I also had trouble Aaking Malta when I tried it as an experiment. The method described in this forum looks like it will work at the cost of committing a very large portion of the Axis airforce to the task.
I have a couple of questions for sPzAbt653:
1) What turn did you start the attack on Malta? What turn did this method succeed?
2) How did the Italians end up with 6 air units? For example, Barbarossa starts with 2 Italian air units (June 1941) with a per-turn income of something like 120 MPPs. Fighters and bombers cost of order 250-300 MPPs without upgrades. That implies order 10 turns to just purchase the additional 4 Italian aircraft. Given the other Italian costs, it really is more of order 20 turns. I assume your variant helps with this, but I am curious on what are the economic parameters for what you did?
3) My experiment was successful, but when I was playing, it took until 1943 for the strategy to succeed. This was without your major commitment of air power. Case of winning the battle but losing the war. By the time Malta fell, the Middle East situation had deteriorated making the capture of Malta meaningless.
I found that I would get close to eliminating the AA unit with one Luftwaffe Tactical Bombing unit and the Italian Medium bomber but then weather would ground the air force which would allow the AA unit to recover. Then the cycle would start again. Were you able to bomb the AA unit to nothing in a couple of turns with this commitment of airpower?
4) I have found that a concerted Axis strategy will cause Egypt to fall in early 1942 without devoting any resources to Malta. I don't know how realistic this is - historically, Malta played a large role in interdicting Axis supplies. Rommel might well have won Operation Crusader if he didn't go looking for fuel dumps which allowed the British to recover. Tobruk probably falls too easliy. Nevertheless - why, in game terms, should we concentrate on Malta when a well organized campaign will conquer Egypt anyway?
Look forward to hearing back from you!