Axis & Allies .org Forums
    • Home
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Register
    • Login
    1. Home
    2. Ronbigler
    3. Topics
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 0
    • Topics 2
    • Posts 4
    • Best 0
    • Controversial 0
    • Groups 0

    Topics created by Ronbigler

    • RonbiglerR

      Alternative to the Taranto raid

      Axis & Allies Europe 1940
      • • • Ronbigler
      4
      0
      Votes
      4
      Posts
      2.3k
      Views

      S

      This works better in the Global game because the ships that begin off the coast of India aren’t going to be there in the Europe only game. As mentioned in this thread Italy could also take either or both of the territories required to use the Suez Canal. And remember in the rules that if Italy took either T-J or Egypt, and you manage to control both territories on your 2nd turn, and Italy does not take either of those territories, ships cannot pass through the canal until your 3rd turn because canals are only usable if they were friendly at the beginning of your turn, not at the non-combat phase.

      It could work, and you would be able to add a destroyer (that starts the game in SZ 71) and a few extra fighters to your attacking force but an Italy player will be able to send a ship as a blocker if they see it coming (like their destroyer). A drawback is you’re giving Italy at best 1 turn, and at worst 3 turns, to use the ships that begin the game in 97 to do things in the Mediterranean. Allowing the Italian Navy to mass their ships is not as bad as Moltke suggests because the UK still needs to attack SZ 96 (I would suggest using the cruiser at 91 if it is there on your first turn, and the fighter in Gibraltar), and Italy needs to be attacking the French ships that begin the game in 93 and they might take 1-2 losses while doing so. But for your SZ 96 attack on Turn 1, if the destroyer lands a hit, take the loss for the cruiser and not the fighter. Not only is Italy in a better position to get the NO for no Allied surface ships in the Med, but the fighter that went to attack SZ 96 from Gibraltar could be used again for when you do finally go and attack the Italian Navy.

    • RonbiglerR

      Sealion And/Or Barbarossa?

      Axis & Allies Global 1940
      • • • Ronbigler
      6
      0
      Votes
      6
      Posts
      1.7k
      Views

      IchabodI

      Only on triplea have I had the pleasure of successfully pulling off Sea Lion. I’d love to do it on a table top game. The most recent time I had I think 8 tanks standing. No loss of aircraft as hits (2 fighters due to an AAA gun hit). I left the tanks there to really make it costly for the US to liberate London. My team won the game…London didn’t get liberated until like round 11. It was a very long game.

      I prefer Barbarossa, but if the UK hands London a silver platter because it got too aggressive…then it needs to get punished. I don’t care what anyone says, no allies player like the advantage of London being knocked out for several turns. I’m not going to G2 purchase of a Sea Lion if several factors occur of course. But if Sea Lion is done right, the US has to respond and Japan has the chance to rage. Also, if Germany DOWs at the right moment, Russia can be pushed away from E. Poland (which I think is the critical position to keep Russia from getting to). They will come back, but then Germany might have the chance to get in position to start pushing Russia back from the border territories. Scandinavia might fall for a time being. Private Panic mentions losing a battle with favorable odds. That’s not going to occur on a regular basis.

      If the UK gets really aggressive in it’s spending in the middle east UK1 and Sea Lion doesn’t occur, then in those situations I have a very difficult time overcoming a substantially large stack of UK fighters.

    • 1 / 1