I normally put my IC in Man, but I’ve been considering going for the islands on turn 2 if it looks like a KGF strat.
G1 naval build?
-
Well, that plan hinges on USA going Pacific. But the decision to buy navy G1 occurs before USA1. So the Baltic fleet idea depends on USA making a mistake and going the wrong way. If USA goes Atlantic, then Italy is unlikely to expand and Germany will have a hard time defending its shores after spending 44-56 ipcs on boats that are sunk UK3. Since in this scenario Germany loses all of its air (except perhaps a bomber), then the Allies will be able to attack Europe with 2 different fleets without fear of being sunk.
Bear in mind also that UK should invest in a fleet on the turn when it sinks the fleet. So on UK3 it puts down a starting fleet (it needs only 1 dd 1 ac, since the Luftwaffe will be no more) and can invade Scandinavia or Africa right away on UK4.
Plus, keep in mind that in the 41 scenario Germany starts out way short on infantry. If Germany spends 44-56 on navy G1 and G2, then there is no way Germany’s income will be above 50 after G2 because the Russians will be come forward and will have a good shot at getting a stack on East Poland. The Luftwaffe will be destroyed so Germany won’t benefit from trades. Scandinavia will be overrun by UK4, so from R5 on Russia will be in a good position to get its big NO and will be almost as strong as Germany financially. If played properly, Russia will probably be on the offensive the entire game.
Germany building navy is the ideal scenario for a KGF game, because it gives the Allies a way to trade with Germany favorably in the early rounds, and allows Russia to gain the upper hand in the land war.
-
We’re talking 22 IPC on G1 and 28 IPC on G2 though, so that’s only 50 IPC over two turns, Germany will easily have the troops to press the attack.
But I do agree, Germany needs not to spend any cash on Navy round 2 if America goes fleet, but the carrier is still a good build since it puts pressure on SZ 2 immediately making it statistically prohibitive for England to put ships in the water there. (Germany can easily have 6 fighters, bomber in range of SZ 8 as well.) In which case, the carrier does still buy a delay in England and added pressure in Russia.
The German fleet, on the other hand, does not really give Russia any tactical advantage on Round 1. It won’t on round 2 either and by Round 3, Germany should have plenty of infnatry on the ground to trade for two rounds without having to bring up reinforcements if necessary (because England’s got a large fleet and you want to make it very costly to sink yours by putting the battleships and carrier in).
Further, since by Germany 3 America should be well committed to the Pacific (because you are not building any navy on Germany 2 if America puts carriers and destroyers in SZ 10 instead of SZ 56) then England should be financially crippled, Russia locked in red territories (Japan should be in India/Persia and Evenki/Yakut by now, as well as next to if not in Chihang forcing Russia to divert troops to holding the line on their aft while using troops to push back on Germany) that a German fleet could be the difference between winning the game and losing the game.
After all, if England’s dumping 40-30 IPC a round into aircraft, they are not reinforcing Russia nor are they reclaiming Africa. (And they cannot afford that Industrial in India, so that’ll fall super fast to a strong Japanese attack down south, by which I mean, a Japanese Industrial in Burma round 1 - 1942 version, FIC - 1941 version.)
Yes, America is putting pressure on Japan, but America has a large disadvantage in fleet strength to recover from first, before they can match and out build the Japanese. (Not to mention, me tossing down a Japanese battleship or two as well as a couple of destroyers periodically throughout the game is not completely unheard of, Japan can afford 20 IPC, 16 IPC, 20 IPC easily with a 60 IPC income.)
-
BTW, I am NOT implying this is an automatic win strategy!
A lot of things can happen:
1) England’s battleship survives Germany 1. (It’s happened even with fighter, bomber, 2 submarines in the attack.)
2) England’s fighters do exceptionally well early, and your fleet is sunk before you’re ready.
3) England’s fighters do exceptionally bad and you do not need to put in nearly as much IPC as the plan called for.
4) Russia’s defense is crippling and you need to alter your strategy after turn 1.
5) Russia lays down and dies without firing a shot giving you the ability to put out more armor and fighters than you originally planned for.
6) America goes Pacific Round 1 in a feint and dumps 2 rounds of submarines in SZ 10 afterwards uniting with the SZ 56 fleet on Round 4 starting African invasions Round 4 or 5 -
You know the funny thing about this is you have a post on Page 2 that’s a lot more sensible than your recent posts on this topic…
Okay, with more experience now, if, and that’s a HUGE IF, you decide to build navy on Germany 1, as if someone had a gun to my head and threatened to kill me and I balanced the loss of position on the board to be worth my life, here’s what I would say to build:
31 IPC to spend on Round 1:
2 Aircraft Carriers >> 28 IPC
+4 Already Owned FightersThis is the only way you’re going to have enough firepower to make that transport last for a few rounds, IMHO. Otherwise, England and America are going to have enough bombers by round 2 to sink whatever you have in SZ 5.
This seems reasonable to me….maybe playing 42 instead of 41 has skewed your perspective? Indeed, given your proposed opening, you take a substantial risk only hitting SZ6 with a sub/dd. If either you don’t kill the dd or (worse) the fig and sub die, then you will have no fig to land on sz5 (assuming you are hitting SZ2 and SZ12, which requires your other 3 figs). So the only way to really be sure your fleet will survive is to go ahead and buy a 2nd dd for a total investment of 30$ G1. Either that, or forego 2 or 12, improving the Allied position still further.
However you stretch it, if Allies invest in air power, they will force you to either abandon your expensive fleet to destruction on UK2 or UK3, or engage in a protracted build-up where the Allies will inevitably get the better of the exchange. And the initial naval investment will cost Germany on the ground (ie 7 less land units then they should have had). At this point the KGF will burn Germany to the ground…Germany won’t have the defense to resist. Don’t pretend that you can buy only 3 infantry on G1 and still hold more than 1 national objective after G3…it ain’t happening, a good Russia will advance on East Poland on R3 or R4…at that point if you attack that stack then you probably have nothing left to defend France/Germany with. Germany is thin on infantry at the outset of 41…this is why KGF is the most viable option.
Against a well-executed KGF, Germany cannot afford to throw away 50 ipcs on navy just to delay UK a turn or 2.
And investing in fighters is not a liability to United Kingdom. Those extra fighters will be useful every single turn for the duration of the game; they will help UK get maximum value in exchanges AND project power to France and Germany, forcing Germany to defend those locations, and weakening Germany’s position vis a vis Russia still further. Combine that with the loss of the German Luftwaffe on UK3, then you are granting the Allies air superiority for the entire game.
-
Well, page 2 is a year ago, and yes, I am more thinking along the terms of 1942 even though we are in the 1941 thread.
However, I still cannot help but think that 4 or 5 rounds without England landing troops in Africa or Europe has got to be worth it. I can make Russia fall in 5 or 6 rounds, so we’re talking an English threat a round before Russia falls. As far as I can tell.
-
@Cmdr:
Well, page 2 is a year ago, and yes, I am more thinking along the terms of 1942 even though we are in the 1941 thread.
However, I still cannot help but think that 4 or 5 rounds without England landing troops in Africa or Europe has got to be worth it. I can make Russia fall in 5 or 6 rounds, so we’re talking an English threat a round before Russia falls. As far as I can tell.
I’m talking exclusively about 41. German navy is much more viable in 42. I don’t think it’s the best strategy, but I don’t consider it an error.
German navy in 41 and German navy in 42 are entirely different discussions, and are impacted by the vastly different positions on the boards…most prominently Germany is way weaker and has insufficient infantry at the start in 41. Maybe you can spend 40+ ipc on surface navy in 42 and still be offensive against Russia but you certainly cannot in 41.
-
I must admit that I jumped from page 3 to 7 so please forgive me if this theory has been discussed already.
Most seem to agree on these premises regarding German navy builds:
-
A: Main objective: Delay D-day
-
B: Secondary objective: Ship units to Karelia/Scandinavia
-
C: Major problem: Cost
-
D: Major problem: Vulnerable to RAF counter(UK fighter builds)
-
E: Minor problem: May end up in sub-optimal battles on the defense. Dilemma in when to abandon
I think a submarine - aircraft combo might be a solution.
Further analyses:
A: OK the main objective is to keep any invasion fleets at bay. To some extend this can be accomplished with the Luftwaffe, but this leaves Germany lacking in cheap cannon fodder, resulting in costly battles. Combining submarines and planes could solve this problem. This would require deployment of Luftwaffe in a position to strike in the Atlantic. The disadvantage is obviously that it makes it difficult to utilize especially fighters vs Russia. Using Bombers can alleviate this problem fairly effeciently.B: Forget this with a submarine strategy. The surface ships are doomed to be air raided.
C: Obviously submarines are far cheaper than surface ships. 2 on each of the first couple of turns will make a major difference if you mange to be very aggressive (more on that later).
D: Submarines are immune to air raids, if you don’t let enemy destroyers attack you.
E: Submarines are less likely to be cornered and end up in a undesirable battle, but if it happens it is liekly to get extremely ugly.
They key is to be very aggressive and attack ANY destroyer that gets within range of the Baltic sea. If it’s just a lonely destroyer, send one sub and the Luftwaffe. If it is a major fleet, you have to all-out attack with all subs and the Luftwaffe (and pray you got the math right and kept enough air power in range.) It takes a fairly significant fleet to challenge 4 subs and 4-6 planes. There will be some tricky movement, and I may have missed some finer points here. Is it doable?
-
-
Given that my navy strategy is working great in a 1941 game against an oppenent on this forum, I really can’t say it’s an error, but maybe not the greatest idea of all time either.
Currently we have Germany with:
4 Fighters
2 Carriers
2 Battleships
2 Cruisers
3 Destroyers
7 Submarines (Super)
4 TransportsAnd the allies with:
6 Fighters (2 American)
3 Carriers
2 Battleships
1 Cruiser
4 Destroyers (1 American)
5 Submarines (1 Russian)
3 TransportsBoth sides have one bomber on the mainland they could bring when they attack.
England is completely out of Africa, tho it remains not 100% captured.
Russia is pressed on all sides, though will liberate Karelia for the first time since Round 2. But the Germans, Japanese and Italians are posed for a three pronged attack on Caucasus should the Russians stack there.
Japan’s got two decent sized forces flanking the northern and southern approaches and has eliminated china as any real threat.
America;s attempted two naval incursions into Japanese waters, both have been repelled causeing the Americans to have to rebuild. This could be why the German naval strat is working so far.
I admit, it was very risky putting two full rounds of income into the water for Germany on Rounds 5 and 6, but I think it paid off since the entire allied force has to sit in SZ 6, cannot sink SZ 5 (without major additions to their attack capabilities - film at eleven) and Russia has been on her own for 6 rounds.
As I see it, 50% of Germany’s income goes to negating the Allied fleet at this point. And half of Japan’s income does the same to start rebuilding to fight off the third American incursion.
Thus, we have:
Japan (62) = 31 IPC
Germany (56) = 28 IPC
Italy (24) = 24 IPCvs
Russia (26) = 26 IPC
Virtually each attacking nation has more income than Russia makes each round and the Allies have no ability to land a serious force in Euro-Africa.
For the record: With an NO, England is making 29 IPC, so Germany’s 28 IPC to counter is equivalent to what he can build in a round.
America is making 48 IPC which out strips Japan’s income, but America has to come over to attack Japan, I can sit in a defensive position and build fighters to juggle and attack should he get close. (Launch 4 from the ground, 4 from carriers to get 8 fighters, etc.)
While I realize the above is a case study, much as my much acclaimed game of Kill Japan First in AAR against NCSC_Switch where he claimed over and over and over again that Russia could never hold it’s own against Germany without American’s assistance and I pulled off the Russian triple and pounded the snot out of Germany with the British demonstrating it could be done, case studies do not prove the rule, they only demonstrate that it is possible and anything that can be done once, can be done again.
Yes, I know maybe you got lucky dice…well, over 37 turns, lucky dice should have evened out somewhere.
Thus, my claim is, even in 1941, a German flotilla can be built and maintained denying the Russians their 10 IPC National Objective and, in fact, assuring Germany at least two of their National Objectives every round, and, in my case, all of them for at least half the game.
I will, however, admit that my opponent did not go full aircraft, and if he had, things might be different. I do not know, we would have to play another game and find out. The issue that would be raised is the same one that I ran into with Mr. Switch. Namely, your opponent would know your tactics prior to the game, you could not evaluate the board and decide to change strategies to compensate for the dice here or there, because you are testing a specific strategy. These two flaws may nullify your test. Luckily for me, Mr. Switch was a formula player and when I did not play by his formula, his entire strategy rolled up and died. (Coincidentally, this was also why he started to hate me and eventually left the boards altogether.)
Anyway, I only use that game to demonstrate that not all strategies that may not work against some players will work exceptionally well against others. Mr. Switch was considered a very strong player, yet, he was unable to shift gears from an Allied KGF strategy to an Allied KJF/Slow Germany strategy and thus lost the game in very short order. Similarly, my opponent expressed surprise to my German opening with a navy build and may not have been practiced in repelling such a strategy, thus chose the route he chose to counter it. Of course, I cannot read his mind and he may have a dastardly trick up his sleeve, fact remains, we are in Round 7 and the Allied forces are not in Grey territories (I lost Scandinavia between England 6 and Germany 7, but it was immediately reclaimed.) The allies have never invaded Africa (though the Germans stand in silent vigil awaiting the day Patton or Montegomery do!)
It is my, most humble of opinions, that it may be a proper opening for Germany to put a Carrier and a destroyer in the water round 1, see what the allies do, and if America goes after Japan, then keep building to stay equivalent to what England builds (remember, you should have a naval advantage at the start of England 1, one in which he will have to overcome to sink your fleet whether with submarines, fighters, surface ships or whatever.)
If America comes after you, well, your transport has lived for at least 3 rounds before your fleet is sunk, and you can pull the fighters before that happens minimizing your losses if you want too. (or if the battle is close, I sometimes leave them there, to inflict damage and perhaps, allow me to win anyway.) Meanwhile, that puts immediate threat on Karelia, and ability to reinfore Scandinavia.
-
One point Calvin made above that bears repeating is that given the weighty Axis advantage, lots of strategies can work, particularly if you don’t play with bids.
I’m sure people have won the game using Baltic fleets. But in my experience beating a Baltic fleet in 41 is a pretty simple task (though to be fair I never play Allies without a bid).
In Revised, it took a long time to work through the various German naval strats and figure them all out. The complexity and flexibility of naval strats in Revised is why they were so popular and why they were so hard to beat (except among elite Allied players who know exactly what to do). On GTO they are still developing new German naval strats because…well…German navy works in Revised.
The 41 rule set is a different beast. Because of the new transport and sub rules, air has an advantage over navy. The division of labor among the Allies is clear. Russia plays aggressive, infantry at first, tanks later, then push forward across Eastern Europe like a slingshot. One Western ally builds nothing but fighters and bombers until the German fleet is dead. The other builds half air (to kill Italy fleet) half fleet, concentrating on capturing Africa while building up. Also USA can mop up transports in 5 if UK attacks but is unable to finish the job.
Normally, the Baltic fleet dies UK2 or Uk3, and the Italy fleet dies USA3. Then the KGF storms into Europe, and is highly accelerated if Germany loses its fighters in SZ5.
I have yet to see Germany spend the 22$ G1 for the base fleet and still win against these tactics. The key thing is that one of the allies buys nothing but air. So far I don’t have the experience to theorize on whether it’s better for the UK or the USA to perform this role, but what matters is one of them need to go all air, the other needs to take care of med fleet/Africa and get a baseline fleet going.
If you check out the 41 tourney, a number of players have attempted Baltic navy strats, and from what I can tell the results have not been good.
Good discussion Jen, maybe we can test all this out sometime if you’re willing to grant a reasonable Allied bid…since most players aren’t, I’ve been playing mostly Axis on here.
-
Honestly, I’ve never tried it with an allied bid and, as I said before, I dont think a hard line approach to building a fleet is a wise idea if America comes in the Atlantic. In that case, IMHO, the Carrier/Destroyer is good enough to stop England from sinking the fleet for a few rounds giving Germany the option to use her transport. It also should dissuade England from building a bunch of ships since it locks America into going to SZ 8 to protect them instead of Africa to liberate/conquer.
That along is worth the 22 IPC invested. And as long as the odds are 40% or better for your defense, you can leave the fighters there since they might turn that 40% into 100% chance of something living at the cost of your attackers! (Besides, with a 50-60IPC paycheck, you can afford 2 fighters to replace them. You might have to build fighters to fill the quota of your industrial complex and use all your cash without buying navy.)
The other strategy that MIGHT work, is 4 submarines a round with Germany. It’s only 2 IPC more for the first round than the destroyer/carrier - they cant be sunk by British airpower but they also dont protect that transport at all.
Of course, you COULD try a fleet unification, clearing the SZs with fighters and putting the Med/Baltic fleet together as well. I dunno if that would work, but it certainly would panic England to protect against invasion or get America to come protect it.
-
Most seem to agree on these premises regarding German navy builds:
•A: Main objective: Delay D-day
•B: Secondary objective: Ship units to Karelia/Scandinavia
•C: Major problem: Cost
•D: Major problem: Vulnerable to RAF counter(UK fighter builds)
•E: Minor problem: May end up in sub-optimal battles on the defense. Dilemma in when to abandonI think this sums it up very well. I would say that the decision to build German ships reduces the defensive land commitmemet to places suc as Northern Europe France/ Italy/ Finland/ Norway. If the UK has no ships and the Germans do then that a whole lot less infantry required to defend German conquests. I would say therefore that German fleet building is only effective if it can achieve a dollar for dollar saving in infantry builds and /or additional IPCs gains through holding areas such as norway etc for an extra turn or more. I think that the German naval option and sinking as much UK shipping as possible is a good way to basically avoid a two front war for at least 5 -6 Turns.
I also think that there’s no best unit for Germany.
BBs give the free hit and repair capability which would deter bombing raids by the RAF.
CVs take advantage of the 4 existing fighters
DD, prevent secret sub attacks
SUBS give cheap health points and are a big threat to the royal navy.As a first round buy I think CV + DD + reunite all surviving subs (if any) would pose a signifigant dilemma for the brits. The German Navy would be strong enough to destroy any shipping built by UK on turn 1.
After that a few extra DD or a BB and an extra TRN would help the big push into Karelia.
-
@Cmdr:
Given that my navy strategy is working great in a 1941 game against an oppenent on this forum, I really can’t say it’s an error, but maybe not the greatest idea of all time either.
Currently we have Germany with:
4 Fighters
2 Carriers
2 Battleships
2 Cruisers
3 Destroyers
7 Submarines (Super)
4 TransportsAnd the allies with:
6 Fighters (2 American)
3 Carriers
2 Battleships
1 Cruiser
4 Destroyers (1 American)
5 Submarines (1 Russian)
3 TransportsBoth sides have one bomber on the mainland they could bring when they attack.
England is completely out of Africa, tho it remains not 100% captured.
Russia is pressed on all sides, though will liberate Karelia for the first time since Round 2. But the Germans, Japanese and Italians are posed for a three pronged attack on Caucasus should the Russians stack there.
Japan’s got two decent sized forces flanking the northern and southern approaches and has eliminated china as any real threat.
America;s attempted two naval incursions into Japanese waters, both have been repelled causeing the Americans to have to rebuild. This could be why the German naval strat is working so far.
I admit, it was very risky putting two full rounds of income into the water for Germany on Rounds 5 and 6, but I think it paid off since the entire allied force has to sit in SZ 6, cannot sink SZ 5 (without major additions to their attack capabilities - film at eleven) and Russia has been on her own for 6 rounds.
As I see it, 50% of Germany’s income goes to negating the Allied fleet at this point. And half of Japan’s income does the same to start rebuilding to fight off the third American incursion.
Thus, we have:
Japan (62) = 31 IPC
Germany (56) = 28 IPC
Italy (24) = 24 IPCvs
Russia (26) = 26 IPC
Virtually each attacking nation has more income than Russia makes each round and the Allies have no ability to land a serious force in Euro-Africa.
For the record: With an NO, England is making 29 IPC, so Germany’s 28 IPC to counter is equivalent to what he can build in a round.
America is making 48 IPC which out strips Japan’s income, but America has to come over to attack Japan, I can sit in a defensive position and build fighters to juggle and attack should he get close. (Launch 4 from the ground, 4 from carriers to get 8 fighters, etc.)
While I realize the above is a case study, much as my much acclaimed game of Kill Japan First in AAR against NCSC_Switch where he claimed over and over and over again that Russia could never hold it’s own against Germany without American’s assistance and I pulled off the Russian triple and pounded the snot out of Germany with the British demonstrating it could be done, case studies do not prove the rule, they only demonstrate that it is possible and anything that can be done once, can be done again.
Yes, I know maybe you got lucky dice…well, over 37 turns, lucky dice should have evened out somewhere.
Thus, my claim is, even in 1941, a German flotilla can be built and maintained denying the Russians their 10 IPC National Objective and, in fact, assuring Germany at least two of their National Objectives every round, and, in my case, all of them for at least half the game.
I will, however, admit that my opponent did not go full aircraft, and if he had, things might be different. I do not know, we would have to play another game and find out. The issue that would be raised is the same one that I ran into with Mr. Switch. Namely, your opponent would know your tactics prior to the game, you could not evaluate the board and decide to change strategies to compensate for the dice here or there, because you are testing a specific strategy. These two flaws may nullify your test. Luckily for me, Mr. Switch was a formula player and when I did not play by his formula, his entire strategy rolled up and died. (Coincidentally, this was also why he started to hate me and eventually left the boards altogether.)
Anyway, I only use that game to demonstrate that not all strategies that may not work against some players will work exceptionally well against others. Mr. Switch was considered a very strong player, yet, he was unable to shift gears from an Allied KGF strategy to an Allied KJF/Slow Germany strategy and thus lost the game in very short order. Similarly, my opponent expressed surprise to my German opening with a navy build and may not have been practiced in repelling such a strategy, thus chose the route he chose to counter it. Of course, I cannot read his mind and he may have a dastardly trick up his sleeve, fact remains, we are in Round 7 and the Allied forces are not in Grey territories (I lost Scandinavia between England 6 and Germany 7, but it was immediately reclaimed.) The allies have never invaded Africa (though the Germans stand in silent vigil awaiting the day Patton or Montegomery do!)
It is my, most humble of opinions, that it may be a proper opening for Germany to put a Carrier and a destroyer in the water round 1, see what the allies do, and if America goes after Japan, then keep building to stay equivalent to what England builds (remember, you should have a naval advantage at the start of England 1, one in which he will have to overcome to sink your fleet whether with submarines, fighters, surface ships or whatever.)
If America comes after you, well, your transport has lived for at least 3 rounds before your fleet is sunk, and you can pull the fighters before that happens minimizing your losses if you want too. (or if the battle is close, I sometimes leave them there, to inflict damage and perhaps, allow me to win anyway.) Meanwhile, that puts immediate threat on Karelia, and ability to reinfore Scandinavia.
Wow, you went that heavy on ships and Russia hasn’t steam rolled you yet?
Play me as Russia with those buys, and I’ll be in Poland by R3.
-
Yea, problem with that theory is that I refuse to be locked into a specific strategy from turn one and not be able to adjust it to counter someone else’s strategy in an attempt to beat it. Switch tried that crap all the time. It’s super simple to beat any strategy if you know exactly what they are going to do from before the game starts AND they cannot change their strategy to counter it.
Otherwise, a German naval strategy DOES work, IF your opponent does not know how to counter it. Just like an all tank strategy. A kill America first strategy. A typical infantry push mechanic strategy, or any other strategy.
What the naval strategy (Germany) does do, uniquely and in every game thus far to my knowledge, is to allow Germany the flexibility to deliver stacks of war materials anywhere it needs too in relatively short order.
-
Well, I’m just wondering how many other folks out there are actually going for a G1 naval buy in the '41 setup?
I have felt that it might be doable, so I decided to play a few games with a G1 naval build. Right now I’m playing 6 different League opponents as the Axis, and in each of the games, I purchased 1 bb, 1 dd, 1 inf for G1. (It seems that the bb/dd purchase may be better than a cv purchase, but I’m not sure.) I’ll post my results later, but so far, it’s been a mixed bag. I’ve got the definite advantage in a couple of the games, a definite disadvantage in a couple of the games, and for the other 2, the games are still fairly balanced.
A G1 naval purchase in the '42 setup definitely seems a little easier to do for sure, but in '41 does it stand a chance?
Answers from people who’ve actually played with a G1 naval purchase please. :wink:
Well, this thread kind of died off, but I wanted to post an update.
I started 6 ’41 setup games against different opponents with me playing as the Axis. In each of these tech games, on G1, I purchased 1 infantry, 1 destroyer, and 1 battleship. This anchored my German Baltic fleet in reality. Here’s how the games have played out so far.
Game 1 – +9 IPC Allied bid to Asia (1 inf each to Yun, Ind, Kaz) – Axis won in round 11. German navy survived until the end.
Game 2 – +9 IPC Allied bid to Asia (3 inf -> Phi) – Axis won in round 5. German navy survived until the end.
Game 3 – +3 IPC Allied bid to Asia (1 inf -> Phi) – Axis won in round 11. German navy was destroyed in round 3.
Game 4 – +9 IPC Allied bid to Asia (1 inf each to Yun, Bur, Nov) – Axis won in round 10. German navy survived until the end.
Game 5 – +9 IPC Allied bid to Asia (1 inf each to Yun, Ind, Kaz) – still going in round 17, and the Allies have a strong advantage. German navy was destroyed in round 5.
Game 6 – +3 IPC Allied bid to Asia (1 inf -> Phi) – still going in round 9, and the Allies have a slight advantage. German navy was destroyed in round 7.
So, if the Allies pull out the last 2 games, then the Axis will have won 4 out of 6. That’s not too bad.
I’m wondering though if the following G1 purchase would be better though.
3 infantry, 1 destroyer, 1 aircraft carrier
Thoughts?
-
IMO, the best turn 1 buy for Navy is just 1 Carrier, 1 Transport. This leaves space for ground troops, and you can hit Karelia quickly with 2 trannies and the AC defends the fleet. For the further turns, I usually go for subs if I purchase navy at all, and try to sink the UK fleet with subs and air.
-
To make a long story short IMHO 41 navy works if the allies do not counter corretly.
THe correct counter is for an aggressive Russia pushing hard, esp in the south, with the US gunning for Italy, along with the UK going heavy sub/air. Its not hard to spread the subs out a bit, or to use a US dd as a blocker. In that case, as early as turn 2 the US can block the baltic, in combination with a UK navy buy in SZ 8 which should be possible without the additional purchase of a bomber on G1 depending on how the dice go. Subs+air slaughter navy.
-
Hi all. Interesting Debate so far.
THe correct counter is for an aggressive Russia pushing hard, esp in the south, with the US gunning for Italy, along with the UK going heavy sub/air. Its not hard to spread the subs out a bit, or to use a US dd as a blocker. In that case, as early as turn 2 the US can block the baltic, in combination with a UK navy buy in SZ 8 which should be possible without the additional purchase of a bomber on G1 depending on how the dice go. Subs+air slaughter navy.
If Brits go heavy naval build on turn 2 I think Germany should go after it with all air and naval units available. This is why I would lean towards the AC + DD for better air defence when sitting in the english channel. Whilst this would make the karelia battle more difficult it secures france for the time being. This frees up french land units for africa/norway.
In fact I can’t see how Germany can win a land based arms race against the UK/US when trying to garrison everywhere from norway to morocco. -
To make a long story short IMHO 41 navy works if the allies do not counter corretly.
IMHO, 41 navy works if America and/or England goes for Japan and not for a triple crush on Germany. Otherwise, America has more than enough cash to put bombers in the air and submarines in the water to sink anything the Italians or Germans have.
Thing is, though, do you want to leave Japan completely unfettered for an untold number of rounds?
-
If I were to go Navy on G1, it would be Carrier, Transport, Fighter.
-
I think the transport that early is over kill. The carrier, sure. Carrier and Destroyer sure. But you probably dont need the transport yet. Germany 2 maybe.
Likewise the fighter. If you go ground forces with the cash you are putting into Transport and Fighter, you’re talking 17 IPC or 4 Infantry, and an Armor…with which you can certainly use to fill holes that will appear in your front with Russia (or to liberate France if you let the Allies trade it for a round or two.)
I guess, 32 IPC in the water, might be better with Carrier, Cruiser, Submarine instead. At least that is significant defensive punch (and you WILL have that submarine if England attacks round 1 (probably the SZ 5 starting one too) since England has nothing with which to attack SZ 5 that can hit submarines. ) And you’ll have significant offensive punch with 2 cruisers, 2 submarines, carrier, destroyer in whatever fighters you put on the carrier (thus allowing at least 4 fighters to hit SZ 2 on G2, probably a bomber as well.)
Suggested Topics
