German Strategy…beef up the navy or straight to Moscow?

[Spitfire38]

For a G1 and G2 buy/strategy, would it be better to purchase naval and air units to take out the Allied fleets and control the Atlantic, or load up on ground units and fighters to try and punch through Russian lines and head straight to Moscow right out of the gate? Buying a German navy seems like a large chunk if not all of your IPCs that would be “wasted”, considering that the combined UK and US economies can eventually overpower your navy, especially when their is a Russian ground force siphoning away some of your IPCs for defense. Any thoughts?

[Violent.copper]

i’ve seen both in spring 1942 version most success with a fighter a turn to threaten the brittish and a full on ground assult to take down the russians (no navy)

[Spitfire38]

The only thing is that you will suffer heavy causalities when attacking the UK Battleship and Cruiser without a joint cooperation of naval attacks. It would be even worse if you attack London with the planes cause you throw in a defending fighter and AA. This is really expensive to upkeep if you have to keep purchasing fighters as a threat. However, I do think fighters are a good threat to the navies; the question is just how to effectively utilize them. Thanks for your input, very helpful

[newpaintbrush]

using German air? vs Allied fleet?

Either put fighters on Norway and Western Europe (Norway covers north/northeast, W Europe covers south/west) plus subs.  Or build bombers and place on W Europe.

Prolly that’s what Violent meant.  Fighters threaten London, plus can be used vs Allied fleet when used as above, plus used to trade territory with Russia.  So if London goes all navy, you snag London with a transport (if you protected it of course).  If London blew all Baltic trannies, you still try to lock them out of Norway/Karelia/Archangel with fighters.  If Allies hold off a bit, you just trade more and more with Russia without committing valuable tanks or artillery; you just send infantry and fighters.

Fighters on W Europe pull double duty against landings in Algeria, which is why I prefer bombers on W Europe.  Bombers on W Europe, think if you had 3-4 of them.  zomg.

Of course, you generally put subs in the water, at least use Germany’s starting subs.  You do not want to drop a 12 IPC bomber when you could drop a 6 IPC sub instead.

[Col.Stauffenberg]

I’ve tried both many times and I still can’t say for sure. I’m leaning towards German naval builds as a bad idea. The UK and US will eventually crush it and you have to spend a lot of IPCS on it . The best spot is in the med to keep the door to Africa open, helps defend Southern and keeps pressure on Russia.

I’ve tried buying a fighter every round with guys and it didn’t work but that was a long time ago. I might try it again soon.

[MrBill13]

what Germany needs is boots on the ground. Men, tanks and arty. No extra ships except an additional transport to bank some additional boots in Africa.

The key to this game is Germany and Russia. I don’t waste a lot of time worrying about Western Europe. By the time the allies invade, I have Russia on its heels.

[GCar]

Building navy with Germany is a losing strategy against any good player. Germany can only afford boots and planes.

[Detuite]

The only time i build a G fleet is in the med to assist the italians in holding the garbralter strait. 2 cruisers and a tranny go along way against cairo.

[coorran]

Imperious Leader has a nice strategy about the Baltic Carrier in another thread. It almost garantees a 60% chance of winning against any UK/US fleet in any Sea zone if you also build a bmb. It forces the US to regroup at UK.

Frankly, it could make that 14 IPC a good investment.

I’m not sure yet if G navy is all that great, but I always do it anyway because it changes from the usual all land setup. It makes our game a lot more interesting.

[ragnarok628]

ok talk this out to me.  baltic carrier can’t work unless airforce takes out british destroyer and cruiser in the med, right?  because it would just get wasted.  and if russia buys a sub R1 then sub + 2 fighters is still coin toss vs BB and AC so that’s pretty risky.  so seems like you’d have to get at least 1 fighter as well.  so 1 fighter + 1 bomber + 1 AC = 36 and you only have 4 dollars left for land.  and on top of it all you won’t be able to attack anglo-egypt G1. am i getting this?

[coorran]

@ragnarok628:

ok talk this out to me.  baltic carrier can’t work unless airforce takes out british destroyer and cruiser in the med, right?  because it would just get wasted.  and if russia buys a sub R1 then sub + 2 fighters is still coin toss vs BB and AC so that’s pretty risky.  so seems like you’d have to get at least 1 fighter as well.  so 1 fighter + 1 bomber + 1 AC = 36 and you only have 4 dollars left for land.  and on top of it all you won’t be able to attack anglo-egypt G1. am i getting this?

The Baltic sea is North of Germany. And you do have to land FTR there in non-combat for it to work. But really look for IL’s thread to understand the numerous possibilities.

And yes, it does leave you with only 14 IPCs to spend on INF. But it’s really a different strategy then the rush to RUS.

[ragnarok628]

well now, i feel like a geography noob.  i know where the baltic is but for some reason i just got it in my head that we were talking about a mediterranean carrier.  i don’t know why, i even wrote baltic in the same sentence as med.  i am a clueless idiot  :?

so help a clueless idiot out real quick with this one, i guess it’s a rules point:  i was under the impression that you can’t land fighters on a newly placed carrier because non combat move comes before mobilization……

…oooooooooh.  wait.  ok.  i get it now.  you end the planes’ non combat move in the sea zone where the carrier will be placed, and then when mobilization happens, the plane doesn’t crash because now, the carrier is there.  i’ve been playing my games thinking that you couldn’t do that but i guess it makes sense that you can.

ok now that i’ve got my head on straight, i will contribute this-- i actually did the baltic AC (only i bought two fighters to go with it, because i didn’t realize i didn’t HAVE to) a few games back, and it actually worked out rather well for me.  i play against another newbie though, we’re learning together, and he just didn’t know how to handle it, and for some reason he’s resisting the idea of building nothing but navy for UK1.  so i bought another carrier and owned the atlantic for the rest of the game.  this probably wouldn’t have worked against someone who knows how to deal with it.

[newpaintbrush]

My opinion is that the Mediterranean can be a REALLY GOOD SPOT for German naval builds, under the right conditions.

A few German subs in the Mediterranean combined with German control of Africa can make a big difference in the Allied fleet action.  Either they land at Algeria, and get blown up, or they route south and lose the use of escorts plus transports for 4 turns  (one turn to brazil, second to drop, third to return to brazil, fourth to drop) or they let Germany keep Africa.  Granted, this isn’t going to happen in a lot of games against strong players, but when it does come up, German subs can be super useful.

–

I am of mixed mind regarding a Baltic AC build.  Germany cannot keep it if the Allies want to destroy it, but the logistic advantage of Germany/West Europe to Karelia, messing with UK1 fleet build, and added control to Norway are good compensation for the early game.

[ragnarok628]

@Bunnies:

I am of mixed mind regarding a Baltic AC build.  Germany cannot keep it if the Allies want to destroy it, but the logistic advantage of Germany/West Europe to Karelia, messing with UK1 fleet build, and added control to Norway are good compensation for the early game.

but if you build it, they HAVE to destroy it, amirite? so you buy time, time that you use to get japan into the fight against moscow.  i don’t know if it works at all against good players though.

[newpaintbrush]

Re:  G1 Baltic AC buy:

Allies never have to destroy Baltic fleet.  As long as it lives, Germany maintains a logistic advantage for the W Eur-Germany-Karelia-Norway circle, and an invasion threat to London.  But if the Allies are so minded, UK can build northwest of UK on UK2 after a minimal ground buy protecting London from a G2 invasion.  From there, the fleet drops straight to Karelia.  If German navy pokes its head out of the Baltic, the UK fleet plus air smashes it.  The AC is a continuing problem because it disrupts UK fleet reinforcements (UK will have to retreat its navy for an entire turn to sea zone northwest of London), but that’s not too awful, considering that Germany can only drop 2 units in the Baltic circle, while UK can drop 8 to Karelia/Archangel.

As far as using the G1 Baltic AC to buy time - it DOES work, of course - but by “work”, I don’t mean I think it a superior or better strategy  I only mean that the AC does effectively stall the Allies a bit in the Atlantic to some degree.  Whether those IPCs would be better spent elsewhere is another matter.

Personally, I’m of the opinion that a Baltic AC is a dead end to a UK1 2-3 fighter build, and that if Germany does build navy, it should be subs in the Mediterranean, and then only when Germany’s already achieved dominance in Africa, and US looks like it may be thinking about landing at Algeria.  A German Med AC is not horribly impractical, but I would prefer to use Japanese units if at all possible.  (it often is NOT against veteran players).

[ragnarok628]

i can understand that the allies don’t have to kill the baltic fleet but they have to remain ABLE to kill the fleet, which i guess is what i mean. because besides the logistic advantage you mention a strong baltic navy can force the UK/US players to build up stronger navies to make any kind of landing.  right?  maybe i’m not right.

[newpaintbrush]

@ragnarok628:

i can understand that the allies don’t have to kill the baltic fleet but they have to remain ABLE to kill the fleet, which i guess is what i mean. because besides the logistic advantage you mention a strong baltic navy can force the UK/US players to build up stronger navies to make any kind of landing.  right?  maybe i’m not right.

The Baltic carrier gives German fighters better effective range, which makes the Allies have to build slightly stronger defensive fleets.

If the German fleet wanders out of the Baltic, UK can usually smash it easily with the fodder destroyers they built to protect vs German air attack, plus UK air.  UK can then reinforce their fleet with their build, leaving it difficult for Germany to attack.

[ragnarok628]

i think my understanding is hampered by the fact that my opponent never makes good use of his german fighters to keep the seas clear so i’m used to not really having to build much fleet after UK1, so the difference seems more drastic to me if he were to fleet up in the baltic.  but on a higher level of play you have to build more boats as UK regardless of the german fleet.  does that sound right?

[newpaintbrush]

@ragnarok628:

you have to build more boats as UK regardless of the german fleet.  does that sound right?

What is “more”?  Like, what’s your typical UK1 build/move?

[Zhukov44]

@ragnarok628:

i think my understanding is hampered by the fact that my opponent never makes good use of his german fighters to keep the seas clear so i’m used to not really having to build much fleet after UK1, so the difference seems more drastic to me if he were to fleet up in the baltic.  but on a higher level of play you have to build more boats as UK regardless of the german fleet.  does that sound right?

The assumption is that after G1 the UK fleet is cleared (except for the 1 trn) and Germany has 2 fig in 5, plus maybe another fig + bmb in Norway, and at least 1 more fig in Western.  The 2 subs and dd are in 7 or 3…in range of 8 and 2 in any case.

These figs in 5 can reach both SZ8 and SZ2.  So a UK1 fleet build is folly.

Fortunately there is a simple and effective response.  UK buys 3 figs, forcing Germany to either spend more money on boats to keep its fleet afloat or abandon the doomed project.

Germany may be able to keep pace with the British build-up, but they wont be able to outspend the Allies if both UK and USA commit to the air buys.  If UK/USA start mixing in bombers with their purchases, then these bombers can start SBRing Germany.  So Germany will have to be spending 30+ ipcs per turn on boats and fighters, plus paying the SBR damage, and spending enough on infantry to hold off Russia.  Here is a Germany that is split extremely thin.

But if USA is 100% Pacific the Baltic Fleet isn’t such a bad move after all.