Posts made by TheDesertFox

@SuperbattleshipYamato

I think that’d be a really good idea because urals factories were genuinely a big contender to the war. Would people ever play with it though is the question?

@SuperbattleshipYamato

Yes and that national objective is not sufficient compared to the Germans national objectives for every city they take, and I was using the idea of lend lease as an example.

A more historically accurate idea would be to give the Soviets extra IPCs when at war or simulate winter somehow.

And this is absolutely what Im presenting forward. Just some kind of unique mechanic that bolsters their economy to help them stand a fighting chance.

So I was thinking about how the Soviet Union is not nearly strong enough to beat Germany on their own and got to thinking about some kind of special game mechanic that could belong to them and only them. In the war, the Soviets were provided tremendous support via the lend lease program in which supplies were delivered into different parts of the Soviet Union (i.e through Persia, Vladivostok, Archangel, etc). What if the Russian player, so long as some specific criteria was met by the Allies, got an extra boost in IPC’s or moreso, got to play extra units on the board in the spirit of this idea?

@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

@SuperbattleshipYamato

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?

@FranceNeedsMorePower

Yes direct message was what I meant. And sending saved games is easiest

@FranceNeedsMorePower

Works for me. We’ll setup the game over DMs

@FranceNeedsMorePower

If you’d like to test that theory online, I could play the Axis and you could play the Allies

@FranceNeedsMorePower

Having even a single fully loaded aircraft carrier with a destroyer escort means that Japan would have to commit a moderate amount of resources to sinking that fleet. If the fleet gets sunk then great, they will most certainly sink Japanese vessels along with it and thus weakening the fleet for America to move in. Having a fully loaded carrier or better yet 2 means you can actually start making your way to the money islands and taking them back from Japan. If Japan attempts to sink said fleet, as I said thats Americas chance to move in.

@FranceNeedsMorePower

Well personally as crazy as it sounds I like to build an aircraft carrier as ANZAC and then rendezvous with my fellow British in the Indian Ocean. ANZAC starts off with 3 fighters and can be making up to 20 IPCs a turn why not lean into that?

@crockett36 said in Anzac Shuck Into Europe:

@FranceNeedsMorePower I think it is imperative that Anzac stay in its lane in its ocean PTO.

This. If America already has the ability to get ground units into Europe as early as turn 4, why’s ANZAC going out of their way to build a base on Brazil? That’s equivalent to icing on an already frosted cake.

I still am having trouble grasping the reality of this concept in general

@shadowhawk

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

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’.

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?

@FranceNeedsMorePower

Honestly a summary would be just fine. All im really interested in is kind of the “What the UK does” for every turn and if you’re working on cotangent with the United States and what you’d purchase. Just that kinda information until your board is freed up

@FranceNeedsMorePower

Sounds good I’ll read it through and give my thoughts or better yet try it myself

@FranceNeedsMorePower

Does your custom ME mostly follow the structure of GeneralHandGrenade’s? Does it involve just the UK or does it kind of have some cohesion with an American strategy too?

@Cornwallis

Personally I think if we were dealing with a scenario where Germany had a fleet and some bombers, I would build that same bridge acrossed the Atlantic but instead of going to central Africa I would have it run from Quebec to either Scotland or England. I know this strategy isn’t exactly new but to me it feels the safest mostly because the hypothetical german fleet in question should be in the Med and even if they have a lot of bombers, enough carriers/fighters + 3 fighters to scramble from the UK (and Scotland i think) will dissuade a German expedition to try and sink your convoys.

@Cornwallis

But why do that when you can get American units into Europe through Morrocco?