Sure taking one shot at a 3 for a boat that defends worse than the same priced bomber attacks while the enemy is making more money than you is awesome, so is my fig that attacks all combat at a 3 =).
Sure taking one shot at a 3 for a boat that defends worse than the same priced bomber attacks while the enemy is making more money than you is awesome, so is my fig that attacks all combat at a 3 =).
ships have always been more expensive than air for comparable firepower, just as air (fig attack @3. $10) is more expensive by comparison than ground (tank @3, $5) air has unprecedented mobility to offset that and navy is the only way to get units into the action for some nations so I don’t think that is a good comparison.
comparing the relative value of the different ships (like your earlier post) is however an excellent topic for discussion. does this mean you invest in carriers and fighters to support you landings and find that a more effecient approach than building capitol ships and bombarding?
Yes, i typically invest in 2-4 carriers with a sprinkling of destroyers. This is the only way to get the troops into the fight in large quantities quickly.
Look at it this way, on UK1 I can buy a carrier and 2 or 3 transports and land the US fighters on her. This, with the destroyer pair I start with, gives me a 2, 2, 4, 4 to defend with. It also forces Germany to either stack france hard, or begin trading it turn UK2. On US1 I can buy a carrier, transports, and/or bombers. Then, on allied turn 2 G has alot of troops coming in to say hello. Because UK typically has 30-35 IPCs to spend on turn 2 if I need to I can land in Norway, France, or NWE and build another destroyer or two, or even another carrier, or I can send said fleet down to SZ 12 and land 6-8 UK units in africa and join up with the US fleet. The big thing about the carrier build though, is it allows me to land between 10-14 units into Europe/Africa, on turn 2.
Typically though I keep the UK fleet in the north (landing in Karelia typically, as G has a hard time keeping figs in range to strike SZ 4), and the US fleet in the south (landing in Africa, sending armor on a race to Persia to help hold against Japan). This takes pressure off of Russia beginning turn 2, keeps G’s income a little lower, and threatens France and Italy.
I like this. The idea of buying bombers UK1 to sink the fleet UK2 isn’t bad either, but depends on what Germany did and bought G1. USA3 is probably a better idea in most cases. But an attack needs to be made by USA3 otherwise Allies are asking for trouble. At that point it’s tough to prevent a Jap carrier coming through unless the Allies have stacked Jordan.
I also like the carriers and fighters approach if I am landing in heavily contested areas that require more than one round to clear since the air remains round to round. I prefer bombards if I am strafing (no risk to planes) or if I expect to clear the TT in one round of combat
How does your attack hold up under an Italian Destroyer buy? (Or Aircraft Carrier + Fighter buy adding the second fighter they start with to the fleet defense?)
Best thing to do in that case, in my opinion, is to stack SZ 12 with combined US/UK fleets while US builds up her bomber fleet. US and UK can land many more troops into africa than Italy could ever dream of, and the IPCs spent for boats means fewer Italians on France. Combine that with ample US bombing of germany and building up for a ‘take and hold drop’ of france or Italy should allow you to push back. The biggest weakness, esp with my typically 3 trannie buy, is the UK fleet is vulnerable in SZ 12 by itself on UK2 as it consist of only a destroyer and loaded carrier. Because of this it is a good idea to suicide a tranny to take Norway or use the US one, but mostly to only send 1 or 2 trannies with the fleet into SZ 12, and purchase more tannies and troops into SZ 2 to give you a possible threat of around 12 ground pounders on UK3 into france. G3 is not a good turn to have to move half your purchased units in the wrong direction 8-)
This puts I2 in an strange position, as she can kill the UK fleet, but then she will most likely loose her fleet on US2 and the UK should still have 2-4 transports anyway that can rally under US carrier cover. Or she could keep her fleet, but if the allies take africa anyway, as US2 should drop around 4-6 units in along with a large potential UK drop on UK3, what is the point.
Another fun thing to do with this on allied turn 3-5, is instead of hitting france, land on NWE in force while purchasing destroyers with the UK. This allows the US to reinforce with fighters from the carriers on her turn and allow you to start scaring Germany, remember NWE is worth the same as Karelia to Germany! Along with an aggressive Russia you can really put Germany in a tight spot.
@Cmdr:
How does your attack hold up under an Italian Destroyer buy? (Or Aircraft Carrier + Fighter buy adding the second fighter they start with to the fleet defense?)
Ignore the fleet. As long as you have a big enough fleet that can’t be sunk what’s it matter? If the Western Axis want to waste money on building defensive fleets make them pay by building ground units. The game is simply not designed for the Western Axis to effectivly rule the waves. If it was it would be a serious design flaw, making the game virtualy unwinnable for the Allies. If the Western Axis manage to overpower the Allies in the Atlantic it is simply because the Allies are allowing it due to mistakes/poor play/ very bad luck/ or some other strat the Allies are employing that willingly does not involve dominating the Atlantic Ocean.
The Allies’ mistakes/willing concessions cause the Axis to win the Atlantic, not superior Axis play.
Well I can agree with that only if the Allies are preventing Italy from achieving NOs. Sure, if Italy pours all its income into carriers that’s pretty inefficient purchasing and maybe its better to let the fleet stand. But honestly if Axis is going to put fighters on those carriers I wouldn’t mind buying even more bombers as USA and bagging the whole shebang.
I’d throw 8 IPC into the water if it meant I kept both Italian NOs (10 IPC a round.) I was just wondering if you played against a destroyer build. (Or even a carrier build since you have a fighter that can land on it, and Italy could really use the fighter starting in the med so it can attack both theaters of operations.)
Well I can agree with that only if the Allies are preventing Italy from achieving NOs. Sure, if Italy pours all its income into carriers that’s pretty inefficient purchasing and maybe its better to let the fleet stand. But honestly if Axis is going to put fighters on those carriers I wouldn’t mind buying even more bombers as USA and bagging the whole shebang.
My theory is if the Western Axis are putting money into defensive naval units, it would probably be best for the Allies to get very aggressive with land units. This would probably lead to a more unified fleet, rather than UK up north and the US down south.
It is kind of seen as a window of opportunity to put as much pressure on France as possible while simultaneously being able to double hit one Axis capital. If the Axis put money into a defensive fleet that can be succefully ignored, you may as well ignore it. It would mean the Axis wasted money on a unit that does next to nothing for them. My guess would be that the Axis power that would buy the naval unit essentially just volunteers itself for the Allied SBR campaign to exploit their purchass even more.
Let’s say Italy decides to build a Destroyer. The Allies would then Unify the fleet on Algeria and open their SBR campaign against Italy. Italy would probably not be able to move the fleet due to fear of invasion, they would be lacking in ground units, and France would be threatend.
To be fair though this would not be as amplified as Axis Carrier builds. I think that is something that the Allies could really exploit. Ex: if Germany bought a carrier, it just spent 1/2 of it’s T1 income on a unit that can not attack/bombard/and without an airplane it only defends at 2 and is only good for expensive fodder if it attacks; this seems like something the Allies could use to their advantage by simply ignoring it and SBR Germany while putting heavy pressure on France from algeria quickly, while once again double threatening Italy. The Allied fleet is maintained, it has a better chance at holding France sooner because of a unified fleet (which allows more land units to be built) and Germany would be lacking the ground/air units she would normally build due to the Carrier build/SBRing.
It’s not that I think there is never a reason to build Axis naval units, I would just rather wait until after US1 to decide if I wanted to build ships or not. Even if my Allied strat is completley wrong, I don’t think there is much reason to build naval units for the Western Axis T1. And even if one insists on a naval build it should probably be a more aggressive ship. A Cruiser allows for land bombardments at least. Subs can be clever builds too I suppose. Like I said, even if I am dead wrong, I can’t shake the feeling that defensive T1 fleet builds by the Western should be something an Allied player could somehow exploit.
And as far as keeping 10 Italian NO’s, can you? What goes on in Egypt/ Central Asia is probably one of the bigger variables of the game. But as far as T1 or even T2 is concerned I don’t see Italy having 10 NO’s a forgone conclusion in the early stages of the game. A UK stack in Persia, a UK1 counter attack on a German Egy, A UK1 Attack on Libya, Germany not attacking Egy G1, Russian tank/air/inf counter attacks on R2 are all very real possabilities. That coupled with quick unified pressure would keep Italian movement greatly mitigated. Also note that the UK may be able to afford sending her 3-4 ships worth of gear towards Egypt every turn while the US just builds up an invading force, making it impossible for Italy to do anything of note in Africa, even with a navy. The UK force could then continue to head towards India/Persia/Cauc making the marching forces still very relevant and useful.
And yes, I have played against such builds, and have won and lost against them. I most certainly have not played any 1 strat with much consistancy though to show any empirical evidence. Which is odd considering I have probably played around 30-50 games of the Aniversery edition.
I’d throw 8 IPC into the water if it meant I kept both Italian NOs (10 IPC a round.) I was just wondering if you played against a destroyer build. (Or even a carrier build since you have a fighter that can land on it, and Italy could really use the fighter starting in the med so it can attack both theaters of operations.)
CmdrJennifer, I modified the build which was from the start 2 bombers and 1 carrier, in order to have some fodder units instead. It is true of course that Italy has three builds before US3 and can build more than 1CV+1DD which US alone can beat with my proposed US1 build. My idea then was to use the UK navy to finish the attack, probably on the turn after US strikes, UK4. You then send in air and fodder units, 3-4 DDs or subs, and spare your CV and CAs in sz12 to minimize losses to the UK invasion fleet. (A Russian blocking attack against TRJ is then needed to hinder Japanese deployment into the Med., and if Italy survives with a CV don’t forget that figs can be flown onto it before UK moves!)
This is a simplification, of course, because you might try to hide ships in sz15/sz16 as Italy and so forth. I haven’t played this myself that much yet, when I tried it Italy has acquiesced in losing their fleet but for one game where I built two bombers US1 and didn’t have enough fodder units.
UK doing the killing alone I think is a bad idea. They need to be invading and sending the fleet into battle first does too much harm to it. In the example above of a double US/UK strike at the Italian fleet, you can survive with the core of your Royal Navy if you play well. In this scenario you can’t invade FRA/NWE for a turn or two for a long-term benefit of destroying plenty of Axis IPCs.
