Just thought of this and was curious if anyone has tried bombing Gibraltar instead of London/Russia? Would heavily delay America as they start to a nice little system of 5-7 transports coming and leaving each turn.
I guess that initially I would probably use the German bombers to help out in the East, but once Russia is taken or close to taken does it make sense for the Axis player to do this?
ShadowHAwk is right on
There can be situations where you can do this. Now if you play with tech and Germany discorvers rockets the situation becomes completely different. Then this navy base will be hit every round (or as long as it is operative). This has a huge effect on the game. One solution is to take Morocco with USA (given it was in axis hands) and build its own navy base
But they can still reach SZ 93 and SZ 109 110 and so at least in 1 direction the shuck-shuck is preserved even when its bombed out. If London fell then USA could take it over and repair.
If your goal is to Strat bomb the Gibraltar naval base regardless of fighter protection then you might consider leaving Morocco alone as well. Italy usually takes it for a 5 IPC bonus for North Africa, which usually only last a turn or two. When the US takes it back from Italy they can just build a naval base.
Either way, its probably only a good strategy if US is building mostly on the Pacific side.
I would like to point out that you do not have to strat bomb a naval base with a bomber….you can use a Tactical for that job. In the big picture it is never a bad idea to bomb Naval and Air bases. It forces the Allies, mainly, UK, to have to pay for repairs. It cuts down on the allies ability to use those bases and sometimes…the Allies simply forget to repair them or fell they need IPC in troops and just maybe, at a critical time, having those bases denied to the Allies does give the Axis a one turn advantage.
Bomb Gibraltar after you take London so they can’t repair it.
Bomb Gibraltar after you take London so they can’t repair it.
Dont take Morocco, if you do, US can take it back and build a base there. Strafe the Units there but dont take it. Yeah you wont get the 5IPC bonus, but thats better than the US parking a massive fleet and being able to go way up North or into Rome.
@Hunter:
Dont take Morocco, if you do, US can take it back and build a base there. Strafe the Units there but dont take it. Yeah you wont get the 5IPC bonus, but thats better than the US parking a massive fleet and being able to go way up North or into Rome.
Taking any French territory, unless you know you can hold it essentially for the duration until you’ve lost, is putting money in the Allies’ pockets. Yeah, that 5 IPC for North Africa you might hold for a turn or two, but the Allies make it back in essentially three turns and collect it for the rest of the game.
Marsh
Its a great thing to do when you do a sea lion. You can prevent US from getting to UK by bombing this naval base as UK cannot repair it and it isnt US.
Yeah, this is a pain in the butt if you’re the Allies. However, you doing Sea Lion is more than adequate compensation, since Sea Lion is a losing move…
@Marshmallow:
Its a great thing to do when you do a sea lion. You can prevent US from getting to UK by bombing this naval base as UK cannot repair it and it isnt US.
Yeah, this is a pain in the butt if you’re the Allies. However, you doing Sea Lion is more than adequate compensation, since Sea Lion is a losing move…
I should add unless you get it super cheap (for like three transports being built total).
Marsh
I think that because the US has the potential to build a naval base in Morocco and the sz is always 1 turn away from 2 major complexes the proposal to turn off the naval base there indefinitely is impossible to sustain. Even if the base is bombed the US can still land in southern France and pass through to enter the med. if you conquer the territory you cannot hold it against determined American effort.
If the US is completely focused on the pacific than the bombing is still inconsequential. What bombing Gibraltar really does is divert planes from the critical path to Moscow. Their absence will cost additional units on the eastern front that are needed in that fight.
Not to mention that if a single aa gun hits you lose money because the base caps at 6 damage. Attacking the Gibraltar base is an interesting idea but is ultimately a vain effort.
I think that because the US has the potential to build a naval base in Morocco and the sz is always 1 turn away from 2 major complexes the proposal to turn off the naval base there indefinitely is impossible to sustain. Even if the base is bombed the US can still land in southern France and pass through to enter the med. if you conquer the territory you cannot hold it against determined American effort.
If the US is completely focused on the pacific than the bombing is still inconsequential. What bombing Gibraltar really does is divert planes from the critical path to Moscow. Their absence will cost additional units on the eastern front that are needed in that fight.
Not to mention that if a single aa gun hits you lose money because the base caps at 6 damage. Attacking the Gibraltar base is an interesting idea but is ultimately a vain effort.
I agree with that, its almost worthless. The only way to turn it off is to do a Sea lion and bomb Gibraltar and not take it and Morocco. The only problem is if the US decides its going to violate the Neutrality of the True Neutrals and Builds a Naval Base in Spain. Doesnt matter what you do, the US will find a way to make it work.
