Why is Taranto raid so popular?

@hengst

This only works if there are only Italian aricraft scrambling. I usually use two fighters from the United Kingdom terirtory, and the fighter from Malta-the fighter from Girbraltar should be used along with the cruiser off of Girbraltar (it takes three submarines to have more than an 80% chance to kill it, my normal standard to win a battle, so the submarines are usually used for easier prey in the north, especially if Germany attacks the Soviet Union in the first turn, which will nessecitate one submarine in sea zone 125) to destroy the Italian navy off of Malta. If a German aircraft lands in Southern Italy, I usually will call of the attack, as there is a less than 80% chance to win. All of this assumes Germany invades the Soviet Union in the first turn.

@cornwallis said in Can Tac Bombers Escort a Bombing Raid, but choose not to bomb?:

@panther but what if you send them in to bomb an air or Naval base, then they do participate in the dog fight?

Yes.

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”.

True, I did not mean to say that one bad-luck battle increases your odds of a future good-luck battle. What I meant is that Global 1940 is a much bigger game than, say, Revised. Global has more units involved and more battles that matter. The effect of having more units and more battles is to soften the effect of any one unit missing or of any one battle going poorly. In other words, as you broaden your sample size, you get closer to achieving average results in the aggregate.

@Cow:

The egypt minor is for convoying sz 97 in the long run and taking italy out of the game.

That can change when Germany (if) takes Moscow and turns towards Egypt.  In my most recent game, Germany ended up taking Moscow and redirected the prior round’s purchase of Armor towards Egypt along with a Ukr Arm purchase Germany had something like 9 tanks sitting in Ukraine ready to blitz ahead of whatever survived Moscow.

UK went on the defensive at this point, but Italy was already convoyed to death with minimal effort.  It really goes to show how important sinking the Italian fleet is if Germany is going to Moscow first when Italy is stuck from round 6-7 on being able to only put 1 or 2 Inf out a round at best.

With the new setup, Italy can only do what the UK allows them to do, and with the pressure off sealion, it’s put squarely on Italy with the threat of an IC in Egypt UK1. Italy should have been given a tac bomber in northern Italy IMO.

@MarkVIIIMarc:

Taranto steals a hit and a tac that defends at 3 from defense of London.  That Sealion thing is the biggest problem England has.

Also that destroyer has been used to block and attack the Denmark Straight in different games in my basement.

Really I sort of like the Taranto raid.  London just has to be made too expensive to take though so I usually don’t do it.

Anyway, I love it when my America takes Minor Complex having Rome while Italian Units are busy chasing the French around Central Africa

Problem is that G4 Sealion is unstoppable.

@marechallannes:

Q1: A battleship enters a seazone with a hostile submarine. The sub submerges.

Following the rules, the sub emerges after the combat (that doesn’t take place)

Who controlls the seazone after the battleship owners turn?

Is the sub able to raid the convoy zone in that seazone, or is it impossible, cause the battleship owner “won” the battle and controls the sea zone?

Q2: Does the sub emerges before the collect income phase of the battleship owner and is it able to raid the sea-zone of the battleship-owner?

Q3: A submarine enters a seazone with a hostile submarine. Both sub submerges before any round of combat.

Are both submarines are able to make convoy raids? (For example a UK-sub and a Jap-sub in SZ 37)

1:  No power can “control” a seazone.  That’s why you don’t mark it.  The sub is able to raid, because it remains in the seazone during the collect income phase.  Powers occupy a seazone, and a seazone can be hostile, but it’s never really “controlled”.  A power can still place units in a seazone adjacent to its factory, regardless of how many enemy units might remain in that seazone (that may even be disrupting a convoy).
2:  Yes.
3: Yes,  assuming each is present during their respective enemy’s collect income phase (when the disruption occurs).

“Submerging” is simply a term for the option to retreat but remain in the same seazone.  It serves no other function, and it does not have any impact on any other phases of a turn.  After combat, all subs are effectively no longer submerged.