Fortress Malta

[purplebaron]

Several people have expressed disappointment that the “Fortress Malta” we were promised is in fact an empty island.  I was initially disappointed as well, but on further consideration I think I see how it can work.  It becomes more of an interplay between UK and Italy (and Germany, to a lesser extent).  Because UK moves before Italy, they have the initiative.

On UK1, the UK can choose to fortify Malta with two fighters (one from Alexandria, and one from the Carrier at the mouth of the Med) and build an airbase, then reinforce the carrier with additional plains from Great Britain and a loaded transport (if any survived).

In this scenario, the Italians then have the option to ignore Malta (in which case it gets seriously buffed up on UK2 to potentially 4 fighters and 2 infantry).  Or they attack it, but to attack it will require the majority (if not the entirety) of its navy, as the fighters can choose to scramble or not. If they ignore it, then UK reinforces.  If they attack, they don’t get to reinforce Africa or attack the Middle East and their navy is exposed and could potentially be attacked by the UK fleet at Gibraltar on UK2.

Alternately, the UK could choose on turn 1 to land some number of fighters on turn 1 on Gibraltar and the carrier and bring down a transport.

In this case, if Italy ignores Malta, on UK2, UK can again have a powerful base established on UK2.  If Italy sacrifices a transport to take Malta, then UK can snipe the transport and optionally move the navy in to retake Malta.  Then, Italy can probably kill the navy (weakening its own navy in the process) but probably can’t retake Malta the same turn, in which case on UK3, they can build an airbase and fly down more aircraft.  If Italy takes Malta in force, it has the same problems described above where they’ve been diverted from attacking Africa and their navy is threatened by the Brits.  In this case, the Brits have bought themselves time in Africa with no unit sacrifice and just some maneuver, and also have the option to follow up and attack the navy.

The success of this will depend in part on whether Germany can (and chooses to) kill all UK transports in range on G1, but beyond that Germany will not have much ability to impact this strategy in the first two turns, as their aircraft can’t reach anywhere relevant until after the fall of France, and their subs aren’t strong enough and concentrated enough to attack the carrier (I think).

Choosing to execute this strategy will take a significant commitment of IPCs and onboard resources on the part of the UK player, but if they do, it gives Italy only bad options, and once a base is established, it will be quite valuable to the UK.

In the end (assuming that things play out the way I believe they will) I prefer this setup to having the base start pre-populated.  If I’m right, it represents a powerful strategic option that the UK can choose to (or choose not to) execute, and I’m all for multiple valid strategic choices, especially on turn 1.

Thoughts?

[maverick_76]

I think your train of thought is exactly what Larry had in mind.

[purplebaron]

@maverick_76:

I think your train of thought is exactly what Larry had in mind.

Cool.

Thanks

[lnmajor]

Very well thoughtout, i might be jumping the gun by expressing my dissappiontment with the initial Malta setup. if Brits start moving fighters from England and off the carrier, is it taking too much need muscle to soon from these other areas? i am gonna have to wait to actually play a few games to see how this plays out. but thanks for some great analyisis on how this might play out

[purplebaron]

@lnmajor:

Very well thoughtout, i might be jumping the gun by expressing my dissappiontment with the initial Malta setup. if Brits start moving fighters from England and off the carrier, is it taking too much need muscle to soon from these other areas? i am gonna have to wait to actually play a few games to see how this plays out. but thanks for some great analyisis on how this might play out

Thank you.  Way back with the original AAE, I remember that there was a plane on Malta, which was awesome  :-D, and it always died on G1, which was sad  :cry:.  If Malta started with say two planes, two infantry, and an airbase (which was what I was expecting given Larry’s comments about “Fortress Malta”), I think it would have made the Italian fleet too vulnerable to air strike and resulted in the Med getting swept clean before the game even really started.

In general, two of my biggest complaints about A&A games have been first turn scripted openings and first turn naval annihilation.  It looks like both of them may finally be addressed here.  Best guess, only about half of UK’s fleet will be destroyed on G1, and both UK and Germany are going to have to make some significant decisions about how they want to prosecute the war.  For example, I’ll bet that a common first turn UK choice will be “Do I use my fighters to sink the Bismark or to set up fortress Malta”

Here’s hoping I’m right about all that.

[miamibeach]

Unfortunately, Malta is a waste of time and IPC’s for UK.  I think Malta should have begun with a sub in its seazone, 1 INF, and 1 FTR.  If UK is doing all that, then its not building a fleet, or assisting USSR, or defending Africa.  Malta can be made harder to take, but it will be taken…so all those assets will be eliminated.

[Imperious Leader]

two of my biggest complaints about A&A games have been first turn scripted openings and first turn naval annihilation.

This is the problem i see with Revised and MB AA as well…

They should have had a ONE sea zone rule for carrier based planes and a TWO sea zone rule for land based planes.

Fighters can move from UK, sink Italian navy and land in Gibraltar. They don’t have range for that.

Likewise planes taking off in Pacific, sinking some warship at wake Island and flying to Manchuria is really ridiculous.

I remember alot of games where US had a bomber in Alaska and it bombed ships off Japan and landed in Russia. That could never happen.

Malta should have some special rules along with Gibraltar to control the Italian navy functions. Naval ports should be protecting ships from harassment too.

[LHoffman]

@miamibeach:

Unfortunately, Malta is a waste of time and IPC’s for UK.  I think Malta should have begun with a sub in its seazone, 1 INF, and 1 FTR.  If UK is doing all that, then its not building a fleet, or assisting USSR, or defending Africa.  Malta can be made harder to take, but it will be taken…so all those assets will be eliminated.

I am inclined to agree with MiamiBeach. I have not seen the real-life importance that many island bases had in the real war to be that vital in Axis and Allies… for example, Guadalcanal, Midway, Okinawa, even Hawaii…
I am not sure why Malta will be all that different. I am not disagreeing with the Baron totally; I recognize the potential, and since I haven’t played the game I cannot asses Malta’s value. However, if it is such a big commitment in time and IPCs, I do think that it is probably a waste of Britain’s time… when they could be building fleets and harassing the Germans prior to real invasion. Otherwise they are screwing around in the Med, playing a war of attrition for no substantial gain. Sure Malta was key in history… I just read about it, but I am skeptical of its place in the game until someone can prove it to me in practice.

And in the War, it was the Germans who mainly attacked Malta… nearly bombing it out of existence from the air. Somehow I also don’t see Germany having the time to level her guns on Malta either.

[lnmajor]

IL, can you clarify exactly what you mean by 2 sz rule for land based fighters. do you mean 2 SZ for combat and non-combat moves combined?

[lnmajor]

miami beach, you got it! 1 inf., 1 ftr and sub on Malta to start. if Brits have to go and get it, its too much of an effort. the way i see it thou, if Brits start with something on it,they can really exploit it. it is an unsinkable aircraft carrier right in the middle of MED.

[Imperious Leader]

IL, can you clarify exactly what you mean by 2 sz rule for land based fighters. do you mean 2 SZ for combat and non-combat moves combined?

Well this is not house rules, but from Carriers planes should be able to only fly to adjacent sea zone in combat. ON Land make that 2 sea zones. In NCM they can move 4 as this represents a redeployment.

On land i am in favor of all land units moving double if they move only in NCM. Naval could perhaps be the same except i have not playtested that idea.

[LHoffman]

@lnmajor:

it is an unsinkable aircraft carrier right in the middle of MED.

Sort of… except that it still takes one move to get on or off the island… A fact that may or may not be negated by having an Airbase. But even that you have to buy to make it viable.

[lnmajor]

ive played games where i was hold Malta with inf. and ftrs. eventually i got 2 bombers on Malta and it really helped slow down the German influx of hardware into N. Africa. sank alot of transports to the point the Axis had to deal with it. at that point it distracted them from N africa and gave the Brits a chance to regroup.

[GrizzlyMan]

Based on what we’ve heard from Djenson, it sounds like Italy could be a real contender in this game, so I think it might be necessary for the UK to devote some resources to beef up Malta. I could see Baron’s idea working pretty well to slow down the Italians from reinforcing North Africa. If Britain can gain control of the Med before Italy becomes too powerful in Africa, there’s no way Italy will be able to put up a fight later on (with only 10 IPCs a turn…) I’m not sure yet as I have not played the game, but I think that reinforcing Malta might be a worthwile endeavor.

[lnmajor]

@GrizzlyMan:

Based on what we’ve heard from Djenson, it sounds like Italy could be a real contender in this game, so I think it might be necessary for the UK to devote some resources to beef up Malta. I could see Baron’s idea working pretty well to slow down the Italians from reinforcing North Africa. If Britain can gain control of the Med before Italy becomes too powerful in Africa, there’s no way Italy will be able to put up a fight later on (with only 10 IPCs a turn…) I’m not sure yet as I have not played the game, but I think that reinforcing Malta might be a worthwile endeavor.

HELLO,
LNMAJOR, been talking about this since pics posted SAT. nite by DJENSEN.and yes you are right on target.MALTA is important.

[Danger Mouse]

@Imperious:

IL, can you clarify exactly what you mean by 2 sz rule for land based fighters. do you mean 2 SZ for combat and non-combat moves combined?

Well this is not house rules, but from Carriers planes should be able to only fly to adjacent sea zone in combat. ON Land make that 2 sea zones. In NCM they can move 4 as this represents a redeployment.

On land i am in favor of all land units moving double if they move only in NCM. Naval could perhaps be the same except i have not playtested that idea.

I agree with you completely, I have always thought the aircraft movement was a little out of hand for this game considering the vast distances they cover in a single turn.  If you cut their movements by one you really change their effect on the game and then make airfields very important.

[lnmajor]

i agree about the air combat movment rule. more realistic. good call IL :-)

[maverick_76]

Yeah, a little realism would be 3 for fighters and 5 for bombers. But I don’t think 4 and 6 is a game breaker though.

[Imperious Leader]

Giving them a odd numbered movement is also problematic. I would remove that rule.

I posted the full concept in house rules where it belongs.

[fanofbond]

It seems to me that Italy is going to be very hard for the allied to wrestle out of the med. If Italy can quickly build up it’s IPC value and secure Malta then the italian fleet is going to take a committed allied effort to kill all of those ships and planes that italy will station there.