G1 naval build?

[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.

[jsp4563]

@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.

I welcome your purchase of subs, it makes my strategy even more effective, you’v just bought units that will be worthless after you sink the German fleet, as I said earlier, I fully expect the fleet to be sunk, but I gain huge strategic advange by making the allies do so.  As UK what are you doing elsewhere while your buying theses subs and air to take out the German fleet?  Nothing….Thanks, Game over.  Italy and Japan will go unfettered, and the loss of the fleet to Germany is no real setback, they will be entrenched in Karelia and don’t have to worry about their Atlantic front.

[dondoolee]

2 submarines (12IPC’s) have a 52% chance of beating 2 trannies, 1 carrier, 1 cruiser, and 2 airplanes.  That is 40IPC’s  that have an over 50% chance on being sunk (not counting fig, obviously) T2 for a 12 IPC purchase.  Even if UK builds a 3rd sub, no way would that build be a net gain for Germany.  I can’t see that as something I would welcome.

Besides, after that, the surviving subs can still be used as part of an attack against the Italian navy, or sent to the pacific or both.  While it may not be a great build for the UK the cost isn’t completley sunk after the initial use of the subs, it’s not like the western axis are going to have any destroyers roaming about (unless you want to build a carrier a tranny and a destroyer, which would be suicidal.)

I am not saying a submarine build is the worlds greatest build, it is only one way to deal with a German navy in an effective manner. Certainly underming Germany’s build (by building just 2/3 cheap subs)  and giving the allies an advantage off such a build is a welcome thing for the Allies in the early part of the game.  Besides, the mere fact that the UK can put a submarine to use is a very funny/ tempting notion.

[bugoo]

What would i have to be doing? I would still be setup to drop a nice navy full of carriers on UK2 and the subs are cheap ‘fodder’ for when I do hit your fleet.  What is Germany doing when they have no real reinforcements against Russia until G3?  Entrenched in Kar I greatly doubt as i’ll land UK figs there to reinforce if I have to to stop a G2 takeover.  Keeping Germany from its 3rd NO is the only way to keep 'em honest.  SZ 7 is the ideal location for subs as they can be moved against Italy with ease.

You see by purchasing subs and figs I force Germany to play to my tune.  They ether dump alot of IPCs into her fleet or it gets sunk on UK2 typically as a good IPC trade for the allies.

[jsp4563]

Excellent posts gentlemen, prehaps there is some use for UK subs after all, I still remain skeptical.  I’m still curious, what is the UK doing elsewhere while plopping these subs in the water?  Have they abandoned Africa and the Far East?

Bourgeoisie Capitalist fighters on the soil of Mother Russia?!  Stalin would have a fit, not to mention it would cost them their NO. :-D

I still think a G1 naval build is a viable strategy.  The alternative is to lose the batltic fleet UK1 with no real cost to the allies.

[bugoo]

Depends on how many boats and which ones i have left as UK vs a baltic fleet.  Typically i’ll sacrifice my transport to grab finland/norway with plane support, or hide my bomber somewhere like persia to trade with, or try to bait G into hitting my boats with there air, it really depends.  Sometimes i’ll just build destroyers and an AC in SZ 6 to blockade the G fleet and kill them at my leisure, as carriers are really bad at attacking.  The big thing is this, UK’s job is to keep Russia alive by costing Germany IPCs.  This can be done by taking there land, killing there units, bombing there factories, or watching them build boats and sinking them.  I always make sure if they sail out of harbor, they will die.

And if you ever have to choose between denying Russia 5 IPCs to deny Germany 7, do it.

Also keep in mind this is from a KGF mindset using LL, i leave Africa and Italy to the US, where it belongs.  To hell with japan they don’t even enter the game till turn 3, usually not till turn 4 aside from taking my money.  By then Germany is loosing ground to Russia, the UK is threating Berlin/France heavily, and Italy has no boats nor NOs with a US fleet in the water.  Then, after japan gets a few factories going will i build a harassment US fleet in the pacific.

[dondoolee]

@Emperor:

Excellent posts gentlemen, prehaps there is some use for UK subs after all, I still remain skeptical.  I’m still curious, what is the UK doing elsewhere while plopping these subs in the water?  Have they abandoned Africa and the Far East?

Bourgeoisie Capitalist fighters on the soil of Mother Russia?!  Stalin would have a fit, not to mention it would cost them their NO. :-D

I still think a G1 naval build is a viable strategy.  The alternative is to lose the batltic fleet UK1 with no real cost to the allies.

I am enjoying this debate as well.
I usually try to avoid UK troops on USSR land (if NO’s are on).  Off the top of my head, I could just build 2/3 subs and sit on the rest of the money (or build a few ground troops) and prepare for a T3 attack on Europe/Afr, which is usually about the time the UK does anything for me anyway.  A factory build may also be an option.  Another radical option (I have no idea how well it would work) would be an Allied T1 all bomber build.  That may be enough bombers to wipe out both fleets and have some bombers left over to do dmg elsewhere.

But as far as more conservative play, I would try to find ways to just ignore the navy (I can still land in Afr/ W. Eur/ Nor) and make sure I had a navy that couldn’t be sunk.  If you built a navy, I could still get a navy started T1 by icceland w/o worrying about getting sunk.  Russia is going to get about two turns to really shore up her forces on Germany, which as an allied player I would find a good thing.

Here is really what is driving me wild though, I have seen people advocate A german carrier, a german tranny with an Italian carrier/fig build, and even some say an extra Italian tranny and an extra German destroyer.  I don’t think the UK has to worry too much about anything with a build like that as Russia can just mop the floor with both Italy and Germany simultaneously with an opening build like that, they may even have enough troops to speed bump Japan a little too.

[jsp4563]

@bugoo:

Depends on how many boats and which ones i have left as UK vs a baltic fleet.  Typically i’ll sacrifice my transport to grab finland/norway with plane support, or hide my bomber somewhere like persia to trade with, or try to bait G into hitting my boats with there air, it really depends.  Sometimes i’ll just build destroyers and an AC in SZ 6 to blockade the G fleet and kill them at my leisure, as carriers are really bad at attacking.  The big thing is this, UK’s job is to keep Russia alive by costing Germany IPCs.  This can be done by taking there land, killing there units, bombing there factories, or watching them build boats and sinking them.  I always make sure if they sail out of harbor, they will die.

And if you ever have to choose between denying Russia 5 IPCs to deny Germany 7, do it.

Also keep in mind this is from a KGF mindset using LL, i leave Africa and Italy to the US, where it belongs.  To hell with japan they don’t even enter the game till turn 3, usually not till turn 4 aside from taking my money.  By then Germany is loosing ground to Russia, the UK is threating Berlin/France heavily, and Italy has no boats nor NOs with a US fleet in the water.  Then, after japan gets a few factories going will i build a harassment US fleet in the pacific.

LL?!  That was never part of the equation, the game wasn’t meant to be played with anything but ADS, there’s a reason for that.  ADS compensates for all the incalculable variables of war that can’t be incorporated into the game, strength of the commanders, terrain, weather, etc. IMO it takes all the fun out of the game, you might as well play chess.

You ignore Japan at your peril, an unfettered Japan will have 60+ IPC and be knocking on the door of Caucaus by T3.

[jsp4563]

@dondoolee:

@Emperor:

Excellent posts gentlemen, prehaps there is some use for UK subs after all, I still remain skeptical.  I’m still curious, what is the UK doing elsewhere while plopping these subs in the water?  Have they abandoned Africa and the Far East?

Bourgeoisie Capitalist fighters on the soil of Mother Russia?!  Stalin would have a fit, not to mention it would cost them their NO. :-D

I still think a G1 naval build is a viable strategy.  The alternative is to lose the batltic fleet UK1 with no real cost to the allies.

I am enjoying this debate as well.
I usually try to avoid UK troops on USSR land (if NO’s are on).  Off the top of my head, I could just build 2/3 subs and sit on the rest of the money (or build a few ground troops) and prepare for a T3 attack on Europe/Afr, which is usually about the time the UK does anything for me anyway.  A factory build may also be an option.  Another radical option (I have no idea how well it would work) would be an Allied T1 all bomber build.  That may be enough bombers to wipe out both fleets and have some bombers left over to do dmg elsewhere.

But as far as more conservative play, I would try to find ways to just ignore the navy (I can still land in Afr/ W. Eur/ Nor) and make sure I had a navy that couldn’t be sunk.  If you built a navy, I could still get a navy started T1 by icceland w/o worrying about getting sunk.  Russia is going to get about two turns to really shore up her forces on Germany, which as an allied player I would find a good thing.

Here is really what is driving me wild though, I have seen people advocate A german carrier, a german tranny with an Italian carrier/fig build, and even some say an extra Italian tranny and an extra German destroyer.  I don’t think the UK has to worry too much about anything with a build like that as Russia can just mop the floor with both Italy and Germany simultaneously with an opening build like that, they may even have enough troops to speed bump Japan a little too.

Look at the map after G1, UK has only a TP, and DD left off the Coast of E. Canada.  There can be up to 3 Geman SS left in the atlantic.  Germany has just built a fleet in SZ5 (make up undetermined…as I have only advocated a G1 naval purchase, not a G1 CV purchase).  UK has two options, Kill the fleet UK2 or Ignore it.  Killing it means a huge investment for that purpose at the expense of all other options, or ignore it, which means it can be added to or not at Germany’s discretion.  In either case the allies have to react, and Germany’s baltic fleet isn’t going to davy jones locker UK1.

[Omega]

After theoretical talking with my friend, we concluded that the German Baltic fleet was very useful, especially at sending infantry to the front. Plus, a decent fleet can be a small threat to London. I’m not sure how much to buy though. A CV sounds ok if you want your fleet to survive UK1. Or you could make a cruiser. But then, UK can still sink it. UK has 2 fighter and a Bomber on London that can attack the Baltic Fleet. 
A CV with 2 aircraft on it sounds like the best option to survive UK1. That leaves German with 16IPC to spend on ground unit. Granted that Russia can not go offensive on his first round, buying mostly infantry with the 16 remaining IPC look like decent. After G and R 1, Germany should have alot more IPC to spend on ground units
With the Baltic fleet, you can spend 8-12 IPC a turn to keep it alive a little longer.
On G2, Karelia should be “easy to take” with ground units from Finland, Baltic states, tanks and aircraft. One shore bombardment too with 2 infantry in amphibious attack. If UK makes a fleet, some Submarine are great to sink them.

If only German had access to MED! They could use the transports to move infantry to the frontline faster!

Robert

EDIT: My bad, CV  costs 14. So it leaves Germany with 17. He can easily build 4 infantry + 1 tank. The tank is fast enough on its own to reach the eastern front. 2 infantry to be shipped via the transport for amphibious attack on Karelia G2. The two other can be used to reinforce France.

[katfishkris]

the guy i play against always builds a IC in France G1.  then G2 he builds a navy in the med to hook up with Italy’s navy.  he amasses a huge navy in SZ13, which is troublesome.  from there he can attack caucasus or london, or head for africa.  so i let him build it, while i stock pile men and fighters in UK, and build a fleet and tanks in SAF.  the USA sends fighters and bombers to UK, and bothers JAP in the pacific. meanwhile russia gets her poop in a group, and starts to harass GER from the east.  the axis navy in the med just keeps me from getting to loose.  keep things tight, and it is just a matter of time before GER looks kind of barren, or overrun with Ruskies.

[cymerdown]

So, the big question that makes this whole discussion moot is: What does building navy in the Baltic actually -do-?  What is the goal of building it?

1. It ferries a few additional troops to Karelia faster.
Ok, but taking and holding the Karelia factory accomplishes the same purpose without wasting IPCs on building navy.  In any case, the land units you build in Germany will get to the eastern front eventually, whether by walking there or taking a transport.  Does a few of them getting there slightly faster until the navy dies accomplish that much (i.e., is there a quick attack that kills Russia very fast where you need those few extra troops in the east a couple of turns earlier)?  Nah.  The game designers were smart enough to make sure there’s no cute tactics like that which Germany can pull - it takes at least 6 turns or so to really take Moscow against any sort of decent Russian player, and the Baltic fleet should be dead long before then if you don’t play the naval arms war with England more than a carrier or two.

2. It threatens the UK with invasion.
There is no way that Germany can build enough of a navy to compete with the UK -and- hold the east against Russia.  It’s just not possible with the IPCs that Germany has access to in the beginning of the game.  So, one or the other will have to go.  Besides, the UK can easily build enough land units to prevent Germany from ever really taking the UK.  US can come with assist if it’s ever needed, but it won’t.  So this threat is empty in that it doesn’t gain any territories for Germany, and they’ll be losing territories to Russia while sitting around building this empty threat.

3. It makes the UK focus on fleet for an extra turn or two instead of prepping invasion of France or Scandinavia.
Ok, but it also makes Germany focus on building ships instead of land/air units, like they should be.  So this is a trade-off, and one that Axis can’t really afford to make IMO.  UK will eventually crush the Baltic fleet, and by crush I mean not a fair battle.  Axis will lose on the IPC trade and UK should be left with a fleet that is unassailable, and -then- they can start the invasion prep.  Also, by building ships, Germany is going to start losing instead of gaining land IPCs to Russia as they begin losing the land arms race since they are preoccupied with ship building.

So, I think we’re left with admitting that building ships as Germany has no real goal to it, and therefore, it’s a bad move.  Whether it’s a lone carrier, or something more substantive, those Baltic ships that Germany builds will either sit there useless, or get destroyed, and you’ll wish you had spent those IPCs on something else, like maybe inf/arm/fig/bmb.

[Woodstock]

@cymerdown:

So, the big question that makes this whole discussion moot is: What does building navy in the Baltic actually -do-?  What is the goal of building it?

1. It ferries a few additional troops to Karelia faster.
Ok, but taking and holding the Karelia factory accomplishes the same purpose without wasting IPCs on building navy.  In any case, the land units you build in Germany will get to the eastern front eventually, whether by walking there or taking a transport.  Does a few of them getting there slightly faster until the navy dies accomplish that much (i.e., is there a quick attack that kills Russia very fast where you need those few extra troops in the east a couple of turns earlier)?  Nah.  The game designers were smart enough to make sure there’s no cute tactics like that which Germany can pull - it takes at least 6 turns or so to really take Moscow against any sort of decent Russian player, and the Baltic fleet should be dead long before then if you don’t play the naval arms war with England more than a carrier or two.

Not just Karelia. Scandinavia aswell. UK and RUS can easily take that, taking valuable IPC’s from Germany. Beig able to ship some men there helps out a lot.

2. It threatens the UK with invasion.
There is no way that Germany can build enough of a navy to compete with the UK -and- hold the east against Russia.  It’s just not possible with the IPCs that Germany has access to in the beginning of the game.  So, one or the other will have to go.  Besides, the UK can easily build enough land units to prevent Germany from ever really taking the UK.  US can come with assist if it’s ever needed, but it won’t.  So this threat is empty in that it doesn’t gain any territories for Germany, and they’ll be losing territories to Russia while sitting around building this empty threat.

If UK has to resort to defending, my goal is already accomplished. That means less British IPC spent elsewhere. That means a field day for Japan.
As for Russia, let them come. Once they get stretched far enough, they’ll be pushed back again. In the meanwhile Japan is nearing from the East.

3. It makes the UK focus on fleet for an extra turn or two instead of prepping invasion of France or Scandinavia.
Ok, but it also makes Germany focus on building ships instead of land/air units, like they should be.  So this is a trade-off, and one that Axis can’t really afford to make IMO.  UK will eventually crush the Baltic fleet, and by crush I mean not a fair battle.  Axis will lose on the IPC trade and UK should be left with a fleet that is unassailable, and -then- they can start the invasion prep.  Also, by building ships, Germany is going to start losing instead of gaining land IPCs to Russia as they begin losing the land arms race since they are preoccupied with ship building.

UK focus on fleet for an extra turn or two

You mean, delay UK by a turn or two? Great. Another goal achieved.

So, I think we’re left with admitting that building ships as Germany has no real goal to it

In your opinion, yes. In my opinion, no. There’s other goals that you didn’t describe yet (next to delaying UK in building a fleet, you will also eventually have a very big chance to wipe out the same fleet, whilst Ger is sitting on +50 ipc, and UK is sitting on +20 IPC. Good luck in rebuilding the UK fleet after it got wiped…) and so on.

Look, I cant say it just as good as Mollari and some others did , so I am just gonna say…

“Prretty much everything MOllari and those others said” :P

[dondoolee]

@Emperor:

@dondoolee:

@Emperor:

Excellent posts gentlemen, prehaps there is some use for UK subs after all, I still remain skeptical.  I’m still curious, what is the UK doing elsewhere while plopping these subs in the water?  Have they abandoned Africa and the Far East?

Bourgeoisie Capitalist fighters on the soil of Mother Russia?!  Stalin would have a fit, not to mention it would cost them their NO. :-D

I still think a G1 naval build is a viable strategy.  The alternative is to lose the batltic fleet UK1 with no real cost to the allies.

I am enjoying this debate as well.
I usually try to avoid UK troops on USSR land (if NO’s are on).  Off the top of my head, I could just build 2/3 subs and sit on the rest of the money (or build a few ground troops) and prepare for a T3 attack on Europe/Afr, which is usually about the time the UK does anything for me anyway.  A factory build may also be an option.  Another radical option (I have no idea how well it would work) would be an Allied T1 all bomber build.  That may be enough bombers to wipe out both fleets and have some bombers left over to do dmg elsewhere.

But as far as more conservative play, I would try to find ways to just ignore the navy (I can still land in Afr/ W. Eur/ Nor) and make sure I had a navy that couldn’t be sunk.  If you built a navy, I could still get a navy started T1 by icceland w/o worrying about getting sunk.  Russia is going to get about two turns to really shore up her forces on Germany, which as an allied player I would find a good thing.

Here is really what is driving me wild though, I have seen people advocate A german carrier, a german tranny with an Italian carrier/fig build, and even some say an extra Italian tranny and an extra German destroyer.  I don’t think the UK has to worry too much about anything with a build like that as Russia can just mop the floor with both Italy and Germany simultaneously with an opening build like that, they may even have enough troops to speed bump Japan a little too.

Look at the map after G1, UK has only a TP, and DD left off the Coast of E. Canada.  There can be up to 3 Geman SS left in the atlantic.  Germany has just built a fleet in SZ5 (make up undetermined…as I have only advocated a G1 naval purchase, not a G1 CV purchase).  UK has two options, Kill the fleet UK2 or Ignore it.  Killing it means a huge investment for that purpose at the expense of all other options, or ignore it, which means it can be added to or not at Germany’s discretion.  In either case the allies have to react, and Germany’s baltic fleet isn’t going to davy jones locker UK1.

@ Mollinari: To be honest, in over 50% of the games before UK1 I lose every naval piece on the map other than the AUS Navy.  If the UK has any ship left other than that it is considerd a great luxury, and will turn into a giant pain in the butt for Germany (and on 1 occasion my destroyer in India survived and took out 2 fig for japan, that was an awsome day for the allies).  I am used to getting the worst set up in the world with the UK (I still struggle when germany takes Egy and has 2 tanks left over AND blows up all my navy).

Regardless, the allies always have to react to the Axis on the early turns.  I don’t see that neccasarily as a disadvantage.  What is worse is when the Axis do something and FORCE you to make a move.  For Example, If Italy and Germany forgoe a navy, Italy focuses on Tank production and creating a decent tank force, around T3 Russia is going to be Forced into only defending 2 out of 3 critical areas much of the time in fear of a double hit.  Also, it wont be able to leave any 1 man Inf guarding a critical area, as Italy can take it out, and Germany can storm in and hit the Critical territory.  That’s a great way to get Karelia (and if you’re really lucky the Cauc)

[jsp4563]

The alternative to not making a G1 naval purchase is the allies will sink the baltic fleet UK1 at little or no cost and UK is free to spend it’s 43 ducets causing mischief in Africa and Asia.

[axis_roll]

@Emperor:

The alternative to not making a G1 naval purchase is the allies will sink the baltic fleet UK1 at little or no cost and UK is free to spend it’s 43 ducets causing mischief in Africa and Asia.

Is that such a big loss to Germany?  Moving into Karelia via the ground is much cheaper safer and easier to accomplish.

If Germany is marching quickly on Russia, newly added UK units in far flung SAF won’t do much to stop that.

[jsp4563]

@axis_roll:

@Emperor:

The alternative to not making a G1 naval purchase is the allies will sink the baltic fleet UK1 at little or no cost and UK is free to spend it’s 43 ducets causing mischief in Africa and Asia.

Is that such a big loss to Germany?  Moving into Karelia via the ground is much cheaper safer and easier to accomplish.

If Germany is marching quickly on Russia, newly added UK units in far flung SAF won’t do much to stop that.

I’ve always maintained that the fleet will eventually be sunk, the point is to make the allies commit significant resources to do so, those are resources not spent elsewhere which is to Italy\Japan’s advantage.  The loss of the fleet is only a minor set back to Germany but it get’s Karelia in force G2 and helps Italy and Japan expand their IPC base.  If the allies don’t move to immediately sink that fleet, even better.

I’ve never claimed that it is a better strategy than any other, only that it’s viable and has advantages.

[Bardoly]

I’ve never claimed that it is a better strategy than any other, only that it’s viable and has advantages.

Exactly right!
When you play each and every game exactly the same, then I’m ready to find a different opponent.  One should always have a few different openers/strategies so as to not fall into a rut.