I must retract my statement about the IC in Alaska. I did not realize this was the AAR board and assumed we were talking AA50. Not sure if it would make a difference or not but…… I have done it in AA50 but not in AAR. Sorry.
German strategy for building AC
-
Good point. Then you said you keep them in the Baltic Sea Zone for the most part?
-
Yes in the baltic. The only time I would build ships in the Med is if my strategy called for me going heavy into Africa but the Baltic fleet is much more effective at stalling the UK and US.
-
No what I meant was do you keep the Navy you place in the Baltic sea or do you have the ambition to move it to SZ 6 or 7? Its obvious you would to kill off any unprotected or ill deafened Navy, but do you keep them in the Baltic sea for the most part to keep them out of the way so you can pounce on any US Navy you can see coming for 1 or 2 turns out as you please or do you make them an active force raising h*** in SZ’s 3, 6, and 7?
-
Yes you keep it in the Baltic if your not doing some other “strange” strategy, like me against U-505, there i built an IC in Western And moved my fleet uot of Baltic, but in 99% of the cases you´ll need to have them in Baltic to prevent UK landings in Eastern Europe/Germany…
-
I see you keep a cold way Navy handy. Thats always better hot war Navy’s tend to sink faster. :-(
-
Yeah I would keep it in the baltic. Moving it out of the baltic tends to make your fleet sink faster. Just have it there and make the allies destroy it.
-
I haven’t built a navy with Germany yet, but I think I would consider a 3 trn buy in the baltic on G1. Here is why:
1. UK has to protect against a possible London invasion
2. Bolsters the defense of the existing Baltic fleet enough to discourage a round 1 attack on it.
3. Very useful for counterattacking any UK/US foothold in Norway and/or moving troops to EE/Karelia from the Western FrontThere is a paper written about this purchase over at Caspian Sub with lots of analysis (sorry, don’t have the URL handy).
-
I have seen that purchase made and it is effective. I generally go with the AC to save 8 IPC, have a better chance of taking something down with me, and because Germany taking London is tough.
-
I would also prefer 3 trn over 1 ac if I get a chance to strafe the Allied fleet with Germany. even though the ac attacks at 1, and the transports all attack at 0, that is 3 more hits I can absorb with my fleet before I start loosing air. I start with 2 sub, 1 trn, 1 des. Add 3 trn and I have 7 boats for fodder on an attack on allied shipping. Who knows I may even be able to strafe for 2 rounds without risking air.
Even 2 trn on G1 might be enough to discourage an attack on that fleet in round 1, and costs the same as an ac.
-
The Caspian sub paper you refer to is a pretty good read.
But I feel it does not address the “instant loss” factor.
By this, I refer to a strategy that can LOSE you the game right away, depending on your opponent’s move, or dice rolls.
–
True, the UK player may not even attack, and will PROBABLY hedge bets by sending the UK bomber to Anglo-Egypt.
However, if the UK player DOES attack, AND the UK player gets LUCKY, then it is immediately crippling to Germany.
Of course, if the UK player attacks and has only regular luck, it’s a solid German move. But I think that, even though 2-3 Baltic transports is a feasible move for Germany that is important to consider, I think that it is not necessarily “sound”, in the sense that pawn to king four is sound. I get more of the feeling that it’s like an opening of pawn to queen bishop four - not wrong, but not a conservative line of play either.
-
I always assume as Germany that I will lose the baltic fleet at some point. I don’t see how the UK destroying early equals an “instant loss”. I have not read the Caspian papers so if you could enlighten me I would be obliged. It may make me rethink the way I make my purchases as Germany.
-
CrazyStraw and I have already gone around regarding his Baltic TRN purchase. Not going to re-hash it again.
-
I always assume as Germany that I will lose the baltic fleet at some point. I don’t see how the UK destroying early equals an “instant loss”. I have not read the Caspian papers so if you could enlighten me I would be obliged. It may make me rethink the way I make my purchases as Germany.
Join Csub yourself (it’s Free with a yahoo id)
Good stuff
-
I was hoping to have Crazy Straw come back here…
I kind of miss him on these boards…
-
@ncscswitch:
I was hoping to have Crazy Straw come back here…
I kind of miss him on these boards…
Reminiscing of old times eh?
-
Thanks for the link I will definately check it out.
-
I thought the CSUB was a paper not a forum. Thanks for turning me on to it. 8-)
-LT04
-
i agree with Jennifer on this one. It seems like a waste of IPCs
-
LIES ALL LIES!! :x
I tried the German Navy technique 5 times on my A&A CD-ROM. Every time I would buy a diffrent Navy and spend all of Germany’s income for the first two rounds, in addition to that I wouldn’t attack Russia just move all my units to the front. In conjunction with this I would use all of Germany’s Luft Waffe to strafe the Allied Navy. Every time the Allies destroyed the German Baltic Navy before the third round the German Navy was sunk and the German front line was crippled due to the lack of “keeping up with the Jones’s” you need on the German-Russian front. :cry: :cry:
I tried the scenario again 5 times only this time buying FTR’s for the first two rounds pushing up all Germany’s units to the front lines as I did before and not attacking Russia also as I did before. It was so beautiful to watch Germany’s Iron Cross fill the skies wile looking down at the Allied Navy burning and drowning all at the same time. :evil: :evil:
So I’m going to have to go against the German Navy strategy and consider the German Luft Waffe strategy for fine tuning.
Reporting to you live from Berlin LT04 out.
-
The A&A CD-Rom is Classic version is it not?
Suggested Topics
