@jroc:
frequently as of late it has been suggested thta the italian navy should be consolidated into either SZ95 or 97 so that taranto raid is less appealing or effective. And while i do agree that something needs to be done about the raid, as it effectively cripples Italy for the first 4 turns at least, the combining of the fleet is not the answer. The reaso i say this is because it will lead to a fairly easy capture of Rome for the British in turn 1. On turn one the brits could potentially get 1 inf, 1 tank, 1 fighter, 1 tak bomber and a cruiser amphibious assualt on Rome where there is only 2 inf and 1 fighter defending.
i think the best solution for the taranto raid problem is combine navy from sz 95 and 97, but also to combine te sz themselves so that there is only one zone that italy has to defend.
Please tell me what you guys think. I will be testing by suggestion in an upcoming game and will post how it goes.
I personally don’t believe Taranto should be eliminated as an move, but it should be revised so that it is more costly for the UK, or at least less costly for Italy. The two seazones represent historically the problem that Italy faced: the naval base of Taranto and the ability to field a Fleet in Being. Taranto represented a threat to the UK, while other naval bases weren’t as threatening.
I would prefer the setup revised so that Taranto can be accomplished as an air attack that eliminates a surface fleet portion (definately leave the BB there, that’s what were hit) or a massive committed attack that obliterates Taranto but leaves the UK weaker in other places. It’s just too much of the Italian fleet and the UK has no downside for doing it. Either the UK naval presence needs to be reduced in the Med, or Italy should have subs in Taranto as well.
Personally, I wonder if the UK carrier at Gib should have another fighter (or Tac) and remove a fighter from London and add two or three subs to Taranto, and (maybe) switch the cruiser for a destroyer from Italy’s second fleet. The UK can either commit 3 planes against a DD and battleship, guaranteeing survival of their med ships for a round at the risk of airforce but leaving 3 subs alive, or send in the cruiser and/or destroyer as well and running the risk of losing fodder to subs. And London gets a strategic choice of instead flying the fighter to London to defend (if sealion is threatened early), or participating in Taranto for a sure win.
I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing that Taranto can be an easy win for the UK. But if the UK has the option to get an easy win it should be at the expense of a weaker London or Med fleet in danger to an italian fleet that won’t shrink from a fight.
Ironically though, Taranto and Naples are implied as switched in the setup. SZ 95 (with battleship) is Naples. SZ 97 is Taranto.