Awesome that the Axis won! I have np advice, but I always love seeing game reports! Keep up the good work!
To Taranto, or not to Taranto
-
What would the extra fighter(s) from London hit? I’m not sure what they would be able to reach in the Med that’s within 5 spaces of London…
-
Taranto every time.
I feel anxious if I leave it undone. Anxious Italy will become a monster with the beginnings of a fleet and starting with two Transports, not one. -
The fighters from London can reach but have to land on the CV so you can only send 2 plus the bomber but most only send 1 fighter and bomber like YoungGrasshopper posted above.
-
@Young:
I am curious about what happens during G1 that would prevent some of you from attempting this strategy.
One reason has already been posted: If Germany is looking Sea Lion heavy. Perhaps a no-brainer but still.
2nd reason would be for me: If I have a German opponent that is known for throwing a surprise Sea Lion and I cannot make sure that Germany takes London with <16 survivors. -
@Young:
I am curious about what happens during G1 that would prevent some of you from attempting this strategy.
One reason has already been posted: If Germany is looking Sea Lion heavy. Perhaps a no-brainer but still.
2nd reason would be for me: If I have a German opponent that is known for throwing a surprise Sea Lion and I cannot make sure that Germany takes London with <16 survivors.By that logic, any Sealion fake on G1 should save the Italian battleship, Cruiser, and Transport on UK1. I’m reluctant to turn away from Taranto based on a sealion attack that may never come (no mater how strong it looks after G1). I have to agree with Wittmann at this point… Taranto every time.
-
Do it unless Germany saves at least 21+ IPC or buys CV and 2 AP.
-
I checked “Depends on what happened G1”.
This would include:
**If the Luftwaffe took a hit or not.
**Is the Kriegsmarine in tact (did they lose the BB, or purchase any ships)
**Is the German navy a better target?
**How much of the RN survived (sz91 UK cruiser alive?)
**Did the UK scramble, and lose some planes?
With that said, we see a UK1 Taranto in most games. UK cripples the Italian navy, but is subject to a pretty lethal counter attack by one of the Euro Axis, so the UK Med fleet will go down. This slug fest costs both sides a lot of valuable expensive units.
I’m starting to like the wait and see if with enough rope Italy can hang itself approach. They have to leave port sometime……
BTW, about the bid for the allies. This game is pretty balanced IMO, and as others have pointed out a patient allied team can win w/o a bid. Games won by the allies tend to be much longer 15+ rounds (barring bad dice, or horrible axis play). The allies shouldn’t have the option of placing a unit at set-up that can be used right away for the purpose of changing the odds or out come of a major battle. The set-up is how it is so that there are consequences for certain battles. Giving the UK a sub in the Med at set-up just so they can sink the Italian fleet easier, and with less risk to the RAF just seems wrong IMO.
If one was to use a bid for the allies, I would think that the unit placed shouldn’t effect the first round of play. The fighter in Canada would be much more acceptable to me if a bid was to be used.
-
I chose always. But I’d have chosen something like ‘almost always’ or ‘most of the time’ if it was up there.
Even in tabletop (no bid) games or games where I put a fighter in say Scotland, I almost always go after the Italian fleet. And I’ll land all air in Malta afterwards to save that much of the Brit units. I really don’t care about losing the British fleet as long as the Italian fleet is nuked first. UK can lock down Egypt and the ME without a fleet. Whereas Italy needs a fleet if it has any hope of contesting the Brits in said locations.
Neutralize Italy as a presence in the med and you’ll go a long way towards winning in Europe. Let Italy get into the 30-40 IPC range for a couple of turns and the allies will have problems. I don’t mind a SL threat that much, depending on Pacific situation. Even if Germany goes SL, Russia will become a beast and US will eventually pry London away from Berlin. I want Africa and the ME secured first thing as the allies because it gives the allies a really strong choke point/fallback position if/when Moscow goes down. I can’t count how many times British factories in the ME or Egypt have stalled the German army short of victory.
-
@Imperious:
Do it unless Germany saves at least 21+ IPC or buys CV and 2 AP.
OK, so Germany buys an aircraft carrier and 2 transports, apparently forcing the UK to ground all their fighters in London. So what are the Med boats suppose to do now that they have lost their offensive initiative? they’re now on the defense against a strong Italian presence and a bored German air force that can reach many spaces in and around the Med during G2. There may never be a better opportunity to paralyze the Italian war effort than there is during UK1, and what about Sealion? I personally prefer the Germans to expend their resources with transports and attempt Sealion, much better for the Allies than an advance on Moscow. At least London has a chance of being liberated by the Americans where Moscow is almost impossible to support, and what about Russia? while London is being attacked, Russia is building tons of protection and now they’re in the war collecting NO$$. All I’m saying is, send one fighter, and one bomber to SZ#97 and deal with Sealion afterwards. Besides, the UK should be taking out SZ#97 especially if Germany is threatening Sealion, how else will they deal with a strong Italy after they lose their capital? best to weaken them early IMO.
-
@Young:
Besides, the UK should be taking out SZ#97 especially if Germany is threatening Sealion, how else will they deal with a strong Italy after they lose their capital? best to weaken them early IMO.
Quite right. Besides if Germany’s really going to go SL, they can’t afford to lose too many(any) aircraft which cuts down on their odds of hitting any leftover Brits in sz97 which they would only be able to do with air.
-
So far it just remains a matter of preference. There doesn’t seem to be a particularly wrong approach in what I have read so far. All strategies lead to exploitable situations by the allies, IF they pay attention…
For example, personally I like to secure London (I can make it 100% secure If I want) and deal with the Italians after Germany backed off. Ultimatly attacking Italy UK2, or defeating Germany over London/the Atlantic if it persists (not to mention what Russia will do when left unchecked so seriously).
Others rather cripple Italy UK1 at the cost of London, which is also a good strategy because Germany will be stuck in Western Europe, the USA will liberate London (or do KJF) and Russia starts preying on eastern Europe. Only concern here should be not to have too much German ARM in London so that Liberation wouldn’t even be possible even if the USA wanted to. That’s just too much comfort for Germany and it can be achieved by getting a total of ~16 German units into London… -
If Germany’s putting that much into London, then as US I would just put a couple subs into sz109 and ensure that Germany can’t get those troops back to the mainland. With all those troops in London, Germany’s probably weak somewhere else, so just strand those forces and make sure Germany doesn’t collect much (any) from London/Scotland. Cut out the middle man and land into France and/or Norway.
Germany simply can’t be strong everywhere. If they’re too strong in London for US to liberate it, than they should be weak enough to land in Normandy and start building up there. If Germany’s too strong in London and France, then Russia’s probably making hay on the Eastern front. If this is not the case, then the allies probably messed up somewhere earlier in the game or got really diced somewhere.
-
If Germany’s putting that much into London, then as US I would just put a couple subs into sz109 and ensure that Germany can’t get those troops back to the mainland. With all those troops in London, Germany’s probably weak somewhere else, so just strand those forces and make sure Germany doesn’t collect much (any) from London/Scotland. Cut out the middle man and land into France and/or Norway.
Germany simply can’t be strong everywhere. If they’re too strong in London for US to liberate it, than they should be weak enough to land in Normandy and start building up there. If Germany’s too strong in London and France, then Russia’s probably making hay on the Eastern front. If this is not the case, then the allies probably messed up somewhere earlier in the game or got really diced somewhere.
You are right on target here. In a game we played a while back, Germany took London with a good amount left over. I don’t remember exactly but it was something like 6 tanks, a couple of infantry and artillery. The US managed to take out the German fleet and sank all those transports. So all that German armor was stuck on England. Meanwhile, the US took out Italy and Berlin got squeezed out of existence between the US and Russia. The Allies won with London never being liberated.
-
@Young:
@Imperious:
Do it unless Germany saves at least 21+ IPC or buys CV and 2 AP.
OK, so Germany buys an aircraft carrier and 2 transports, apparently forcing the UK to ground all their fighters in London. So what are the Med boats suppose to do now that they have lost their offensive initiative? they’re now on the defense against a strong Italian presence and a bored German air force that can reach many spaces in and around the Med during G2. There may never be a better opportunity to paralyze the Italian war effort than there is during UK1, and what about Sealion? I personally prefer the Germans to expend their resources with transports and attempt Sealion, much better for the Allies than an advance on Moscow. At least London has a chance of being liberated by the Americans where Moscow is almost impossible to support, and what about Russia? while London is being attacked, Russia is building tons of protection and now they’re in the war collecting NO$$. All I’m saying is, send one fighter, and one bomber to SZ#97 and deal with Sealion afterwards. Besides, the UK should be taking out SZ#97 especially if Germany is threatening Sealion, how else will they deal with a strong Italy after they lose their capital? best to weaken them early IMO.
It’s best to avoid it if Germany makes those buys. Otherwise, you have a choice which typically is to make the attack, but you still have options. I prefer that Germany makes the 1cv,2ap build as an active threat and shuck to Finland 6 land pieces till they ready to attack USSR.
-
Loosing London does by no means mean the end of the world for the allies.
But allowing Germany to get in with ~18 survivors is just silly. This would still not mean the end of the world but sets back the clear early advantage the allies can get from a laughable SL into an ‘equal challenge for both sides again’. In short, Germany should still be strong enough to defend against the USA and Russia for a while and wait for the Japanese to force the USA into the Pacific. On the other hand, if the USA went KJF from the start it is already an ‘equal challenge for both sides again’. Equal challenge as in similar to the game’s set-up where neither side could have gained an advantage by strategy.Having said all this, ‘Taranto’ can still be done UK1 without the risk of loosing London with too many German survivors inside and if the UK and USA can effectively coordinate the quick liberation afterwards, the allied victory is set. SL & the surprise SL-variant are simply too dependent on opportunity. Which does not mean it should not be monitored closely by Germany (and taken when it arises) and thus be treaded with a little caution by the UK. After all, why trade away an early and clear allied victory for a more equal situation?!
-
I think that the important thing to remember about this thread’s poll is, out of 20 votes so far… none has said that they never attempt Taranto. That means that out of 20 experienced players, all have attempted the Taranto raid of sea zone #97, and it’s highly possible that they would attempt it again during future games. By that definition, I assume that it is safe to say that the Taranto raid in A&A 1940 Global is a very “standard” strategy for experienced players. The first time I saw the attack was when I played Gargantua, axisplaya, Vance, and suprise attack during the FMGC 2 years ago, and not only have I been using it ever since… I haven’t seen any reason to stop.
-
Well if you play only Europe the bid often gets to 12IPC and Axis add a cruiser to 97, plus Germany can kill that Cruiser with 2 subs on her turn.
If you still go for it after that even if Germany builds the CV and 2 AP, i would consider other options.
-
@Imperious:
Well if you play only Europe the bid often gets to 12IPC and Axis add a cruiser to 97, plus Germany can kill that Cruiser with 2 subs on her turn.
If you still go for it after that even if Germany builds the CV and 2 AP, i would consider other options.
Hey IL, you have me a bit confused. I thought it was usually the Allies that got any bids, not the Axis. Also, if the Axis got a bid of 12 and put another cruiser in SZ 97, why would Germany sink it on their turn?
As far as whether or not to do Taranto is concerned, it looks like Young Grasshopper is right. Most seem to think it is a good idea, even if Sealion is threatened. I usually don’t like it because you pretty much lose the UK Med fleet plus a fair amount of UK air. Also, I guess I am kind of stuck on the idea of protecting London at all costs.
I must admit, a successful Taranto really shuts down Italy, especially if UK can also stomp that Tobruk force. Between the French ships and what UK air is left, the remaining Italian navy will be dealt with in the next round or two and what’s left of Italian ground troops in Africa simply need to be chased down and eliminated which usually happens within 4 rounds or so. After that, it is very hard for Italy to get any new navy and make any advances in the Med, Africa or the Middle East.
However, if the UK pulling a Taranto results in the loss of London, I’m still not sure it is worth it. With the UK unable to purchase new units, Italy could then come back and take charge in the Med. It may take them a few rounds, but there would be less and less Allied forces to oppose them.
Yes, you could send troops, planes and ships from India, but that could make it easy for Japan.
In the case of London falling, do you guys just assume that the US will be able to come over and liberate it? To build up a decent invasion force, that could leave the US weak in the Pacific. What if Japan is doing really well? -
Sealion is so risky and it really puts the axis in a poor position the rest of the game unless your opponent is making mistakes or getting diced. If UK is left with only having 1 or 2 fighters with 5 inf you need to increase the threat with Germany to make sure they turtle. If not Italy is going to be forced to turtle if they haven’t already. This threat can be in the form of buying a CV+2TR on round 1 followed by bombing on round 2. Put the Italian bomber and 1 fighter in W.Germany to keep the threat up. Even if you don’t plan on bombing the airbase. If USA then continues to not purchase naval units then its a green light on operation sealion. Most games USA builds a CV, DD and TR for the east coast. I have seen games where they produce nothing but a DD on the east side. If USA did not build a CV or many transports then the operation to liberate will be delayed even another round or more. Sometimes the threat of sealion is better than the actual operation. I actually like buying 3 subs and a bomber round 1. Then Germany uses convoys and bombing raids on London. The bombing raids are not to destroy the complexes even though that’s their target its designed to get UK’s interceptors in the air so you can shoot them down. Same strategy USA used on Germany with the Mustangs and B-17’s .
-
In response to the last few posts, here are my strategy points that might be relevant to this conversation.
1. I always purchase 6 Infantry and a fighter for London UK1 no matter what has happened.
2. I always try to purchase 6 or 7 infantry and a Fighter for London UK2 no matter what has happened.
3. I am always building a significant American landing force right from turn 1. I prefer to use this force to secure a beach head on Spain, but if America needs to liberate London with it, at least they won’t be building from scratch.
4. Holding back a fighter and bomber for the fear of a possible Sealion is just giving power to your opponent. When I’m on a breakaway in ice hockey and I know the goalie has a good glove hand, I’m still gonna shoot there and force him to make a big save. Same thing with Sealion, Germany still has the pressure of making a very risky move even without the extra fighter.
5. What else will the Mediterranean ships do? when I play against players that refuse to attack #97, I always observe what they do with them. Most of the time they get squeezed out the Suez canal and end up floating around in the Indian Ocean… and in most cases never to return because the Italians are making a strong play for Trans Jordan.
Suggested Topics
