Why should I build in the Baltic?

[newpaintbrush]

she should probably have tried to hit your Allied fleet first with all Baltic navy plus fighters and bomber, unless you had a couple of US carriers there.

I don’t know if she camps fighters in range though.

[Guest]

Dollar for daollar, about the same break down as losing the fleet on UK1 in tersm of total value of units lost.

But you did that on UK3 correct?  So now it will be UK4 when you start landings.

No matter how I break that down, it still sounds better than having the UK starting landings on UK2, and having that support shot tearing up an INF a turn for free, and having to keep more troops away from the Russian front for 2 turns, etc.

[NoMercy]

I would rather lose a few inf in the first rounds cause of UK landings and BB-shot then 2 fgts and a purchased AC (not to mention potential other fgts loss in Ukraine or the med)

[DarthMaximus]

I’m with NoMercy on this one.  I’d rather have the 16 IPC and 5 ftrs.

Coincidently, the game I just started with NoMercy could prove be a good test.  I’m obviously not sure what NM will do, but at the end of G1 (I purchased 10 inf, 2 arm)  I have:

WE:  3 inf, 1 rt, 2 arm, 4 ftrs, aa
Ger:  8 inf, 1 arm
SE: 2 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr
EE: 11 inf, 1 rt, 5 arm

With minimal forces scattered around, like belo, kar, ukr, lib, and egy.

I really don’t see how UK can make any sort of landing on UK 2, if he decides to risk his air for my ships.

Assuming I need a few inf from EE on G2 trade Ukr/Kar that’ll leave me with ~6 then I move ~7 more to EE from Ger, with the rest of troops to WE (minus possible inf to Egy).

That leaves:

WE:  5 inf, 1 rt, 3 arm, 4-5 ftrs, aa
SE:  new placement
Ger:  1-2 ftrs, 1 bom + new placement
EE:  ~13 inf, 1 rt, 5 arm
(give or take an inf, arm, ftr here or there)

I would be glad to see UK suicide their existing units and rd 1 buys on any one of these territories.

It concedes Afr for what could be far too long and It is easy for Germany to replace Inf while UK will already be in the high 20’s meaning they are going to just barely be able to fill their 4 trannies for the next few turns.

I think of it in terms of Classic.
As the Allies I don’t usually consider going to WE, GER, or EE on rds 1-3 and in that case Germany has no ships after R1.  I’d still go to Afr (usually rd 2) with UK then US, then reinforce Fin (which Russia takes on R2) on Rd 3 and work through Kar.

I don’t see why that wouldn’t work in Revised.

Certainly with a few extra German ships to start in revised you have a few more options, but I don’t buy that an AC must be bought.

I do like the idea if you are going to commit to possibly crippling UK, or you want to take a shot at an Atlantic unification.  Strong Afr bid, rd 1 drop the AC.  Rd 2 add a trn, Rd 3 add a trn, etc.  Make it devasting for the UK to even consider a strike.  I think you could play defensively against Russia and still have sufficient income from Afr/Nor and Kar to make this a possibility.  But I’m just not a fan of buy the AC and then ignore, seems like a waste.

[DarthMaximus]

@newpaintbrush:

she should probably have tried to hit your Allied fleet first with all Baltic navy plus fighters and bomber, unless you had a couple of US carriers there.

I don’t know if she camps fighters in range though.

She could have done that and basically traded fleet for fleet.  All allies combined I had 6 trns, 1 sub, 1 dd, 1 bb, but that would have ment conceding some of the following to UK/Russia (WE/Kar/Belo/Ukr) since I believe I held all four, or risk German armor to take them back.

Ultimaely I think the G attack would have ment conceding Ukr to the Allies permanently, which is why I put the fleet in range to be attacked.  :-)
She didn’t bite, and we ended up with the UK attack on G fleet.

[Jennifer]

@newpaintbrush:

she should probably have tried to hit your Allied fleet first with all Baltic navy plus fighters and bomber, unless you had a couple of US carriers there.

I don’t know if she camps fighters in range though.

If I’m remembering right, DM had quite a rather large fleet with America and England and my choices were loose my entire fleet and my entire airforce to kill his transports, or hope for decent dice and make him loose transports and maybe warships/planes attacking my fleet 1 on 1.

Needless to say, you can tell I did not get decent dice!

[newpaintbrush]

@DarthMaximus:

@newpaintbrush:

she should probably have tried to hit your Allied fleet first with all Baltic navy plus fighters and bomber, unless you had a couple of US carriers there.

I don’t know if she camps fighters in range though.

She could have done that and basically traded fleet for fleet.  All allies combined I had 6 trns, 1 sub, 1 dd, 1 bb, but that would have ment conceding some of the following to UK/Russia (WE/Kar/Belo/Ukr) since I believe I held all four, or risk German armor to take them back.

Ultimaely I think the G attack would have ment conceding Ukr to the Allies permanently, which is why I put the fleet in range to be attacked.  :-)
She didn’t bite, and we ended up with the UK attack on G fleet.

6 trns, 1 sub, 1 dd, 1 bb; 15 hit, 10 count
1 trns, 1 ac, 2 sub, 1 dd, 5 fighters, 1 bomber; 27 hit, 11 count.

It’s not as simple as trading fleets.  What she did was let you hit her navy with fodder navy and air, which left your transports free to move cost-effective ground units in that same turn.  If she had instead hit your navy, she would have lost her whole navy, but all your transports would certainly die, which would mean a two turn delay; nothing transported that turn, have to buy transports on second turn, and able to move units in on the third turn.  Plus she would have kept much of her airforce to deal with any new Allied units, so you’d have to rebuild escorts for your transports as well.

You can hit and run, leaving your air force intact, but still killing those transports.

[DarthMaximus]

I agree, that was an option, but she would have conceded some of the following to the Allies:  WE, Nor, Kar, Belo, and Ukr as the UK or Rus held all of those prior to Germany’s turn.

Meaning if she commited all her planes and fleet to take out my trns she would have had to expose her tanks to retake Belo, Kar, and Ukr or of course concede them all to Russia for another turn.

Either way Germany was going to lose something.

And UK only loses 1 turn (the purchase of new trns) for drop off, since the UK’s next turn I used the trns as fodder anyway to take out the Germans.  Meaning I didn’t unload new units that turn anyway.

So either way UK only loses one drop off.

Ultimately, I think she did the right thing by using her ftrs elsewhere on the mainland, the real problem was leaving the 2 ftrs on the AC, but again, if you are going to pull those ftrs, I really don’t see the worth in buying the AC to begin with.

[Jennifer]

And even if SHE (aka ME) would have done that I would have traded all my fighters for the possibility of killing transports, if he chose them as deaths.

I probably should have pulled the fighters and let you sink the carrier easier…dunno.  I have 20/20 hindsight as does everyone else who don’t wear primerose goggles that is.

[newpaintbrush]

@DarthMaximus:

I agree, that was an option, but she would have conceded some of the following to the Allies:  WE, Nor, Kar, Belo, and Ukr as the UK or Rus held all of those prior to Germany’s turn.

Meaning if she commited all her planes and fleet to take out my trns she would have had to expose her tanks to retake Belo, Kar, and Ukr or of course concede them all to Russia for another turn.

Either way Germany was going to lose something.

And UK only loses 1 turn (the purchase of new trns) for drop off, since the UK’s next turn I used the trns as fodder anyway to take out the Germans.  Meaning I didn’t unload new units that turn anyway.

So either way UK only loses one drop off.

Ultimately, I think she did the right thing by using her ftrs elsewhere on the mainland, the real problem was leaving the 2 ftrs on the AC, but again, if you are going to pull those ftrs, I really don’t see the worth in buying the AC to begin with.

Well, if Germany REALLY had such a poor position, the game was already lost regardless, don’t you think?  So it should really be a question about Germany’s responses to other earlier Allied moves, instead of a single question about what should have been done with fighters at that point.  I have to admit I’m not sure how the Allies got to take W. Europe and Norway that early if the Baltic fleet still existed.

(edit) woops hit the “notify” instead of “modify” button.  Then confirmed.  Ohhh well, reported me own post.

To be more specific, if UK takes Norway, that MUST leave UK transports in range of the Baltic fleet.  If the Baltic fleet is blocked, the Germans can use air to clear out a weak block, or the Baltic fleet and fighters to clear a strong block.  Or the Baltic fleet can just be used to retake Norway with W. Eur fighters and infantry from Germany; regardless, the Baltic fleet’s existence gives Germany some options in the Atlantic.

But for Germany to have lost Norway AND Western Europe, AND not be in position to make a rather nasty German naval/air counterattack; it’s just unclear to me how that could have happened.

I don’t think it’s a matter of having to trade fighters for transports.  If he had taken transports as casualties, you probably run away after killing the transports unless you can kill some expensive ships at a good fighter price, which is still good for Germany.  If he had taken strong defenders (destroyer, battleship) as initial casualties, of course you stick around, because at that point your air force will be mighty against a lot of puny transports.

Later on, if you don’t have a German navy, and you only have air, and say he has two transports escorted by a carrier, THEN, it’s trading fighters for transports.  But in that particular situation, you still had German naval units to take as casualties; I don’t think you really had to trade fighters.

Anyways, I don’t know what the board position was, oh wellz. (/edit)

[Jennifer]

Let us also not forget that when Germany attacks the allied fleet she has to kill off the Russians, the British and the Americans…that’s at least twice the fleet on defense then can attack at any given time.

[Guest]

Except that the Russians consist of ONE SUB.  And the Americans are 2 TRN and 1 DST intially.  Not much of a “fleet”.

And on attack Germany gets to add extra FIGs and a BOM to the mix, more than negating those 4 units.

[Jennifer]

Yea, well, it was more like 2 DD, 1 BB, 6 Trans, 1 Sub from the get go, he stayed well out of range for 2 rounds to keep from having that problem.  By turn 4 it was 2 BBs and 2 ACs added onto that and more transports.

So no, there wasn’t a bat’s chance in hades my puny 5 plane, 1 bomber, 1 carrier, 1 destroyer, 1 transport, 2 submarine fleet was going to get a shot and killing his fleet.  My best chance was to get decent to better then decent dice defending against part of it.  If I remember correctly, I got slightly worse then decent dice.

[Guest]

Hhhmmm, sounds like you were not aggressive enough.

You gave him FOUR TURNS to build up and consolidate his fleets, instead of going after the pieces before they could form up.

And don;t say you could not reach.  In 4 turns the Baltic Fleet can sail as far as jNew Zealand, and I know he did not stage his Allied fleets THAT far away.

[Jennifer]

No, they were in Sea Zone 9 and Sea Zone 2 until he combined them on R3 and then attacked, I think, on R4.

At that point, I was getting my typical dice nad fighting to keep Russia from walking into Berlin unchallenged…couldn’t reall afford to loose 5 fighters and a bomber to reduce him to a damaged battleship.

[Guest]

And you never staged your baltic Fleet forward to SZ6?  Putting the staging in SZ2 in range?  Or mvoes to SZ7 to threaten African landings and threaten both SZ2 and SZ9?

[Jennifer]

Let’s pretend I put the fleet in SZ 6.

Now I have 1 BB, 2 DD, 6 Transports, 1 AC and 2 Figs in SZ 2 and 2 SS, 1 AC, 2 Fig, 1 TRN, 1 DD in Sea Zone 6.

How is this better off?  Now I cannot use infantry in Germany to hit Karelia/Finland immediately.  now I cannot use carrier based fighters in Ukraine or Belorussia or Archangelsk and return them to the carrier.  Now I cannot use infantry from W. Europe to hit E. Europe or Karelia.  AND I still cannot attack the combined Allied fleet, waiting for them to attack me.

I’d rather wait in SZ 5 where I am much more flexible then SZ 6 where i’m nothing but a waiting target.

[Guest]

And sitting there you ar eunable to prevent an Allied fleet build up.

Which is better, shutting down UK and US shuck for a few turns, or 1 move slower getting German INF to Karelia?

[Jennifer]

I prefer getting sitting in SZ 5 to be more flexible since putting my fleet in SZ 6 has no bearing on the Allied fleet build up.  At best it forces them to build in SZ 8 instead of SZ 3 and that prevents allied landings in FIN/NOR until Englands done making fleet, then they build in SZ 12 and land in Africa.

Meanwhile, 40% of my airforce is out of range of the Russian front.

[Guest]

That is what tanks are for.

and if SZ6 is not working, move to 7.

The point is, if you cede control of the Atlantic by just sitting in the baltic, then you probably ARE wating your money on a Baltic AC.

Build your fleet, then eitehr use it to take out a few units, prevent early landings in Norway and Africa.

But if you are just using it to be just a guardian of Germany and Eastern coasts (which is an acceptible use of that fleet), then don;t complain about the Allies building their fleets up outside your range.  If you go purely defensive with the Baltic Fleet, that is what the allies are going to do.  And when they are done, your fleet is sunk.  That is jsut th way it works.

So…
Either use teh fleet to protect Germany and Eastern while you drive hard on Russia with all you’ve got and deal with the Allied landing swhen they start, or use that fleet and challenge the Atlantic with naval and air.

But don’t complain because the Allies see which way you are going and adjust their strat accordingly.