G1 naval build?

[dondoolee]

@Pan:

I have followed these boards for a little while but never posted.  However, I thought I’d just throw in my two bits here…

I’ve never really liked naval builds for Germany in previous versions of A&A and still not a fan of heavy German naval builds in AA50 but I do usually add one sub to the Baltic each turn.  It costs me one extra tank or two Inf but I think it pays for itself over time.

In AA50 I am loving subs for Germany, US (in the Pacific) and Japan (again in the Pacific).  I don’t usually bother building them with any other power.  The reason I love subs is very little can touch them if they don’t want to be touched, if you position them well.  The main reason I don’t like most German naval builds is that UK often has enough air units to take out or severely reduce the fleet you just spent 2 rounds worth of IPCs on.  However, the RAF is no good against subs as long as you keep their DDs out of the water.  It turns into a game of cat-and-mouse with the subs…moving them through the North Atlantic, Baltic, and North Sea regions but if you can stay a step ahead then UK will never get to use any naval unit they put into the water.  All for the cost of 6 IPCs per turn (and the rest goes against Russia, of course).

This has been my experience at least.  And I play US in the Pacific in a similar way.  For Japan I don’t usually have to resort to subs due to the extreme number of capital ships they start the game with.  No need for subtlety there!

I think that is a pretty fair, very general look at subs (a very complex gimmicky unit).  I have no idea why the UK would build subs for a general strat, for example.  I do think however there should be some type of harsh prison sentence on you for such a god awful pun.

[Pan]

I had to find somewhere to use it.  The rest of my post was just filler.

Seriously, I do think subs are a good purchase for the right moment and Germany (as in history) is in an ideal location to take advantage of their “complexity”, imho.  And I agree that UK rarely finds itself in a position to use subs in any game that I have played.  The US and UK tend to play brawny with their navy in the Atlantic while the Germans are usually forced to use more…well, subtlety.  The word really does work! ;)

[Upside-down_Turtle]

Welcome to the Forum, Pan.  :-)

[Pan]

Thanks, UDT.  Good to be here  :-D

[Bardoly]

Yes, Welcome.

[kevlar56]

Well, I’ve been watching this conversation for awhile and I do feel I might have something to add to the discussion. I have played the axis twice w/AA50 and won both times, once via Sealion.  Both times, I have bought a Ger. CV on G1.  Remember, on the Russian front, there are three IC’s and only one can be taken early and held.  The whole problem with Ger vs. USSR (IMHO) is that it takes too long to get Ger inf to the front lines. 
Take out most of the UK fleet on G1.  Build CV and 1 trans and ready capture of Karelia on G2.  That gives two inf build per turn and 2-4 land unit trans to Karelia trading/attacking towards Moscow.  Ger. arm can reach the battlezone every other buy and you can keep funneling attacks to Moscow while still keeping the UK at bay UNLESS the UK/US go KGF.  IF that happens, then Japan can go aggressively (I dislike the term ‘hulk smash’, but oh well), towards Moscow, or even US West Coast.  If Japan is allowed to have free reign in the Pacific, while US goes KGF, Australia falls, India falls, Africa falls, and you’re looking at your Allied partners saying, uh gee, I guess we lost…. AGAIN
If the UK holds Britain and challenges Japan in the middle, then Ger. can hold USSR front w/inf, build bombers and ships, Italy takes UK$ in Africa, UK economy dries up, Germany strat bombs UK factory and eventually Sealion is possible again around turn 7-8.
In that case, US MUST go all out against Japan (if they don’t, Moscow will eventually succumb to a Jap assault from the east) and still be ready to direct figs to UK to prevent any Sealion.
Perhaps what I’m trying to say is that a Ger. CV turn is viable so long as Japan is willing to take advantage of the opportunities which may be presented if the Allies aggresively attempt to refute that buy.
Best regards,
Kev

[HannibalSW]

A German fleet could alleviate pressure from the Italian fleet.  If you are the allies which fleet do you want to sink first?  The Germans fleet because it cost them units on the ground? Or the Italian fleet because they can not readily replace lost boats as fast?  If the U.S. feels pressured to help the U.K. then Japan might feel free to help itself to the entire Pacific.

Could someone give Kevlar +1 karma for me, I’d like to thank him for helping to keep me awake at work with all this thinking!

[Funcioneta]

@HannibalSW:

Could someone give Kevlar +1 karma for me, I’d like to thank him for helping to keep me awake at work with all this thinking!

Done  :-D

[dondoolee]

@HannibalSW:

A German fleet could alleviate pressure from the Italian fleet.  If you are the allies which fleet do you want to sink first?  The Germans fleet because it cost them units on the ground? Or the Italian fleet because they can not readily replace lost boats as fast?  If the U.S. feels pressured to help the U.K. then Japan might feel free to help itself to the entire Pacific.

Could someone give Kevlar +1 karma for me, I’d like to thank him for helping to keep me awake at work with all this thinking!

But the fleet fails to do it anywhere near as effectivly as air support or if you insist, the occasional well built sub.  This compounds itself even more if we are talking about a G1 build.  Air gives you much better flexibility/ better economical purchasing than anything a navy can accomplish for Germany.  If you want to spend your time threatining the UK with boats and maybe even over commit to Africa, while Russia has a field day with you go right ahead.

On top that, Japan can spare a carrier to the Med by T3 if you really want it there, AND send a fighter/bomber pipeline to the West if you really want to.

The UK has nothing better to do than defend it’s waters, that is its primary objective, never forget that.  The game is built so the UK can and must defend its waters with success (meaning the UK can always successfully defend her waters and that will be a net benefit for the allies, not a waste of money/time/resources), so why plan on building a navy?  If the UK was built to be neuterd by Germany while Germany could succefully hold off/kill Russia what the hell is the point of having the UK in the game for, massive bomber builds?  It is almost the equivlant of a plan for the Allies to allow Russia to go toe to toe with Germany with the hopes of winning.  I guess it could happen with poor axis play, but it just isn’t that great a plan.

[jsp4563]

What the navy can do that air support can’t is protect transports in SZ5 so you can easliy ship units, especially infantry\artillery from Germany to Karelia in 1 move.  That’s the point Kevlar was making, and why I like a G1 naval build.  +1 Kevlar.

[Upside-down_Turtle]

Yes, but any good UK player won’t let any ships last long in the Baltic, in which case he (or she) would most likely use air power to sink it.  The best thing is probably to try and move your fleet to the med in support of Italy, that way you can land troop in Caucasus instead of Karelia.

[Pan]

Even though I mentioned a moderate sub tactic for Germany (+1 sub at most per turn) I have to side with those against a heavy naval strategy for Germany, especially a heavy naval G1 build.  Just to reiterate what others have said or alluded to, the UK has the advantage of being able to spend 100% of its funds each turn to sinking any German ship in the water.  I have never seen a German navy survive against a capable UK player.  At most you might set UK back a couple turns in getting their own navy going but at what cost?  You’ve devoted at least 50% of your spending in the Baltic and allowed Russia time to either build a defense against Japan or push into German territories which probably also cost you some valuable NO’s.  The UK starts 1941 with 43 IPCs and the Germans have 31.  Considering Germany has to split their funds between Russia and this navy while UK can spend everything to build a nice anti-Kriegsmarine RAF, who do you think is going to win that battle for the sea?

As others have mentioned, use the Luftwaffe (and I recommend a few subs) to delay a UK fleet until you can take away their IPCs in Africa and the Pacific.  Their threat decreases significantly when they only have 20 or so IPCs to spend each turn.  You can’t stop it but you might at least be able to control when and where.

I’d be willing to go out on a limb and say anyone who has successfully used a strong G1 naval build probably has not played a very competent UK player or one that is using a KJF strategy.

[dondoolee]

@Emperor:

What the navy can do that air support can’t is protect transports in SZ5 so you can easliy ship units, especially infantry\artillery from Germany to Karelia in 1 move.  That’s the point Kevlar was making, and why I like a G1 naval build.  +1 Kevlar.

I see what he is saying, and it is the best defense I have heard so far.  I still don’t think it is an optimal build though.  22 IPC’s on non aggressive units on T1 that I am guessing could be dead by T2, if the Allies find it neccasary to destroy and Italy can still be destroyed by T3 If the allies want.  So you shuttle out 2 extra units with a transport and lose a navy T2, while delaying the UK for 1 turn, and maybe the US for 1 turn on ship builds.  Is that worth it?

Another question to ask yourself, can the UK just ignore this navy?  All the UK needs is a fleet you can’t sink.  It can still kind of ignore an admittidly annoying navy while still funneling troops to Scandinavia and Western Europe, if it has a navy you can’t sink.  Is that money really best spent to funnel 2 extra units to russia?

Also, you could have built 2 fighters or a bomber and a fighter to help minimize the casualties when attacking karelia, and then land them there for defense, if you can hold it for a turn.

There may very well be opportunities later in the game to build a navy, but T1 just seems like a gambit and a half

[kevlar56]

Thanks all for the karma, I feel kinda like I’ve come home!  :-D  Perhaps I wasn’t completely clear on my second point, which is enticing the UK into desperately spending money to smash a German naval build.  The UK economy is based on territories spread all over the map and unless they want to see their IPC income shrink by 1/2 (or more!) they have to have both money to spend and troops in the right places to defend those territories.  To MY thinking (and this is just IMHO), if the UK spends enough to eliminate a Ger. Baltic Fleet it won’t have enough money to build and defend an IC in Ind. or SA and I believe at least one of those is a necessity unless the UK player is willing to be reduced to a minor power by turn 4 or 5. The corollary to that is that Japan (and possibly Italy) will be pulling in big bucks and able to dominate the eastern hemisphere/africa so much that they will dictate the strategic events of the endgame.  A Ger. CV build increases the strategic threat the UK has to face.  The opening for the Allies is a tightrope and the more decisions you force them to make, the greater the decision tree and the greater likelihood that errors will be made. 
Sorry for being so long-winded, but after reading so many threads about KGF’s and ‘unbeatable’ strategies, I’m just trying to bring things down to earth and present pragmatic ideas as to why a Ger. CV build, while perhaps not an “optimal” choice, is still a viable one and worthy of consideration as a strategic option for the German player.
Best regards,
Kevin

[dondoolee]

@kevlar56:

Thanks all for the karma, I feel kinda like I’ve come home!  :-D  Perhaps I wasn’t completely clear on my second point, which is enticing the UK into desperately spending money to smash a German naval build.  The UK economy is based on territories spread all over the map and unless they want to see their IPC income shrink by 1/2 (or more!) they have to have both money to spend and troops in the right places to defend those territories.  To MY thinking (and this is just IMHO), if the UK spends enough to eliminate a Ger. Baltic Fleet it won’t have enough money to build and defend an IC in Ind. or SA and I believe at least one of those is a necessity unless the UK player is willing to be reduced to a minor power by turn 4 or 5. The corollary to that is that Japan (and possibly Italy) will be pulling in big bucks and able to dominate the eastern hemisphere/africa so much that they will dictate the strategic events of the endgame.  A Ger. CV build increases the strategic threat the UK has to face.  The opening for the Allies is a tightrope and the more decisions you force them to make, the greater the decision tree and the greater likelihood that errors will be made. 
Sorry for being so long-winded, but after reading so many threads about KGF’s and ‘unbeatable’ strategies, I’m just trying to bring things down to earth and present pragmatic ideas as to why a Ger. CV build, while perhaps not an “optimal” choice, is still a viable one and worthy of consideration as a strategic option for the German player.
Best regards,
Kevin

I see the point clearly now, and while I still disagree I am going to play test it a few times Sunday it seems interesting in theory.  At least it is a strat that defends germany, pressures russia (due to the primary purpose being transport protection/shuttling 4 troops to a valuable front), and can make the UK think twice about a strat. 
Question though, is there such a thing as a UK “over commiting” to defend her seas?  I mean they can build too many capital ships which is bad, but other than that I don’t think there is such a thing as over commiting in that specific aspect of the war.  If the UK is absolutly forced into one theater, that’s going to be it right there.

[jsp4563]

@dondoolee:

@kevlar56:

Thanks all for the karma, I feel kinda like I’ve come home!  :-D  Perhaps I wasn’t completely clear on my second point, which is enticing the UK into desperately spending money to smash a German naval build.  The UK economy is based on territories spread all over the map and unless they want to see their IPC income shrink by 1/2 (or more!) they have to have both money to spend and troops in the right places to defend those territories.  To MY thinking (and this is just IMHO), if the UK spends enough to eliminate a Ger. Baltic Fleet it won’t have enough money to build and defend an IC in Ind. or SA and I believe at least one of those is a necessity unless the UK player is willing to be reduced to a minor power by turn 4 or 5. The corollary to that is that Japan (and possibly Italy) will be pulling in big bucks and able to dominate the eastern hemisphere/africa so much that they will dictate the strategic events of the endgame.  A Ger. CV build increases the strategic threat the UK has to face.  The opening for the Allies is a tightrope and the more decisions you force them to make, the greater the decision tree and the greater likelihood that errors will be made. 
Sorry for being so long-winded, but after reading so many threads about KGF’s and ‘unbeatable’ strategies, I’m just trying to bring things down to earth and present pragmatic ideas as to why a Ger. CV build, while perhaps not an “optimal” choice, is still a viable one and worthy of consideration as a strategic option for the German player.
Best regards,
Kevin

I see the point clearly now, and while I still disagree I am going to play test it a few times Sunday it seems interesting in theory.  At least it is a strat that defends germany, pressures russia (due to the primary purpose being transport protection/shuttling 4 troops to a valuable front), and can make the UK think twice about a strat. 
Question though, is there such a thing as a UK “over commiting” to defend her seas?  I mean they can build too many capital ships which is bad, but other than that I don’t think there is such a thing as over commiting in that specific aspect of the war.  If the UK is absolutly forced into one theater, that’s going to be it right there.

When considering a G1 naval build the first thing you need to do is drop the preconcieved notion that you are building a grand fleet to last through out the ages.  You have to assume that the allies aren’t going to sit idly by, and they will take steps to neutralize the threat.  The question then becomes how soon before they can do something about it.  T1 the UK Atlantic fleet has been all but destroyed and the RAF isn’t strong enough to take out the fleet UK1, they will have to buy either ships or planes, most likely planes.  The most they can buy would be 3fgt, 1bmb giving the RAF 5fgt, 2bmb certainly enough to take out the fleet but there will be heavy losses and they have abandoned Africa\Asia to Italy and Japan.  Germany will take Karelia before the UK can take out the fleet, at which point the usefulness of the fleet has diminished anyway.

So was the G1 naval build a waste if it’s sunk UK2?  If you look at it in isolation it certainly seems so, since you only got to use it for 2 rounds, but the overall picture looks very different.  Germany now has all their NO’s and a second IC on Russia’s northern flank.  Italy is free to gobble up Africa and with 20+ IPC and their Med fleet becomes a Major Player.  Japan will dominate the Pacific and Asia.  The US can’t contest it alone.

[bugoo]

Actually as the UK my typical buys to sink german boats are fighters, subs, and destroyers in that order.  Also, i followup with a heavy russian offensive (easy to do since G reinforcements will be so far away).

The problem is if you buy a german AC it does nothing but defend your boats from aircraft.  A simple UK purchase of 1-3 subs forces you to buy destroyers to protect your expensive fleet or watch it get toasted.  Even if you buy more boats on G2 the UK air+boats can usually smash it on turn 2.

If you buy normal boats (dds/bbs) then you dont get the defensive boost from your fighters and it is even more expensive.

My prefered Uk buy on turn 1 vs german boats is 2 subs + 3 figs.  Giving me a total punch of 23 and 8 hits against your fleet and I can still drop a nice navy on turn 2 with carriers.  Or i could go typical and grab 3 bombs and a tranny allowing me to smash italy’s fleet on UK2 if you reinforce your german fleet. (sending 2 inf into persia on R1 to ensure I can grab Trans-Jordan on R2 for an LZ.)

I hate to say it but germany doesn’t have the money or time on G1 to play around.  You need reinforcements against russia.

Now one thing I have played around with for german boats is an IC in france then seeding Italy’s fleet.  Often this allows me to place a carrier and some DDs in SZ 7 rallying with Italy’s fleet around turn 4 to protect france and then empty it of fighting men to push back the russians.  Not saying its a good idea (i need to experiment with it more) but it did seem to work well the couple of times i tried it.

[dondoolee]

@bugoo:

Actually as the UK my typical buys to sink german boats are fighters, subs, and destroyers in that order.  Also, i followup with a heavy russian offensive (easy to do since G reinforcements will be so far away).

The problem is if you buy a german AC it does nothing but defend your boats from aircraft.  A simple UK purchase of 1-3 subs forces you to buy destroyers to protect your expensive fleet or watch it get toasted.  Even if you buy more boats on G2 the UK air+boats can usually smash it on turn 2.

If you buy normal boats (dds/bbs) then you dont get the defensive boost from your fighters and it is even more expensive.

My prefered Uk buy on turn 1 vs german boats is 2 subs + 3 figs.  Giving me a total punch of 23 and 8 hits against your fleet and I can still drop a nice navy on turn 2 with carriers.  Or i could go typical and grab 3 bombs and a tranny allowing me to smash italy’s fleet on UK2 if you reinforce your german fleet. (sending 2 inf into persia on R1 to ensure I can grab Trans-Jordan on R2 for an LZ.)

I hate to say it but germany doesn’t have the money or time on G1 to play around.  You need reinforcements against russia.

Now one thing I have played around with for german boats is an IC in france then seeding Italy’s fleet.  Often this allows me to place a carrier and some DDs in SZ 7 rallying with Italy’s fleet around turn 4 to protect france and then empty it of fighting men to push back the russians.  Not saying its a good idea (i need to experiment with it more) but it did seem to work well the couple of times i tried it.

hell, if germany purchased 1 fully loaded carrier, all you would need is 3 subs why put planes at risk?  that is britain spending 18 of 43 ipc’s to great rid of a very mild 26 IPC (46 if you count the airplanes that would do nothing) threat.  Just one more reason not to go navy on early german turns.  Great post bugoo.

[dondoolee]

Maybe as a joke move, if you get an Italian player who insits on waiting a turn then buying a carrier (which I consider a waste of time) on UK1 you could just do an all sub purchass, then send them towards the Italians.  If you can sink the Italian fleet all you have to do is leave a sub or 2 in it’s waters and it can never build navy again.  I don’t know if that is the best thing one can do, but it’s kind of funny.

[bugoo]

I think the funny part of it all is, the allies are the ones who get the most use outta subs in the atlantic! lol.