Med Battleship G1

[Zhukov44]

@Bunnies:

1.  Germany allows the Allies early progress in Europe in exchange for later African IPCs.  Germany fueled by African IPCs and a significant and constant threat to Africa is a major problem for the Allies.

“And if you spend too much ipc to avoid this, you’ll maybe conquer Africa - but on the expense of Eastern Europe, Norway and eventually Berlin…?”

No, not really.  UK has less IPCs to fuel its attack; Germany has more to fuel its defense.  Norway should always fall quickly anyways.

Besides, the German fleet isn’t dedicated to Africa.  The idea is not for Germany to try to load up Africa; that’s just crazy talk.  If US loads Africa, great, Germany loads to Europe, and US is stuck walking through Africa.  If US doesn’t load Africa, great, Germany maintains control of Africa.  If US loads Africa a bit, Germany lets the Allies take a few early gains, and takes back whenever it pleases; with a big threat on the Algeria (west of Africa) sea zone, US can either build a fat fleet (delaying it), or transport via Brazil (also delaying).

2.  5 UK air have a hard time vs 2 battleships 2 carriers 4 fighters.  That’s with the Japanese fleet sailing through the Suez on J2, which is hard to prevent with an AC/transport buy for Germany.

3. “I find that the german navy often goes from being a threat . . . to being outnumbered and outcornered in just a few rounds” of course, but I bet you are probably not used to playing a G1 Med carrier (possibly plus) buy strategy, which plays out a lot differently than 5 inf/5 tank or even early Med sub stall buys.

I’m not going to say that G1 Med fleet purchase is the bomb diggity.  But it isn’t some stupid noob strategy either.  The key is the J2 movement of battleship/carrier through the Suez; how can UK try to stop it, how can Germany and Japan try to make it happen.  Everything else comes from that.

Barring dicing, UK should be able to block a J2 sail through, particularly if there was no G1 attack on Egy.  That gives UK until UK3 to put together an air attack on the Med fleet.  There’s no place the German fleet can run that bombers built UK2 can’t attack.

In Revised there was a very good German fleet/combine strategy that gave above average results unless the Allied opponent knew exactly how to counter it……But in 42 I’m not optimistic about any kind of German surface navy purchases.  But please keep trying em–it’s nice to score some Allied wins here and there.

[newpaintbrush]

@Zhukov44:

Barring dicing, UK should be able to block a J2 sail through, particularly if there was no G1 attack on Egy.  That gives UK until UK3 to put together an air attack on the Med fleet.  There’s no place the German fleet can run that bombers built UK2 can’t attack.

In Revised there was a very good German fleet/combine strategy that gave above average results unless the Allied opponent knew exactly how to counter it……But in 42 I’m not optimistic about any kind of German surface navy purchases.  But please keep trying em–it’s nice to score some Allied wins here and there.

:roll:

Yes, I can imagine the Axis might win some victories if Russia were to do things like buy multiple navy / air units on R1.  Oh wait . . . is that a little personal Zhuk?  :?

I’m just busting your chops a little  :-D, but I doubt you have ever faced off against a dedicated Axis strat for German-controlled Med.  I know I’ve never seen it tried except in my notes.

As far as blocking the J2 sail through - that isn’t the end.  That’s the KEY POINT, but it’s not the end.  If you must use chess as an analogy, you could say it’s like trading queens in an attack on the king bishop two square.  The queen attack is just one aspect of the king bishop two square attack; neutralizing it doesn’t mean the end of the attack, let alone the end of the game.

Chop-busting bunnies . . . I could go in for a nice lamb chop.  After which I could do some judo chops, if I knew judo.  Do you find judo bunnies sexy baby, yeah?

[GCar]

This strategy is suboptimal in comparison to usual Germany strategy. It can still win. The reason being that Russia usually has a very easy time surviving with low Germany pressure. It has principally 2 “tricks”:

• The blitz attack on London on G2 (if you win with that trick you likely would have won the match with any strategy anyways)

• Japan coming through Suez, merging with Germany fleet and seriously disrupting allies fleets in the Atlantic, giving slightly better “long game” winning chances to axis even against very good players (although quite destroying the “short game” wins, and by a much bigger margin !). This one is tougher to counter and need an overall strategy. I don’t want to discourage people to build German navy against me though so I’ll stay quiet on it :)

As for the extra IPC in Africa, well nobody can deny that, but whenever you gain something somewhere you lose something elsewhere, just a question of balance. From my experience, Russia early peace of mind, staying high on IPC, building more units before Japan arrive, is more then enough compensation for the UK loss.

In a nutshell for this startegy and simple (I think) explanation of why it is suboptimal: Axis is trying to kill Russia. Germany can win IPC early in the game wether from UK (in Africa) or Russia (in Europe). It seems obvious to me that is is better to cut Russia income since your plan is to take Moscow to win, therefore to spend IPC against Russia (ground/air) and not against UK (ships to keep control of Med/Africa).

Just my two cents.

[newpaintbrush]

@GCar:

This strategy is suboptimal in comparison to usual Germany strategy. . . . It has principally 2 “tricks”:

• The blitz attack on London on G2 (if you win with that trick you likely would have won the match with any strategy anyways)

• Japan coming through Suez, merging with Germany fleet and seriously disrupting allies fleets in the Atlantic

Just as I wrote; I haven’t seen anything I consider to be a strong Med AC strategy in play yet.  Not sure what you think the proper use of Med AC is, but from what you’ve written, I get the impression you have a very different idea of how it’s supposed to be used, so not surprisingly, you think it’s weak.

It’s sort of like using a toaster as a hammer.  You would be right in saying that a toaster makes a bad hammer.  But what’s the point in trying to make perverted use of toasters?  Use a toaster as a toaster, and a hammer as a hammer.

1.  Blitz vs London is not possible as I view the “proper” use of the Med AC strategy.

2.  Axis control of the Atlantic is not normally “proper” either.  The use of the Japanese fleet to bolster the Mediterranean is purely to stall the German Med fleet from being blown up by subs and air.  Depending on the situation, the Axis fleet may threaten the sea zone west of Algeria.  But venturing into the Atlantic is just a really bad idea for Axis.

Some things are just not good.  Like a Russian battleship on R1, or a Japanese carrier and a destroyer on J1.  But a G1 Mediterranean AC is not like that.

I’m not going to go as far as saying “German Med AC is superior”.  But I will certainly say it’s not one of those fluky silly strategies like Russian 1 battleship or Japan 1 carrier/2 destroyers.

[Hobbes]

@GCar:

• The blitz attack on London on G2 (if you win with that trick you likely would have won the match with any strategy anyways)

Not exactly. If the UK/US can retake London on the following turn then the game is not yet decided. Overall G will come out of it on the winning side, with all the UK income but it will have to use its airforce on the process and the Russians will be able to pressure on the Eastern front.

[GCar]

@Bunnies:

@GCar:

Some things are just not good.  Like a Russian battleship on R1, or a Japanese carrier and a destroyer on J1.  But a G1 Mediterranean AC is not like that.

I’m not going to go as far as saying “German Med AC is superior”.  But I will certainly say it’s not one of those fluky silly strategies like Russian 1 battleship or Japan 1 carrier/2 destroyers.

Exactly what I said at the beginning of my post: This strategy is suboptimal in comparison to usual Germany strategy. It can still win.

On the other hand from my allies play experience I’d say my win% against this strategy is around 90% against players with fair to high experience instead of around 60-70 %, although I have to admit those numbers might be biaised by the fact that I don’t really see high experience players using that strategy :)

[KaLeu]

I have a question regarding this strategy.

If you’re buying a new aircraft carrier and a transport in SZ14 on G1, is the idea then, to still attack SZ15 and Egypt that round? So that if Russia has indeed built that submarine in SZ16, the original German mediterranean fleet will die on R2, but you’ve built a new one beforehand?
Or is the idea, to keep the entire fleet in SZ14 in order to have a pretty strong med fleet on G2 and be able to transport more units to Africa?

[Hobbes]

@Herr:

I have a question regarding this strategy.

If you’re buying a new aircraft carrier and a transport in SZ14 on G1, is the idea then, to still attack SZ15 and Egypt that round? So that if Russia has indeed built that submarine in SZ16, the original German mediterranean fleet will die on R2, but you’ve built a new one beforehand?
Or is the idea, to keep the entire fleet in SZ14 in order to have a pretty strong med fleet on G2 and be able to transport more units to Africa?

If Russia bought a sub to SZ16 then you need to consolidate the carrier, BB and transport(s) on SZ14, and land 2 units on Libya, giving you 3 inf, 1 art and 2 arm there. Just the land units on Libya should be enough to take most of Africa since the UK will most likely disperse its units rather than to try to defend Egypt. Which allows you to divert those transports to landings on Ukraine/Caucasus.

If there’s no Russian sub then you can and should attack SZ15 and Egypt on G1. The quicker you get rid of that UK armor and fighter the better and the UK either retakes Egypt or goes after Japan.

[KaLeu]

Thank you! Following up on that, my reasoning would be:

(a) If there’s no Russian sub in SZ16 and Germany does the Egypt attack, I can’t see a very good reason for the AC + transport buy on G1. The AC won’t protect the battleship, and the battleship itself can only be attacked by the UK with one bomber and one fighter, when any surviving UK planes need to land in Transjordan. That’s a risky attack anyway, and if the battleship kills one of the planes, the UK would need to let the bomber go, because if the fighter dies and the bomber lands, Transjordan may be a tempting target for a G2 attack from Egypt supported by a fighter or two. In that case, the only benefit of having an extra German transport in SZ14 would be to further reinforce that attack on Transjordan - so it seems like a costly measure to counter a UK move that doesn’t look very good anyway.
So without the Russian sub I wouldn’t buy any German navy on G1 because it wouldn’t really contribute to the safety of the German med fleet anyway - and if the fleet is still around on G2 and looks like being in danger by then, I can always move it back to SZ14 and do the AC buy on G2.

(b) If there is a Russian sub in SZ16, then I’d be inclined to buy an AC and a destroyer rather than another transport in SZ14, because I don’t understand why I’d need two transports there. In that case, suppose that Russia has taken the Ukraine and killed a German fighter, Germany can still send three fighters  after the UK destroyer in SZ15, and land two of them on the new AC. I’d prefer to kill the SZ15 destroyer rather than the SZ13 cruiser, because the cruiser has a bigger chance of downing one of the German planes, and also, if the destroyer lives, the UK may sail its SZ35 fleet to SZ15, and with the Russian sub added, it will be too strong to effectively kill it on G2 - and leaving it there allows the UK to attack the German fleet with the fleet plus land based planes.
So in that case I suppose Germany could take Egypt on G2 overland, and possibly Transjordan amphibiously unless the UK reinforces it heavily, in which it can still be attacked on G3. After the work in the East Mediterranean is done, the German fleet could move to SZ13, reunite with whatever is left of the Baltic fleet if that moves to SZ7 on G1, and be reinforced by Japan. That won’t be enough to match the combined UK/US naval buying power of course, but at least it forces them to pour some money into buying enough capital ships to protect the Atlantic from a German air/naval raid.

Does all of that make any sense?

[GCar]

Building aircraft carrier + destroyer in the med is way too much. This is 22 IPC not spent in much needed land units and the wins you will make in Africa won’t compensate the losts in Europe + 7 land units missing.

If you really want to play this strategy, never buy more then 1 aircraft carrier on the sea, any extra units is useless safety since it is already doubtfull that allies will be able to take out carrier + 2 fighters + battleship in the early turns without giving away too much in terms of needing to get carriers putting UK/US units in Europe as fast as possible.

I also agree that the second transport is not needed.

This strategy is mostly a decoy to lure allies out of their only real plan which is taking Germany down. On the other hand, the early 14 IPC (which is almost 5 Infantries) is HUGE if allies follow their plan and attack Germany.

[KaLeu]

Hmm, I suppose you’re right about that. I got into thinking that I should buy something “better” than the extra transport that was mentioned earlier in the thread, without considering that it could just be skipped.
I would only consider the strategy against the Russian sub buy anyway - after all, that sub also costs Russia a few land units.

[Col.Stauffenberg]

Saying naval units take away from units that could be going after Russia is misleading. That’s why the extra trans build is a good idea. Russia always has to make sure Caucus is well defended, which means less units coming after Germany. It also increases the movement of units so you can get them to the front quicker. The trick is to not get trapped in the med. If Japan can get through, milk that as long as possible but if you can move your naval build through the channel while still having enough to defend Southern, then there’s money to be made in the pacific.

If Germany decides to go all out for Russia with land and air units, then nothing is stopping the allies from going all out for Germany.  They can shut down Germany round by round. Round 1- control Atlantic, destroy Baltic Navy, Round 2 land in Africa/Norway, Destory German Med navy, by round 3 all those land units you were planning on sending against Russia had to come back to defend France. You’re going to need at least ten units there - 30 ipcs and you aren’t making Africa money and Japan is not that fast.

[Hobbes]

@Col.Stauffenberg:

If Germany decides to go all out for Russia with land and air units, then nothing is stopping the allies from going all out for Germany.  They can shut down Germany round by round. Round 1- control Atlantic, destroy Baltic Navy, Round 2 land in Africa/Norway, Destory German Med navy, by round 3 all those land units you were planning on sending against Russia had to come back to defend France.

I think this might be a little too optimistic for the Allies…

[GCar]

@Col.Stauffenberg:

If Germany decides to go all out for Russia with land and air units, then nothing is stopping the allies from going all out for Germany.  They can shut down Germany round by round. Round 1- control Atlantic, destroy Baltic Navy, Round 2 land in Africa/Norway, Destory German Med navy, by round 3 all those land units you were planning on sending against Russia had to come back to defend France. You’re going to need at least ten units there - 30 ipcs and you aren’t making Africa money and Japan is not that fast.

Because you are not building an AC in the med doesn’t mean you let allies land anywhere on turn 2. You are also having planes.

The main plan with Germany is not going “all out against Russia”, it is Fortress Europe. If Germany lets allies land in Africa/Norway without killing the allied fleet, well Germany doesn’t know what he is doing (or your Russia dices were really terrible and he decided that he could just go all in and blitz Russia).

Fortress Europe is the proven best plan for axis and is pretty much the only thing you see at high level in leagues. AC build is fun to try sometimes but is not nearly as competitive.

And before someone writes that Fortress Europe is not incompatible with building AC turn 1: Yes, it is :)

[Col.Stauffenberg]

@GCar:

Because you are not building an AC in the med doesn’t mean you let allies land anywhere on turn 2. You are also having planes.

The main plan with Germany is not going “all out against Russia”, it is Fortress Europe. If Germany lets allies land in Africa/Norway without killing the allied fleet, well Germany doesn’t know what he is doing (or your Russia dices were really terrible and he decided that he could just go all in and blitz Russia).

Fortress Europe is the proven best plan for axis and is pretty much the only thing you see at high level in leagues. AC build is fun to try sometimes but is not nearly as competitive.

And before someone writes that Fortress Europe is not incompatible with building AC turn 1: Yes, it is :)

I hear fortress Europe all the time and have seen bits and pieces of this strategy posted. Doesn’t seem like a good idea to me. I could be wrong but is it just basically Germany turtling with a bunch of planes and Japense air help? How do they decimate the allied naval builds if they too weren’t buying navy? With planes? How many planes would they lose to do this? How long would this take to set up? You know what I’d do as allies if Germany lost planes and killed the UK and US boats? Buy more! Germany’s pieces are irreplaceable. US and to a lesser extent, the UK’s aren’t. How does Germany fight with no planes? How passive is Russia in these scenarios? How aggresive is Germany or Japan?

There’s no way to keep the allies out of the Atlantic or landing in Africa. Maximum delay is 3 rounds. Fortress sounds like a defensive strat and playing an axis focused on defense is the wrong way to play them.

[GCar]

@Col.Stauffenberg:

I hear fortress Europe all the time and have seen bits and pieces of this strategy posted. Doesn’t seem like a good idea to me. I could be wrong but is it just basically Germany turtling with a bunch of planes and Japense air help? How do they decimate the allied naval builds if they too weren’t buying navy? With planes? How many planes would they lose to do this? How long would this take to set up? You know what I’d do as allies if Germany lost planes and killed the UK and US boats? Buy more! Germany’s pieces are irreplaceable. US and to a lesser extent, the UK’s aren’t. How does Germany fight with no planes? How passive is Russia in these scenarios? How aggresive is Germany or Japan?

There’s no way to keep the allies out of the Atlantic or landing in Africa. Maximum delay is 3 rounds. Fortress sounds like a defensive strat and playing an axis focused on defense is the wrong way to play them.

Sorry but I think the experience of the players in the high level leagues means something :)
You are not getting completely the idea of fortress Europe, not fortress Europe and Africa. The idea is very simple, if you can keep Germany around 38 IPC (so 12-13 infantry per turn) for the time Japan need to go forward in Asia, later taking Africa or Moscow (usually around turn 7 if allies play in the Atlantic), you will win because of the economic advantage. The planes are mostly for slowing down allies in the Atlantic (obviously you can’t stop them forever from landing) and when they are ready to land (usually turn 3 for their first landing and turn 4 for their first huge landing) they have nowhere good to land because Germany as at that point build a massive amount of infantry.

It requires experience to play it correctly and it is easy to make a mistake at some point but it is very hard to beat for allies and is definitely the best plan for an experienced player that calculates the odds of the fights and therefore as always correct amount of infantry on every territory. Beginners will have difficulties to play this plan correctly though because they will sometimes leave more infantries then necessary to block landings and see Russia go forward or they will sometimes not leave enough infantries in defense and lose a big stack to a landing (plus the hole it creates) and will lose because of it.

[Col.Stauffenberg]

We don’t play economic victories but fair enough. Still, I don’t see how a Germany making only 38 ipcs is going to be able to do much of anything. How much will Japan have to make to get the EV? 60? We can get them up to high 40s-50 Ipcs but that takes time and in a game where Germany is being defensive, Japan is off fortune hunting, Russia is going to be a monster. In a fortress Europe scenario, I imagine it would be easy for Russia to make high 30’s, especially since they don’t have to worry about Axis air.

[GCar]

Russia won’t keep 30 IPC because Japan will take Asia and hopefully Caucasus eventually. And it is not play economic victory it is just that when axis makes more money then allies it is pretty much all the time game over (excdept is Germany is on the verge of falling).

Obviously this strat is not winning 100 % of the time, no strat does. It is on the other hand the strat that gives axis the best odds if played correctly. Aas an exemple, it is much harder to play then just blitzing Russia with tanks :)

[Col.Stauffenberg]

@GCar:

Russia won’t keep 30 IPC because Japan will take Asia and hopefully Caucasus eventually. And it is not play economic victory it is just that when axis makes more money then allies it is pretty much all the time game over (excdept is Germany is on the verge of falling).

Obviously this strat is not winning 100 % of the time, no strat does. It is on the other hand the strat that gives axis the best odds if played correctly. Aas an exemple, it is much harder to play then just blitzing Russia with tanks :)

Well duh. Germany tank dash is the first strategy noobs come up with on their own. Also, most games are won by the Axis with Japan making a ton of money and taking down Russia, but if they are donating planes to Germany for fortress Europe they have susbtantially less attack power against Russia. I just don’t see how a divided air force is a threat to allied ship builds beyond round 2. They start with a big fat 1 tank, usually lose a plane in French Indo and if they donate planes, they have to buy more so it slows down their financial gains. This would only work against a passive Russia and an inefficient UK/US.

[GCar]

The point of the Japan planes is not to take down allies fleets. It is to stop them from splitting the fleet however they want (Since allies can’t move UK and US fleets at the same time, they have either Japan or Germany playing in between). It then forces allies to either buy way too much fleet to be able to split their transports to attack different points (like having some diesembarking in Algeria and some in Norway early for exemple) or to just attack one territory and not being able to switch without buying more fleet. So the axis plan becomes stoping allies to disembark in Paris and:

• If allies as their one disembarking point in the north (Norway, Archangel or Leningrad), Japan will swarm Africa easily with no reinforcements coming and the game axis will soon have 90 IPC per turn and win at some point because they will just build more units then allies.
• If allies as their one disembarking point in Algeria, take down Moscow since it won’t have any UK/US reinforcements beside planes
• if allies builds a lot of fleets to be able to disembark everywhere, well they have to spend a LOT of IPC to do so and usually hopefully they won’t be able to disembark anywhere relevant (Paris, Berlin, Eastern Europe) since the double attack (UK followed by US disembark) as to take into account 4-5 Japan fighters that can add their forces in between (this is obviously also a move usefull in the two previous points)

I hope I explained a bit better then previously why those Japan planes are so strong against KGF.