Convoy disruption or bombing raids

@Arthur-Bomber-Harris said in Let's talk the Taranto raid.:

@shadowhawk it does take either good dice rolls, an Allied bid, and/or meticulous execution to pull of the alternatives to Taranto. Otherwise you find that you lose Egypt, Gibraltar, or London early in the game and it is almost impossible to recover.

I have to spend a long time battlecalcing every scenario if I decide to place my fleet next to Gibraltar. That certainly is the best option if you can avoid mistakes, but I wouldn’t do that in a face to face game.

Yea i agree there, taranto is the easier option to pull off.
But in the case or rare dice in 110, or just a weak attack there, sometimes you can pull it off.
Having a BB + 2 cruisers + destroyer + carrier + 3 fighters available will deter any attack on it from italy or germany and that fleet can easy defend sea lion or punish the italians for moving anywhere but stay put.

But just doing taranto is the easier and safer bet.

@witt Thank you. Convoys were one of the topics I was somewhat confused about

I think Convoy’s are, and if you are in the right position to proceed this, it’s a very great way to turn the game. Japan has 47 ipc’s on the IPC tracker right now and I am playing USA taking Korea and this is the last move of our night. We continue next week. Look at the plentiful opportunity the USA has at Convoy’s over Japan now. It won’t take long to minimise Japans income ( and correct me if I am wrong ).

Calcutta is going to be taken back and Shanghai next 2 rounds.

BH

IMG_7134.jpg

The difference with SBRs is that you are attacking future production versus pieces already on the board ready to do something.

You shouldn’t be doing SBRs because your bombers only face a 1 each when attacking  an IC with an AA versus attacking land pieces unsupported by ground troops.  You do an SBR when there is really nothing for your bombers to do and they are not taken out of position by doing the SBR, and potential losses won’t dramatically affect your next move.  If you really really need both bombers for next rounds attack on a navy that is threatening you, then maybe you don’t risk losing a bomber in an SBR due to the fact it will prevent the planned next round attack on the said navy.

I don’t know how japan doesn’t get afghanistan. Also Japan would get those 6 troops in mongolia. Everything Else I see what you are saying. Are allies winning by so much in your games that they can afford to give 10 free infantry to Japan at the minimum and 2 extra dollars?

You know, I’m kind of surprised that Larry didn’t include US Submarines in costing 3 IPCs for convoy raiding.  Historically, the US submarine force did the same thing to Japanese merchant shipping that German U-boats did to Allied shipping in the Atlantic.  In fact, the US submarines were actually successful at it whereas through convoying and ASW improvements, the U-boat threat in the Atlantic was gradually reduced.  US subs were so successful that in 1944 the US Navy had to cut back on submarine production because they already had too many and were running out of targets since they had so crippled the Japanese importing.

idk…… you usually need those planes to fight russia, and like you said, britan wont be doing many landings anyway…

more of a factor in the europe theatre, both in the Med and Atlantic….