Italy Strategy

@The-Pripet-Martian said in General strategy question:

For example, 3 defending INF can be expected to get one hit per combat round. If you send in enough planes to ensure you’ll kill all 3 enemy INF, you only need to send 2 INF in to secure the territory.

According to probability, yes, but in practise, if you really need that territory, I’d go in with atleast 3 inf. Hitting 2 with 3 inf on def is not too uncommon. Hitting 3 is rather unlikely.

On top of that it also depends who will earn from a war of attrition. If I do, I go, no worries. If I don’t, I won’t, unless it’s for clear strategical and tactical purposes (like your opponent not being able to land planes in a stack next to your Capital).

I will try it next game I play, probably use it for Italy, since they need the Navy the most.

Gotcha.  I think we’re talking about two different things though.

My understanding was the other poster was saying “Placing fighters in CUS is no different than placing them in EUS” which of course wouldn’t be the case.  I see your point though and I agree  8-)

“Never” is a strong word, and you even went so far as to hold down shift as you typed it and then went back to underline it afterwards.

If the airbase lets you hold Gibraltar for one extra turn, maybe even two, then is that 15 IPCs worth it for you?
Very possibly, sure. Delaying a US entry into the Med for one turn probably saves Italy at least 5 IPCs right off the bat, not to mention delaying its eventual economic implosion by an entire turn more of income.

Is it still worth it if the Americans can fly straight to Egypt or Norway from Gibraltar now?
Maybe they can’t do that yet, and won’t for another turn or two. Very possibly, yes, it’s still worth it. Maybe because you had that airbase, however, your Axis units were able to abandon Gibraltar and get into a better position on their way out. Lot’s of “if”'s. A lot of combinations of them add up to it being worth it.

Is it still worth it if the Americans can scramble planes off of it to defend their navy?
If you weren’t planning on attacking their navy (maybe because you simply don’t have the resources to do so), yes, absolutely, then there’s no difference at all.

So, yeah, sometimes it’s alright to give your opponent a facility if you got your money’s worth out of it first, even if it is only for a turn or two. Plenty of US and JP plays depend on building a naval base that’s only ever really used once in the game. There are some cases where the same is true for air bases all over the place.

@cyanight:

Well done ItIsILeClerc!

@joelv18  - I agree with knp… Not sure how your taking San Fran on Japan’s first turn.

The ACC will bring the planes as far as possible, then send them off with paratroopers to absorb hits.

Um… Paratroopers can only depart from an Air Base not Carriers. In past history Japan had I-400 submarines to carry planes to San Francisco but only 4 were made and all were captured and destroyed to prevent the USSR from gaining technology. But still I cannot follow your strategy unless you have some nonstandard House Rules that I am unaware of.

Sorry, I learned how to play with some crazy house rules, and am still trying to determine if the rules are real or not.  Sorry about that!

or you could pull everything back to Shensi and see what happens.  Kill any Japanese ground units that you can.

If you try it out, you’ll see that the U.K. can’t sufficiently reinforce France, even with the additional 6 French troops, from having Germany crush it on round 2.  Even if every available plane is landed there, and the strafe leaves 2 tanks plus the fighter, it’s impossible to hold.  So all that landing planes accomplishes is wiping out the British airforce (and keeping France from falling to Italy).  The payoff isn’t worth it.

The biggest downsides I can imagine are that (1) it is much more difficult to hold off serious landings at Normandy by the US and/or UK.  Italy then has to protect Western Europe and the Med–although with Germany taking S France, they can dump ships in the Med as well if it comes to that (subs backed up by planes would be cheap).  And (2) delaying the war on the Pacific side until round 3 (which would make this work much better at times, depending on the US builds) means that UK Pacific can shuttle some troops over.

The really nice thing about this strategy is that it’s more efficient to have Italy be the 1 force in the Med, and not have to worry about building enough ships off the S France factory right away to protect them from UK planes.

I think it’s going to be the standard opening in our play group for the foreseeable future.

The counter someone mentioned above about making sure to buy troops in S Africa–either mechs, or infantry/artillery to go with transports, in combination with some shuttling from India, is probably the safe response.

Grover and I just started another game, with me being the Axis, and I’ve got to say I’m enjoying the big Italian boost.

YG,

Absolutely incredible detail and care in the craft…. Best painted units I have seen so far, breathtaking, I would be afraid to play a game with them.

“Allwork” is a professional artist.  I guess that explains his awesome talent.

I am very intrigued by the idea of consolidating the European axis for a few rounds, but the window of opportunity closes quickly on the axis in general, so a defensive strategy like this would need a lot of planning.

The Germans were only “un-offensive” for two turns.  During the first two turns they concentrated on killing the UK Navy and also took out some UK Air Force units on defense.  They were also able to purchase several Infantry to shore up their European defense against the Russians.

And the Italians cleared and consolidated the Med.  It was “interesting”.

I think ANY strategy would benefit from either a good deal of thought/planning, or a thorough understanding of the game,…preferably BOTH!

You should think about this as a strategy and “blueprint” your own thoughts for it.  I believe you’ll also see it’s potential.

“Tall Paul”