A lot of posters seemed stunned at this scenario, never scene it ever happen or even could happen. Now that I mulled it over last night and looked at the rules and so forth it is very obvious to me why no one has ever scene this scenario. Because the scenario makes no logical sense.
Italy DOW on Russia and moves in 2 tanks into Eastern Poland.
Russia is now at war with Italy and can DOW on Germany at the start of their next turn, turn 3.
Germany on Turn 3 does not DOW on Russia and just non combats into Eastern Poland.
Russia at the start of Turn 3 DOW on Germany and off we go.There is no logical reason why Russia would not DOW on Germany at the start of Turn 3, none.
Heck you could argue that it makes no logical sense that Germany did not DOW on Russia at the start of G3 since Italy brought Russia into the war and Russia WILL DOW on Germany on R3.
Hi PainState,
From my perspective, if I was planning on doing a G3 Barbarossa AND I wanted to drive towards the south, then yes, it makes sense to not DOW. My stack will be together except for the minimum required mobile units and maybe 1 AAA in Poland so Russia doesn’t attack Poland to get their NO for occupying an Axis territory. But E. Poland will be real strong because the German air will be there and maybe bombers will also be in range of a raid on the Moscow factory. Also, 5 IPCs is more income than I’d probably get as Germany on the 1st turn.
There are a few disadvantages of course. 1, Russian blockers can’t be attacked. 2, the Scandinavian units are behind. But for me that’s ok, I just use them to lay siege anyways. I never expect to get Moscow on turn 6 anymore. I assume that the UK/Anzac and that lone French fighter are going to get to Moscow.Â
Let's talk the Taranto raid.
-
Sorry if this sounds stupid, but what does “ME” mean in this case? Middle Earth?
-
@SuperbattleshipYamato @TheDesertFox Yes to Yamato and no to Fox. I could make a video i the future but right now I’m playing G42 with my Father so the board is tied up. I also don’t have time to make a template currently but I will try in the future. If I do I could copy you on it when I get around to it.
-
@FranceNeedsMorePower That’d be really cool! I’ve been wanting to replicate middle earth strategies and examine them myself. So far I’ve only been able to investigate general hand grenades.
-
@TheDesertFox I could start on the project but don’t plan on it being finished for a decently long time. I will tag you on it when I get around to it.
-
Does your custom ME mostly follow the structure of GeneralHandGrenade’s? Does it involve just the UK or does it kind of have some cohesion with an American strategy too?
-
@TheDesertFox It kind of works on it’s own. It can work with multiple other strategies. One thing I can do is summarize it for you. When I do the video the Free French, and Anzac units will also be part of it.
-
Sounds good I’ll read it through and give my thoughts or better yet try it myself
-
@TheDesertFox AH! I have an idea I could just screen record TripleA to because my G40 board is tied up. I’m not sure if that would look good though a “on the board” version would probably be best but I could create a temporary one. The strategy is very im-prompt to as well.
-
@TheDesertFox I can also just do a summary whatever you would prefer until I get to an actual “on the board video”.
-
Honestly a summary would be just fine. All im really interested in is kind of the “What the UK does” for every turn and if you’re working on cotangent with the United States and what you’d purchase. Just that kinda information until your board is freed up
-
@TheDesertFox Alright I can do that. It will take me a bit more time probably just because I have to write it. Time to get to work :)
-
On a more open ended note since this thread is on the Taranto Raid, I have a genuine question for anyone to answer.
Do you normally scramble 3 fighters into the Taranto Raid as the Axis? Why or why not?
-
@TheDesertFox Either or works. A lot due it just from their preference. I do but I have seen people do both equally. I think it’s a good idea to and not to do it.
-
@TheDesertFox Both works fine.
-
It depends on the circumstances.
Obviously the Axis should scramble if doing so causes British odds of winning to go significantly down.
Still, even if the British are likely to win I would still scramble. This is because the British only have a high chance of winning if they take their carrier as a hit-soaker first. However, if the British do that, some of the fighters from London or elsewhere may not have a place to land, and if they survived the battle they would be destroyed.
On the other hand, if the British start taking combat units first, there’s still a 30-40% chance of the Axis winning that fight.
Overall, scrambling forces the British to make some hard choices at a time when the Italians won’t be able to do much naval damage if the British succeed.
-
I do appreciate the feedback. I’ve seen some people in their strategies for the UK not scramble which to me feels like coping because if it were me playing the Axis I would scramble 10 out of 10 games. Plus its better to practice is though they do then if they dont’.
-
@SuperbattleshipYamato said in Let's talk the Taranto raid.:
It depends on the circumstances.
Obviously the Axis should scramble if doing so causes British odds of winning to go significantly down.
Still, even if the British are likely to win I would still scramble. This is because the British only have a high chance of winning if they take their carrier as a hit-soaker first. However, if the British do that, some of the fighters from London or elsewhere may not have a place to land, and if they survived the battle they would be destroyed.
On the other hand, if the British start taking combat units first, there’s still a 30-40% chance of the Axis winning that fight.
Overall, scrambling forces the British to make some hard choices at a time when the Italians won’t be able to do much naval damage if the British succeed.
You do know that the allies can chose the casualties after they rolled and you chose casuatlies and you rolled right. So they can just pick the carrier if the combat goes badly and if the combat goes well they can just take a cruiser.
So the chance of winning does not change depending on what they chose as casualties because it is selected after the chances are removed and the outcome is clear.
-
@TheDesertFox said in Let's talk the Taranto raid.:
You might know where they’re going but how do you plan to stop them with only infantry on Calcutta and no naval authority in the Indian ocean? And what do you do as America if Japan chooses to conduct a J1 Pearl Harbor? That’s one of the two victory cities I mentioned out of your control right from the get go.
Attack Hawai J1 with what? 1 inf and 1 tank VS 2 inf and 2 fighters. If they are that lucky then US might have a problem.
So the US basically can kill the whole japan fleet near Hawai round 1, Remember that japan cannot use carriers as soakers because US can just retreat and kill all the air that way.
Sure the US will be making a suicide attack on that fleet but doing a lot of damage and anzac can also hit afterwards for even more damage if the fighter screen is gone.
And that fleet cannot run far while your reinforcements you buy round 1 will be able to hit them again.Japan VS US head to head in a fleet battle is great for the US. Even a 2 for 1 trade is great as US makes more then 3times the income.
-
@shadowhawk Yeah I never actually realized the issue with his statement. Japan can’t capture Hawaii if they do some how I would probably forfeit :D
-
Not really. They have to choose casulaties after only one round of combat, and in my experience the victors are still often not clear by that time.
Suggested Topics
