Bismarck or Taranto?

[squirecam]

@thedesertfox said in Bismarck or Taranto?:

Something that’s always been in the back of my head for the longest time now in Global 40’ for both the Allies and the Axis is that of which the British seek to destroy the German Battleship Bismarck in Seazone 110 (assuming it was used) or send planes in from England to do the Taranto Raid.

I dont want to definetively say that the U.K player will do one or the other since it feels too significant of a decision to prematurely decide if they’ll go for one thing over the other.

What would any of you guys do in this situation, destroy the Bismarck at sea or divert those planes on the British Isles to fight Italy in the Taranto Raid? (and for the purposes of this decision making assume that there will be a 3 plane scramble if Taranto were to happen)

Too many variables. What is the bid? Is the BB alone or with subs? Is there an airbase in Holland? Did Japan attack J1?

[FlyingBadger]

@thedesertfox As @squirecam said, different situations might mean I make different decisions, but broadly I would prefer attacking the Italian ships with the aim of limiting what they can do in the Mediterranean. Hopefully get another opportunity at the Germany battleship later, even if it is repaired by then.

[TheDesertFox]

@squirecam

So here would be the ideal factors:

1. No bid
2. No scramble
3. Both German subs were brought into the fight with the Battleship
4. Both subs died in the fight
5. Battleship was left undamaged
6. No airbase in Holland
7. No J1 attack

These can obviously vary but this is as close to what would be an ‘average scenario’ as it can get

[TheDesertFox]

@flyingbadger

That’s what has me so lost is that there are so many variables to which it can be almost impossible to predict what the UK player might do or for what is better and more beneficial to remove either naval pieces.

I kind of expected most average/above-average UK players to prioritize Taranto since leaving that many Italian boats in the Med can prove to be troublesome but all the same thats not to say they won’t try for attacking the Bismarck.

[squirecam]

@thedesertfox said in Bismarck or Taranto?:

@squirecam

So here would be the ideal factors:

1. No bid
2. No scramble
3. Both German subs were brought into the fight with the Battleship
4. Both subs died in the fight
5. Battleship was left undamaged
6. No airbase in Holland
7. No J1 attack

These can obviously vary but this is as close to what would be an ‘average scenario’ as it can get

I disagree that this is the ideal average scenario as the OOB rules simply favor the axis. A bid of one Scotland fighter and one med sub means that you can easily do both.

But given the parameters I would have to assume London is a distinct possibility, which would make me consider no Taranto, which means I stack Gibraltar and take out the BB.

[TheDesertFox]

@squirecam

Right, alright that gives me some more insight.

As I said, average, close to average scenario that you’ll gave a G40 game I’m not super concerned with bids since obviously with bids you’ll be more than capable of doing both without cutting your losses but I feel the idea is that the UK should have to make these kinds of pressing decisions to overcome their enemy.

Granted, leaving the Battleship would largely open for an attack on London, but being that Sealion has died down in popularity I can’t really put my hand on it.

[Robson]

for the given szenario I would also prefer to send the fighters to Taranto, simply because the damage in the long run is much bigger if you destroy the italien navy rather then the Bismarck.

[TheDesertFox]

@robson

I see, this gives me alot more insight now.

Granted, with no bid you could still do both with 2 fighters remaining on England, but at that point if you were diverting fighters to Taranto and fighters to take out the undamaged German Battleship than that would be a clean Sealion attack for the Germans, so the UK could do both if they really wanted to but for the purposes of not overstretching the airforce its unlikely and unwise to do both.

[MarshmallowofWar]

First, Taranto is not a “must do” on UK1.

Second, destroying the German battleship is not a “must do” on UK1.

In both cases, the Allies must build fleets before they can truly exert pressure on the Axis. Not attacking them on UK1 gives the Axis powers a choice – focus on the objective that will win the game, namely capturing victory cities in Russia and the Middle East, OR enter a naval arms race that cannot be sustained if the Axis intends to win the game.

Yes, that’s correct – an arms race. To keep the battleship, it must be defended and Germany must spend additional income on air and naval units to keep it alive – that is money not being spent on building forces necessary to secure the VCs in Russia and the Middle East. To keep the Italian battleship, Italy must dedicate all its paltry income to keeping it alive, making it difficult if not impossible to assist Germany in the East.

The Allies do not have to do either of these battles on UK1 (though doing one would be prudent and I would argue the Allies have to do one of them, but not both). In both cases the Allies have other options that will result in the destruction of those Axis assets with absolute certainty in just a few more turns unless the Axis enters an arms race to protect those assets.

Marsh

[squirecam]

@marshmallowofwar said in Bismarck or Taranto?:

First, Taranto is not a “must do” on UK1.

Second, destroying the German battleship is not a “must do” on UK1.

In both cases, the Allies must build fleets before they can truly exert pressure on the Axis. Not attacking them on UK1 gives the Axis powers a choice – focus on the objective that will win the game, namely capturing victory cities in Russia and the Middle East, OR enter a naval arms race that cannot be sustained if the Axis intends to win the game.

Yes, that’s correct – an arms race. To keep the battleship, it must be defended and Germany must spend additional income on air and naval units to keep it alive – that is money not being spent on building forces necessary to secure the VCs in Russia and the Middle East. To keep the Italian battleship, Italy must dedicate all its paltry income to keeping it alive, making it difficult if not impossible to assist Germany in the East.

The Allies do not have to do either of these battles on UK1 (though doing one would be prudent and I would argue the Allies have to do one of them, but not both). In both cases the Allies have other options that will result in the destruction of those Axis assets with absolute certainty in just a few more turns unless the Axis enters an arms race to protect those assets.

Marsh

Italy keeping its fleet is its key to gaining more than a paltry income. There is more than one way to win and you dont just have to crush russia before turn 6.

[MarshmallowofWar]

@squirecam said in Bismarck or Taranto?:

Italy keeping its fleet is its key to gaining more than a paltry income. There is more than one way to win and you dont just have to crush russia before turn 6.

I never said you had to crush Russia before turn 6 – however, it IS necessary to push the Russians back to Moscow so that at least two victory cities are within reach and the way through the Middle East is open. Building more ships and planes to protect a battleship does not help with that and gives Russia time.

Italy, with or without fleet, is gimp unless the player runs the UK like a complete idiot. No matter what, Italy’s battleship cannot lead to higher income unless the UK doesn’t do what is necessary to secure the Med.

Marsh

[MarshmallowofWar]

@marshmallowofwar said in Bismarck or Taranto?:

I never said you had to crush Russia before turn 6. And Italy, with or without fleet, is gimp unless the player runs the UK like a complete idiot. No matter what, Italy’s battleship cannot lead to higher income unless the UK doesn’t do what is necessary to secure the Med.

To elaborate, Italy’s growth is entirely up to the UK player. Italy has very little say in the matter.

Marsh

[TheDesertFox]

@marshmallowofwar

Unfortunately, yeah it is. Why? Because the UK won’t get another chance at either of them past turn 1.

You let that German battleship go and it’s headed right back into the Baltic Sea to meet up with the cruiser and a position for fighters to scramble if attacked by air, already eliminating sea units from moving in to take it out since they cannot enter the Danish Straight unless owned for a whole turn.

The same goes for the Italian fleet, only this time it should be even more emphasized. If you dont attack that fleet on Taranto, then all Italy has to do is consolidate their navy and you’ve just lost you’re chance to take it out. You won’t have enough ships for cannon fodder nor will you have enough aircraft to do some real damage in any case that you do want to attack it.

It really doesn’t cost Germany anything to protect the Battleship, especially if it goes down to the Med for an Afrika Korps opening with a carrier and a few other smaller ships.

So granted, you can do one, the other, or both, or even none. Just know that there’s no ‘right’ option to choosing any of these as the other 3 will hurt you in the long run.

And with the idea that Italy already begins with 2 transports, they build another 1 and an infantry turn 1 and thats 3 transports to shuck units down to Africa, so Italy is kind of a big deal when you don’t attack their navy. It genuinly does make a big difference in the game.

[MarshmallowofWar]

@thedesertfox With respects sir (presumably), you lack vision.

Who cares if the German battleship pairs up with the cruiser under air cover? That’s three fighters not going to Russia.

And that Italian fleet? Italy can’t keep it for long. The destruction of the Italian fleet is inevitable, no matter what Italy does. If it is spending money protecting its fleet, it is not spending money on ground forces and transports. As soon as it tries to leave air cover, it dies.

Fin

[Robson]

@thedesertfox You are absolutely right. When I play UK I normally choose one but never both option.

[TheDesertFox]

@marshmallowofwar

With all do respect, I would have to disagree on that sediment.

As I had previously stated Marsh, I am not saying that there is any right decision for the UK to do one, the other, both or none. I cannot tell you definitively that one is better than another. What I can tell you though is that of which doing one or the other or both or none can and will prove fatal to the UK in the event that Germany or Italy were to properly utilize either of these assets.

As per the German battleship returning to the Baltic Seazone under 3 fighters, I’m not sure what you’re talking about here, because this is only G2 where I haven’t even attacked Russia yet. These 3 fighters will have more than enough time to provide ample assistance to the Bismarck, and then get over to the Soviet Union without the Bismarck being under any fire, so the airforce won’t be diverted away from Russia.

Perhaps if an American fleet were to come across the water Italy couldn’t keep it for long, but that still takes time, 4-6 turns to be exact if America wanted to properly develop a strategical transport shuck to get units into Africa and then Western Europe. So, in turn, if the demise of the Italian fleet is inevitable, would you care to explain exactly how? British aircraft will be busy defending Calcutta and Moscow from the impending Germans marching toward the capital. The British won’t possess a large enough navy to take on the Italian fleet and if they are building a navy in India just to send over to take out Italy then that’s time and money wasted on what could be valuable units of both land and air that could’ve been built to protect Calcutta.

[MarshmallowofWar]

Any resources dedicated to fleet defense have to be in the area of the fleet. There is absolutely no way that German fighters can cover a German fleet from an airbase and participate in the attack Volgograd/Moscow at the same time.

The Italian fleet cannot move out of air cover until it is sufficiently large to withstand the two CV, two CC, 5 DD, and Royal Air Force attack on it (plus any subs that I can get to the area) that I can muster on UK 3. At that point, Italy’s fleet is totally defensive and Italy must keep spending money to keep it alive.

If Germany wants to build a carrier and send it to the Med, whoever is handling Russia should be dancing with glee and taking advantage of the breather to build another stack of infantry.

UK1 is the most important turn for the Allies. Do it incorrectly and you lose the game. Options for making that turn incorrectly include overreaching your forces to make risky attacks when you can make the same attack a couple of turns later with little or no risk. Forcing both these attacks is overreaching.

I am more than willing to back my position with a game via email. Make sure you’re running Triple A 1.9.

[TheDesertFox]

@marshmallowofwar

Again, the Germans will pull the Battleship back to stay protected in the seazone with fighters to scramble on G2. G3 the Bismarck will move inward more to the point where British airforce can’t even hit it. Germany isn’t taking any fighters away from the fight, and frankly they have until G4 to properly get the fighters and bombers toward the Soviet Union since the Soviet player more than likely won’t have any actual units on the Soviet-German border meaning you won’t actually start fighting the Soviets until turn 4, this is cold hard factual evidence man, you wouldn’t even need a game to prove it, all it would take is to setup the pieces, test out the scenario and see that it’s the truth that the German battleship will be safe and protect by Luftwaffe early game, and mid game the luftwaffe will head East to fight the Russians.

As I said before, I’m not saying the Italian fleet is unstoppable to beat. Obviously if the allies commit to building a proper navy than yah they’ll withstand the Italian consolidated fleet, but that’s mid-late game. Not to mention the fact that if I can get the UK to prioritize the Europe and Pacific economy on wasting their IPC’s on ships they will only use one time then I’ve done my job as Italy, because the British and Americans need to be getting actual ground units on the mainland continent of Eurasia. Again, I to include many other youtubers have seen this common trend countless amounts of times where if the US or UK dont get ground units mobilized, they will eventually lose the game.

Germany building a carrier to send down to the Med to help Italy doesn’t get the Soviets off Scott-Free not even the slightest, because I’m not taking anything away from my Barbarossa attack. I usually like to spend the first 30 IPC’s on 2 transports and a carrier if I plan to do an Afrika Korps opening or as a backup plan do Sealion. On G2 I will have 71 IPC’s to spend which 60 of it will go to 9-10 tanks on Germany and spend the other 11 on whatever you want. Nothing is being taken away from the Barbarossa attack and Germany will still be attacking with the same monstrous force they usually do always, that’s the beauty of how well it works out for Germany.

As per the UK, we both agree that it is absolutely imperative to have a good-standing UK player that knows what they are doing, or you lose the game. You and I both know that it’s gonna take a proper UK1 to set the stage for late game in attacking the Axis powers, they just have to do it correctly.

[MarshmallowofWar]

@thedesertfox Again, who cares about the German battleship (besides you)? The German battleship is useless after G1 unless Germany commits resources to protecting it and making it useful. If Germany wants to keep it, it can be the albatross you hang on Berlin.

The UK can make a play for the Italian fleet as early as UK 3 unless it’s under air cover. That’s not mid-game.

Marsh

[TheDesertFox]

@marshmallowofwar

You’re absolutely right, who would care about a Battleship sitting in Dry dock not doing squat? I wouldn’t.

What I would care about though and frankly what a lot of other players playing the UK would care about is if the Germans plan to utilize that alive battleship for a Sealion attack or an Afrikakorps attack, then the UK is gonna’ be caring. He’s gonna be caring a lot about the demise of that German Battleship if used properly by the Germans. That’s what this whole discussion is about, whether it’s better to destroy the German battleship or Italian fleet for what they can do against you in the long run if kept alive. Who would care about an Italian fleet that sits in dry dock and doesn’t do anything, who would care about a German battleship that participates in 1 fight then runs away back to dry dock? Nobody would. But people would care if either of these are properly and effectively used against them.

And again, one would think that turn 3 would be the sweet spot to remove the Italian navy you did not destroy earlier, and frankly their ain’t any better time to strike at it then that time, if Japan didn’t exist, but they do exist, and they’re comin’ for Calcutta hard and fast so don’t expect to be diverting any fighters to go take out what is already a decently sized Italian fleet.

Believe me when I say it, Germany and Italy really don’t have to spend much to keep these things alive, they genuinely just don’t. 16 IPC’s out of Germany’s turn 1 bank to build a carrier and maybe add a destroyer to that and you’ve already got a formable navy that won’t be easy to take down. Italy will already start with the battleship and cruiser that you didn’t destroy, to go along with another cruiser, sub and destroyer. With this navy, they’ll clear the Med out of Allied ships, the Axis will capture Gibraltar, Southern France and Greece, and conquer the entirety of North Africa from Morocco to Alexandria. What do all these things have in common? They all give Italy national objectives. 3 to be exact, coming out to a whopping 15 IPC’s to stack on top of Italy’s average 15+ IPC’s that they should be getting. (10 to start, 2 for Yugoslavia, 2 for Greece, and 1 for both Algeria and/or Tunisia.). Italy can be making 30 IPC’s every turn and the UK can’t even take this away that easily with all of Italy’s money in close proximity to the main capital of Rome and each of the National Objectives in same Axis hands, allowing Italy to pump out another Battleship or a carrier to put fighters on or whatever they need to increase the size of the navy, and if Britain is wasting their time screwin’ around playing patty cake with Italy’s navy than that’s valuable time and money lost.

The Allies are gonna have to do a bit more than just lift a finger to defeat the Axis on this one.