Back to the OP. One other point I’m coming to see is devastating is to land 4 ground units on Kwangsi J1. These units really make a big difference in being able to hold on to Yunnan. While you can’t get the TTs back to Japan J2 unless you combine a Naval base on Hainan or Kwangsi, the main game in Asia isn’t to get Japanese land units on Asia but to deny the Burma Rd. If you can do that, your one step on the way to Axis victory in the Pacific. One of the land units can come from Okinawa, two from Japan so you are only relocating one unit within Asia, the artillery from Manchuria, but in a very advantageous way.
Taranto and Axis responses to Taranto in G40(A3 final)
-
luffewaffe does fine against med navy. I agree with garg, buy a destroyer. italy can take southern france or germany can do it, I prefer italy in most circumstances.
Vance you have no idea what you are talking about. There is a proper way to respond to each situation.
SZ 97 is optimal. USA buying bare minimal in bombers to defend london is optimal as well. People say bombers are bad, but they actually have lots of use. From industrial bombing rome airbase or just attacking infantry on libya or tobruk so russia can just take it with his mech or tank to flying around the world and attacking japanese infantry in china. They tend to get lots of mileage in the long run and the instant satisfaction is knowing that japan can’t DOW round 2 if germany does sea lion.
People like you never understand why sz 97 must happen, why usa must provide the bombers to defend UK, why Japan postponing war till round 3 is a huge set back in the pacific for german take over of london, why russia buys offensive when it sees a naval buy, why every allied strategy involves not losing egypt/africa/middle east
ever
should they expect to win a game.
You need a miracle to come back from that, it is very bad, allies are very boring to play. You have to follow a set chain in the event of a sea lion bluff and a set chain in the event of a barb. There is no deviation should you expect to win against anyone who plays competitive, such as soulfein.
Shutting italy down via convoy disruption equates to one country done, one less problem to ever worry about, like I do not understand how that is a hard concept to understand.
Yes, germany will stall this as long as it can by clearing out naval for italy. It keeps uk busy, but it does take away from germany’s barbarossa plan… so you are on the path.
-
The IC in Yugoslavia is possible, but it slows things back a turn.
Cow, what do you mean by “z97 is optimal”? Do you mean putting allied ships in z97 to convoy raid? If so what ships?
BTW that’s just a scenario; I wasn’t saying that is what must happen every game.
-
the ships you will build off of egypt.
Think of it this way, dumping men off uk first is silly, because you drop 10 guys and germany attacks with 5 + 12 air units and you lose 15 ipc every round to gain 5 off territories for a net -10.
convoying 97 first is smart, because you can do this with just subs or if you have more than the usual fighter survivors carrier/fighter/dd. Italy is permanently shutdown instead of always trying to make a come back. This is not a hard concept.
-
Would there be an airbase and planes in Egypt to protect them as well? or just the IC and ships? Sure is expensive.
-
protecting egypt is easy for uk to hold as long as you are conservative with your units there. Leave iraq to Russia. Leave brazil to uk (usually he has a transport survivor up top)
~
convoying 97 is no more expensive than buying a fleet to drop men on normandy/holland. you just get better results and you can drop on greece if you want to.
~Yes axis should sink as much as possible to prevent a congregation of the naval (as garg says, “leave it to the luffewaffe, since it is easier for him.” Yes italy should buy naval like destroyer or sub. Yes, if you can keep italy in the game, your odds of winning the game is strong, because italy does annoying things that matter.
-
OK that’s nice. Let’s allow the thread to get back on topic and let people look a scenarios that argue for or against the Taranto raid OK?
-
I like to do the raid as UK, but it depends on how much of the german navy is left alive around the home islands. You would basically force a sealion when you actually preform the raid however. And I’ve yet to seen a game develop where US has 7 bombers rdy to attack on the europe side on US3 and still be able to muscle japan around.
What about the idea of UK pulling back through the suez and bringing the malta garrison to egypt to go for the super turtle play(India planes land on carrier in red sea)?
-
I keep saying this, but people are not getting it.
USA buys bombers to defend london. Japan chooses to declare war or not to, if he doesn’t go to war with the allies then he makes less income than UK PAC, China, and ANZAC for a few turns. Japan does go to war, USA can fly bombers into london thus defending it from sea lion.
5 bombers makes a huge difference in the success of a sea lion attack, that is 5 more hits you need to score before you cut into infantry then tank then fighter, plus it can hit.
So that is that.
~
the other alternative is horrible. the alternative in which italy owns. Germany’s response to taranto is simple: take london if it can or blast whatever ships with air and italy rebuilds. If germany has to make japan postpone war to do london, then USA does not have to worry about pacific for at least another 2 to 3 rounds, because that is how much cushion you get. Making japan delay war to round 3 makes axis have a very bad day and makes the allies very boring to play.uk sinks italy, germany sinks uk if it can. the cycle goes till germany runs out of air (because he is usually buying ground forces to take russia over… his current air is for keeping italy from being convoyed out of the game)
-
Cow, a lot of your ideas have some merit to them . . . but often come across as a pompous dillhole. We’re not your royal subjects to harangue at your leisure, this forum isn’t your throne room, and some of us actually have brains ourselves. :roll:
:wink:
-
questioneer is in for trouble, not doing taranto is rough sauce.
would you like to start a game with me as well? I actually want another game.
He put himself on a KJF clock, Japan just has to maintain his fame for at most 10 rounds and europe will be bagged.
-
TOPIC OF THIS THREAD: Taranto and Axis responses to Taranto in G40(A3 final)
NObody gives a shit about your game with questioneer.
-
Yeah I told you, do what garg says. end of discussion. If you want to win as axis you do what garg says, you blast it with the 12 germany air, because it 1 shots all that naval.
There is no questioning it.
I am telling you why it is a good idea to sink everything with germany, it stalls uk in the long run.
Italy can do the french navy if it wants to, but that is it. if there is naval in 97 and it is only a couple of units then yeah italy can opt for that instead of being convoyed and hit greece.
~Garg pretty much hit the nail with the hammer in terms of possibilities. Especially these days, most allies are chanting pacific pacific pacific, so yeah if germany/italy put in the work they will get the reward.
-
I am also a huge advocate of sinking sz 97 or the so called Taranto. It is the only real option given to the allies, all the other options almost equate to throwing the game.
-
Good thanks Cow. If you stay on track your ideas come out better.
-
uk has to sink sz97. always.
hitting sz91 cru in g1 is not a must but sending ger air to med is a must be; ita has to preserve starting navy, so ger air has to clean med plus might be needed to back up an alex stack
disagree with yugo ger factory, sending air is much more optimal in most -if not all- occasions:
fac g2, newly purchased navy g3, doing something with navy g4 seems too slow compared to constant commitment of ger air to med/africa. not to mention air is much more versatile than navy, plus cheaper
-
woah you finally made an account. Soulfein play garg’s tournament!
-
probably going to, but no idea whom to team up with
-
Honestly, you are a strong player, but new to the forum so you might have to pick someone random from the forum. That is fine, I might raise an eyebrow if you teamed with Guerilla or another veteran.
I hope we don’t get paired, I play you enough, leave me alone ><.
We should play another game. I like Japan 1 DOW. I want to see your reaction.
-
disagree with yugo ger factory, sending air is much more optimal in most -if not all- occasions:
fac g2, newly purchased navy g3, doing something with navy g4 seems too slow compared to constant commitment of ger air to med/africa. not to mention air is much more versatile than navy, plus cheaperI give you that airforce is way more versatile than a small German support fleet in sz97. Actually I agree Axis have to use its planes in the Med as well.
But what if the allies put some bombers in the Med ? your planes help you destroy the allied ships, but won’t defend much your Italian fleet. Do you intend to build an early Italian AC for protection, or a German one (in sz93 ?) for that matter ? no. I think an AB in Greece is a replacement solution for that.
And, the IC in Yougoslavia would help you build the necessary to achieve German NO with a ground unit in Egypt, allow you to help a bit the Italians in North Africa, MidEast more easily than if their fleet came from sz93, should Germany have S France.
And it give a little more power to the Axis fleet itself, earlier in the game than if it was purely Italian.I know it is a bit costly, but it’s still cheaper than riskying unprotected transports in the Med from sz93 to sz97, leaving your fleet unprotected in sz99 when you land in Syria. And an axis AB in Greece, that would protect all these places, would also give you extra range for fighting the UK on the ground, and even later in the game against the Russian.
I see this as a possibly good response to Taranto to get Italy back faster in the game. That doesn’t mean it’s the only one;
-
There seems to be some consensus forming … I want to throw two further questions out there:
If Germany lands 3 fighters in SITA on G1, does that deter an Allied Taranto? What if (in addition) Germany sinks the UK cruiser in SZ91?
Does it ever benefit the Axis not to full scramble in SZ97 on UK1?
Suggested Topics
