G1 Purchase: Poll Question

[Young Grasshopper]

Yes - It’s needed to land the Tac Bomber from Germany, and to help threaten Sealion.

No - The Royal Navy can be destroyed without the Tac Bomber, and that money should be used for more important units.

There is no “Unsure” or “Depends” option as I would hope those voting know by now what their go to G1 purchases are.

Thanks for participating.

[knp7765]

I think it should. It gives UK the threat of Sealion and it’s good to project some naval presence as Germany. A carrier along with a few other warships can keep the US/UK navies at bay and force them to spend more on warships. That could mean less troops landing in Europe for a little longer, maybe time enough for Germany to take out Russia.
Not getting one means Germany pretty much cedes the Atlantic to the Allies without much of a fight. Yeah, land based Luftwaffe can project some threat but it just seems to me that when Germany has a carrier sitting up there, it makes the Allies a little more nervous.

[Black_Elk]

Purely from the perspective of overall entertainment value for the purchase and fun gameplay in the second round, a German carrier purchase  can be cool.

I don’t think G40 is like Classic or Revised, where Allies had a really potent counter play, when G bought a carrier.

I’d vote yes, even if there are arguments for other plays. The Graf Zeppelin opening is solid.

[ghr2]

@Young:

Yes - It’s needed to land the Tac Bomber from Germany, and to help threaten Sealion.

No - The Royal Navy can be destroyed without the Tac Bomber, and that money should be used for more important units.

There is no “Unsure” or “Depends” option as I would hope those voting know by now what their go to G1 purchases are.

Thanks for participating.

I say no, and still use the Tac Bomber.

[Witt]

I always buy a Carrier.

[KaLeu]

@ghr2:

@Young:

Yes - It’s needed to land the Tac Bomber from Germany, and to help threaten Sealion.

No - The Royal Navy can be destroyed without the Tac Bomber, and that money should be used for more important units.

There is no “Unsure” or “Depends” option as I would hope those voting know by now what their go to G1 purchases are.

Thanks for participating.

I say no, and still use the Tac Bomber.

I totally agree. I’ll land the tac bomber in Holland/Belgium plus one or two other planes and add AA guns from Germany as fodder against a French suicide action from Normandy (which I don’t attack G1).

[EnoughSaid]

@Herr:

@ghr2:

@Young:

Yes - It’s needed to land the Tac Bomber from Germany, and to help threaten Sealion.

No - The Royal Navy can be destroyed without the Tac Bomber, and that money should be used for more important units.

There is no “Unsure” or “Depends” option as I would hope those voting know by now what their go to G1 purchases are.

Thanks for participating.

I say no, and still use the Tac Bomber.

I totally agree. I’ll land the tac bomber in Holland/Belgium plus one or two other planes and add AA guns from Germany as fodder against a French suicide action from Normandy (which I don’t attack G1).

Me three. I often buy an air base and put it in Holland, which usually deflects any bright ideas UK has for sending it’s 1 destroyer and scottish fighter to kill my damaged battleship, as well as giving excess range to much more than just 2 planes.

[Young Grasshopper]

Wow, my bad… sorry guys.

[knp7765]

Wow! Hey Young Grasshopper and wittmann,
I knew not everyone wants to buy a carrier on G1, but I didn’t realize we were that much in the minority.
There are a few instances where I don’t buy a carrier G1, usually if I am totally forgetting about Sealion and going straight Barbarossa. In that case my G1 buy usually involves an IC in Romania. What I don’t like about this move is it basically telegraphs your intentions. Russia goes into strong defense immediately and the UK, realizing there is no Sealion threat, can get really bold and annoying.
What I like about a G1 carrier purchase is it still makes UK think there is a chance of Sealion, so they get a little conservative which might give the Italians a slight edge. Also, Russia may get the idea they can get tough and go offensive. Even with a transport buy G2, you can use the carrier and transports to invade Leningrad and get a good start on Barbarossa. Plus, if Russia bought more offensive units, it could be a little easier to roll over them.
Also, with a German carrier sitting up there, the US will have to spend more on warships and planes to cover their landing force. That could mean less stuff harassing your buddy Japan. So even if you don’t do Sealion, a German carrier could be a good bluff against the Allies.

With the poll results, now I am curious about trying some other G1 buys and see what happens.
Maybe my G1 purchases and strategy has become too standard and predictable.

[cyanight]

My G1 buy varies but almost always includes one or more planes.

Standard G1:

2 Strategic Bombers and a sub

I can now bomb London’s factory completely if needed or send my planes to the Med to wipe out Egypt.

[Witt]

I am just too conservative Knp (and do not play many games). I think defensively and never attack Russia on G2, unless Yugoslavia pushes me that way. I like to help Italy first, by punishing my friend (and home) England. I always liked the threat it poses to Engkand, although Sealion rarely ever happens.
I know all these Axis Euro victories come from Russia bashing, especially early on. I just can’t change!
Bombers, Cyanight, seem to be many people’s choice. I think it is because of the flexibility it gives you. Bombers, like Subs, are overpowered.

[cyanight]

Yea, I agree with you Wittmann.  Bombers should cost 15 and Cruisers should cost 10.  Have no idea what to do with subs.  Also when your playing with Tech I think the most powerful tech ability is Long Range Aircraft.  Really changes the game and stalls your opponent.

[Young Grasshopper]

I still like an Aircraft Carrier purchase turn 1 even if all planes can reach the Royal Navy, I guess I’m a big believer in making the UK defend. Sealion is rare even with an Aircraft Carrier, but it’s impossible without one, if Germany doesn’t purchase one like KNP says, there will be instant pressure in the West just to spend 16 IPCs in a different military arm, the US won’t need to match for big boats in Europe, Russia can try and take out the few ships Germany does have, the UK is now free to scramble G1 and take out a few German air units, and perhaps even build an IC in Egypt UK1.

If I’m not building an Aircraft Carrier G1 than I might as well do my G1 attack on Russia to take out 7 Infantry. Now maybe this is just a comfort zone buy for me, but I play against some pretty astute players who know how to counter small decisions like this, I’m sure the UK would welcome the freedom of not dealing with a German AC, and I’m thinking all this is a product of the Moscow crush strategy where all efforts (including Italy’s abandonment of the Med) go to capturing Moscow by turn 5… maybe I’m wrong.

[Black_Elk]

Well I think it’s in the framing of the question, presented as either/or.

Global is not like Revised. In Revised, if you bought a Carrier you basically doomed the Axis, since Allies could easily trade air for German ships.  In G40 you have more control,  since Germany gets to determine when aircraft can be landed in Russia after a fly by attack on the Baltic, because of the DoW, and you also have much more control on the Baltic because it’s entrance is now a strait. So buying a carrier is actually workable here, whereas in earlier A&A games it definitely was not workable.

Since AA50 cheaper bombers have made the Luftwaffe a lot more effective for G at covering Fortress Europe. Airbases in G40 also make a Luftwaffe cover strategy pretty solid too. I have seen an AB in Holland in a couple games to cover 110 on a scramble and threaten with extra reach, but the AB in W. Germany can often get the job done all by itself. Bombers are hard to argue against since they move 7 out of an AB, which means they can cover basically all the critical UK sea zones, just out of W. Germany.

For the new player though, which seemed to be the idea behind a tutorial, I think it is cool to show a Graf Zeppelin opening. It’s fairly straight forward in terms providing G with an overall strategy that they can follow. Covering with only the Luftwaffe might be a bit more challenging to explain to the new player, since it involves a more long term or “far reaching” (pun intended) understanding of Axis defense, e.g. how to use the movement advantage of Air as an alternative to ships.
;)

But yeah, I think it’s worth noting that a Carrier in the Baltic is a much safer play in G40 than it was in any previous A&A game. Its not a “losing” strategy, the way it was before. Even if it might be a slightly more risky, “winning” strategy. One thing it does do, is to maintain the Axis inniative, since it forces UK into a more reactive role, and puts more pressure on USA, since it gives Axis a better shot at naval parity with Allies in the long term.

Again, if you’re talking overall entertainment value, a carrier is a lot of fun, since it makes the opening rounds more critical especially vs UK. Which could be a good thing for a first time player, since they are less likely to get bored, if they have a clear strategy to gun for.

[aequitas-et-veritas]

When I started with G40, I did not buy an AC but found out the hard way that an AC is pretty much needy and Handy!
First I did not like the idea for Germany having an AC.
History showed us that it would have benfitted Germany enough to maybe secure the Channel.
We also know from history that Germany did not finished Graf Zeppelin and that the U.K. was pretty smart to built small ones out of former German ships. The Audacity for example.

An AC belongs now to my G1 Standard openeing purchase.

[knp7765]

I also agree with you guys. In Europe, Revised, Anniversary and 1942, I would never buy a carrier for Germany in the early rounds. Later on, after Russia is crushed and Germany is turning back on England, and Germany has the extra plunder from Moscow’s treasury, then I would get a carrier, maybe a new battleship, cruiser, destroyer and get ready to buy a stack of transports. Warships first though or my stack of transports will just be targets for the RAF/USAF.

However, with G40, a German carrier G1 is almost a standard play that presents several possibilities for Germany.

[cyanight]

I usually buy a carrier if I do a Sealion on turn 3 and build a CV and DD right in the Channel off of Normandy’s IC where all my ships launch the attack.

[BulwFi]

Carrier every time. Keeps the Allies guessing.  All war is deception  :wink:

[Young Grasshopper]

Very close results here, an Aircraft Carrier is doing well considering it’s up against all other units in the game.

[KaLeu]

I voted “no carrier”, which is the majority opinion, but that majority has been a very silent one so far. And I’m not saying I’d never buy a carrier as Germany, but I’m not convinced I need to buy it G1. I prefer to spend money on slow units that need time to reach Russia, and I also believe that it’s possible to keep a Sea Lion threat alive without that carrier.

I’ve been experimenting a bit with the following setup:

G1 purchase: 6 art, 1 sub

G1 combat move:
2 subs to SZ106
2 subs, 3 fighter, 3 tac, 1 bomber to SZ110
1 sub, 1 battleship, 1 fighter, 1 tac, 1 bomber to SZ111
(and attack France and Yugoslavia, but that’s not too relevant for this)

G1 sea combat:
Kill SZ110, kill SZ106, retreat from SZ111 after one round

G1 noncombat:
3 planes to Holland/Belgium
1 fighter from Yugoslavia to Southern Italy
all other planes to Western Germany
cruiser to SZ112
3 AA from Western Germany to Holland-Belgium
transport 1 tank from Poland and 1 inf from Denmark to Norway
1 inf from Denmark to Western Germany
all inf + art + 2AA from Germany to Slovakia Hungary
1 AA from Germany to Western Germany
and take Finland and Bulgaria

G1 place:
1  sub SZ112, 6 art Germany

Of course this doesn’t always work out the way it’s supposed to (from a German perspective), but it has a fair chance of achieving the desired result, which ideally is, to leave the UK with one damaged battleship that can’t escape, plus one destroyer and a transport.

I think that in this situation, the UK still needs to do something about a potential Sea Lion threat. In fact, I’m a bit puzzled about what the UK should do other than a defensive buy such as 6 inf 1 fighter. But I’d be interested to learn about alternatives.