quite right. Besides if Germany’s really going to go SL, they can’t afford to lose too many(any) aircraft which cuts down on their odds of hitting any leftover Brits in sz97 which they would only be able to do with air.

So far it just remains a matter of preference. There doesn’t seem to be a particularly wrong approach in what I have read so far. All strategies lead to exploitable situations by the allies, IF they pay attention…

For example, personally I like to secure London (I can make it 100% secure If I want) and deal with the Italians after Germany backed off. Ultimatly attacking Italy UK2, or defeating Germany over London/the Atlantic if it persists (not to mention what Russia will do when left unchecked so seriously).
Others rather cripple Italy UK1 at the cost of London, which is also a good strategy because Germany will be stuck in Western Europe, the USA will liberate London (or do KJF) and Russia starts preying on eastern Europe. Only concern here should be not to have too much German ARM in London so that Liberation wouldn’t even be possible even if the USA wanted to. That’s just too much comfort for Germany and it can be achieved by getting a total of ~16 German units into London…