The Sneaky Carl

@Galendae

I noticed that, but I wasn’t completely sure whether you implied bids in that specific sentence.

@Cornwallis Nice video I really enjoyed it, I do agree the best strategy for Anzac is a sub navy.

@crockett36 https://github.com/triplea-maps/France_Goes_First
This is complete, reviewed and stamped with approval.

@SuperbattleshipYamato said in Let's talk the Taranto raid.:

They’re a bit more useful in the Pacific depending on what the Japanese do and how much focus the US is putting there. A British fleet by itself cannot stand up to the Japanese.

Its funny because this is exactly the reasoning I had in my head on why I would keep the carrier alive. You’re definitely right that a British fleet alone can’t hope to fight Japan but its the presence of it that I’m backing. That is, should Japan want to sink it, they will have to commit a decent amount of resources to sinking a carrier - resources that will be pulled away from other critical areas of the map. That’s all theory though

As Simon says you can’t move any of your ships in that sea zone on NCM. There is a provision that allows you to move them to flee the sea zone on the Combat Movement phase without taking them into combat. The real purpose of the move though is to prevent any transports in the sea zone from loading ground units in that sea zone. You can still move to another sea zone on Combat Move and load ground units as long as it is a friendly sea zone. If you haven’t seen the video it explains everything;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pkj_9K3lfQk&t=166s

@GeneralHandGrenade:

Oh boy, you had to bring that one up again. We had a lengthy debate over that one. In the end it was proven (and certified) that you could indeed park your Japanese fleet in SZ 26.
Goofy=Yes
Illegal=No

It’s no longer up for debate. That one is settled.

Hi GHG, sorry for starting this and I accept the forums statement of beeing legal.
(Sidenote, at the same moment we established a house rule that says, the Japanese cannot do that on our table!  :-P)

Like I said earlier I have looked into transporting troops from east coast to west/central Africa. I have never really tried it because I think the consequences will be too big elsewhere. Once the shuttle is established you need 6 transports and this will allow you to put 2 fast movers and 2 infantries to French equatorial Africa each round: You need two transports in 89, 3 transports in 87 and 1 transport in 82. You build 2 inf and 2 fast movers in central USA each round and move to Mexico area bordering sz 89. Then you have 4 transports (2x2) shuttling 89/87 and 2 transports (1x1) shuttling 87/82 with the 2 infantries. Of course you have some starting units you can start with, but once you buy 2 infantries and 2 fast movers it takes 5 rounds for the fast movers to get to Egypt and 6 rounds for the infantries. This is the main reason why I have never tried, because it takes for ever.

But you also need more stuff: You need to control Gibraltar with a three-fighter scramble with at least a destroyer in 92 or 91, probably both. This will prevent axis sub from 93 to kill 87. Likewise, you need to control Morrocco and Algeria. Bombers from W-Germany or southern France can land here after killing 87. Or if axis control Algeria you have the same problem. Finally, you need to control the Atlantic Ocean so there are no enemy subs. In summary you need some navy and some planes.

So, what does this achieve, at best little, I think. Yes, you will get a nice number of American units to Egypt/middle east, easily 20 American land units by round 9 or 10. Like pointed out it’s possible to combine with Middle Earth and this will provide an allied fortress in the middle east. So, it can be a way to secure Cairo from axis take over and then prevent the win

Most likely there will be no pressure on Germany on the western front, and this will mean Russia is captured at the latest on G8. You also need to look out for a late sea lion. Finally, the question becomes if USA has enough resources to contain Japan. I don’t know.