New German move, let me know what you think

[Hauptmann-Jager]

Ok, so I was muddling around with the map thinking of how to open up with Germany. I’ve never played as Germany and am planning on being them next time. That said, the weakness of the German navy bothers me. The unification of the med and Baltic seems like a lost cause, but I’d still like my navy to do SOMETHING!!! So that being said, I devised a strategy. My opponents who I play with almost always open with a West Russia only attack and stack big there. So I thought about this buy: (We also normally don’t play with a bid)

2figs, 1trn, 1 des.

The trn and des go with the baltic fleet and figs in Germany. I then basically withdraw all forces to Eastern Europe. I attack the brit des in sz15 with trn, bb, 1fig. Attack Egy with forces from Lib, 1art,1inf from Trn, and 1fig and bom. I also attack brit bb in sz13 with 1sub and 4 figs. I also go ahead and grab Len. I will post a map of what I believe the map should look like assuming the Russian move. I also used average losses in each battle.

I feel like this set up gives me a navy that in combo with my air force that can wreak havoc, while also giving me the ability to trade territories with the Russians in later rounds with my large airforce. Buys for the later rounds would depend on how aggressive the Russians were, but I’d pry buy lots of inf for my 2nd buy.

Let me know what you would think. How you would counter this move, etc.

I also assume an 8inf russian buy.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[DarthMaximus]

I’m not the German Navy expert, but I think an AC would be better instead of the DD, since you can land ftrs for even more defense and it would give you a greater reach in the Atlantic, it also adds in the dimension of threatening London on G2.

[squirecam]

@DarthMaximus:

I’m not the German Navy expert, but I think an AC would be better instead of the DD, since you can land ftrs for even more defense and it would give you a greater reach in the Atlantic, it also adds in the dimension of threatening London on G2.

I’m with DM on this one. Not sure the destroyer is helping much. The carrier provides defense + fighters. A second fighter would provide offense and aid land + be cheaper than the DD.

Squirecam

[newpaintbrush]

@Hauptmann-Jager:

Ok, so I was muddling around with the map thinking of how to open up with Germany. I’ve never played as Germany and am planning on being them next time. That said, the weakness of the German navy bothers me.

No bid = Med fleet to Anglo-Egypt = no G2 unification off W. Europe = no easy solution.  You could try aircraft carrier / 3 transports like a certain Other Player I know.  But personally, I find that leaves Germany horribly weak against early Russian aggression.  Early aggression leads to territory.  Territory leads to IPCs.  And IPCs lead to more aggression, which leads to more territory, which leads to more IPCs.  Once down the naval side you start, forever afterwards will it dominate your destiny.

The unification of the med and Baltic seems like a lost cause, but I’d still like my navy to do SOMETHING!!! So that being said, I devised a strategy. My opponents who I play with almost always open with a West Russia only attack and stack big there.

Lucky you.  They should at least do W. Russia / Belorussia.

So I thought about this buy: (We also normally don’t play with a bid)

2figs, 1trn, 1 des.

So UK builds 3 fighters, and then what?  ewz. Â

The trn and des go with the baltic fleet and figs in Germany. I then basically withdraw all forces to Eastern Europe. I attack the brit des in sz15 with trn, bb, 1fig. Attack Egy with forces from Lib, 1art,1inf from Trn, and 1fig and bom  I also attack brit bb in sz13 with 1sub and 4 figs. I also go ahead and grab Len

Ya sounds pretty standard.  Except that buy.  Woo.

I will post a map of what I believe the map should look like assuming the Russian move. I also used average losses in each battle.

aggggghhhh average.  But the moves you posted were pretty standard, and you have to have pretty damn signficiant deviation for any of those moves to fail.

I feel like this set up gives me a navy that in combo with my air force that can wreak havoc

Not rly.  It’s really hard to “wreak havoc” when you 1) have no infantry to back up your attack, 2) have to gallivant far off into the Atlantic to get in range of the Allied fleet, which can in turn just kick your navy’s ass with navy and air the moment YOUR navy gets in range of ITS navy.  I think the term “threaten” is a lot better than “wreak havoc”.

while also giving me the ability to trade territories with the Russians in later rounds with my large airforce. Buys for the later rounds would depend on how aggressive the Russians were, but I’d pry buy lots of inf for my 2nd buy.

Mmmm . . . well, hell, if the Russians didn’t blow up Belorussia, I guess MAYBE you don’t need infantry on G1.  But I really like G1 infantry.  I like 'em a lot.

Let me know what you would think. How you would counter this move, etc.

I also assume an 8inf russian buy.

How would I counter.  UK1 3 x fighter, consolidate UK navy southwest of London.  US1 move E. US ground units onto transports and consolidate with UK navy southwest of London.  Now Germany has to buy move Baltic navy or it’s 5 fig 1 bomber vs 2 sub 2 trns 2 destr.  Or maybe I would just build 5 inf 3 tank with UK instead to prevent invasion, consolidate the Allied fleet at Algeria instead to reclaim Africa quickly, or maybe I would build UK transports to add to the consolidated Allied fleet, and fly in Russian fighters from Moscow for added security.

Regardless, I don’t see that the Allied position is at all compromised, and you can bet I’d be pushing into German territory early.  3 inf cost 9 IPC and are far better on offense than 1 fighter costing 10 IPC.

–

How I would change the German turn - I don’t see that a German destroyer is enough to counter a UK build of 3 fighters.  That’s the big thing right there.  The lack of infantry, the lack of third turn power against Russia, I think the Germans can deal with in various ways, but I really think that German destroyer is wrong.

Unless you want to do something with Destroyer Bombardment later on, I’d steer clear of destroyers.

[newpaintbrush]

Oh yeah, one more thing.

A destroyer WOULD be fine, but the thing is - fighters are pretty useful, and I don’t see that the UK spending its turn on 3 x fighters really HELPS Germany a whole lot.  Yes, a response of 3 UK fighters does delay UK building its transport chain, but on the other hand, not only do you delay the German ground unit production in turn, but ALSO, you will have to contend with the UK air being used to trade territory on the UK turn.

I think overall, it’s too much for Germany to contend with.  That is to say, that if Germany builds a destroyer, and UK counters with mass air build, it isn’t bad for UK, but it is bad for Germany, and there is no way I see that Germany can exploit that advantage, except perhaps to try for Combined Bombardment tech, which is POSSIBLY a decent idea.

[newpaintbrush]

@newpaintbrush:

which is POSSIBLY a decent idea.

POSSIBLY, as in NOT DEFINITELY, as in QUITE POSSIBLY NOT.

[squirecam]

@newpaintbrush:

Oh yeah, one more thing.

A destroyer WOULD be fine, but the thing is - fighters are pretty useful, and I don’t see that the UK spending its turn on 3 x fighters really HELPS Germany a whole lot.  Yes, a response of 3 UK fighters does delay UK building its transport chain, but on the other hand, not only do you delay the German ground unit production in turn, but ALSO, you will have to contend with the UK air being used to trade territory on the UK turn.

Im not sold on a UK 3 fighter buy. USA, ok. Not UK. I see 3 fighter buys from UK as Germany, I’m happy.

Squirecam

[goldenbearflyer]

@squirecam:

@newpaintbrush:

Oh yeah, one more thing.

A destroyer WOULD be fine, but the thing is - fighters are pretty useful, and I don’t see that the UK spending its turn on 3 x fighters really HELPS Germany a whole lot.  Yes, a response of 3 UK fighters does delay UK building its transport chain, but on the other hand, not only do you delay the German ground unit production in turn, but ALSO, you will have to contend with the UK air being used to trade territory on the UK turn.

Im not sold on a UK 3 fighter buy. USA, ok. Not UK. I see 3 fighter buys from UK as Germany, I’m happy.

Squirecam

Yeah, um, what squire said.

Squire, it’s entirely possible I will never question your judgment again (unless you advocate buying lots of bombers or something)!  I’ve tried out some moves with the G1 naval buys, and I see now how they can be beneficial.  Also, after testing out J moves (against a mostly KGF allied plan), I totally agree on your projections of J IPCs; sorry I doubted you!

Hauptmann-Jager, at least give this G1 buy a chance:  3trn, 2inf 2arm.  Put the 3trn in the Baltic.  From there you have quite a few options.

[newpaintbrush]

@squirecam:

@newpaintbrush:

Oh yeah, one more thing.

A destroyer WOULD be fine, but the thing is - fighters are pretty useful, and I don’t see that the UK spending its turn on 3 x fighters really HELPS Germany a whole lot.  Yes, a response of 3 UK fighters does delay UK building its transport chain, but on the other hand, not only do you delay the German ground unit production in turn, but ALSO, you will have to contend with the UK air being used to trade territory on the UK turn.

Im not sold on a UK 3 fighter buy. USA, ok. Not UK. I see 3 fighter buys from UK as Germany, I’m happy.

Squirecam

Hold on a second there, squirecam.  Remember that what was in question was a proposed build of Germany destroyer and transport in the Baltic.  GIVEN that German purchase of destroyer, transport, two fighters, what WOULD you advocate for UK?

And also - I generally do NOT advocate a 3 fighter build for UK.  I generally try to build 2 trns 3 inf 1 tank, if Germany does not threaten invasion of London.

–

Also, as long as I have you posting a reply, I’d also like to inquire what you think the optimal build for UK is to a German build of - what was it you use, carrier, 2-3 transports, 1-0 sub?

–

@goldenbearflyer:

Yeah, um, what squire said.

Squire, it’s entirely possible I will never question your judgment again (unless you advocate buying lots of bombers or something)! I’ve tried out some moves with the G1 naval buys, and I see now how they can be beneficial. Also, after testing out J moves (against a mostly KGF allied plan), I totally agree on your projections of J IPCs; sorry I doubted you!

Hauptmann-Jager, at least give this G1 buy a chance: 3trn, 2inf 2arm. Put the 3trn in the Baltic. From there you have quite a few options.

Heh heh.  Got a fan club I see.  Well, I will say that I think that knowing how to deal with at least some of squire’s strategies is a good part of a complete A&A Revised education.

[squirecam]

@newpaintbrush:

@squirecam:

@newpaintbrush:

Oh yeah, one more thing.

A destroyer WOULD be fine, but the thing is - fighters are pretty useful, and I don’t see that the UK spending its turn on 3 x fighters really HELPS Germany a whole lot.  Yes, a response of 3 UK fighters does delay UK building its transport chain, but on the other hand, not only do you delay the German ground unit production in turn, but ALSO, you will have to contend with the UK air being used to trade territory on the UK turn.

Im not sold on a UK 3 fighter buy. USA, ok. Not UK. I see 3 fighter buys from UK as Germany, I’m happy.

Squirecam

Hold on a second there, squirecam.  Remember that what was in question was a proposed build of Germany destroyer and transport in the Baltic.  GIVEN that German purchase of destroyer, transport, two fighters, what WOULD you advocate for UK?

And also - I generally do NOT advocate a 3 fighter build for UK.  I generally try to build 2 trns 3 inf 1 tank, if Germany does not threaten invasion of London.

–

Also, as long as I have you posting a reply, I’d also like to inquire what you think the optimal build for UK is to a German build of - what was it you use, carrier, 2-3 transports, 1-0 sub?

–

@goldenbearflyer:

Yeah, um, what squire said.

Squire, it’s entirely possible I will never question your judgment again (unless you advocate buying lots of bombers or something)! I’ve tried out some moves with the G1 naval buys, and I see now how they can be beneficial. Also, after testing out J moves (against a mostly KGF allied plan), I totally agree on your projections of J IPCs; sorry I doubted you!

Hauptmann-Jager, at least give this G1 buy a chance: 3trn, 2inf 2arm. Put the 3trn in the Baltic. From there you have quite a few options.

Heh heh.  Got a fan club I see.  Well, I will say that I think that knowing how to deal with at least some of squire’s strategies is a good part of a complete A&A Revised education.

Well, this is a hard(er) question to answer. I say this, because I like to KJF. Typically, this involves an IC in India. Therefore, I would probably buy an IC, Destroyer and infantry. _I’d move UK/USA fleet to SZ8 for merge.

If I did not KJF (and the G buy doesnt dissuade me from doing so), but KGF instead, I would still buy UK transports. Let the USA do the “heavy lifting” as C-subbers would say.

The destroyer/transport buy doesnt scare me. Even less so if the med fleet went East to Egypt.

Squirecam_

[Hauptmann-Jager]

I was hoping that with a destroyer and a tran I would improve my attack/defense value, but also add fodder while making sea lion a possibility. I realize my navy can’t live forever so I’d like my navy to deal some massive damage with help from my air force. Just my initial thoughts. The only thing with the AC is that yes it adds great defense, but it doesn’t add much for offense, and what I was hoping for was some offenseive punch. subs might be cheaper, but offer no defense against an air attack. These were just my initial thoughts about what I was hoping for.  :mrgreen:

[Imperious Leader]

Well  they both defend at 3 and in the beginning of the game the baltic fleet needs more defense against threats so those 2 fighters at 4 are much better to germany than the saving of 4 IPC to get only a DD.

If you know the player is a KJF guy then you may get away with a DD, but if your gonna do that it offers a marginal improvement.

[newpaintbrush]

@Hauptmann-Jager:

I was hoping that with a destroyer and a tran I would improve my attack/defense value, but also add fodder while making sea lion a possibility. I realize my navy can’t live forever so I’d like my navy to deal some massive damage with help from my air force. Just my initial thoughts. The only thing with the AC is that yes it adds great defense, but it doesn’t add much for offense, and what I was hoping for was some offenseive punch. subs might be cheaper, but offer no defense against an air attack. These were just my initial thoughts about what I was hoping for.  :mrgreen:

If you build a carrier instead of a destroyer, you have far more defensive flexibility; you spent 4 IPC more but can land two fighters on the carrier for a decent defense.

If you build a destroyer instead of a carrier, you stand to profit IF the Allies do not respond appropriately.

The big question is - how do you STOP the Allies from responding appropriately?

Remember that

1.  You are almost certainly not seriously threatening an invasion of London with a build of just 1 transport.
2.  UK goes AFTER G1.
3.  UK can build 3 fighters, making for 5 fighter 1 bomber minimum.

[U-505]

I have never seen a German player who keeps the fighters on the CV in the Baltic once the Allied attack is about to go down so essentially 2-3 TP’s, 1 CV, or 1 DD built on G1 all defend about the same in the end.

Benefits of building….

1 CV.
The presence of the fighters usually requires an extra turn of Allied building before the attack is made so you have an extra turn to delay having to build defensively to defend Berlin.

2-3 TP.
Allows for heavy counterattacks into Norway or Karelia or reinforcement of Eastern from Germany or even Western if need be.

1 DD.
none. Don’t do it.

[newpaintbrush]

What if Hauptmann-Jager is planning on countering the Allied counter to the G1 buy?

OOOOOO mind games.

Jennifer Connelly.  Mm.  Yummeh.  (+1)

[U-505]

@newpaintbrush:

What if Hauptmann-Jager is planning on countering the Allied counter to the G1 buy?

With what? Jennifer Connelly? That’s one smokin’ hot counter if I ever saw one. You could distract your opponent while you build more navy and snatch Russian pieces off the board. Hereafter known as the German Jennifer Connelly response to the Allied response to the German Baltic buildup. Or the JC softcore porn defense for short.

Oh yeah. (+1)

[newpaintbrush]

Wikipedia -

“Connelly’s paternal grandfather was Irish American and her paternal grandmother was a Norwegian American; her maternal grandparents were Jewish, their families having come from Russia and Poland.”

–

Therefore, we can conclude that Jennifer Connelly is working behind the scenes in Germany to support the Allies.

pwned (+1)

[rjclayton]

@newpaintbrush:

What if Hauptmann-Jager is planning on countering the Allied counter to the G1 buy?

@U-505:

With what? Jennifer Connelly? That’s one smokin’ hot counter if I ever saw one. You could distract your opponent while you build more … snatch … Hereafter known as the German Jennifer Connelly response to the Allied response to the German Baltic buildup. Or the JC softcore porn defense for short.

LMFAO  :lol: :lol: :lol:

[U-505]

@newpaintbrush:

Wikipedia -

“Connelly’s paternal grandfather was Irish American and her paternal grandmother was a Norwegian American; her maternal grandparents were Jewish, their families having come from Russia and Poland.”

–

Therefore, we can conclude that Jennifer Connelly is working behind the scenes in Germany to support the Allies.

pwned (+1)

Her paternal grandmother was captured during the invasion of Norway and is being held hostage. JC is a double agent.

50% bonus (+1.5)

@rjclayton:

@U-505:

With what? Jennifer Connelly? That’s one smokin’ hot counter if I ever saw one. You could distract your opponent while you build more … snatch … Hereafter known as the German Jennifer Connelly response to the Allied response to the German Baltic buildup. Or the JC softcore porn defense for short.

LMFAO :lol: :lol: :lol:

It takes 18 years to build more…you know. And even then you’re related…ewww siiiiiiick. It saves time when you pick from an already established harvest.  :-D

[squirecam]

This thread went OT fast…

Squirecam