Additional balance note:
On TripleA I set all sides to the Fast AI to guarantee equal players. As you can see, the Allies clearly won:
Fortress Malta
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. -
@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.
-
i agree about the air combat movment rule. more realistic. good call IL :-)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
I definitely agree. Their 2 cruisers and battleship were/are problematic enough in Anniversary… they are just hard to get to, at least if you want to use ships, which is necessary if you don’t want to lose a number of planes. Even so, Britain would be the one having to take care of Italy… and the Brits resources are already stretched. Allocating planes/ships to fight Italy will be a precarious spending of resources.
-
After Egypt is taken by Italy(turn 2-3?), then Italy takes Malta(turn 3-4?). I’m not sure what the UK can get into the Med by then? I think the first concern for UK in the Med is hanging on to Egypt rather than worrying about Malta…any FTR’s UK has available might go to Egypt for defense.
What kind of fleet will the UK have in Europe?..Germany will try to seek and destroy any UK fleet as soon as possible using subs as soak-off with its FTR’s/bombers doing most of the sinking. By turn 2-3 the Germans have Spain and then Gibraltar…so its unlikely a UK fleet of any size will make it into the Med. The Med should be closed by the Axis and Malta take with no effort. If the UK does venture into the Med, Germany can destroy it or render it useless, and trap it if Gibraltar is in German hands for a follow up Italian fleet/air attack.
I as UK would leave Malta empty, try to defend Egypt as best as possible, build an IC in S. Africa, keep the UK fleet intact and build it up.
-
The UK starts with a minor IC in south africa.
-
I as UK would leave Malta empty, try to defend Egypt as best as possible, build an IC in S. Africa, keep the UK fleet intact and build it up.
My thoughts exactly. If you reinforce Malta with fighters or infantry, the Axis can just bypass it and attack a smaller force, than would otherwise be, in Egypt, which is their main objective in the Med anyway. Egypt should be considered first.
-
I as UK would leave Malta empty, try to defend Egypt as best as possible, build an IC in S. Africa, keep the UK fleet intact and build it up.
My thoughts exactly. If you reinforce Malta with fighters or infantry, the Axis can just bypass it and attack a smaller force, than would otherwise be, in Egypt, which is their main objective in the Med anyway. Egypt should be considered first.
I’m not sure of the viability of this all (that’s why we play the game), but I don’t think Italy can bypass a fortified Malta that easily. Consider the scenario I broached before. Around turn 3 with 2 infantry, 4 fighters/Tac Bombers, and an airbase on Malta. Those fighters can reach almost the entire Med, and they allow UK based bombers to reach the Western and Central Med. That means that Italy will have operations curtailed (you can no longer move just anywhere) even after reinforcing its navy. Additionally, the fighter cover allows the Brits to potentially to base a navy out of Malta and threaten the whole Med, or UK and US transports can move to Gibraltar on one turn, then Malta on the next to land troops in Libya or threaten Southern Europe.
Italy may be able to counter these, and some of them may be overreaching, but all of them look interesting to me and you can be sure I’m going to be trying some of them out, and that’s what I love about this game. I see opportunities like this all over the map.
-
I’m not sure of the viability of this all (that’s why we play the game), but I don’t think Italy can bypass a fortified Malta that easily.
Italy may be able to counter these, and some of them may be overreaching, but all of them look interesting to me and you can be sure I’m going to be trying some of them out, and that’s what I love about this game. I see opportunities like this all over the map.
Oh, no, I agree that Italy cannot ignore a fortified Malta, and having a fortified Malta could be a very good idea. My main point is that it might be hard to fortify… Hard as in the UK will have many competing places for their units to go; Malta probably being one of the territories deserving less attention. Malta would be good as an offensive outpost, but not a defensive point. (If the UK puts a bunch of planes in Malta, when the Italians attack somewhere else, the planes cannot lend their superior defensive rolls to the territory under attack… such as Egypt.) As long as Italy can take Egypt quickly, they might be able to ignore a fortified Malta for a little while.
I don’t know about all of this… it is just intuitive supposition. I appreciate the debate though, as it is making me think about it early. I am very to happy to have all of these options though, as you said Baron… it makes the game more interesting.
-
Oh, no, I agree that Italy cannot ignore a fortified Malta, and having a fortified Malta could be a very good idea. My main point is that it might be hard to fortify… Hard as in the UK will have many competing places for their units to go; Malta probably being one of the territories deserving less attention. Malta would be good as an offensive outpost, but not a defensive point. (If the UK puts a bunch of planes in Malta, when the Italians attack somewhere else, the planes cannot lend their superior defensive rolls to the territory under attack… such as Egypt.) As long as Italy can take Egypt quickly, they might be able to ignore a fortified Malta for a little while.
I don’t know about all of this… it is just intuitive supposition. I appreciate the debate though, as it is making me think about it early. I am very to happy to have all of these options though, as you said Baron… it makes the game more interesting.
Fair point. I think we only disagree in our estimates of what the cost/benefit ratio will be. My best guess is that it will be a potentially viable strategy, but only if Italy decides to not cut it off on the first turn or two. If they do cut it off, then at least you’ve slowed down their assault on Egypt.
-
Fair point. I think we only disagree in our estimates of what the cost/benefit ratio will be. My best guess is that it will be a potentially viable strategy, but only if Italy decides to not cut it off on the first turn or two. If they do cut it off, then at least you’ve slowed down their assault on Egypt.
True. Britain does still go before Italy… correct? If so, that will certainly help the UK’s situation and options.
Suggested Topics
