Sombra Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 Originally posted by Terif: My two cents concerning Tobruk :cool: : - With the current Z-League rules concerning Italy, an Allied Med strategy can not be successful any more against a veteran player. Here Rambo is right. Axis can prevent Allies from taking any italian city, Italy has its fleet and together with some german airfleets they cant be stopped in the Med by allied forces, only delayed. - in a non-ZL game where only the Rome gambit is forbidden and not the normal DOW + landings on Italy, it is possible for Allies to take and hold the Med. Here Bill Macon is right . If Allies DOW Italy + land units immediately, they can take Tobruk in the same turn, or at least cut it off from Tripoli and take it later. More important: they can destroy most of the italian fleet - if Allies take the two fleet bases with corps, Italy will even loose the whole fleet, no ship can escape. Axis need some time to reconquer the lost italian cities in the mainland, so Allies have enough time to take all african cities + Iraq without much resistance. Without italian ships and without a land base for fighters in Africa, its usually not possible for Axis to reconquer Africa in time before Barbarossa. In a non ZL-game an allied Med strategy is possible (and was often used before the ZL rule has been made). And it is a lot of fun for both sides. The game can be how it should be: Time is against Axis and not in favour like in a ZL standard game. Allies have the mpp advantage, Axis have the units and experience. A lot of possible battle grounds... But dont forget: an allied Med strategy has also some risks and if Allies dont take care they can loose England . Play a fun game or in the PBEM-League and try it. An allied Med strategy will make the game really different . Well "Oak" pointed out to me in another thread that there is an agreement concerning the Italien gambit.... I hope for some more comments from the veteran players if there is really no way to save some of the italien ships in the med thus opening a new front in the Med. I think the way as SC is played right now is toned down to Axis conquest list.... Polen Denmark, France Norway Sweden, Spain, Portugal... DOW Greece Irak, Vichy , Rusia.... (Small variations possible). Med is secured.... Allies try to pull the rabiit out of the hat with a perfectly coordinated attack or delay some of the conquests... Not exciting really becaus e the MPP advantage is always on the side of Germany and the huge bids needed to help Rusia and Britain well speak for themselves... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zappsweden Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 Zappleague uses the following house rule. House Rule #1: If you declare war on a major nation (Russia, Italy, USA) you are NOT allowed to use landings inside that nation the same turn. Comment: In my opinion, if you take away the House rule (which effectively prevents both insane landings in Italy and insane ones in Russia) you might aswell have no House rule at all. Rome invasion should be allowed if Iatlian gambit is allowed. I think the gamey thing is not only that you take Rome but the gamey thing is that you can DOW and land in the major important countries before they even have a chance to say "fire!". However, it is only in the Z-League that you have to follow that house rules. [ November 06, 2003, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terif Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 In my opinion, if you take away the House rule (which effectively prevents both insane landings in Italy and insane ones in Russia) you might aswell have no House rule at all. Rome invasion should be allowed if Iatlian gambit is allowed. From a playability point of view I disagree In this aspect. It is possible to forbid the Rome gambit (just say: no landings in and around Rome in the same turn Allies DOW Italy and one turn after) and still allow the ´normal´italian gambit. This would give Allies a lot more possible strategies, especially in the Med. And the normal italian gambit is no automatic win for Allies, in contrary: it is risky and provides only a small advantage when successful. From a historical accurracy point of view I agree with you. It is unrealistic that you can assault a major power and they dont react to the transports standing at their coasts... It would be interesting to hear some other people what they think. If they want the possibility of an italian gambit or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sombra Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 Originally posted by zappsweden: I think the gamey thing is not only that you take Rome but the gamey thing is that you can DOW and land in the major important countries before they even have a chance to say "fire!". However, it is only in the Z-League that you have to follow that house rules. Hi Zap, my problem is that your Z-League had/has a big influence how SC is played even outside the league. (Therefore thanks to put up again the vote regarding the houserules) From my point of view the problem of declaring war and invade a country in the same turn is not only limited to the mayor powers. The same is valid for the ohter minor countries "Greece, Spain, Norway, Sweden ..." If you would like to be really consequent you should forbid any (seaborne) invasion in the same turn as declaring war perhaps including even invasions from land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zappsweden Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 Sombra, the house rules are now put up for a voting (in another topic) so Z-League players will now decide it, not me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts