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
-
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.
-
I can completely understand the 6inf, ftr buy on UK1. I alternate between that and 2inf, 2ftr depending on G1 and what I know about my opponent. That UK1 buy is pretty standard for just about everyone and there’s a very good reason for it.
I’m somewhat confused about that large of a buy for London on UK2. You’re talking about a 12-13 inf purchase for London regardless of what your opponent does? That’s quite a bit of cash tied up in the defense of London vs a possibly non-existent threat. Do you ever change things up if Germany does a G1 or G2 Barbarossa? What’s your response if say UK gets lucky and take down a good portion of the Luftwaffe on G1/G2 attacks in the Atlantic and Med?
-
I can completely understand the 6inf, ftr buy on UK1. I alternate between that and 2inf, 2ftr depending on G1 and what I know about my opponent. That UK1 buy is pretty standard for just about everyone and there’s a very good reason for it.
I’m somewhat confused about that large of a buy for London on UK2. You’re talking about a 12-13 inf purchase for London regardless of what your opponent does? That’s quite a bit of cash tied up in the defense of London vs a possibly non-existent threat. Do you ever change things up if Germany does a G1 or G2 Barbarossa? What’s your response if say UK gets lucky and take down a good portion of the Luftwaffe on G1/G2 attacks in the Atlantic and Med?
Good questions… simply put, those London purchases will give me the insurance against Sealion whether there is a concentrated attempt during G3, or a desperate attempt during G6. 2 rounds of purchases for London will justify me peeling off a Fighter and Bomber to hit #97, and will also give me the security to spend every dime in Africa thereafter. The United Kingdom in my opinion is all about heavy defense early, and then complete aggression later. So many times I have seen UK players build a Minor IC in Egypt during UK2 and lose their capital later, or lose the IC to Italy because they didn’t weaken the Italians first before buying it. You can never go wrong stacking London for the first 2 rounds, especially if the Germans sustain heavy loses early, because London will become a more attractive destination than Moscow when the axis start making moves out of desperation.
-
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?
In Europe, Axis get extra. In global it can go either way due to who is playing Japan.
Don’t understand that last part. Axis got the Cruiser from bid and Germany isn’t sinking Italian ships.
-
Sooo…
Here’s my post as far as how I deal with Toranto or not… It as most of you stated what Germany dose round 1.
Ok if seazone 110 dosnt get attacked I tend to Consolidate my navy from 110 with 98 at seazone 92. If they do attack 110 it still won’t matter I feel this idea is a good one. I tend never to scramble for 110 unless the odds are in my favor.
For me it’s about 109 if he dosnt bring a Airforce to take it out I will scramble even if he hits with the sub I’ll have 4 planes to scramble to save the transport.
I use my Fighter and tactical bomber to take out the destroyer in Malta and Non combat move my Aircraft carrier and Cruser and transport to Seazone 92 I pick up with my transport the 1 infantry and AA and drop it off in Algeria I move my destroyer from 98 to seazone 94 as a blocker incase he wants to Invade Algeria it takes away his crusers and battleships shore Bombardment.
I also further renforce it with the transport from 109 to 92 with 1 infantry and 1 AA from Scotland I also fly down a fighter from United Kingdom to Algeria. And a Fighter from Gibralter. Basicaly setting up Algeria with 3 Infantry 2 Aa and 2 Fighters.
The reason for having Algeria is so that turn 2 Germany can not attack seazone 92 with its Airforce and have somewhere to land. And the Destroyer to further Block Italy’s shore bombardment and it dosnt have the numbers to try to take it .
I leave the carrier with 1 spot open only incase Italy leaves a Blocker in seazone 93 I can send down the French fighter to destroy it and land on the Carrier.
Also by holding seazone 92 I can still move 3 spaces back to 110 and block a Sealion and have Germany further invest it’s Airforce to take out my Fleat and less in England. Or I can go on the offensive if Germany dosnt show Sealion and since any blocker isn’t there I can cause havoc by landing anywhere touching seazone 95,96,97…
Egypt will be safe cause I consolidate all my units in Egypt and again Italy can not take it turn one. And turn 2 I can use the Destroyer as a blocker from 81 or take out his navy with very minimal loss’s
My buys are for England round 1 is 7 infantry and 1 Transport … The transport to South Africa
And the 7 infantry as home defense at minimal there’s still 2 planes left in England with 7 extra men at the end of turn one. With England’s navy still intact and a way to detour bout a Sealion and eventualy take out Italy’s navy.I forgot to mention that I tend to take England’s Pacific Fleat and bring it to the med and I use the French ship as a blocker off the coast of India. That way I still have a second transport from Calcuta that if I’m feeling frogy further asure that I have enough to defend Africa by droping off an infantry and Artiliary in Somalia and having the cruser as shore Bombardment and turn 2 I bring the transport up from South Africa and my Calcuta units to further renforce Egypt or retreat to Anglo-Egypt and get it back on the counter offensive.
I hope this helps.
-
@Imperious:
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?
In Europe, Axis get extra. In global it can go either way due to who is playing Japan.
Don’t understand that last part. Axis got the Cruiser from bid and Germany isn’t sinking Italian ships.
Here is your post IL:
@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.
See, it looks to me like you are saying that Germany kills the Axis cruiser in SZ 97. That is what was confusing me.
Were you talking about a different cruiser? -
Typo.
In my games 2 SS take out UK CA off Gibraltar. That and adding a third plane to scramble for Italy and the bid cruiser makes UK think the battle will not work. The added influence is the CV and 2 AP build throwing more doubt.
-
Well thought out strategy Whitshadw . I like it!
-
Thanks brother it really holds up to scrutiny and kills to birds with 1 country … I can still strike fear into Germany and Deter any chance of a Sealion and if Germany dosnt go along with it … It opens up to really take out Italy or cripple them.
-
@Imperious:
Typo.
In my games 2 SS take out UK CA off Gibraltar. That and adding a third plane to scramble for Italy and the bid cruiser makes UK think the battle will not work. The added influence is the CV and 2 AP build throwing more doubt.
Of course, the UK cruiser in SZ 91. I should have figured that since I do that every time when I play Germany.
Thanks for clearing up about the Axis bid in Europe 1940. I haven’t played just Europe 40 or Pacific 40 in quite some time. I take it that Europe 40 alone is favored toward the Allies. What about Pacific 40? Do you think it is favored one way or the other, requiring a bid to even things out?
-
Pacific 40 is unplayable due to huge Japanese advantage. E40 is Allied advantage.
Bids fix things however.
-
I don’t attack the Italian fleet on the first turn simply because this lets the Italian player have more fun, and I also get to keep a strong British fleet that can go to India or around Africa to England. Now I might attack their fleet if I was in a really competitive game, but then you have to build a British fleet from scratch, and the United States can easily take out Italy’s fleet most of the time.
-
As always, there are two sides to the coin.
Whitshadw makes some great points, and shows the other side (not to raid the Italians home fleet UIK1). I have also seen what Faramir describes what I assume is the UK Med fleet flees to the Red Sea, merges with the Indian fleet, then returns (this gives the axis too much leeway though IMO). Preserving the UK Med fleet, but keeping it in the Med so the Italians can’t get the Med NO’s will still cause damage to the Italians (economically). Egypt and Gibraltar are safe (for now), the axis still need to deal with the French ships, and if the Italians make an early play away from their home port it could leave their ships vulnerable (no air cover).
I have seen what Whitshadw describes when there is a real Sea Lion threat, so why not as an over all strat for the UK? It keeps the Royal Navy in tact, at a very good position, and if nothing else is a distraction for the Axis (could actually abort Sea Lion). Most would agree that in the first few rounds as the UK you just need to survive, preserve what units you can, fortify your most strategic territories and wait for help. You should go offensive when you have a clear advantage, but be watchful of possible traps and counter attacks. Taranto could be viewed as one of those traps.
We all know that a Taranto Raid (UK1) will cripple the Italian navy at the expense of the UK Med navy (axis counter attack). IMO the UK can recover a bit easier then Italy, because they can bring over the Indian navy as a replacement, maybe adding to it from S Africa. This gives the Italians a couple turns to rebound though, and the axis should be able to clear the Med of allied ships and keep it that way for a couple tuns (Italy’s NO).
On a side note, just wondering if they do Taranto…… as the axis do you lift 3 planes in defense of the Italian fleet (assuming you have at least 1 German ftr there), or do you bluff the possibility of scramble to force them to overload the attack so you can trap the UK Med fleet for the counter attack (which also removes some London defense)? Both ways can create havoc for either side. Sending up the scramble probably won’t save the Italian BB, and will cost the Axis some ftrs, but could weaken the RAF and trap a weaker UK Med fleet for the counter attack (they will have some choices to make). Sending up the planes will also cost the axis some very valuable air units, but if they don’t scramble the UK Med fleet left in SZ97 could be too much for Italy to handle on Ita1, forcing the Germans to hit it taking a toll on the Luftwaffe, not to mention the UK will be able to convoy the Italians if not taken out on their turn.
As the axis I would scramble at least 2 ftrs (probably all 3). There is a slim chance the UK rolls bad, and you save the Italian BB. It also makes the counter attack easier (although you have fewer units to do so).
-
Sending up some but not all fighters is the worst of both worlds imo. You could make the argument for why Italy should or should not scramble. There are plenty of good reasons for doing either and I feel that it’s very much dependant on the whole strategic situation. But scrambling some usually won’t change the tactical situation all that much on G2 and severely hurts Italy as now they’ve lost not only their fleet but likely at least 1 fighter (depending on how many and what nationality you scramble)
-
@WILD:
(…)
On a side note, just wondering if they do Taranto… as the axis do you lift 3 planes in defense of the Italian fleet (assuming you have at least 1 German ftr there), or do you bluff the possibility of scramble to force them to overload the attack so you can trap the UK Med fleet for the counter attack (which also removes some London defense)? Â Both ways can create havoc for either side. Sending up the scramble probably won’t save the Italian BB, and will cost the Axis some ftrs, but could weaken the RAF and trap a weaker UK Med fleet for the counter attack (they will have some choices to make). Sending up the planes will also cost the axis some very valuable air units, but if they don’t scramble the UK Med fleet left in SZ97 could be too much for Italy to handle on Ita1, forcing the Germans to hit it taking a toll on the Luftwaffe, not to mention the UK will be able to convoy the Italians if not taken out on their turn. (…)Good question WB!
I’ve done and undergone UK1 Taranto many times and as the Axis I have no intentions to loose the (as good as entire) Italian Navy AND Regia Aeronautica AND 2 German Messerschmidts!
So if I have anything to say about it, the scramblers are there purely to enfore an allied overload. Let them ‘fly from London’ to get it done. If I can scramble and have my planes survive… I’d do it without a second thought so the Uk would be wise to ‘overload’ if they want to do it. If the UK goes in with maximum force I prefer to let them have the battle without scrambling. Then, IT1 I will counterattack using the Italian ships as cannon fodder. See how the UK takes its hits (even 1 hit on the CV will destroy all aircraft on it), possibly just strafing to let Germany finish the job GE2 with much less danger for its invaluable Luftwaffe. I’d loose the Italian fleet over large portions of the Luftwaffe. Anytime.
Suggested Topics
