Taranto Fail… What next in the Med?

@ShadowHAwk:

Well since you have to take odds a 75% odds is pretty decent though.

The 25% when you lose is more devastating, cumulatively, than the 75% when you win.  In the 75% when Allies win, Axis usually does well enough that Italy can easily mop up in 97 and avoid getting convoyed.  The tuv loss to Axis can be small to none when we take the counter into account, although a successful 97 attack constrains Italy strategically.  But in the 25% when Allies lose, that’s a devastating defeat for Allies and hard to recover from.

It’s hard for Allies to bring enough material that there isn’t a good argument for an Axis scramble.  Still, if you bring 8-9 units (including the ac) then that might be scary enough that Axis won’t want to take the risk and prefer to wait till G2 for a (comparatively) low-risk counter.

If germany does 110 without the BB but with 1 sub 3 figs 3 tacticals 1 bomber they also got 80% of winning if the UK scrambles. Would you take the 20% odds as allies? Why would the axis take 20% odds and be considered smart.

Mostly yes, because the tuv exchange would be more favorable to Allies.  But in some cases UK might need to hold back (especially if 111 is a better scramble option).   There’s more upside to the 97 scramble with those odds because Axis wants to prevent the Allied convoy.

One thing the Germans can do is hit the UK Cruiser in SZ91 which I used to do but stopped because those two subs are better used hitting SZ110 and therefore preserving more of the Luftwaffe.

Taranto is a pretty much all or nothing option for the UK but assuming it happens and succeeds the UK fleet is generally toast anyway. Is it really worth going to much length to stop?

I feel like the “3rd” option is stacking UK navy in 92 and building an air base in Gibraltar UK1.  Same risk of Sea Lion as building the IC in Egypt UK1 tho.  This requires “breaking out” by attacking the Italian Destroyer in 96 with air power (bomber from London and Fighter from Malta).  I would also recommend an attack on Ethiopia via India support combined with the Tac and TT with 2 units from egypt, then consolidating Alex/Egypt forces in Egypt.  If, for whatever reason, UK navy in 110 was avoided, send them to 92 as well.

Just another option to consider with lots of “ifs”.  Germany’s opening move should dictate your options rather than have a hard and fast “this is what the UK MUST DO”.

@Eqqman:

@P@nther:

No, that is not correct:

@Europe:

Transports can move to friendly coastal territories
and load or offload cargo, unless they loaded, moved,
offloaded, or were involved in combat during the Combat
Move or Conduct Combat phase.

Hmm, well, if that is the real intent of the rule, they should have said OR load/offload cargo, since by saying AND they are only prohibiting offloading when the ship tries to move and offload together.

@Europe:

Whenever a transport offloads, it can’t move again that turn If a transport retreats, it cant offload that turn

does that help?

To be clear, you only have to start the battle with all aircraft having a possible landing location, correct?

retreating from the med isn’t good.  ur basically saying “here ya go dude. do whatever you want.”  the biggest thing holding italy back is the time it takes to secure the med.  pulling back speeds up the process.

let america/anzac deal w/ japan.

Thanks for the detail. I think I am going to have to leave SZ 97 alone. Even without German fighters, it is too risky to attack. What that does do, is allow Germany to not have to move fighters south since the attack on 97 is no longer truly feasible UK1.

I agree that 92 is probably better than 91.