G1 sub buy

[strategic planner]

How about an all G1 sub buy. Saves the kriegsmarine, and stop US shipments unless they ignore japan, and then japan can blindside Moscow.

[Hobbes]

@strategic:

How about an all G1 sub buy. Saves the kriegsmarine, and stop US shipments unless they ignore japan, and then japan can blindside Moscow.

It does not save all of the Kriegsmarine, the DD and transport on SZ5 will still be sunk by the RAF.

If you get 6 subs it will force the allies to heavily spend on DDs and planes to get them but how to deploy the subs is a different matter. Sending them apiece can save some but the rest will be sunk. Keeping them on SZ5 and ready to strike at any allied fleet on SZ3/6/7 with the Luftwaffe is the best option to keep them alive (since their defense is only 1). However the Allies can still land units on Algeria and Archangel and eventually will build a fleet on SZ3/6/7 that can withstand any German attack and them sink those subs.

[gloriae]

I played a game where the US left Japan alone and focused on the Atlantic. I, as Germany, built a carrier on the first round and placed it on the coast of W. Europe with a fighter and the rest of the kreigsmarine. It was a nice barrier and allowed some forces on paris to go elsewhere. The axis ended up winning, so I would say it’s worth a try. I definitely loved it.

[MrBill13]

And the Brits let your carrier live. Sorry, but that would be a gift for the allies and a German waste of money in the games I play!

[Hobbes]

@gloriae:

I played a game where the US left Japan alone and focused on the Atlantic. I, as Germany, built a carrier on the first round and placed it on the coast of W. Europe with a fighter and the rest of the kreigsmarine.

How can you build a carrier on the first turn and place it on the coast of W. Europe?

[Zhukov44]

Continuing to improve german subs and the Battle of the Atlantic is something I hope Larry Harris prioritizes for the next edition.  Lots of aspects of gameplay have been made better and more historical in this edition, especially subs.  But the way subs work in the Atlantic theater isn’t quite there yet.

German subs are a threat at the start but their value decreases once the Allies have sitting fleets with destroyers……  Subs can’t get past the Allied blockade.  And as a deterrent, dual-use air power is more cost efficient.

It’s in the Pacific, where there is ample room to maneuver, that subs are most effective.

Lowering the price to 5 might be a start.

[Advosan]

@Zhukov44:

Continuing to improve german subs and the Battle of the Atlantic is something I hope Larry Harris prioritizes for the next edition.  Lots of aspects of gameplay have been made better and more historical in this edition, especially subs.  But the way subs work in the Atlantic theater isn’t quite there yet.

German subs are a threat at the start but their value decreases once the Allies have sitting fleets with destroyers……  Subs can’t get past the Allied blockade.  And as a deterrent, dual-use air power is more cost efficient.

It’s in the Pacific, where there is ample room to maneuver, that subs are most effective.

Lowering the price to 5 might be a start.

This is so right.
Maybe adding more sea zones in the atlantic will improve gameplay. It is exactly the ample space of the pacific that makes subs efficient.

[newpaintbrush]

I don’t understand most of what’s in this thread.

1.  G1 sub buy to save German fleet
2.  German carrier off West Europe
3.  Subs being weak against destroyer-laden fleets.

–

In turn:

1.  How does a G1 sub buy “save” the German fleet, and you DO mean the Baltic fleet don’t you?  (i.e. 2 sub / destroyer / transport).  Isn’t the point of a G1 sub build to dispute control of the Atlantic ?  By placing fighters in Norway/Western Europe and bomber on Western Europe, plus moving subs out by Western Europe on G1, then on G2 moving G1-built subs towards the Atlantic to act as a preventative measure (combined with air support) to stop the Allies from interfering early in Norway/Africa?

It’s sort of like pulling your cat out of a tree and saying the point of the whole thing was to stop your cat from being hungry.  Yes, maybe your cat isn’t hungry because now it can eat its usual lunch from its bowl in the kitchen, but you COULD have fed your cat in the tree.  So it would really be more accurate to say “I got my cat out of the tree” instead of saying “I stopped my cat from being hungry.”

2.  I suppose you mean you built a German carrier in the Baltic on G1, then moved it off West Europe on G2.

G1 Baltic carrier placement threatens both 1) London on G2 (even fighters that landed in Africa have the range to hit London with the carrier as a landing point) and 2) any naval fleet buildup around London (because of the effective lengthening of range of the fighters, allowing Baltic subs plus up to four fighters and bomber to be in range of any initial UK fleet build

But I think the proper Allied response is 3 UK fighters built,and flying US air to London.  This leaves the Germans with almost no chance of taking London, and stops the Baltic fleet from moving to Western Europe on G2; there’s also nothing for the Germans to hit on the sea.

An old Caspian Sub paper proposed unification of Baltic and Mediterranean fleets in the Revised edition; that’s possible in this version too.  Taking Gibraltar on G1 prevents the UK from landing air there (and thus attacking the German fleet).  Combined with a G1 carrier build, that’s a proposed G2 combined fleet off Western Europe of 1 battleship 2 fighters 1 carrier 1 destroyer, plus assorted subs and transports.  Anglo-Egypt is captured with the help of German air, leaving the UK destroyer stranded, and the G2 threat to London now uses two transports worth of troops.

But even this is not what I consider a “good” result for Germany.  After seeing the G1 turn, the UK can respond with either an infantry build on London (or some combination of fighters and infantry), or the UK and/or US can use transports to move additional forces to London while still building UK air.  (The transports are lost, but 5 UK fighters and a UK bomber on UK2 has a good chance of killing even the combined German fleet.)

True, the Germans don’t HAVE to unify at Western Europe; they need only THREATEN it.  G2 can see the German Baltic carrier abandoned (saving the German fighters) and the German battleship/transport ferrying units over at Western Europe/Algeria on G2 - combined with German air, threatening the US1 build from landing at Algeria.  (i.e. G1 sees the German carrier build and Mediterranean fleet movement; UK1 builds a fat air force, US1 builds fleet to hit Africa, G2 moves units from Gibraltar/Europe to Africa and stays in range threatening any US2 landing of its US1 build with a battleship, German air, and subs.

The UK can’t get going in Norway until UK3 (at best building transports in UK2 and using them on UK3), and German retains control of Africa for a while longer - not an AWFUL way to spend 14 IPCs, maybe.  I can’t say for sure if I think it’s a good idea or not, though.  Certainly, without the German Mediterranean fleet moving west to Gibraltar, I’d say a G1 carrier build in the Baltic is probably not going to end well for the Germans; it doesn’t put enough pressure on the Allies.

3.  Of COURSE subs are not going to be able to run around at will.  If they could, the Allies would NEVER be able to get into Europe and Africa.  My advice is bombers at Western Europe.

[Hobbes]

@Bunnies:

An old Caspian Sub paper proposed unification of Baltic and Mediterranean fleets in the Revised edition; that’s possible in this version too.  Taking Gibraltar on G1 prevents the UK from landing air there (and thus attacking the German fleet).  Combined with a G1 carrier build, that’s a proposed G2 combined fleet off Western Europe of 1 battleship 2 fighters 1 carrier 1 destroyer, plus assorted subs and transports.  Anglo-Egypt is captured with the help of German air, leaving the UK destroyer stranded, and the G2 threat to London now uses two transports worth of troops.

But even this is not what I consider a “good” result for Germany.  After seeing the G1 turn, the UK can respond with either an infantry build on London (or some combination of fighters and infantry), or the UK and/or US can use transports to move additional forces to London while still building UK air.  (The transports are lost, but 5 UK fighters and a UK bomber on UK2 has a good chance of killing even the combined German fleet.

Just tried this in one of my last games. I bought 1 AC, 1 transport and 2 DDs for G1 and placed them all on the Baltic. I didn’t attack Egypt since the bomber went instead to SZ2 and the Ukraine fighter was destroyed.

On UK1 it bought 3 ftrs and attacked the BB/transport on SZ13 with a DD and the bomber, sinking it (50% for UK, 25% G winning). It also brought the 2 ftrs from the carrier/Egypt to W Russia.

On G2 I bought 2 carriers and a fighter. UK buys 1 bomber and 2 fighters, for a total of 2 bombers and 9 ftrs. The German fleet eventually gets sunk by the UK but it still manages to attack and sink the US fleet off SZ12 on US3/4. Meanwhile the Germans/Japanese overran Africa and the game ends with victory for the Axis on turn 10 or something.

I really liked how the German naval buy forced the UK to spend all its income on fighters. It cost them a lot of time before they could make any landings on Europe/Africa. Losing the Med BB on UK1 wasn’t in my plans (I should have built 1 DD on SZ14 to prevent the attack), since it would still be possible afterwards to combine both German fleets on SZ7.

I think next time I’ll try 1 AC, 3 DDs or 2 ACs, 1 cruiser.

[Col.Stauffenberg]

2 rounds with no INF builds as Germany? What was RUS doing?

[Hobbes]

@Col.Stauffenberg:

2 rounds with no INF builds as Germany? What was RUS doing?

Going after Japan.

[Advosan]

@Hobbes:

@Bunnies:

An old Caspian Sub paper proposed unification of Baltic and Mediterranean fleets in the Revised edition; that’s possible in this version too.  Taking Gibraltar on G1 prevents the UK from landing air there (and thus attacking the German fleet).  Combined with a G1 carrier build, that’s a proposed G2 combined fleet off Western Europe of 1 battleship 2 fighters 1 carrier 1 destroyer, plus assorted subs and transports.  Anglo-Egypt is captured with the help of German air, leaving the UK destroyer stranded, and the G2 threat to London now uses two transports worth of troops.

But even this is not what I consider a “good” result for Germany.  After seeing the G1 turn, the UK can respond with either an infantry build on London (or some combination of fighters and infantry), or the UK and/or US can use transports to move additional forces to London while still building UK air.  (The transports are lost, but 5 UK fighters and a UK bomber on UK2 has a good chance of killing even the combined German fleet.

Just tried this in one of my last games. I bought 1 AC, 1 transport and 2 DDs for G1 and placed them all on the Baltic. I didn’t attack Egypt since the bomber went instead to SZ2 and the Ukraine fighter was destroyed.

On UK1 it bought 3 ftrs and attacked the BB/transport on SZ13 with a DD and the bomber, sinking it (50% for UK, 25% G winning). It also brought the 2 ftrs from the carrier/Egypt to W Russia.

On G2 I bought 2 carriers and a fighter. UK buys 1 bomber and 2 fighters, for a total of 2 bombers and 9 ftrs. The German fleet eventually gets sunk by the UK but it still manages to attack and sink the US fleet off SZ12 on US3/4. Meanwhile the Germans/Japanese overran Africa and the game ends with victory for the Axis on turn 10 or something.

I really liked how the German naval buy forced the UK to spend all its income on fighters. It cost them a lot of time before they could make any landings on Europe/Africa. Losing the Med BB on UK1 wasn’t in my plans (I should have built 1 DD on SZ14 to prevent the attack), since it would still be possible afterwards to combine both German fleets on SZ7.

I think next time I’ll try 1 AC, 3 DDs or 2 ACs, 1 cruiser.

I agree that a Med DD would have made a difference.
By G2, in SZ7 there could be BB, AC loaded and 3 DDs (plus any subs) while the best UK attack package could be 5 fgt, 1 bmb, giving an 84% G victory. Only if the UK1 brings both SZ35 and AES fgts to FrWesAfr there can be a decent hope against the conglomerated SZ7 G navy. Even so, G can continue the build-up and conglomerate in SZ7 at G3.

What I understood is that if G has enough fgt to “spare” on baltic ACs it is really hard for the UK to move in for the kill. And the fgts that land on the Baltic have the anvantage of threatening both SZ3 and SZ4, and combined with subs and the bmb make it impossible for an easy UK landing in either NOR or ARC. Plus, there is no “safe” SZ8 Allied conglomerate, since G2 can send there a BB, 2 baltic ftr, any WEU ftr (probably 1) and the (probably 2) subs. No way for the Allies to survive, even if the UK BB is still alive the chances are for a G victory.

Another option for the Allies is to leave the Baltic fleet alone. But how can the UK assist Russia while 2 TTs in the Baltic throw 4 inf/turn in NOR or KAR? Not to mention the fgt threat, not to mention a possible Sea Lion.

@Hobbes:

@Col.Stauffenberg:

2 rounds with no INF builds as Germany? What was RUS doing?

Going after Japan.

I tend to think this was a big mistake. But still, going after Germany with Russia alone is no easy task. Even after 2 G navy buys, Germany had enough forces in Europe to punish any Russian movement beyond the BLR-UKR line. This is why losing the US fleet off the coast of Morocco right before killing the Baltic fleet was the turning of the tide. Germany bought just enough time before an effective KGF could begin. And in the same round that Japan took Moscow, a triple punch (yet feeble) was delivered to Berlin, but failed utterly.

[Hobbes]

Yesterday I went for the G1 AC + transport build on SZ14, after losing Norway to a R1 attack.

It was a very interesting game. The UK/US had to make a large landing on Africa to counter the Axis landings, while Russia was again busy on India/Trans-Jordan and Germany was more busy fortifying W. Europe while sending the bare minimum to contest the Kar-Belo-Ukr line.
The interesting thing is how Russia basically bled itself white dealing with all the threats. Eventually it failed to retake Karelia, which allowed for G to retake Norway and West Russia, and sacrificed its Med fleet for a large landing on Ukraine. After that, Caucasus felt on the next G turn and Japan reinforced it.

[newpaintbrush]

@Hobbes:

@Col.Stauffenberg:

2 rounds with no INF builds as Germany? What was RUS doing?

Going after Japan.

The expression  :roll: is somewhat rude in this case.
But also . . . appropriate?  :|

The problem with Germany attacking Russia is logistics - getting infantry to the front, while Russia’s newly produced infantry practically roll off the production line into battle.  Contesting the 2-3 IPC territories is profitable for Russia, allowing it to produce even more infantry for defense.

The Russians attacking Japan is a triple whammy in my opinion.  First, the Russians now have to march infantry to the front, which takes a long time.  Second, the territories being fought over have relatively little value until you reach the 3 IPC territories on the coast.  Thirdly, by the time Russia hits the coast, Japan can crush any single pocket of resistance with a massive transport/air attack.  Simply, it is impossible for Russia to fight Japan singlehanded.

In plain terms, you have to fight much harder for far fewer gains; gains which you cannot even retain.

It’s my opinion that India/Trans-Jordan/Anglo-Egypt Sudan cannot be held if the Axis really want them.  In Hobbes’ recent post, he mentioned Russia going trying to hold India.  I say that was a mistake for Russia; Russia should have held most of its forces at West Russia.  Think of it this way - first, Russia has to get all its forces there, taking a load of time.  Second, if there’s a threat from Germany, Russia has to march all the way back, which takes another load of time.  Third, once Japan gets its transports going, it can threaten any number of territories.  Typical best IMO is two fleets of two transports each; one moving from French Indochina to Japan, the other moving from Japan to French Indochina, both taking units from Japan each turn.  If Russia HOLDS at India, Japan just smashes through China/Ssinkiang, and the Russian infantry is wasted.  If Russia ATTACKS from India, Japan just retasks some units and hits French Indochina hard, and with all the Jap forces in the area, that can be quite hard.  If Russia abandons India, Japan just marches in.

Another whammy is all this fighting does not boost Russian IPCs.  Russian IPCs become Russian infantry, most cost-effective defensive units, useful immediately.  UK and US IPCs need to become air and navy first to protect transports to get cost-effective ground units.

–

Re:  Moar carriers:

Following R1 Norway attack with G1 carrier/transport I saw.  But G2 buy of 2 carriers and fighter?  Very interesting.

[Hobbes]

@Bunnies:

Re:  Moar carriers:

Following R1 Norway attack with G1 carrier/transport I saw.  But G2 buy of 2 carriers and fighter?  Very interesting.

That’s one reason behind Russia going after Japan. I was hoping for it since I knew it would relieve pressure on Germany allowing it to build its army afterwards.

[newpaintbrush]

Mm.  I think you lucked out, Hobbes.  I can’t say for sure what the CORRECT counter to your G1 carrier/transport was, but it certainly wasn’t sending Russian forces to India and/or Anglo-Egypt Sudan and/or the Pacific coast.

Hm, hm . . . . how to counter . . .

But not to threadjack TOO much, how do readers feel about the G1 carrier/transport, as opposed to a G1 sub buy?

I think they’re both very interesting.

[coorran]

Well as we all know, SUB are the ultimate attack unit, but they are way too weak on defense, and can’t serve as fodder against an air attack.

So carrier for me. I’m thinking, since we’re discussing all navy G1 buy (I assume R1 did not take Norway):
AC + DD to SZ 5.
3 SUB in the Med.

BB and TRN move to take Gibraltar, thus preventing the BB to be sunk. Yes, it leaves AES to UK for one more turn, but it’s worth it to save the BB (we’re talking about a G fleet after all). Also, this put the BB in position to join the Baltic fleet on G2 OR to attack an Indian UK fleet (AC loaded w/ FTR) w/ the 3 SUB on the next turn (if Indian troops reinforced AES). If there are no FTR on the AC, then 3 subs will get the job done alone. The TRN will ferry units to AES no matter what, and take it with no problem.

This is as good a use of the SUB as I can think. If Indian UK fleet does something else, SUB insteab go toward W. EU. SO there: half the point spent on SUB on G1!

[Col.Stauffenberg]

@Bunnies:

Mm.  I think you lucked out, Hobbes.  I can’t say for sure what the CORRECT counter to your G1 carrier/transport was, but it certainly wasn’t sending Russian forces to India and/or Anglo-Egypt Sudan and/or the Pacific coast.

Hm, hm . . . . how to counter . . .

My strat would be to buy tons of inf with Rus and march them toward Ger. Maybe you wouldn’t take Berlin but you’d have a really good chance taking Italy or Norway. First few rounds you’d be making over 30 and Germany would be in the poor house or breaking even if Africa went great.

[coorran]

The point of the fleet is to delay UK/US invasion and make them spend on navy units. So the INF/ARM that Russia will bring won’t be supported by other Allied troops for a while longer. Also, the versatility the AC brings reduces the possibilities for the Allies.

[newpaintbrush]

@Col.Stauffenberg:

@Bunnies:

Mm.  I think you lucked out, Hobbes.  I can’t say for sure what the CORRECT counter to your G1 carrier/transport was, but it certainly wasn’t sending Russian forces to India and/or Anglo-Egypt Sudan and/or the Pacific coast.

Hm, hm . . . . how to counter . . .

My strat would be to buy tons of inf with Rus and march them toward Ger. Maybe you wouldn’t take Berlin but you’d have a really good chance taking Italy or Norway. First few rounds you’d be making over 30 and Germany would be in the poor house or breaking even if Africa went great.

Although I agree with the mass ground unit buy (perhaps I’d do some tanks), I don’t actually think an all infantry buy with Russia threatens Norway or, for goodness sakes, Italy.

Germany can cut any attack against Norway off at Karelia - more importantly, the two transports in the Baltic combined with the fighters on the carrier mean a threat BOTH to London AND to Norway AND to Karelia.  True, if the German fleet moves off Western Europe, German fighters on carriers there can’t reach the front.  But at that doesn’t happen until G3.  G1 and G2 can still see German infantry and/or tank buys.

My best guess is that Russia will have more infantry to throw at the German front, but that the German front isn’t really “threatened” - it’s inconvenienced, true, and Germany’s pushed back, but there is no REAL threat to Germany, particularly with UK/US staved off in the Atlantic.  (edit) - since units otherwise needed in Western Europe can be sent east.  Early can see 2 infantry and tanks in W. Europe, with later German infantry builds shuttled in to W Europe and tanks sent east.  Using tanks for defense in W Europe early allows German infantry to start marching east immediately.  What I think happens is - Russia does push forward for some early gains, but CANNOT take and hold Balkans and/or Eastern Europe; minmal G1/G2 ground buys plus Germany’s starting forces should be enough to force Russia to only trade territories there.  If Russia COMMITS all its ground units to holding a forward territory, I think Germany can hit back hard with air, tanks, its surviving starting units, and any G1 and G2 builds (at the least).

Japan uses these first few turns to set up its transport fleet, then Germany starts pushing back against the Russian front.  With all the German air power, Germany can trade territory with Russia without having to commit its ground units.  Russia isn’t in the same boat.  True, Russia could BUILD an air force, but every air unit is awfully expensive, especially considering that both Germany and Japan should start pressing in.

As far as Africa goes - well, that’s open to question.  My inclination if doing G1 carrier/transport would be to probably take Gibraltar with battleship/transport, build an additional destroyer at Southern Europe to stop UK1 destroyer/bomber attack on battleship, kill UK units at Anglo-Egypt Sudan with 2 air units.  MAYBE even add an additional transport at Southern Europe, which is awfully expensive, but it should be done on G1, I think, or not at all.  Anyways, I would not ignore Africa.

I’ve seen successful Axis play that does ignore Africa, though.  Even if the Allies have a huge income, it doesn’t matter if they can’t make that income count.  Imagine having to use 10 IPC fighters to attack a stack of three 3 IPC infantry (infantry are cheaper and will still win), or 10 IPC fighters to defend against 5 IPC tanks (tanks are cheaper and will still win).  If Germany CAN control the Atlantic while Japan presses in from the east, it may be that the Axis will conquer Moscow before the Allies can bring their wealth to bear.

Bleeding strength off to Africa was a problem in Revised too.  The German player was always best advised not to over-commit to Africa.

So what’s best in this case?  I can’t say I know, but I think carrier/transport is very promising.  Then again, so are subs IMHO.