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.
-
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.
-
If memory serves, the attack on pearl harbor was a naval attack, not a land attack. When I spoke of the J1 Pearl Harbor, I’m referring to Japan utilizing its naval and air power in sea zone 6 to some degree that can eliminate the existing presence of American vessels on turn 1. This is something the American player has 0 authority to stop and will very likely result in the elimination of that fleet. Even a scramble of the 2 fighters won’t be enough to sway the battle and if anything, would be welcoming as Japan seeing America throw away valuable assets. After the attack is concluded my carriers will reside near Wake Island with the added protection of 1 or 2 vessels in the non-combat stage.
Best part is the American fleet in seazone 10 can’t even attack the carriers with their remaining fleet either. If one of the destroyers survives it will serve as a blocker and even if it doesn’t, one from seazone 6 can serve as a blocker. And even if there was no blocker and they somehow managed to attack, they’re throwing away what little fleet they have left all in the name of killing 2 aircraft carriers where Japan still has a sizeable fleet remaining left int he Pacific.
-
@SuperbattleshipYamato said in Let's talk the Taranto raid.:
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.
Most of the time especially with small combats like taranto raid the first round will give a clear indication of the outcome. So the chances of winning before rolling or after the first round of combat can differ a lot.
You can deside on what to take based on your luck.
Suggested Topics
