Attacking with carriers/Naval Stalemate? New Player Questions

[Saber25]

Hello all!
I am a new player. I got the 1941 version a few months ago, loved it, and just bought 1940 global 2nd edition parts. We are playing our first game during this lockdown, and wondering about carriers. I am playing all of the allies, and in the process nearly every country that normally has a navy have built the navy to massive lvls. There are easily 20+ japanese battleships and a similar number between US and ANZAC combined as well. However, because in 1940, carriers have no attack value, we assumed this meant they could not join in an attack on the enemy fleet. Because each of us has 6-7 fully stocked carriers, this basically means whoever attacks first will lose as they other player will have 12-14 extra hits to take to defeat them. So firstly, could someone help me out with the carrier rules, and secondly, is this a normal issue to have with the massive fleets, or have we made noob mistakes?

Thanks!

[barnee]

@Saber25
Hi Saber welcome to the site !

Yea you can send your carriers in on the attack to hit soak. Usually good to keep one alive in case you win, so a couple fighters can land : )

Yea you guys definitely went big on the battleships heh heh :)

:v:

also big naval battles are a big gamble. Usually just want to counter, fleet in being type thing. Imo :)

[Saber25]

Interesting. So how does that work exactly? It was my understanding that you could not use things like AA or Transports in combat since they both have attack of 0. But carriers can because of class of ship or?

[AndrewAAGamer]

@Saber25
Carriers have a combat value. Transports have no combat value. Therefore while carriers attack at 0, so they do not roll a combat die, they can take hits in combat like any other combat unit at any time. So since it takes two hits to sink a carrier you could take one or two hits on each carrier depending on what you want to do before taking hits on units that do have an attack value. Note, any carrier with a hit on it cannot land planes on it.

BTW transports in combat, since they have no combat value, are always taken last as casualties.

On a side note, since you are new to the game, I will tell you it is very rare for a Player to build battleships as they are very expensive for their value. Carriers and planes are the best value at sea; especially on defense.

Welcome aboard!

[barnee]

@AndrewAAGamer said in Attacking with carriers/Naval Stalemate? New Player Questions:

@Saber25

On a side note, since you are new to the game, I will tell you it is very rare for a Player to build battleships as they are very expensive for their value. Carriers and planes are the best value at sea; especially on defense.

Welcome aboard!

heh heh
Saber could be a WWI Admiral :)

Yea what AA said :)

[AndrewAAGamer]

@Saber25 said in Attacking with carriers/Naval Stalemate? New Player Questions:

Interesting. So how does that work exactly? It was my understanding that you could not use things like AA or Transports in combat since they both have attack of 0. But carriers can because of class of ship or?

Ground units on a transport, (armor, artillery, infantry or AAA guns) are considered cargo thus they may not be included in combat at sea either on offense or defense. It has nothing to do with their attack value; it is because they are cargo. Allied planes on a carrier on offense are also considered cargo and thus do not partake in combat. Allied planes on a carrier on defense do take part in combat. Transports, as I mentioned before, have no combat value thus they do not partake in the rolling of combat dice but are taken as casualties last at the end of combat. It is an important concept to understand the difference between having no attack value, i,e an attack of 0, and no combat value.

[Saber25]

@AndrewAAGamer I figured out that carriers were better on defense pretty quickly, but because I did not think they could come into attacking battles, I figured if I wanted any punch then I needed to do battleships to attack! Thanks for the info, really appreciate it. This changes a lot in our current game. We also did not realize that subs could not block, and had been using them to picket each other’s fleets the entire game lol. Rookie mistakes I guess! Thanks

[Saber25]

@AndrewAAGamer On that note, in what situation does it even make sense to build battleships? Would seem most navies are cruiser and carrier based then if I did my math right. Subs are also a nice value if you have a bunch? Thx again for the help and patience!

[AndrewAAGamer]

@Saber25 said in Attacking with carriers/Naval Stalemate? New Player Questions:

On that note, in what situation does it even make sense to build battleships? Would seem most navies are cruiser and carrier based then if I did my math right. Subs are also a nice value if you have a bunch? Thx again for the help and patience!

Actually cruisers are not a good buy either. Once you read around the site on some of the older posts you will see many players recommending cruisers for $11 and battleships for $18.

CRUISERS: For $36 I can buy 3 cruisers. That gives me an attack of 9, a defense of 9 and a casualty loss of 3. For $36 I can buy a carrier and 2 fighters. That gives me an attack of 6, defense of 10 and a casualty loss of 4. 3 Cruisers attacking Carrier + 2 Fighters wins 12% of the time. Carrier + 2 Fighters attacking 3 Cruisers wins 56% of the time. Therefore the Carrier/Fighter combo is better on both offense and defense at sea. Cruisers can bombard, but are limited by the number of ground units landing and if there is any defending sea unit or kamikaze removing any bombard component. The two fighters can fight on land or sea making them far more useful.

BATTLESHIPS: For $180 I can buy 9 battleships. That gives me an attack of 36, a defense of 36 and a casualty loss of 18. For $180 I can buy 5 carriers and 10 fighters. That gives me an attack of 30, defense of 50 and a casualty loss of 20. 9 Battleships attacking 5 Carrier + 10 Fighters wins 3% of the time. 5 Carriers + 10 Fighters attacking 9 Battleships wins 37% of the time. Therefore the Carrier/Fighter combo is better on both offense and defense. The bombard and plane issue is the same.

Normally you will see people build carriers and planes to beef up their defense, destroyers to block and kill subs, and then once superiority is gained subs to increase offense capability or convoy disruption.

Where would you see battleships built? The only place I see it is when you are limited by factory production and you are trying to protect your fleet with as few units as possible. For example, the US takes Korea and builds a minor IC there. They can only produce 3 units so they may want to build one or more battleships as that gives them the maximum defensive and offensive firepower for just one build slot regardless of the cost/value equation.

[AndrewAAGamer]

@AndrewAAGamer
One more point, as barnee alluded to, navies cost a lot of money and are therefore very important and no one wants to risk them in a battle without really good odds. Thus defense first is the catchword with naval units. Carriers and fighters help defend your fleet. Destroyers are used to block against a superior fleet. Once, and if, your navy gains safety from your opponents fleet you can add tactical bombers and subs to get enough firepower to overcome your opponents fleet.

Due to the nature of sea units having a better value defensively than they do offensively it is not uncommon to see two big fleets facing off each other, both too big to be killed by the other fleet, yet not big enough to kill each other either.

[Saber25]

Really appreciate the info. One more question, and this one is off topic of you don’t mind? I see a lot of posts here about building industrial facilities in captured territories, or in neutral territories. I thought that you could only build facilities in territories that you had held from the beginning in 1940 2nd Ed?

[AndrewAAGamer]

@Saber25 said in Attacking with carriers/Naval Stalemate? New Player Questions:

I see a lot of posts here about building industrial facilities in captured territories, or in neutral territories. I thought that you could only build facilities in territories that you had held from the beginning in 1940 2nd Ed?

You can only build Major Industrial Complexes in original territories that belong to your Power that also have an IPC value of 3 or more. You can build a Minor Industrial Complex in any territory that has an IPC value of 2 or more AND is not an island. You can upgrade a Minor to a Major only if it fits the rules for building a Major.

Thus Japan could build a Minor in FIC but not Java. Also Japan could build a Major in Korea but not Manchuria. Even though Japan starts the game with Manchuria as a territory it is not an original Japanese territory; it originally belonged to China.

You may build up to 10 units at a Major IC and 3 units at a Minor IC.

Other facilities, like Naval Bases (Harbours) and Air Bases (Airfields), can be built anywhere, including islands, that are named. Areas on the board not named are considered out of play for all purposes.

To build any facility you must have controlled the territory at the beginning of your Turn. To use any facility already in the territory you also must have controlled the territory at the beginning of your Turn.

Note, China is the only Power that may not build any facility of any type.

[The Pripet Martian]

@AndrewAAGamer @Saber25 This game does a good job of illustrating the rise of the aircraft carrier and corresponding decline of the battleship in WWII. Andrew’s example (9 BB vs. 5 CV & 10 fighters) reinforces the idea. That said, battleships are not the overpriced underachievers one might think, and can be quite dangerous when employed by a savvy admiral.

Take another look at Andrew’s example. It seems BB are no match for CV and fighters, right? In a fight to the death, yes…but if I’m sending 9 BB up against 5 CV + 10 fighters, I’m only going to do so under the following conditions:

1. CV must not be within one space of a friendly territory (so the fighters from damaged carriers have no place to land and must be eliminated), and
2. BB will attack for one round, then retreat.

On average, 9 BB will score 6 hits in the first combat round, while the defenders will score 8. In this scenario, the defender knows he’ll lose 2 fighters for each CV that takes a hit, so his least bad option is to lose 4 fighters and 1 carrier. Meanwhile, my BB absorb the 8 hits without any change to my attack or defense strength and I retreat, safe in the knowledge that with just 6 fighters and 4 carriers, my opponent is unlikely to counterattack.

The moral of the story: Undamaged carriers with aircraft are quite valuable and dangerous, while damaged carriers are essentially overpriced, empty transports. Damaged battleships, on the other hand, are still battleships.

[AndrewAAGamer]

@The-Pripet-Martian @Saber25
Let’s not mislead a new Player who is trying to get a handle on the game. :)

While your example is valid only a very misguided Player would ever move their carriers to an area that their planes cannot land where they could also be attacked by 9 battleships.

Almost no one buys battleships yet everyone buys carriers and aircraft. Buying carriers and aircraft is better way to go hands down.

[The Pripet Martian]

@AndrewAAGamer I’m not suggesting players should only buy battleships; I’m just saying they still have value in the game. My personal preference is for a balanced navy. While I still buy 3-4 times more carriers, I like BB for amphibious assaults and to absorb the first hits in any battle.

…And if you’ve never gone up against a misguided player, you really need to meet my friends. :grin: