Sorry - I got quite busy and forgot about this. I suppose that by now the game has continued to a point beyond the situation we were discussing. So what happened?
UK1 Options in Alpha 2
-
Wheatbeer - I think you did a nice job spelling out the +s and -s of Taranto.
There is a separate effect - proactive vs reactive gameplay, and the effect this has on your opponent. As I’ve mentioned several other times around these parts, I believe that an unheralded and underappreciated component of A&A is answering the following question: who is setting the tempo… who is initiating and who is reacting?
If you stepped into a room and watched other people play a game, the answer to that question will help you understand who is winning. It is the Art of War, really. Have you ever been involved in a game where you had the economic upper hand, and everything seems to be going your way, but your opponent is still forcing you to react to their moves? It means that regardless of economy, regardless of superior units and army size, you can still be losing, because your opponent is forcing you to stay on the balls of your feet.
It is why I love Mech Infantry so much. It has very little to do with the math, or punch, and everything to do with options, and initiative.
Back on-topic! Taranto is the UK’s early game opportunity to sieze initiative, plain and simple. It is a very clear way to express to your opponent that you won’t put up with being pushed around, and despite some consequences, you’re willing to bring the fight to them rather than sit back and have the terms dictated to you.
-
Tobruk + Ethiopia is England’s way of seizing initiative. Taranto is a good place to lose a lot of equipment.
-
I both agree with you, and disagree.
Tobruk and Ethiopia are one way for the UK to seize initiative.
Taranto is another. I’ve never been stung by it as you have - on both sides it has always gone the way the math dictates, which is a British win with aircraft leftover. Those aircraft will die, but Italy will have to go out of their way to kill them.
-
@Cmdr:
Tobruk + Ethiopia is England’s way of seizing initiative. Taranto is a good place to lose a lot of equipment.
don’t you almost certainly lose cairo then?
but of course, we have completely different visions: i prefer to hold africa instead of india (taranto + ethiopia, +sending 2 indian figs) -
@Frontovik:
@Cmdr:
Tobruk + Ethiopia is England’s way of seizing initiative. Taranto is a good place to lose a lot of equipment.
don’t you almost certainly lose cairo then?
but of course, we have completely different visions: i prefer to hold africa instead of india (taranto + ethiopia, +sending 2 indian figs)I lose Egypt but gain all those aircraft that would otherwise die at Taranto.
-
italy can go wild with its entire navy?
and it’s not like you lose all your fighters
with worst dice for UK and best for’ axis, UK still had tactical left. usually another fighter aswell. -
With normal dice, Tobruk and Ethiopia fall with heavy British units left and all your planes so you can really annoy the Italians. It’s not better or worse, but it is valid.
-
@Cmdr:
With normal dice, Tobruk and Ethiopia fall with heavy British units left and all your planes so you can really annoy the Italians. It’s not better or worse, but it is valid.
very true
i’ll try it in my games.
but problem is my precious egypt…
and don’t forget, you lose british fighters, but you can kill german and italian figs aswell, along those transports which can immobilise italy long enough for US to save the day (either in europe or japan) -
@Frontovik:
@Cmdr:
With normal dice, Tobruk and Ethiopia fall with heavy British units left and all your planes so you can really annoy the Italians. It’s not better or worse, but it is valid.
very true
i’ll try it in my games.
but problem is my precious egypt…
and don’t forget, you lose british fighters, but you can kill german and italian figs aswell, along those transports which can immobilise italy long enough for US to save the day (either in europe or japan)In my opinion a fighter is not worth a fighter. Fig =/= Fig. Some fighters are worth more than other fighters. I rank fighters from most important to least important as such (most valuable on top, least on bottom, does not mean a fighter is not important because it is on the bottom, just less important that the one above it.)
China
Russia
England
Italy
India
Australia
Japan
Germany
AmericaIt is a lot harder for Russia to replace a fighter than it is for Germany, so if I have a chance, I’ll suicide a German fighter to get a Russian one. Likewise, England is going to find itself really hard pressed to replace fighters in the early to mid game, so they are more important to the English than the Japanese fighters are, for instance.
As for Cairo, it won’t remain Italian. Retreat what you cannot use to Sudan. With a transport next to Ethiopia you have forces from there, forces from Sudan, aircraft, shore bombardments and vehicles from Tobruk to hit Egypt with and liberate. Unless the Italians take Alexandria, in which case, they have 2 less units in Egypt and you might not need the vehicles from Tobruk, they could, instead, go to Libya.
-
This assumes a Kill Italy first game, of course. America goes hard enough in the Pacific to prevent the Japanese from winning and sends the rest to the Med. England/India focus on Africa hard to prevent Italy from building up.
-
Jennifer - a great point about the value of fighters, and a valid listing of relative importance. For me, I’d flip-flop Germany and Japan, because I find the use of multiple airbases (W Germany, Greece, Leningrad to support an unprotected transport in the late game, S Italy) to be necessary for the entire defense of Europe. Japan’s are important, but they have a wealth of them.
-
Germany and Japan seem to have equal importance to their fighters really, and mainly due to the shear number of planes they start out with. America, of course, could build 7 new planes a round if they wanted too, so for them, they’re virtually limitless and trading them one for one is almost always a good bet.
-
Jennifer - a great point about the value of fighters, and a valid listing of relative importance. For me, I’d flip-flop Germany and Japan, because I find the use of multiple airbases (W Germany, Greece, Leningrad to support an unprotected transport in the late game, S Italy) to be necessary for the entire defense of Europe. Japan’s are important, but they have a wealth of them.
I’d drop China, sure their ftr is irreplaceable, but it also can’t leave China and has to operate with other Chinese forces. It can be ignored by Japan and if destroyed doesn’t hamper Chinese attacks too greatly.
-
Jennifer - a great point about the value of fighters, and a valid listing of relative importance. For me, I’d flip-flop Germany and Japan, because I find the use of multiple airbases (W Germany, Greece, Leningrad to support an unprotected transport in the late game, S Italy) to be necessary for the entire defense of Europe. Japan’s are important, but they have a wealth of them.
I’d drop China, sure their ftr is irreplaceable, but it also can’t leave China and has to operate with other Chinese forces. It can be ignored by Japan and if destroyed doesn’t hamper Chinese attacks too greatly.
Assuming it has to be in the list, because it exists, I put it where it was because it could not be replaced and was the only unit with a reliable hit rate for China. (Infantry 17%, Artillery 33%, Fighter 50%, reliability for me starts at 50% so…)
-
For me reliability is in mass numbers. The more dice I roll the more likely I am to have an ‘average’ result over all the dice. So 1 50% hit vs 10 33% hits for example….
-
For me reliability is in mass numbers. The more dice I roll the more likely I am to have an ‘average’ result over all the dice. So 1 50% hit vs 10 33% hits for example….
1 50% adds a lot more to the average than 1 33%.
-
You’re so right Ruanek….wonder if China can get more than 1 unit hitting 33% of the time. Oh yeah they can build an army that does it. So, 15 units hitting at 33% or 1 unit hitting at 50%. My point being that Chinese ftr is relatively powerless.
-
The importance of the fighter for china isn’t it’s attack power, as much as it is it’s range.
It can give you the punch where you need it most, and it’s integral to any serious defence. That’s why it’s important.
-
You’re so right Ruanek….wonder if China can get more than 1 unit hitting 33% of the time. Oh yeah they can build an army that does it. So, 15 units hitting at 33% or 1 unit hitting at 50%. My point being that Chinese ftr is relatively powerless.
That Chinese fighter is worth more than anything China can ever build. And it’s irreplaceable. And as Gargantua said, its movement is useful.
-
The importance of the fighter for china isn’t it’s attack power, as much as it is it’s range.
It can give you the punch where you need it most, and it’s integral to any serious defence. That’s why it’s important.
It’s also why Japan is willing to trade 3 or 4 of their own aircraft to kill it.
Suggested Topics
