Welcome! If you're a returning member of the forums, please reset your password. If you don't receive an email within minutes, it means your account is listed under another, likely older, email address. Contact webmaster@axisandallies.org for help.

Taranto and Axis responses to Taranto in G40(A3 final)


  • 2017

    As the Allies, what conditions do you think make Taranto (i.e. UK sinking SZ97) acceptable?

    As the Axis, what do you do if the Allies succeed, leaving Italy with a single transport?



  • As the allies, you NEED to do that very badly. So I would do it always.
    The best the Germans can do to help Italy is take out the Cruiser in 91, send a fighter to southern Italy and threaten sea lion.

    As the axis I respond by sending the Luftwaffe to the med. (Southern Italy) And cleaning out any further allied naval presence.  I might even use it to help take out Egypt if the allies built a factory there.


  • 2017

    Example game:

    G1: sinks SZ110+SZ111 w aid of battleship / no scramble / 2 planes lost due to poor dice / Germany saves all income
    UK1: Taranto success / 9 infantry mobilized in London
    G2: SBR against UK major and airbase without loss / transport fleet mobilized
    UK2: repairs airbase to operational level / max defense buy for London
    I2: Heroic Italian SBR denies UK scrambling option
    G3: Sea Lion success with odds in Germany’s favor
    USSR3: collects for FIN, ROM, and POL / sinks German transports (unguarded since the US had 7 bombers ready to go)

    By turn 5, Italy has made zero progress in Africa because US bombers force fleet builds.  Japan and the USSR are abnormally strong.
    Allies have the lead in unit value.  Total Axis Collect and Total Allied Collect are virtually tied.

    I believe that the UK decision to conduct Taranto, even though it made Sea Lion possible, was correct.
    Is a retaliatory Sea Lion a desirable Axis response?


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    As the allies, you NEED to do that very badly. So I would do it always.
    The best the Germans can do to help Italy is take out the Cruiser in 91, send a fighter to southern Italy and threaten sea lion.

    I whole heartedly agree.  But there’s MORE.

    The interesting thing about Taranto (which I almost ALWAYS advocate for BTW), is that it’s not what Germany does G1, so much as what they do G2, and G3.  And how Italy responds aswell.

    After much study, I believe the WORSE thing the Italians can do, is build a plane I1,  and attack the french with their fleet for the NO grab.

    Why so many people feel they need to go sink their own italian ships, against british ones, on THIER OWN TURN, is beyond me.  Italy needs to spend thier efforts making their navy stronger,  instead of spreading it out, using it up, and making it weak.  If you get attacked - then fine, but force the british to attack you.

    -I believe italy is better off building a sub, a destroyer, or a transport, and landing in Greece, for the “micro” win I1.

    -Germany needs to consider landing 2 or 3 planes G1 in Southern Italy.  To prevent a FRENCH suicide attack on italian assets, and TO PROTECT Italian air from istant death aswell.  Thought also needs to go into sinking the french fleet G1.

    -Germany needs to consider being able to capture Morocco/Gibraltar G2,  (protecting Italian air potentially keeps the door open from some British blocks)

    -Germany needs to maintain SOME form of committment to the Italian Campaign, either by sacking Southern France G1, and building out of it,  or putting a minor in Yugo G2.  Continued committment is what will make it work.

    -If you don’t go for Greece with Italy I1,  Make sure Germany gets GREECE G2, and puts an Airbase there G3,  then the axis can safely transport units into Syria.

    Everyone needs to be in a race to get italy going - it’s true,  but just make sure you don’t blow up the rocket on the launch pad, by pouring gas over the whole thing.


  • 2017

    My experience suggests that sacking London doesn’t help Italy recover against a strong opponent.

    I quite like the idea of landing 3 German fighters in SITA on G1 (especially if you’re hitting SZ93).


  • TripleA

    Man, you guys need to read Nash theory. Then start drawing the diagrams and play testing yourselves.



  • Yes Cow, congratulations, you’ve learned game theory.  applause
    It’s a lot more helpful to actually say something of substance.   :lol:

    I agree that it’s much more important to keep Italy’s navy alive than to destroy UK’s med fleet presence.
    Maybe Germany taking Southern France, rather than Normandy, on G1 could help Italy.  Couple subs out of that IC + Luftwaffe could clear the Med pretty well.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    If you can force the US to send bombers to Europe,  That is EXCELLENT work By Italy.

    Think of the Fun Japan gets on the flipside for that.



  • Round 1 Germany saves $30 and attacks z91, z93, z110 and takes Southern France, landing several planes in Southern Italy; marches 3 inf from Austria to Northern Italy.  Stages scarey looking ground force in Hungary.  Russia pulls back as usual. Italy doesn’t do much - just build a transport and keep fleet that survived Taranto safe at home, maybe muck around Africa a bit.

    Round 2 Germany builds carrier and 2 transports in z93. Air attack any UK fleet still in med, take Greece.  MObile units strafe Yugo and retreat to Hungary. Units from Northern Italy and France NCM to Southern France.  Italy builds another transport, rolls tanks into East Poland and gets NO for no enemy warships.

    Round 3 Germany lands in Syria, reinforces Italian East Poland and sticks a sub in z125.  Still getting NO for Soviet nonaggression.  Italy takes Gibraltar and reinforces Syria; collects NO for mare nostrum plus no enemy warships.

    Round 4 onward Russia faces a war on two fronts, forget about any NO for spreading communism in Iraq etc.



  • I think building an IC in Yougoslavia for Germany is slightly better than building your German fleet in sz93 from S France.
    Granted you have to build the factory, but sz97 is already protected by South Italy airbase, also new German ships you’d build there and the remaining Italian ships will protect each other more efficiently. More over you can build a second AB in Greece and have double scrambling protection, which you cannot do in sz93.
    And also, in sz93, US bombers from London (in case of a J2) could (don’t mean they will) destroy you recently-born German fleet from US3 and easily land in North Africa and Gibraltar, that you may not control entirely at the very beginning with your Axis, especially if Italy invaded Greece.
    That’s what I’ve come to see so far.


  • TripleA

    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.


  • TripleA

    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.


  • TripleA

    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)?


  • TripleA

    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:

    😉


  • TripleA

    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.


  • TripleA

    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.


  • TripleA

    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


Log in to reply
 

Welcome to the new forums! For security and technical reasons, we did not migrate your password. Therefore to get started, please reset your password. You may use your email address or username. Please note that your username is not your display name.

If you're having problems, please send an email to webmaster@axisandallies.org

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games

67
Online

13.3k
Users

33.7k
Topics

1.3m
Posts