Typical G1 attack includes attacking these two sea zones and most players do not recommend scrambling planes into SZ 110, but am wondering if anything changes in the Europe only game.

@SuperbattleshipYamato

Interesting. I used to think scrambling is fine since I like taking Tobruk as the UK instead of Taranto. I feel like Sealion is not that viable in 2nd Ed 1940, regardless of if it is the Global or Europe only, since UK will take out some German planes. I think Allies have a better chance to win if Germany is doing sealion than barbarossa.

Edit: I have seen some forum threads that talk about baiting Germany into doing sealion, and scrambling into SZ 110 seems to be a way to do it.

Typical G1 attack includes attacking these two sea zones and most players do not recommend scrambling planes into SZ 110, but am wondering if anything changes in the Europe only game.

I agree with your first sentence. Is it because you think it’s better if the US and UK are both focusing on landing troops in France? In some games I’ve played, I found it’s better if the Western Allies are concentrating their landings in the same spot.

Hi,
I know this forum is for the most part inactive but wanted to hear anyone’s thoughts on who should take Italy if it becomes possible to take it. For purposes of simplification I want to leave out the Soviet Union as an answer since the game is probably already over if they are in a position to take the Italian territories and hold them until their next turn. Here were my thoughts. This is not a thread as to IF the Allies should try to take Northern Italy but WHO should take it if it becomes possible.

UK:
Pros:
Gives UK more money to work with (also consider Southern Italy is most likely guaranteed to be in Allied control if Northern Italy is taken)
UK can now have more land units on the continent without buying more transports to compensate.

Cons:
UK might not have the money to sustain both the London IC and N. Italy IC (Being capped at 4 units is not that small of a number for the Italian IC imo)

US:
Pros:
A complex in Europe puts US that much closer to the action
It has the money to sustain both the East Coast IC and N. Italy IC

Cons:
The US does not need the money as much as the UK
It takes longer for the US to reach N. Italy than it would for the UK (1 extra turn)
The circumstances of the game might make it so that it is difficult for US planes to reach the battle unless Vichy France, Corsica, or Sardinia, were legal landing spots because of what happened in earlier rounds.

I think it comes down to if I want the UK to have the income from the territory, or do I want the US to have it because they can use the factory more effectively.

Hi all, I wanted to hear what you guys usually like to do with the transport that begins the game in SZ 98 in the Europe . In my solo games, I have been having trouble with the Allies and am trying to improve my UK gameplay. I know the SZ 98 transport is not a game-breaker but I wanted to know what you guys do with it since UK will not have a 2nd transport that will be able to reach the Middle East and/or East Africa unlike in G40. It seems like these are possible uses with good odds:

• The Tobruk Raid
• Convincing Greece, Persia, or Yugoslavia to join the Allies
• Amphibious assault on Italian Somaliland

I haven’t played a game as UK where I attack I-Somaliland but I don’t like the odds on Ethiopia when I want to do the Taranto raid.

Best of luck in your game! I like to buy tanks since they attack @3 but cost less than fighters. There is the draw back that the tanks have to stay in the territory if I successfully capture one just like any other ground unit. But in my first few games that I played, I was able to get away with buying tanks since Germany would break a few units from its stack to capture certain territories (whether that be Western Ukraine, Rostov, Stalingrad). This would enable my tanks to counter attack territories and still be there by the beginning of my next turn. BUT, since Germany is picking up on the fact that breaking its stack to capture as many territories as possible is not always the best move so I will have to adjust accordingly as well.

@Admiral_Nimitz Thank you for the post! I have usually been buying 1-2 tanks every round. I’ll try out your turn 1-3 buys since in my solo games, Germany usually attacks G3 and sometimes goes the northern route if it made a G1 purchase that makes Sealion possible (like the destroyer, aircraft carrier, submarine purchase).

I am interested by your suggestion to buy a fighter on turn 2 since I like waiting until I am at war to buy planes using the NO IPC’s to help cover the costs. It could possibly help with dealing with the German navy if for some reason they don’t take the necessary steps to protect its ships from a possible scramble from Leningrad or they leave them vulnerable to an attack.

This works better in the Global game because the ships that begin off the coast of India aren’t going to be there in the Europe only game. As mentioned in this thread Italy could also take either or both of the territories required to use the Suez Canal. And remember in the rules that if Italy took either T-J or Egypt, and you manage to control both territories on your 2nd turn, and Italy does not take either of those territories, ships cannot pass through the canal until your 3rd turn because canals are only usable if they were friendly at the beginning of your turn, not at the non-combat phase.

It could work, and you would be able to add a destroyer (that starts the game in SZ 71) and a few extra fighters to your attacking force but an Italy player will be able to send a ship as a blocker if they see it coming (like their destroyer). A drawback is you’re giving Italy at best 1 turn, and at worst 3 turns, to use the ships that begin the game in 97 to do things in the Mediterranean. Allowing the Italian Navy to mass their ships is not as bad as Moltke suggests because the UK still needs to attack SZ 96 (I would suggest using the cruiser at 91 if it is there on your first turn, and the fighter in Gibraltar), and Italy needs to be attacking the French ships that begin the game in 93 and they might take 1-2 losses while doing so. But for your SZ 96 attack on Turn 1, if the destroyer lands a hit, take the loss for the cruiser and not the fighter. Not only is Italy in a better position to get the NO for no Allied surface ships in the Med, but the fighter that went to attack SZ 96 from Gibraltar could be used again for when you do finally go and attack the Italian Navy.

Thanks for the input! I also like to counterattack even if it’s just a strafe so that I can keep my tanks alive and slow down their offensive. I like your suggestion though because those purchases can all be placed in Leningrad and Ukraine, meaning that once the Axis attack, the purchases are already at the front. Sometimes when I would play I used to think that I should wait until I’m at war to buy tanks once I start getting NO money but never mind.

I like Gentlegamer’s points and agree with them. If the Allies already have naval superiority (and worse, you don’t have any ships left after your Sealion attack) there isn’t a lot you can do about that. You can still win the game though. As Italy, do make sure you keep units on Rome. But if it’s possible, try to have the Italians retake the 2 coastal territories in France once the Allies do start landing in them. It will give Italy more money and them having the factory (if they keep it for multiple turns) will free Germany to keep focusing on the Eastern front. Your best bet is to keep fortifying the coastal territories and the UK and try to take the remaining VC’s necessary to win. But as Gentlegamer alluded to, you don’t need all of the VC’s the Soviet Union controls IF you have Cairo, London, Paris, and the VC’s the Axis have had at the beginning of the game. You will need 2 of the 3 they have if you manage to keep the rest.