Even if you want to go offensive in E. Europe, you don’t NEED SZ 5 or to sink the SZ 5 fleet. Just invade from Karelia. Now, if the battle goes badly, you can retreat. If you amphibious it, you have to fight to the death. I don’t like being locked in like that if I can avoid it.
Also, I agree. The instant the allies can build in Southern or Western Europe the game is over for the axis. I disagree that hte game is over when Germany builds in Caucasus. Probably is, might not be.
I think Russia’s dead when they start earning less then 12 IPC a round. 2 good SBRs and they earn nothing. Furthermore, that means the Axis have 12 IPC of Russian lands!
Likewise, once England is reduced to 12 IPC, the game’s over for England.
Once the Allies cannot defeat either caucasus or novosibirsk, the game is over for the allies.
Once the axis lose Africa and cannot hold Karelia or Caucauss, the game is over for the axis.
Once the Japanese lose their fleet (roughly Round 7) the game is over for the Axis.
Sorry Jen.
What Makes eastern dangerous for Germany is when UK can land units direct from UK to Eastern AND pull their previous landings from Norway and karelia into the fray. It is generally more than Germany can handle…
Even if you want to go offensive in E. Europe, you don’t NEED SZ 5 or to sink the SZ 5 fleet. Just invade from Karelia.
Who said you need SZ5? Another strawman you created.
Of course you can invade from Karelia, but you’ll be 2 turns low on units (one turn is the units that can’t come straight from London, the other turn is the units just placed in Archangel/Norway last turn which can’t make it to E. Europe either). Being 2 turns low on units for both UK and US in E. Europe gives Germany breathing time.
@ncscswitch:
Southern is NEVER irrelevant.
Let the US build there, with their TRN shuck extavlihsed, and Germany is in trouble, with ot without Russia.
Well, all I will say is that I am currently building in Southern right now as the US in my game with No Mercy, and the outcome of the game is still very much in doubt. I will probably take Germany in a couple of turns, but whether I can withstand the Japanese onslaught (he has somewhere around 50 tanks, at least pre-Moscow invasion) remains to be seen.
@Bean:
Even if you want to go offensive in E. Europe, you don’t NEED SZ 5 or to sink the SZ 5 fleet. Just invade from Karelia.
Who said you need SZ5? Another strawman you created.
You did. That’s why you said to build two carriers. Are you so daft you are forgetting your own arguments? No wonder you think I am inventing strawmen! You don’t even have your own argument straight anymore! :-D
And Switch, I’m not arguing that it is “nice” to have SZ 5 clear of enemy ships. I’m saying it’s not needed and that if Germany puts 4 fighters and two carriers in SZ 5 then why not just let them sit there, wasted? I can easily invade E. Europe, Belorussia and W. Russia from Karelia and I’d rather land in Archangelsk/Karelia anyway. That way I can shift to Moscow to defend against the Japanese because after that kind of expenditure, Germany’s a footnote in history, they’re definitely no threat to the Russians anymore!
Quote
Even if you want to go offensive in E. Europe, you don’t NEED SZ 5 or to sink the SZ 5 fleet. Just invade from Karelia.Who said you need SZ5? Another strawman you created.
You did. That’s why you said to build two carriers. Are you so daft you are forgetting your own arguments? No wonder you think I am inventing strawmen! You don’t even have your own argument straight anymore! grin
You’re not making any sense. I said to build 2 carriers to protect SZ5 as the Germans. I didn’t say the Allies needed SZ5 to win.
And seriously, you need to stop it with the personal insults, the “are you so daft” statements. It’s immature.
The reason I say you make strawmen is a subjective opinion - I think I understand now it’s just part of your style to ask non sequitur questions or statements which are hyperbole. When I originally said having the threat of 12 units land in Germany/W. Europe etc, you immediately responded with “so you’re saying 8 units isn’t a threat?” It’s just your way of exaggerating, I’ll deal.
If you build two carriers with the Germans in SZ 5 then you are saying that the Allies need to throw themselves upon the German fleet in SZ 5 to win. Otherwise, why would you advocate spending nearly an entire turn’s income on Aircraft Carriers and tying up 67% of your fighters in SZ 5?
As for the 8 vs 12 unit threat. I really don’t see 12 units being a viable threat from England. They can only build 8. That means to get 12 they have to plunder their stacks somewhere else which means less forces there for a minor addition somewhere else. Honestly, since Germany’s already planning for an English followed by American assault, the change is very minor to include the addition of 4 more British infantry. What, you need an extra 1 or 2 infantry of your own in W. Europe? Not exactly a game breaking diversion of forces in my mind. But that’s my opinion of it.
Meanwhile, you’ve spent 16 IPC on transports. You’re also probably out of Africa because you were buying transports, not ground forces to liberate it, which means you have less then 25 IPC a round income, maybe worse, but you might be reclaiming some of Africa but down Australia, New Zealand, Madagascar, Persia, T-J, Egypt and India. So let’s just say 25 IPC.
That means to fill 4 transports you are making 7 Infantry, 1 Artillery. No tanks. To fill 6 Transports you’d have to take infantry/artillery from somewhere else and spread yourself very thin.
And if you had all your lands and more, then why would you need the 16 IPC in transports when you could put an IC in E. Europe or Norway cheaper and almost as efficiently?
It’s not merely the threat of 12 units + airforce + bb shot in one territory, but 3 key territories. That causes the Germans to spend a significant amount of total forces defending because the attack could come from anywhere. Left your capital with just 10 inf you bought? You’re a goner. Left W. Europe with 6 inf 5 fig? I got most of your fighters. A stack of 7 inf 5 tank in E. Europe? Goodbye! Having to upload 3 more inf into each territory in addition to spending 3 inf per Russian trading zone is stressful on the Germans. It also means if you finally broke through the Baltic, you can use your extra tran to bring units from Norway to E. Europe or wherever it is you’re dropping.
Meanwhile, you’ve spent 16 IPC on transports.
Meanwhile, you’ve spend 20+ IPCs on aircraft? Aircraft is nice, but extra transports is also nice. There’s nothing like having a force of 6 tps of equip + airforce + bb shot ready to invade W. Europe on UK3; the Germans don’t want to see that. They’d rather you have your 2 tps waiting for the other 2 to arrive on UK4, meaning minimal defense on W. Europe.
If Russia is less than agressive and Germany does well in africa and takes that cake early and holds it for a while, in addition to having all 6 planes (WRU, Belo R1 attacks), then an a/c (or two) in sz5 can be a decent strategy.
I do agree that the allies can usually just wait on killing the SZ5 fleet when they have enough units/time to deal with it. Summarizing, if the germans have the cash/units to afford to keep the sz5 fleet around, it can be a workable strategy.
If you build two carriers with the Germans in SZ 5 then you are saying that the Allies need to throw themselves upon the German fleet in SZ 5 to win. Otherwise, why would you advocate spending nearly an entire turn’s income on Aircraft Carriers and tying up 67% of your fighters in SZ 5?
It’s because it would delay them a lot. And remember, I’m not building that second carrier until it looks like I actually need it to prevent a SZ5 strike, it’s not like I’m building 2 carriers in one turn and have essentially no extra inf to reinforce. The Allies should probably work on killing the SZ5; there’s the bonus of possibly killing fighters out on the sea, and it gives them much more landing flexibility. You really don’t want to be walking troops from Norway or Archangel, because an attack on the German capital will be 3 rounds short on units each from UK and US if you have to march from Norway vs having SZ5 open.
A carrier a day keeps the Allies away? :mrgreen:
If Russia is less than agressive and Germany does well in africa and takes that cake early and holds it for a while, in addition to having all 6 planes (WRU, Belo R1 attacks), then an a/c (or two) in sz5 can be a decent strategy.
Hmm yes, that’s why I’m beginning to like 2 inf in Ukraine now for the bid, to allow the Ukraine offense units to survive.
@Bean:
If you build two carriers with the Germans in SZ 5 then you are saying that the Allies need to throw themselves upon the German fleet in SZ 5 to win. Otherwise, why would you advocate spending nearly an entire turn’s income on Aircraft Carriers and tying up 67% of your fighters in SZ 5?
It’s because it would delay them a lot. And remember, I’m not building that second carrier until it looks like I actually need it to prevent a SZ5 strike, it’s not like I’m building 2 carriers in one turn and have essentially no extra inf to reinforce. The Allies should probably work on killing the SZ5; there’s the bonus of possibly killing fighters out on the sea, and it gives them much more landing flexibility. You really don’t want to be walking troops from Norway or Archangel, because an attack on the German capital will be 3 rounds short on units each from UK and US if you have to march from Norway vs having SZ5 open.
A carrier a day keeps the Allies away? :mrgreen:
If Russia is less than agressive and Germany does well in africa and takes that cake early and holds it for a while, in addition to having all 6 planes (WRU, Belo R1 attacks), then an a/c (or two) in sz5 can be a decent strategy.
Hmm yes, that’s why I’m beginning to like 2 inf in Ukraine now for the bid, to allow the Ukraine offense units to survive.
And this is also why when I am Russia I go for Ukraina. :-D (other than WR naturally)
Returning on the German ACs, I think that the important point raised by Bean is that a German fleet in the Baltic is advantageous for the defense of GER and EE.
With 2 ACs it is possible to have 4 FIG in sz5. Without baltic fleet Germany must defend two territories and must do a choice: defending with 4 FIG in only one territory or splitting the 4 FIG in the two territories?
In my personal experience one of the most dangerous move for Germany is the British double attack in EE: from Karelia and from Baltic.
With a Baltic fleet alive the Allied have to sunk the German ships before landing in EE, this will gain more time to German.
If allied try to go in EE “by foot” then their may be countered by German turning KArelia in a killing zone.
However, as Azis_roll said, it is not a strategy for all the games… But having the possibility of different strategies is always an advantage! :-)
@Bean:
I was thinking with the Germans, start by adding a carrier to the Baltic, then slowly crank out two more as they are needed to keep the Baltic alive?
. . .
But the UK/US had to buy much more than 16 IPCs per carrier to counter the 16 IPCs of carrier that Germany put down.
What do you guys think?
3 carriers = 48 IPC = 16 infantry. When you take 16 infantry away from the Russian front, you WILL pay for it.
Placing fighters in the Baltic does not create a problem insofar as using the fighters to attack ground targets is concerned. It does cause a problem insofar as the defense of West Europe is concerned. Of course, you are using the German carriers in the Baltic to threaten an Allied invasion of West Europe - but carriers are not very powerful on the attack. So if you stay in the Baltic to threaten the waters off Western Europe, the Allies can continue the shuck from E. Canada to Algeria. If you move the Baltic fleet off Western Europe, you have to survive two rounds of attack from the US and UK combined naval and air forces. That is not promising.
As far as the Allies having to buy more - that is true. However, if the Allies want to kill the German navy, they should invest heavily in fighters, so when the Allies DO wipe out the German navy, those extra fighters can be used to fortify Moscow.
All in all - IMHO German carrier in Baltic is one max. Three is far too many.
If you absolutely MUST build carriers and throw your money out the window, why not put them in SZ 14 where you at least have a Battleship to help defend AND you force the British and Americans away from their stacks to come kill you?
I think primary task of AC in Baltic is defensive one and to fulfioll the fleet in being principle.
Fighters on Baltic Carrier are subtracted from EE and GER but staying in sz5 still are able to defend. Moreover from the sz5 they may participate in the combats in Russia.
AC in Mediterranean Sea are well protected by the BB and draw away Allied ships from their stacks. However when they enter in Mediterranean they may assault SE. Moreover the fig for the AC in Mediterranean are themselves forced avay from the stacks in GER and EE, and so subtracted totally by the defense of GER and EE.
I view the fighters on carriers in SZ 5 as lost anyway. They defend for nothing because they are not attacked until the battle is ridiculously skewed in favor of the allied attackers. You are building something that is designed to earn no income and lose more then twice it’s value in the long term.
@Cmdr:
I view the fighters on carriers in SZ 5 as lost anyway. They defend for nothing because they are not attacked until the battle is ridiculously skewed in favor of the allied attackers. You are building something that is designed to earn no income and lose more then twice it’s value in the long term.
where do you get that figure?
@Cmdr:
I view the fighters on carriers in SZ 5 as lost anyway. They defend for nothing because they are not attacked until the battle is ridiculously skewed in favor of the allied attackers. You are building something that is designed to earn no income and lose more then twice it’s value in the long term.
where do you get that figure?
Diet and exercise.
@Cmdr:
I view the fighters on carriers in SZ 5 as lost anyway. They defend for nothing because they are not attacked until the battle is ridiculously skewed in favor of the allied attackers. You are building something that is designed to earn no income and lose more then twice it’s value in the long term.
where do you get that figure?
Diet and exercise.
lol
I think Germany should stay fighting Russians until Japan has enough ships to come to the Atlantic, then they should invest in their navy and build up together very strongly,
Until then they should just try to hide their fleet a bit, so the investment is not that big when Japan comes by.
Btw, if Germany owns the Suez, can Japan use it? I would say yes, but is it a no?
I think Germany should stay fighting Russians until Japan has enough ships to come to the Atlantic, then they should invest in their navy and build up together very strongly,
Until then they should just try to hide their fleet a bit, so the investment is not that big when Japan comes by.
Btw, if Germany owns the Suez, can Japan use it? I would say yes, but is it a no?
yeah they can. have to have Egypt and ISrael for it to work. its okay if germany owns egypt and japan Israel.
