• I love the global 1940 2nd edt. and believe it is the most fun A&A variant. However, I do believe the developers made a mistake when they gave the UK an opportunity to destroy most of the Italian navy on turn 1.                                                For historical accuracy, it is nice that the UK is positioned to attack the Italian battleships on turn one. However, I would rather see them not for several reasons: 1: It forces Italy to become a land/air power as it cant build a new navy. 2: It ruins an engaging mediterranian and African theatre. 3: Britain is forced to sacrifice the mediterranian fleet and finally: Its not what happened in real life. Only 1 BB was sunk and Italy managed to recover the beached and damaged ships.                                              In the rulebook Harris describes Italy as a “powerhouse”. This leads me to believe that the devs didnt see the possibility to attack the Italian navy with aircraft from Britain. What do you guys think about this theory? Do you guys play with a houserule to “save” a battle for the mediterranian?

  • 2020 '18 '17

    Though the raid did not destroy the entire flotilla, it and the outcome of the early sea battles convinced the Italians of the truth;  in an equal engagement of numbers, they would consistently lose.  You can’t replace bravery with radar, but the British had both and the Italians, neither.    Italy was not a powerhouse, it was a disaster, which is reflected in the Taranto raid in the game and in real life.

    Still, with half their fleet left, they can continue to control the med.  Germany could help, most notably by committing their entire air force down there in order to destroy Egypt.  Taking Syria gives you a nice landing pad and taking Cyprus breaks the UK bonus. Still it isn’t always the best use of your resources to fight this uphill battle.

    If the UK wants to do Taranto, you can force them to fully commit to the attack by placing German fighters there on Germanys turn, or a Germany fighter on Tobruk as well to avoid being destroyed in both places.    Making the attack succeed against 3 fighters BB CA requires you to bring in everything with the UK, including a bomber and fighter from London, and your entire surviving fleet will be destroyed in the counterattack.  That means that with poor luck, the UK can end up losing a lot of stuff.  If you don’t scramble, you still have a big Italian fleet and air force that can pick off whats left with ease.

    Especially when there is a bid, it makes sense to attack the Italians every time, but it comes at a cost.  If the Italians do have their entire fleet, they can take Egypt, get 50 income, rule the med, or even join the sea lion.  Many people do not see the Taranto attack or do not see it as worth it, so there are games where you will survive.  Killing the fleet gives the UK something to do in a game where they’re mostly locked up.  The devs very much did see this dynamic as they have printed 4+ versions of this same game.


  • I agree with Taamvan. Doing Taranto comes with a high price for England. It loses its fleet, which also could have been used to help out India or retreat behind Suez and wait for a nice opportunity to kill off Italians at a different time.
    It also means Sealion is more viable. You have to get most planes into the fight, which aren’t there to save Britain, if G does Sealion.
    It’s not a no-brainer to me, although most of the time I do it. It also depends on G1 buys. If there are TT’s bought, I reconsider. If there are German fighters in Italy, I think twice. If Russia gets attacked G1 I almost guarantee to do Taranto, etc.

  • '19 '17 '16

    @Tavenier:

    I agree with Taamvan. Doing Taranto comes with a high price for England. It loses its fleet, which also could have been used to help out India or retreat behind Suez and wait for a nice opportunity to kill off Italians at a different time.
    It also means Sealion is more viable. You have to get most planes into the fight, which aren’t there to save Britain, if G does Sealion.
    It’s not a no-brainer to me, although most of the time I do it. It also depends on G1 buys. If there are TT’s bought, I reconsider. If there are German fighters in Italy, I think twice. If Russia gets attacked G1 I almost guarantee to do Taranto, etc.

    Good points. It also depends on Germany’s attacks G1. If he tries to do too much and goes into sz 110 weak it may be worthwhile scrambling and risk losing some fighters in order to take out a nice chunk of Germany’s navy or air force.

  • '19 '17 '16

    @Tavenier:

    I agree with Taamvan. Doing Taranto comes with a high price for England. It loses its fleet, which also could have been used to help out India or retreat behind Suez and wait for a nice opportunity to kill off Italians at a different time.

    In games before we discovered Taranto the UK Med fleet normally spent the entire game in the Red Sea doing nothing or headed to the Pacific where it also required luck to be useful.

  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Whats overlooked is the overwhelming air power the axis start with.  Which was reduced in second edition but it still too powerful.

    Competetivley, people are allowing bids for the allies at +28 to 30 and even then, a typical Axis script will win most games.

    Taranto is a MUST for UK. It’s not an option.

  • '17 '16

    @Gargantua:

    Whats overlooked is the overwhelming air power the axis start with.  Which was reduced in second edition but it still too powerful.

    Competetivley, people are allowing bids for the allies at +28 to 30 and even then, a typical Axis script will win most games.
    Taranto is a MUST for UK. It’s not an option.

    Gargantua, I would like your eval of this change of cost structure instead of a bid, do you believe this can better balance things for Allies?
    Please follow the link to give an answer in the appropriate thread. Thanks.

    @Baron:

    Such analysis makes me believe that a 1.5 combat value points cost structure for Naval units would work for Global 40:
    @taamvan:

    That’s a pretty good idea, to land AAA in there.   But taking Norway has some serious problems.   The US transports are on a one-way trip, one that takes them so far from the US that they’re never heading home.   The germans can easily defend Norway (or Denmark, Italy, France or any other part of the wall)> Yes they only have 1 transport, but with just one more, they can consistently re-take whichever squares the US and UK decide to grab.

    Germany and Italy are 1 or zero turns away from being able to build defenders with any of their 3 major or 4 minor complexes.  They can build infantry for 3, and supplement either on defense or counterattack with planes they already have.

    The US on the other hand, can only cycle fresh troops in every other round if it dedicates all 70 income to this and takes Spain.   Otherwise, the transports are on a one way trip.  You have to buy a whole turn’s income worth of transports, along with a destroyer and carrier to defend them–and against a cagy or bomber equipped Germany, you’ll need much more to defend the stack from an air attack.   You’d want the UK to help, but they don’t have the money it takes to buy a navy, transports, and then fill them with troops and supplement them with tacticals so that you have a tactical and a fighter making each assault.

    The allies have such poor ability to broadcast power against the atlantic wall, there are many times where I wonder how Germany and Japan seem to do it so easily;  its because it doesn’t take them 4 turns to get ready, 2 turns to get there, and Germany and Japan start with 30 planes.   **UK and the US don’t, and if they build planes to support atlantic efforts, well, there is no middle east and no india and a raging japan to deal with.    So what will happen is that I have a huge stack of infantry, ships, and artillery ready to attack the European axis but it cant roll worth crap on offense or defense because none of that junk helps during land battles like tanks and planes do.  **

    Germany and Italy can just leave a few pieces in France and counterattack you at their leisure.   They are counterattacking a wildly overpriced and overprotected one-shot invasion force with backup units–-the volksturm essentially.  
    I wish there was a KGF…but it doesn’t work very well.   Right around the time that you are making progress, Germany gets the Russian $$ and that is enough to end your invasion no matter how it starts.

    Such cost structure with OOB abilities (except a M3-4 Cruiser) should be tested on a Triple A file to see how it switches balance toward Allies and makes a more even game without the need for a bid.
    Do you know if Barney have made such xml file?

    Unit type        Cost    - 3 IPCs scale
    Combat values
    Special abilities

    WARSHIPS & TRANSPORT

    Submarine    5  IPCs
    A2* D1* M2 (3 with NB)

    • first strike against all vessels, except DDs.
      Cannot hit planes.
      Submerge (instead of firing in Surprise strike) and Stealth Move (cannot control SZ).

    Destroyer      6  IPCs
    A2 D2 M2 (3 with NB)

    Transport      6  IPCs Defenseless, taken last

    Cruiser          9   IPCs
    A3 D3 M3* (4 with NB bonus), 1 hit, Shore Bombardment 3

    Carrier           12  IPCs   Capital warship
    A0 D2 M2 (3 with NB), 2 hits
    Carry 2 planes: either Fighter or Tactical bomber, no flight operation if damaged.

    Battleship     15  IPCs   Capital warship
    A4 D4 M2 (3 with NB), 2 hits, Shore Bombardment 4

  • 2020 '19 '18 '17 '16

    @Gargantua:

    Taranto is a MUST for UK. It’s not an option.

    This is probably the easiest disagreement I have ever done. Taranto is not the UK’s strongest move in the Med. The strongest move is to deploy blockers to hold Italy off for one round, retreat the carrier to the Red Sea, build an IC in Egypt, and then on round two move back into the Med with a full naval build. You reinforce the carrier in the Red Sea with a fighter and possibly tactical bomber from India, the UK destroyer from sea zone 71, and on (F1) the French destroyer from sea zone 72. You don’t have to kill the Italians in Tobruk or Ethiopia – they can be killed at your leisure later.

    The fleet in the Red Sea is completely safe from air attack on I1 and G2 – only the lone Italian strategic bomber can make it. The only way Italy can take Egypt is by sacrificing the Luftwaffe to destroy the UK fleet. Otherwise, Italy should give up on Africa and start building ground troops. On UK3, the Italian fleet is doomed and the UK hasn’t actually lost all its starting Med fleet.

    Yes, losing the fighter and tactical bomber from India weakens it. However, you can NEVER save India from a determined Japanese assault, so the loss of air power is minimal. The loss of India does not spell doom for the Allies. Furthermore, the loss of the Mediterranean and the Middle East does.

    This is even stronger with an open bid for the Allies placed partially in the Med – you could leave the fighter in India. You can pull Pacific naval assets in as well if you like – the destroyer and cruiser from India can stack with your fleet on UK2 if you like.

    So yes, Taranto IS an option for the UK – you can give Italy an NO for one round on I1 (less if Italy plays conservative and doesn’t try to clear the Med on I1) and save your valuable fleet assets for later in the game, or you can give Italy the NO for multiple rounds by running Taranto and then let the Luftwaffe nuke it on G2 for minimal losses.

    Marsh

  • '19 '17 '16

    India might be difficult to defend against a determined assault but you can at least make Japan choose between China and India in most games. I can’t agree that abandoning India is a strong move.


  • @Gargantua:

    Whats overlooked is the overwhelming air power the axis start with.  Which was reduced in second edition but it still too powerful.

    Competetivley, people are allowing bids for the allies at +28 to 30 and even then, a typical Axis script will win most games.

    Taranto is a MUST for UK. It’s not an option.

    So the axis play by a script, that is because they have initiative. The allies need to react if the allies go and play the same script the axis play ofcourse the axis will win its a no brainer.

    Taranto isnt required at all as the UK and with a 28 bid it could even be more fun to not spend it all on the med but to have a big fleet survive the german attacks round 1.

    If as the allies you keep doing the same thing against the axis that keeps doing the same thing why would you expect a different outcome?


  • I don’t think the Taranto Raid was over looked, the Med set-up was changed to incorporate it. Both UK and Italian Med ships were moved around in the Alpha project. The original set-up had the Italian battleship in sz 95, but it was purposely moved to sz97 because that’s were the Taranto port was (UK carrier was also orig in sz91, but moved to sz98). Before Alpha 3 I think the UK could hit either sz95 or sz97. They took the sz 95 hit off the table by moving an Italian destroyer (added a transport) to sz 96. This blocked out the UK Egypt fleet from being able to hit sz 95 leaving only the sz97 attack where the Italian BB now is (plus attacking sz 96 of course).

    I remember Larry commenting about the Taranto raid. He knew the Italians could lose 2 transports and the BB, but some of their fleet would survive, and they would still have one transport left. I don’t remember if he commented on the cost to the UK in the aftermath, but it does leave the Italians with the only ships in the Med normally.

    I personally would have liked to see the UK forced to do a mostly air attack on sz97 (maybe w/sub). Adding an Italian cruiser in sz 99 would complete a block out of the UK Med fleet. I said cruiser so you could also add a UK sub in sz 98 that could slip past the Italian cruiser and be used in the attack on Taranto. If you wanted to bring in the UK ftr from England you still could. You would need to clear either sz 96 or sz 99 (in theory) so the UK carrier could NCM in to pick up that ftr, which is how a carrier should be used (not to soak hits). Of course you would kill off that London ftr in the battle so you wouldn’t have to place your UK carrier in harms way. This would be a dicey battle for the UK, as it was at the time. The Axis might scramble more then they do now. It very well could leave both the UK and Italians w/o much air power in the Med if UK did the attack. Haven’t run the numbers, but maybe adding a ftr to the carrier at set-up would make it more viable, and the need for a bid reduced.

  • '15 '14

    @Marshmallow:

    @Gargantua:

    Taranto is a MUST for UK. It’s not an option.

    This is probably the easiest disagreement I have ever done. Taranto is not the UK’s strongest move in the Med. The strongest move is to deploy blockers to hold Italy off for one round, retreat the carrier to the Red Sea, build an IC in Egypt, and then on round two move back into the Med with a full naval build. You reinforce the carrier in the Red Sea with a fighter and possibly tactical bomber from India, the UK destroyer from sea zone 71, and on (F1) the French destroyer from sea zone 72. You don’t have to kill the Italians in Tobruk or Ethiopia – they can be killed at your leisure later.

    The fleet in the Red Sea is completely safe from air attack on I1 and G2 – only the lone Italian strategic bomber can make it. The only way Italy can take Egypt is by sacrificing the Luftwaffe to destroy the UK fleet. Otherwise, Italy should give up on Africa and start building ground troops. On UK3, the Italian fleet is doomed and the UK hasn’t actually lost all its starting Med fleet.

    Yes, losing the fighter and tactical bomber from India weakens it. However, you can NEVER save India from a determined Japanese assault, so the loss of air power is minimal. The loss of India does not spell doom for the Allies. Furthermore, the loss of the Mediterranean and the Middle East does.

    This is even stronger with an open bid for the Allies placed partially in the Med – you could leave the fighter in India. You can pull Pacific naval assets in as well if you like – the destroyer and cruiser from India can stack with your fleet on UK2 if you like.

    So yes, Taranto IS an option for the UK – you can give Italy an NO for one round on I1 (less if Italy plays conservative and doesn’t try to clear the Med on I1) and save your valuable fleet assets for later in the game, or you can give Italy the NO for multiple rounds by running Taranto and then let the Luftwaffe nuke it on G2 for minimal losses.

    Marsh

    Sorry, but… no! 😉

    What many players tend to forget (also in those endless discussions about how to play Nation X until turn 4 or 5 or so):
    A&A is not chess where a position can be very precisely anticipated. Every position after G1 is unique,m especially in vanilla mode where the bid brought further options in.

    So there is definitely NO way to say Taranto is a must or not, it clearly depends on what happened until UK1, especially in case UK scrambles in G1 (which most players do WAY to rarely. Any German attack with less then 90% odds at 110 or 111 is usually an invitation for UK to scramble

    I personally like both, Taranto or stacking fleet in 92 with no Taranto, however hiding fleet in the red sea is objectively bad (especially as Italy can cut them off then through Suez), so is the common overated middle east play. UK must bother Germany from 110. Total middle east and med focus plays into the German hands.

    So in a nutshell: The taranto or not discussion should start with a particular position after J1. Before that it simply depends on what happened before.

  • '15 '14

    And one sentence in order to support Gargantuas statement: In case of doubt I believe Taranto is good in most cases.

    However this really changed in BM. In Vanilla a sub in 98 is a must as a bid and in Case Italiy doesn’t scramble many players make the mistake and take the sub off when Italy scores one hit. However it is clearly better to take the tac off in that situation as the sub makes the difference which does kill the odds from Italy to attack the fleet in 98. With the sub off, Italians can attack 98 and either kill it or Germans kill the left overs with minimal damage. However a German air strike against carrier, 2 figs, DD and CC certainly hurts the Germans. However this also depends if the German Luftwaffe has other jobs in G2 than attacking 97. Again, it depends so much on what happened before.

  • '15 '14

    "…Italy to attack the fleet in 98. "

    97

  • 2020 '19 '18 '17 '16

    @JDOW:

    Sorry, but… no! 😉

    Sorry, but yes.

    @JDOW:

    I personally like both, Taranto or stacking fleet in 92 with no Taranto, however hiding fleet in the red sea is objectively bad (especially as Italy can cut them off then through Suez), so is the common overated middle east play. UK must bother Germany from 110. Total middle east and med focus plays into the German hands.

    How are you going to cut the UK out of the Med on I1 if the UK destroys blockers to sea zones 96 and 99? Are you planning to take Trans Jordan during the non-combat round? Or with that German transport that mysteriously appeared in the Med?

    You can clear the blockers on I1, but you can’t lock the UK out because you can’t take Trans Jordan. On UK2 the UK moves back into sea zone 98 and places a build of one carrier and two destroyers. The UK fleet now has two loaded carriers, five destroyers (six once the French destroyer reaches sea zone 98), and at least one cruiser (two if the sea zone 91 cruiser was used as a blocker on UK1).

    The combined Italian fleet and air force cannot handle that fleet – depending on UK1, I1, and UK2 Italian losses they may not even be able to dent it. The only way the Axis can destroy that UK fleet is to sacrifice the Luftwaffe. Good luck getting Moscow if you do that!

    If you don’t sacrifice the Luftwaffe, the UK has won the Med. Egypt is safe, the Italian fleet dies on UK3 or runs far away (outside the Med far!), Italy’s income gets convoyed away starting on UK4 at the latest, and the UK starts ferrying fighters to Moscow on UK4. The Italian ground troops in Africa die at the UK’s convenience.

    So yeah, sea zone 81 works nicely. I stand by my position that this is the strongest UK play in the Med.

    Marsh


  • @JDOW:

    I personally like both, Taranto or stacking fleet in 92 with no Taranto, however hiding fleet in the red sea is objectively bad (especially as Italy can cut them off then through Suez), so is the common overated middle east play. UK must bother Germany from 110. Total middle east and med focus plays into the German hands.

    So in a nutshell: The taranto or not discussion should start with a particular position after J1. Before that it simply depends on what happened before.

    Total middle east can be really annoying for the axis,
    2 factories there producing mechs and air can really mess with germany’s plans for barbarossa, Having 6 mechs and 6 air more in russia means no attack from germany and the round after the siberian troops come in. Those mechs and air can also be used to clear out some of germanies forces, take caucasus. And with italy not being able to contribute anything to the fight.

    UK can pretty easy keep caucasus and stalinggrad away from germany and even threathen to take ukrain unless germany does something about it. Russia might not be able to take the german stack but if russia attacks and then the UK mops up the survivors germanies ambitions in the east can go down really quickly.


  • @Marshmallow:

    @JDOW:

    Sorry, but… no! 😉

    Sorry, but yes.

    @JDOW:

    I personally like both, Taranto or stacking fleet in 92 with no Taranto, however hiding fleet in the red sea is objectively bad (especially as Italy can cut them off then through Suez), so is the common overated middle east play. UK must bother Germany from 110. Total middle east and med focus plays into the German hands.

    How are you going to cut the UK out of the Med on I1 if the UK destroys blockers to sea zones 96 and 99? Are you planning to take Trans Jordan during the non-combat round? Or with that German transport that mysteriously appeared in the Med?

    You can clear the blockers on I1, but you can’t lock the UK out because you can’t take Trans Jordan. On UK2 the UK moves back into sea zone 98 and places a build of one carrier and two destroyers. The UK fleet now has two loaded carriers, five destroyers (six once the French destroyer reaches sea zone 98), and at least one cruiser (two if the sea zone 91 cruiser was used as a blocker on UK1).

    The combined Italian fleet and air force cannot handle that fleet – depending on UK1, I1, and UK2 Italian losses they may not even be able to dent it. The only way the Axis can destroy that UK fleet is to sacrifice the Luftwaffe. Good luck getting Moscow if you do that!

    If you don’t sacrifice the Luftwaffe, the UK has won the Med. Egypt is safe, the Italian fleet dies on UK3 or runs far away (outside the Med far!), Italy’s income gets convoyed away starting on UK4 at the latest, and the UK starts ferrying fighters to Moscow on UK4. The Italian ground troops in Africa die at the UK’s convenience.

    So yeah, sea zone 81 works nicely. I stand by my position that this is the strongest UK play in the Med.

    Marsh

    I’m with JDOW on this. The Italians can take Trans Jordan with their transport unless UK puts blockers but the would just get kill by the Italians or the Luftwaffe and that would weaken the UK’s Med fleet. If UK purchased 1 carrier and 2 destroyers R2 that would totally give Germany the best opportunity to do a Sea Lion with taking fewer casualties than normal. You have a nice idea but it would only work on beginners (no offense). Because I’m a moderate player and I see a flaw in your strategy.

  • 2020 '19 '18 '17 '16

    @Frederick:

    I’m with JDOW on this. The Italians can take Trans Jordan with their transport unless UK puts blockers but the would just get kill by the Italians or the Luftwaffe and that would weaken the UK’s Med fleet. If UK purchased 1 carrier and 2 destroyers R2 that would totally give Germany the best opportunity to do a Sea Lion with taking fewer casualties than normal.

    Assuming that Germany does a Sea Lion build on G2, you can adjust appropriately. But of course, I consider a German attempt at Sea Lion a beginner move, since I have yet to see a game where the Axis won after doing Sea Lion.

    Of course, you might be saying that Germany could do a Sea Lion build on G3 and try to do Sea Lion on G4. I suppose they could do that. Let’s see, that would be a max of seven transports. That would be answered by a UK3 defensive build. The UK will still control the Med, even if London does fall. Now it’s Russia vs Germany (which has given up the Luftwaffe and numerical advantage over Russia), and Japan vs everyone else. Italy has lost the Med, Africa, and the Middle East and is essentially out of the game. Germany might win the Sea Lion battle for London, but Moscow is safe and the Axis will lose.

    Regarding the blockers being killed, duh! That’s what blockers are for – you sacrifice them to buy time. If the enemy doesn’t kill them, so much the better.

    @Frederick:

    You have a nice idea but it would only work on beginners (no offense). Because I’m a moderate player and I see a flaw in your strategy.

    LOL. Just LOL.

    Now, in all fairness, you don’t know what I built on UK1 besides the factory, you don’t know what else I did on UK1, and you don’t know what I did with the bid. So far, I’ve just referenced units as described in the setup. Getting part or all of the bid only makes the UK stronger.

    Marsh


  • Assuming that Germany does a Sea Lion build on G2, you can adjust appropriately. But of course, I consider a German attempt at Sea Lion a beginner move, since I have yet to see a game where the Axis won after doing Sea Lion.

    I could not agree more with this, only time a Sea Lion is worth it is at end of the game after Moscow has fallen and you catch the UK with their pants down OR you can take it by G3 with 5 trans max and not have to sacrifice the Luftwaffe.  But both of these situations require an inexperienced British player.  Sea Lion is most definitely an advantage for the allies.


  • If London falls the UK economy stops meaning they can’t build anything until London is liberated also meaning UK can’t reinforce the med. Plus where did the British win the med? The Italians have a pretty well sized fleet which they can stack on and also have the Luftwaffe protection. Especially if the blockers are destroyed that makes it harder to destroy the Italian fleet. Even if you win the naval battle you will probably lose almost all of your fleet (unless you get lucky). Just saying the Italian fleet doesn’t so easily like you think. In the end it’s only comes down to Germany trying to taking Russia and if they are successful or not.


  • @Marshmallow:

    @JDOW:

    Sorry, but… no! 😉

    Sorry, but yes.

    @JDOW:

    I personally like both, Taranto or stacking fleet in 92 with no Taranto, however hiding fleet in the red sea is objectively bad (especially as Italy can cut them off then through Suez), so is the common overated middle east play. UK must bother Germany from 110. Total middle east and med focus plays into the German hands.

    How are you going to cut the UK out of the Med on I1 if the UK destroys blockers to sea zones 96 and 99? Are you planning to take Trans Jordan during the non-combat round? Or with that German transport that mysteriously appeared in the Med?

    You can clear the blockers on I1, but you can’t lock the UK out because you can’t take Trans Jordan. On UK2 the UK moves back into sea zone 98 and places a build of one carrier and two destroyers. The UK fleet now has two loaded carriers, five destroyers (six once the French destroyer reaches sea zone 98), and at least one cruiser (two if the sea zone 91 cruiser was used as a blocker on UK1).

    The combined Italian fleet and air force cannot handle that fleet – depending on UK1, I1, and UK2 Italian losses they may not even be able to dent it. The only way the Axis can destroy that UK fleet is to sacrifice the Luftwaffe. Good luck getting Moscow if you do that!

    If you don’t sacrifice the Luftwaffe, the UK has won the Med. Egypt is safe, the Italian fleet dies on UK3 or runs far away (outside the Med far!), Italy’s income gets convoyed away starting on UK4 at the latest, and the UK starts ferrying fighters to Moscow on UK4. The Italian ground troops in Africa die at the UK’s convenience.

    So yeah, sea zone 81 works nicely. I stand by my position that this is the strongest UK play in the Med.

    Marsh

    Very well said marsh, I must say that I too am a firm believer in pulling back to SZ81 and focusing all of UK income on the ME, it is simply to good because you threaten ALL THREE axis from that position.  You are just one move away from Rome, 2 moves from an Indian liberation and can hit the Balkans in one move.  This is most definitely the best position for the UK to take.  If you use Bids to buy carriers in the red sea and spend income on Naval buys for first 3 turns, the UK finds themselves in a VERY good position to strike at what the Axis leaves open.

  • '19 '17 '16

    It’s too easy for Italy to land a troop on Transjordan and close the Suez.


  • @simon33:

    It’s too easy for Italy to land a troop on Transjordan and close the Suez.

    Not if you are shuttling men there via transport from South Africa

  • '19 '17 '16

    You have to be defending both pretty strongly to keep the Suez open. Yes there is an amount which can probably defend against any given attack but it takes time to build this up.

  • 2020 '19 '18 '17 '16

    Since we’ve already established that the Suez canal cannot be closed on I1 if the UK deploys blockers, and since the UK fleet moves back into the Med before I2, it does not matter if Italy closes the Med on I2.

    Marsh

Suggested Topics

  • 5
  • 15
  • 12
  • 54
  • 9
  • 11
  • 10
  • 23
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

80
Online

15.1k
Users

36.0k
Topics

1.5m
Posts