Ya your global guide was great made napa a monster I would like to see one
Italian Strategies
-
Does italy really stand a chance of controling an retaining africa? I seems to me that america can take africa easily if they want. Do the strategies involving italy taking africa are ment to make some IPCs the first turn and then lose africa or are they ment to really dominate africa.
It doesn’t matter if they stand a chance of controlling Africa. The point is that they have to try whether or not the Allies move to stop them. Italy has to make an effort to keep it’s income up by keeping the pressure on Africa because either it diverts Allied forces away from Germany and Japan to stop them or it gives them a ton of IPC’s that are also taken from the UK.
Good point.
Every infantry, artillery, armor, fighter and bomber sent to Africa to stop Italy is one less in Europe to defeat Germany.
-
I think the Italians are better suited to staying in Europe,even if it means getting only 9 IPCs per turn. Three men per turn will beef up France considerably. Trying to duke it out with the Allies in Africa is a distraction, sure, but when DDay comes,you will miss those troops.
-
@Heavy:
I think the Italians are better suited to staying in Europe,even if it means getting only 9 IPCs per turn. Three men per turn will beef up France considerably. Trying to duke it out with the Allies in Africa is a distraction, sure, but when DDay comes,you will miss those troops.
I think the hope is that Italy will be earning enough to build 6 units a round and thus, have more units than ability to transport and build up a stack in Europe to liberate/defend France against the Allies.
At least that’s usually my plan.
-
assuming you are going for Africa, taking Gibraltar turn 1 is a good way to keep those pesky air units out of the Roman Lake for a while, which just might give you enough time to build up troops and deflect attacks.
-
assuming you are going for Africa, taking Gibraltar turn 1 is a good way to keep those pesky air units out of the Roman Lake for a while, which just might give you enough time to build up troops and deflect attacks.
But what do you want to take it with?
I agree, it’s a good move to take it if you can, but whatever you put there is going to be stranded and whatever you leave in SZ 13 is going to be sunk by England.
I used to do it with a German infantry. Lately, I’ve been thinking up different things to do with that transport instead. (One was putting it in SZ 14 and letting the Italians use it. But I don’t like that since it means Egypt isn’t even strafed before it can be reinforced.)
-
german airforce kills the UK ships off of Egypt, load up 1inf onto a transport, and support the landing with my crusiers
-
german airforce kills the UK ships off of Egypt, load up 1inf onto a transport, and support the landing with my crusiers
HUH?
This is the 1941 scenario forum
There ARE no UK ships off Egypt
-
german airforce kills the UK ships off of Egypt, load up 1inf onto a transport, and support the landing with my crusiers
HUH?
This is the 1941 scenario forum
There ARE no UK ships off Egypt
oh, sorry didn’t notice that nervous laughter :-o
Either way, you still move the tranny next to Gibraltar, invade, and use your warships to cover it
-
german airforce kills the UK ships off of Egypt, load up 1inf onto a transport, and support the landing with my crusiers
HUH?
This is the 1941 scenario forum
There ARE no UK ships off Egypt
oh, sorry didn’t notice that nervous laughter :-o
Either way, you still move the tranny next to Gibraltar, invade, and use your warships to cover it
It’s a solid strat. 2 Infantry, Artillery, 2 Armor, Bomber vs the 3 Infantry, Artillery, Armor, Fighter defending is in your favor. (If all you want is to clear Egypt, then it’s way in your favor, I don’t like Germany to own Egypt, I prefer it for Italy so they have a place to put up an Industrial Complex.)
But what if you want to do something different?
You could theoretically still do good damage with 2 Infantry, Artillery, 2 Armor at Egypt and use the bomber in SZ 2 with the submarines (me liky this one. I like Bomber, Submarine, Fighter to SZ 2 and Submarine, 2 Fighters to SZ 12 too.) It’s probably not enough to win, but you should do enough damage that England cannot hold it against Italy.
But then again, now you’re putting that Transport were the British can, and will, sink it. (Assuming the British fighter is alive in Egypt, which it probably will be.)
Or you could invade Gibraltar which has perks. At least it prevents England from getting the NO, but that has problems too. Taking Egypt also prevents the NO, but necessitates the use of the bomber to have stellar odds of success and that takes it away from SZ 2 which leaves England with a BB, something I’m not entirely happy about. And taking Gibraltar really means the loss of a transport and a stranded infantryman.
You see the dilemma.
-
I know its a bit of a waste but i’ll do just about anything to buy Italy time
-
I know its a bit of a waste but i’ll do just about anything to buy Italy time
If you’ll do anything, you can always buy a German IC for France G1, enabling Germany (who can afford it) the chance to help the Med navy by plopping down an A/C (and land her ftrs on it) or whatever else little brother’s navy might need (Italy)
-
I know its a bit of a waste but i’ll do just about anything to buy Italy time
If you’ll do anything, you can always buy a German IC for France G1, enabling Germany (who can afford it) the chance to help the Med navy by plopping down an A/C (and land her ftrs on it) or whatever else little brother’s navy might need (Italy)
But that also invites England and America to invest in an SBR campaign since you can do 32 IPC in damage to the Germans each round. It’ll cost them at least 7 IPC before they can build one unit (repairing France down to 5 Damage so the complex can build 1 unit.)
-
@Cmdr:
I know its a bit of a waste but i’ll do just about anything to buy Italy time
If you’ll do anything, you can always buy a German IC for France G1, enabling Germany (who can afford it) the chance to help the Med navy by plopping down an A/C (and land her ftrs on it) or whatever else little brother’s navy might need (Italy)
But that also invites England and America to invest in an SBR campaign since you can do 32 IPC in damage to the Germans each round. It’ll cost them at least 7 IPC before they can build one unit (repairing France down to 5 Damage so the complex can build 1 unit.)
not if you are playing interceptors, SBR-Jenn
Plus the response was to BBRETT3, as he said he would do ANYTHING, so I listed anything
-
@Cmdr:
I know its a bit of a waste but i’ll do just about anything to buy Italy time
If you’ll do anything, you can always buy a German IC for France G1, enabling Germany (who can afford it) the chance to help the Med navy by plopping down an A/C (and land her ftrs on it) or whatever else little brother’s navy might need (Italy)
But that also invites England and America to invest in an SBR campaign since you can do 32 IPC in damage to the Germans each round. It’ll cost them at least 7 IPC before they can build one unit (repairing France down to 5 Damage so the complex can build 1 unit.)
not if you are playing interceptors, SBR-Jenn
Plus the response was to BBRETT3, as he said he would do ANYTHING, so I listed anything
Yea, but I don’t know anyone who plays with Interceptors. It sort of breaks the game, IMHO.
And yes, I know you replied to Brett with “anything” I was just pointing out that it had major flaws because I didn’t want him to think it was a great move without any drawbacks. Technically, every move and non-move has a drawback.
Anyway, Interceptors are unneeded. If you do the math and work out the statistics you’ll see that SBRs only work in the attacker advantage until the opponent gets Radar or Improved Factories and then they work against you. And when they are working for you, it’s only a 5 IPC advantage, you’d be better off killing enemy infantry with those bombers since they’d probably never die and you’d do 3 IPC in damage everytime your bomber killed an enemy infantryman.
-
@Cmdr:
Yea, but I don’t know anyone who plays with Interceptors
Hmm. You don’t know ANYONE who plays with interceptors (and I guess that would include you), but yet you know that it “It sort of breaks the game, IMHO”
How do you know these things? Are you clairvoyant?
See, you need to try the rules first BEFORE you can say they break the game.
BTW, I have played WITH and WITHOUT escorts.
@Cmdr:
Anyway, Interceptors are unneeded. If you do the math and work out the statistics you’ll see that SBRs only work in the attacker advantage until the opponent gets Radar or Improved Factories and then they work against you. And when they are working for you, it’s only a 5 IPC advantage, you’d be better off killing enemy infantry with those bombers since they’d probably never die and you’d do 3 IPC in damage everytime your bomber killed an enemy infantryman.
Hmm. You can offset SBRs with Radar or improved factories (tech that cost money) or play the interceptor rule which costs nothing. Which is more fair to the axis?
The key is that early on, the allies only really have one way to slow down the axis machine: SBRs. Unfortunately, it is TOO effective for the allies so then it becomes a game of “who can roll more ones” on bombing runs.
-
I know its a bit of a waste but i’ll do just about anything to buy Italy time
If you’ll do anything, you can always buy a German IC for France G1, enabling Germany (who can afford it) the chance to help the Med navy by plopping down an A/C (and land her ftrs on it) or whatever else little brother’s navy might need (Italy)
IMHO this defeats the purpose of having Italy as a separate power, they fight in the Med. so that Germany doesn’t have to. I should have said:
“I know its a bit of a waste but i’ll do just about anything to buy Italy time, short of getting the Germans largely involved”
-
I know its a bit of a waste but i’ll do just about anything to buy Italy time
If you’ll do anything, you can always buy a German IC for France G1, enabling Germany (who can afford it) the chance to help the Med navy by plopping down an A/C (and land her ftrs on it) or whatever else little brother’s navy might need (Italy)
IMHO this defeats the purpose of having Italy as a separate power, they fight in the Med. so that Germany doesn’t have to. I should have said:
“I know its a bit of a waste but i’ll do just about anything to buy Italy time, short of getting the Germans largely involved”
All I can say is that I have seen the France IC used quite effectively, regardless of the ‘SBR’ target Jen maintains it is. France is a huge territory for the axis to lose. It’s an $11 IPC swing (using NO’s) and an IC allows units to be dropped without having to move backwards from Germany, amongst other uses.
Face it, Italy NEEDS Germanys help. They are the little brother who can be very needy when picked on. And the allies can easily pick on Italy. If Italy gets itself going (and ‘grows’ up) for 2+ rounds of $20+ IPCs, they can THEN take care of themselves. If I am the allies, I will prevent lil’ bro from ever growing up whenever I can.
-
Yea, I never played the rule. But I can take what I have heard from others and apply my intellect and come up with a logical conclusion that they are an overly complex set of rules (the way I read them) that are not really needed given the other rules in the game.
I get the feeling WOTC put it out in a knee jerk reaction to early online play. Same with closing SZ 16. Early in the game’s history Russia wasn’t being played right and Italy was getting Caucasus early giving the German’s the NO, so WOTC closed SZ 16 as a optional rule. Of course, they did that after Russian players were playing Russia better and Caucasus was no longer under any serious threat from Italy.
Same with SBRs. Early in the game history people were blowing the crud out of German factories and so WOTC came up with the Interceptor rules as an optional rule. Now people don’t really go hot and heavy SBR action, they’ve adapted to play the Allies in a stronger position. (note: when the allies were going SBR heavy, the Axis were winning more games. Now they are going more traditional and the allies are winning more games.)
Honestly, I don’t see the need to use either of the optional rules. It’s like using the Axis Power optional rules in Second Edition. It’s nice, but a better solution had been found, IMHO.
-
@Cmdr:
Yea, I never played the rule. But I can take what I have heard from others and apply my intellect and come up with a logical conclusion that they are an overly complex set of rules (the way I read them) that are not really needed given the other rules in the game.
I bet the same can be said about any rule. And to that I say, your conclusion is BUNK.
The ONLY way to tell if a rule is good or not is through game play testing, not brain waves making an interpretation, which is susceptible to subjection. Game play outcomes are objective, hard cold outcomes. Game play therefor is the only true way to tell if a rule is good or not.
-
@Cmdr:
Yea, I never played the rule. But I can take what I have heard from others and apply my intellect and come up with a logical conclusion that they are an overly complex set of rules (the way I read them) that are not really needed given the other rules in the game.
I bet the same can be said about any rule. And to that I say, your conclusion is BUNK.
The ONLY way to tell if a rule is good or not is through game play testing, not brain waves making an interpretation, which is susceptible to subjection. Game play outcomes are objective, hard cold outcomes. Game play therefor is the only true way to tell if a rule is good or not.
I respect your opinion, but I disagree with it.
There’s no real way to win this argument for either of us. (Between whether or not you can see a rules, hear stories about it and make a decision or if you must play the rule before you can tell if it is good or not.)
What I can say is this:
The Rule is optional. That means it was not needed enough to make it mandatory. That tells me there is a strong consensus of players who think the rule is unneeded.
There are ways, in the game, to negate the impact of SBR without using Interceptors.
Revised:Enhances (and AA50:Enhanced) have a better solution, IMHO, to the SBR issue through the use of “interceptors” of a sort.
Even in games where the optional rule of Technology is not played, the cost benefit to SBR over thousands and thousands of games is minute at best. (1.5 IPC a round advantage per bomber.)
The suggestion of putting bombers back to 15 IPC (or I think someone said 14 IPC) reduces that cost benefit. If 15 IPC bombers then the cost benefit drops to 1 IPC a round advantage per bomber. IF 14 IPC bombers then the cost benefit drops to 1.2 IPC a round advantage per bomber.
We’re not talking a huge benefit over the course of many games. And remember, that’s just the average, you could find yourself losing a bomber every round and doing no damage, you could find yourself never shooting down a bomber and taking massive damage. It’s the blessings of using dice instead of Low Luck.
Suggested Topics
