Malta british fighter

[gerones]

May be it should be implemented a house rule that avoids that the allied player gets an extra fighter unit in Egypt-Middle East by transporting by sea the Malta fighter group. Also as it could be read in the article attached with this post, another house rule should be implemented that prevent the allied player get a full strength fighter with 10 steps before summer 1942. As all you know the malta fighter begins with 5 steps, which simulated the RAF in this island at the Italy entry at war. Malta was heavily attacked by Axis air forces during the first phase of the war in the Mediterranean sea so the RAF Malta group was severely mauled. I have read that sometimes in Malta there was only a handful of planes because of these axis attacks. So I suggest not to allow move the fighter from the Malta island and not to allow reinforce the fighter at full strength till summer 1942.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AHQ_Malta

[pk867]

That is placing too many restrictions. We at least reduced the FTR at Malta instead of completely
not having one. It is up to the player to decide what he shall do with his forces with the game restriction we already have in place.

[gerones]

That is placing too many restrictions. We at least reduced the FTR at Malta instead of completely
not having one. It is up to the player to decide what he shall do with his forces with the game restriction we already have in place.

The fact is the allied player gets an extra fighter unit in the decisive moments for the north african campaign of late 1940 and 1941 years. An we have to keep in mind that the RAF in Malta have as its main missions to attack axis convoys carrying supplies to the ground axis forces. If we move this fighter to Egypt, its missions will be interdiction and ground attack to the axis land units. So if we introduce this unit because historically exists, this unit have to play the role that historically plays. And if this unit don´t play this role, then it should be removed and let the things as in the vanilla game.

[schwerpunkt]

I agree with Leridano in that the Malta FTRs historical role which is modelled through the supply rules was to assist in interdicting axis supply and defending Malta. The current air unit acheives a role way beyond that because once at full strength dominates the central Med and is impossible to seriously hurt if it is put on sentry, and so should be removed. Historically, the Malta fighter group was reinforced by small groups of planes coming in by aircraft carrier so the difficulties of bringing a Malta FTR group up to full strength are not well replicated - in the game you just press the repair button and it goes up 3 steps. If the allied player however wishes to base a large air group at Malta to undertake a non-historical air activity, then they can do that by moving in a non-historical air unit, although this would normally be tricky until they gain a Tunisian or Libya hex within range (or unless they can sneak a transport in to the Med).
My two bobs worth!

[bendamaster]

Why not reduce the amount of supply in Malta to limit the number of steps you can repair and reduce effectiveness?

[shawkhan]

Malta in fact did live a precarious hand to mouth existence throughout much of the war. Occasional supply convoys were their only lifeline. As such, it would probably be more realistic to lower their supply level to just 'one' or 'two'.

[Happycat]

I disagree with the idea of placing any restrictions on the Malta fighter. Yes it was a precarious existence for the defenders of Malta on occasion, but that was because the Axis expended major efforts at destroying the RAF presence.

If I'm following this thread correctly, some would like to see that the Malta fighter starts out weak, and stays that way. My feeling is that if the Axis player wants to duplicate history, and make things rough on Malta, then he should do it himself---not look to a contrivance within the game for help.

It's easy enough to squash the Malta fighter, if you really want to---place a tactical air and two fighters within range, fly a tactical mission, force an interception, then follow that up with a strike by the second Axis fighter on the presumably already depleted Malta fighter. After a couple of turns of this, the Malta fighter will probably be placed on "sentry", or be eliminated. And even if it's on "sentry", it can still be attacked.

As to the question of moving the Malta fighter to Egypt, I don't see why that is a problem for the Axis. To me it seems like an invitation to invade Malta. Although I have not done it in a long time, I know it is possible in this game. And if the Brits have three fighters in Egypt, then I guess the Axis player needs to match that. It's a war game, so you do need to meet "fire with fire"

[gerones]

I disagree with the idea of placing any restrictions on the Malta fighter. Yes it was a precarious existence for the defenders of Malta on occasion, but that was because the Axis expended major efforts at destroying the RAF presence.

If I'm following this thread correctly, some would like to see that the Malta fighter starts out weak, and stays that way. My feeling is that if the Axis player wants to duplicate history, and make things rough on Malta, then he should do it himself---not look to a contrivance within the game for help.

It's easy enough to squash the Malta fighter, if you really want to---place a tactical air and two fighters within range, fly a tactical mission, force an interception, then follow that up with a strike by the second Axis fighter on the presumably already depleted Malta fighter. After a couple of turns of this, the Malta fighter will probably be placed on "sentry", or be eliminated. And even if it's on "sentry", it can still be attacked.

As to the question of moving the Malta fighter to Egypt, I don't see why that is a problem for the Axis. To me it seems like an invitation to invade Malta. Although I have not done it in a long time, I know it is possible in this game. And if the Brits have three fighters in Egypt, then I guess the Axis player needs to match that. It's a war game, so you do need to meet "fire with fire"

I only meant that in the vanilla game there was no fighter at all in Malta and only has been introduced later in both BJR mod and GS. This is an historical based addition, so I think this unit should play the role this unit had in the war. If don´t, this is only an extra fighter for the british in the Med either if it is transported by sea or if it could be moved when the brits reach Bengazhi coast. Why then the DAK armour unit has been removed in GS? This was another historically based addition that was removed because it was said it was better to give freedom to the players to do what they want with their units. But, the same could be applied to the Malta fighter, I think. So, if it was removed the DAK, then it should be removed the Malta fighter.

[Happycat]

The DAK was removed from the mod because Italy activates in June. Having the DAK already in place in June is ahistorical, and more importantly made it a bit too easy for the Axis to go for an early knockout blow in Egypt.

As I have already said about the Malta fighter, it requires some effort on the part of the Axis player to reduce or eliminate it. So in similar fashion, if the Axis player wants the DAK, then he should build it and ship it to Libya.

We made some decisions over the past two years that provided the best balance between historical fact and playability.

I understand what you are saying, and the historical imperative behind your ideas. They are not bad ideas, but when we playtested, we felt that we had found the right balance. There are many different ways to approach each issue within a game. We implemented the ideas that our group, by consensus, felt to be the best.

So while I understand what you are looking for, my guess is that it isn't going to happen any time soon.

I only meant that in the vanilla game there was no fighter at all in Malta and only has been introduced later in both BJR mod and GS. This is an historical based addition, so I think this unit should play the role this unit had in the war. If don´t, this is only an extra fighter for the british in the Med either if it is transported by sea or if it could be moved when the brits reach Bengazhi coast. Why then the DAK armour unit has been removed in GS? This was another historically based addition that was removed because it was said it was better to give freedom to the players to do what they want with their units. But, the same could be applied to the Malta fighter, I think. So, if it was removed the DAK, then it should be removed the Malta fighter.[/quote]

[rkr1958]

I think Neil just put to rest any concern about a full strength Malta fighter being too strong. I'm the allies and Neil is the axis. The screen cap below is for the beginning of my turn for 10/25/40 (turn 22). I reinforced the Malta fighter up to 10-steps as soon as I could after Italy activated. Last turn (10/5/40) I noticed that Neil had move a German fighter to Sicily, which was on sentry, within in range of the Malta fighter. I had a chance to upgrade the Malta fighter, which I did to level 3. The German fighter was at level 4. I also put the Malta fighter on Sentry. When I got my turn back I saw Neil had attacked it. Of course it had the circle on top of it indicating that it was attacked. With the circle covering the strength (and with my eyes) I though he'd knocked it down to 8-steps. Not that bad. However; on closer examination he'd knocked it down to 3-steps. The Malta fighter lost 7-steps in one turn to a German fighter and two Italian BB attacks!

[schwerpunkt]

Ronnie,
The following turn my same units only did 2 steps of damage (quite a wild swing). From the forecasts I expect the average would be 4 steps meaning that I would on average only take the FTR down 1 step (it can recover 3 steps per turn).

Neil

PS: For everyones information, my FTR has about a 25% efficiency advantage and 1 level of experience advantage over the Malta FTR.

[rkr1958]

Ronnie,
The following turn my same units only did 2 steps of damage (quite a wild swing). From the forecasts I expect the average would be 4 steps meaning that I would on average only take the FTR down 1 step (it can recover 3 steps per turn).

Neil

PS: For everyones information, my FTR has about a 25% efficiency advantage and 1 level of experience advantage over the Malta FTR.

The two attacks that knocked off a total of 8 steps, or 4 on average, were carried out by the same fighter (i.e., 10-step and then a 8-step fighter). I hate to give my opponent advice, and this could cause me to lose the fighter and Malta, but if you use two German fighters then you could repair one and attack with the other so that you're always attacks with a full strength fighter. Even with the 8-step fighter you have an efficiency advantage of 83 to 46. Oh well ... think kindly of me when you destroy my fighter and capture Malta.

By the way, the Malta fighter resulted from my suggestion after I read this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/ ... a_01.shtml

Also, the original Malta supply rule and its impact on North Africa supply resulted from my suggestion after Jim was kicking my butt in North Africa. I can remember the exact number of units but it was something like 3 German armor, 6 German infantry, 2 or 3 German tactical bombers, 2 or 3 German fighters a bunch of Italian units.

The two attacks that knocked off a

[timhicks]

looking forward to seeing what happens, but wouldn't it be easier to knock out the garrison first, after all , Ronnie's objective is presumably to capture the fortress.

[rkr1958]

looking forward to seeing what happens, but wouldn't it be easier to knock out the garrison first, after all , Ronnie's objective is presumably to capture the fortress.

My objective is to hold the fortress.

[pk867]

Ronnie,
You need a leader on Malta. That is usually the first thing I do..\

Paul

[Happycat]

These last few comments (attacking the fighter vs attacking the garrison, using a leader, etc) are interesting, and show that the Battle of Malta need not be a sterile affair in CEAW/GS. I am currently in a game with Leridano where I am trying to take Malta away from him. But my tactics are wrong---I should indeed be using German fighters, not the inferior Italian air units. But what helped was that Leridano imposes a house rule upon himself of not building up the Malta fighter beyond five steps until 1942. As he has now seen, that allowed the otherwise weak Italian air force to destroy the RAF.

Subsequently, I tried to pound the garrison into oblivion, but have found that harder (as it indeed should be). And Leridano made what I consider the best to make in these circumstances---the Royal Navy sent a sub and DD in to attack the Italian Navy. At first glance, this looks like a weak move, but it is in fact a very strong one. If it hadn't been for the very lucky fact that I had the Italian sub hanging around north of Tobruk, I would not have seen that he also had BB's waiting, at just inside maximum range to the battle zone at Malta. So, if my ships had stuck around to fight his destroyer, they would have been easy victims for the British BB fleet the next turn.

Bottom Line: a real and very entertaining Battle of Malta is possible in GS.

[rkr1958]

Ronnie,
You need a leader on Malta. That is usually the first thing I do..\

Paul

Paul, I actually considered that but decided to use/save those PPs for other endeavors. My risk/reward calculation was for 40 PPs I could get a leader with a rating of 4. This would have increased the effectiveness of my fighter by 8. At the time (before I knew Malta was going to be attacked), my calculation was do I spend those 40 PPs for a leader to raise fighter effectiveness by 8% to defend against an attack that may never come? Or, do I use those 40 PPs to buy another lab. I bought the lab; but this decision may end up costing me the Malta fighter and then Malta. Then this may cost may eventually cost me Egypt. However; none of this will happen without a fight.

These last few comments (attacking the fighter vs attacking the garrison, using a leader, etc) are interesting, and show that the Battle of Malta need not be a sterile affair in CEAW/GS. I am currently in a game with Leridano where I am trying to take Malta away from him. But my tactics are wrong---I should indeed be using German fighters, not the inferior Italian air units. But what helped was that Leridano imposes a house rule upon himself of not building up the Malta fighter beyond five steps until 1942. As he has now seen, that allowed the otherwise weak Italian air force to destroy the RAF.

Subsequently, I tried to pound the garrison into oblivion, but have found that harder (as it indeed should be). And Leridano made what I consider the best to make in these circumstances---the Royal Navy sent a sub and DD in to attack the Italian Navy. At first glance, this looks like a weak move, but it is in fact a very strong one. If it hadn't been for the very lucky fact that I had the Italian sub hanging around north of Tobruk, I would not have seen that he also had BB's waiting, at just inside maximum range to the battle zone at Malta. So, if my ships had stuck around to fight his destroyer, they would have been easy victims for the British BB fleet the next turn.

Bottom Line: a real and very entertaining Battle of Malta is possible in GS.

I agree. It is these types of small but important battles that makes playing CEAW-GS such a rich experience for me. Other examples are battles for and from Crete. Air and naval battles over the Murmansk convoy near Norway. Long range allied bombers striking German u-boats from bases in Greenland and Iceland.

[rkr1958]

I find these discussions very entertaining and educational. By the way, check out viewtopic.php?p=50916#50916

This was a post I made almost two years ago on this very same subject. At the time, I was not yet part of the the "BJR-mod" team. I am very thankful to Borger and Jim for inviting me to join their team and allowing me to be part of the original BJR-mod, which has grown into the GS expansion.

[gerones]

Even this game gives an almost total freedom to the player to do what they want with their forces, the fact is that several changes has been introduced to prevent some ways of playing CEAW:

• 1. In the vanilla game you couldn´t move your british land units in Egypt from september 1939 but you could move the british fleet in the Mediterranean and you could easily move to the Atlantic leaving empty the Mediterranean sea. A change was introduced in both BJR mod and later in GS for preventing this way of playing and using the Royal Navy in the Mediterranean. So now the allied player have to wait until the italian entry at war for moving his/her fleet to the Atlantic. I think this was a very good change that introduced a major realism to the game.
  2. It could be also mentioned the russian armour bloob issue. Here is again a change introduced to prevent a concrete way of playing in which the allied player playing with russians could seriously unbalance the game with an strong (and unrealistic because of the quality of the russian tanks at the beginning of the war) armoured counterattack. So it was introduced a change here too.

These are examples that show us that it has to do something (even recognizing the total freedom to do what they want for the players) with some ways of playing and using your forces. So I don´t see what is the problem with introducing other changes like not to allow transporting by sea the Malta fighter to Egypt (that could be easily solved moving the situation of the Malta port 1 hex NW, so the fighter can´t be transported by sea). Also it could be desirable the other Malta fighter change I suggest in this thread (the one that would avoid to reinforce the Malta fighter to full strength until 1942) but if there are difficulties to implement this, I would be content with only the Malta port move to NW.

[Happycat]

. So I don´t see what is the problem with introducing other changes like not to allow transporting by sea the Malta fighter to Egypt (that could be easily solved moving the situation of the Malta port 1 hex NW, so the fighter can´t be transported by sea). Also it could be desirable the other Malta fighter change I suggest in this thread (the one that would avoid to reinforce the Malta fighter to full strength until 1942) but if there are difficulties to implement this, I would be content with only the Malta port move to NW

I think the problem is that you might be the only one that wants this change. For sure, I don't, and my impression is that there are others who agree with me. Please don't take offense at this; I don't mean it as a put-down or insult. To some extent I guess we run this in a quasi-democratic fashion. If a majority of players said they thought it was a desirable change, then my guess is that the GS team would consider testing such a change. But to date, I have only seen you and perhaps one other person ask for this.

Given what has happened in our game (with your Malta fighter having been easily destroyed), I would have thought that you would agree that a five step fighter is too weak. And as for transporting it to Egypt, that is a very dangerous move isn't it? Even with the entire Med fleet escorting it, a sub could still sneak in and damage it, and land based air would probably finish the job.