composer99
Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005 From: Ottawa, Canada Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rkr1958 quote:
ORIGINAL: rkr1958 quote:
ORIGINAL: composer99 Time for a bit of back-seat WiFFing. The CW ought to have invaded the port of Bari, north of Taranto, instead of Sicily. They would have gotten a ZoC on the rail line into Taranto, meaning the Axis couldn't reinforce it, and then they could walk into the city unopposed subsequently (unless the turn happens to end early). Occupying a factory city in Italy is one of the possible conditions to trigger the conquest of Italy. Occupying Sicily is not. Also, with no Italian ZoC, the notional in Bari would have been weaker, meaning a much better combat result on the same die roll. Yes, that does look to have been the better choice. After playing through and thinking about the difference in these two landing sites a bit more I now believe the best choice for this invasion was Trapani in Sicily versus Bari in mainland Italy. Granted that landing at Bari would have caused the Euro-axis more headaches in the short-term, however, with US entry several turns away I don't think the Brits would have been able to stay ashore in the long term if they had landed at Bari. The Brits got unlucky with the turn ending when it did (30% chance), otherwise they would have gotten Palermo if it hadn't, which is the only Italian supply source in Sicily. Now they're going to have to fight for it, but not (I believe) fight to stay ashore in Sicily. There are two big differences I see in the favor of the Brits wrt/fighting in Sicily versus mainland Italy and these are: (1) the axis can only rail 1 unit per turn into Sicily and (2) once Palermo falls then the Italian lose their only supply source on Sicily. Fair enough: now that I've had a second look at CW production, Sicily is looking better for the CW forces as they exist in this particular war.
_____________________________
~ Composer99
|