@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.
I’m sorry. I think I forgot to explain one of my points. You’re right that you can easily tell the odds of winning after one round of combat.
The challenge for the British isn’t just determining whether they would win, but how many units they’ll have left over. If the Axis get at least 3 hits in the first round of combat (which they have an 74% chance of getting in the first round), and the British don’t kill the carrier, they will probably have to kill one or two aircraft.
This means the British will have to decide whether to have their remaining aircraft land in Malta, leaving the carrier to be destroyed, or stay in sea zone 97, where they may be able to protect the carrier better but also have a high chance of being destroyed with the carrier by the Lufwaffe.
Now that I’m writing this, the issue sounds pretty dumb and trivial, but in the past it really did leave me unsure of what to do.
Here’s an interesting question. Do you see value in keeping the carrier alive? That is, not even taking the carrier into the battle in the first place? I understand that leaves the odds much to be desired for the British but we’re talking about saving a ship that would cost half the UK income. Thoughts?
Good question!
I think the better question though is (I believe this is what you meant, I’m just clarifying the question)
“Would keeping the carrier outweigh the risk posed by a higher chance of losing in Taranto?”
I don’t think so. In such a situation even if the British win in Taranto, there probably won’t be many planes left for the carrier, unless you’re flying some over from India.
More to the point, Britain in general doesn’t really need carriers. They’re certainly nice to have, but there are enough territories as landing spots across Europe and Africa that carriers aren’t required to reach anywhere. 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.
@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
