We have all been throuhg the traditional Turn 1 buys. How about some alternates?
Russia:
1 AC, 1 TRN (Black Sea)
The reason why UK and US don’t make infantry straight off is that they have no way of moving said infantry to land. But Russia is RIGHT THERE in the middle of Asia. Therefore, Russia should produce primarily land units. A naval build MIGHT be acceptable if it seriously accelerated the Allied invasion of Europe, but AC/Trn does not accomplish this.
4 ARM
No way. The only reason for an early tank build is to press early. Where are you going to press to? The Asian coast? Okay, the Japanese transports and air will kill you. Eastern Europe or the Balkans? Okay, Germany will slaughter you with the units it built in Germany last turn. Do you need the additional hitting power early? No, you do not. Therefore, 4 tanks is bad. Tanks and infantry, sure, but Russia should produce infantry and not just tanks.
Germany:
1 BB (Baltic)
This isn’t ENTIRELY crackpipish, but 24 IPC is a mighty investment. I would perhaps consider this purchase depending on the Russian move, because of the possibility of using amphibious support shots against Karelia and Norway, combined with the protection of the Baltic fleet on G1, makes it POSSIBLY viable. But a battleship build means Germany MUST either consolidate its navy on G2, or build MORE Baltic navy (with the consequent Russian press on Germany). Why so? Because UK can counter with 3 fighters, while German invasion of London is prevented by US and UK fleets consolidating southwest of London. So the question really becomes, did Germany have an African bid that allowed the Mediterranean fleet to move west, or does it look like Germany is going to be in a position to spend more on navy (i.e. did Russia overextend itself like crazy).
1 AC (Med)
The Mediterranean fleet should not have to worry about the Allies entering the Mediterranean anyways, with mass fighters parked at Western Europe and the bomber. The only things an AC let you do are counter an early Algeria attack by going west of Algeria on G2, but even THAT is not feasible with a G1 Mediterranean fleet to Anglo-Egypt. Late game, transports are useful if Russian fighters aren’t at Caucasus. But an AC in the Med, never.
1 IC (Ukraine)
I disagree to SOME extent with the Caspian Sub paper advice "Don’t build the Donut Shop or the Paczki Shop. Unless the IC is at least 3 spaces away, you’re better off building the gear in your starting complex and marching east. " because a Ukraine IC is useful in the early to late rounds against Russia. I personally believe there are very sound reasons NOT to build an IC in Ukraine, there are very sound reasons TO build an IC in Ukraine. I will not go into the details at this time.
12 INF, 1 ART (defensive)
This is offensive, really. Any time you produce a load of infantry, you have gigantic offensive potential. I would rather go up against a heavy hitter with a glass jaw than some horrible little guy that just won’t go down. (i.e. I would rather smash a tank-heavy offense when it paused at a territory adjacent to Moscow, than have to deal with a load of infantry that stops me from attacking while Germany gathers its strength to beat me up.) (edit) Actually, I mean I would rather have a goon I hired go up against a heavy hitter with a glass jaw . . . no, I’d rather not ruffle my feathers. (/edit)
2 BOM, 1 FIG
Bombers are bad on defense. Bombers threaten the Atlantic, but Germany is ceding control of the Atlantic anyways, because the UK has a good chance of killing the Baltic navy. Really, just not a good purchase for the late game at all. Unless Russia is attacking like mad (i.e. trying to attack stacks of six German infantry with two Russian infantry, and other stuff like that), this isn’t going to work.
4 FIGs
Also no good. Fighters are a solid plan for Germany, particularly against KGF. But FOUR FIGHTERS means that Germany is not going to have infantry in those early rounds against Russia. That is going to cost them.
UK:
1 BB (somewhere around UK)
No. UK needs transports.
2 BOM (discussed in some threads)
No. Low-luck bombing MAYBE. But still, I’d say with low-luck, no. Caspian Sub Yahoo group (alluded to earlier) has a paper on this that I pretty much agree with. There are better targets for that bomber in most cases.
3 TRN, 2 INF (TRN safely in SZ2)
Depends on the German build. Usually invasion of London is an unlikely but real threat, so 3 inf 1 tank 2 trn is better initially. In any event, London can’t fill those transports. So no 3 trn 2 inf.
Japan:
2 BOM
Again, no.
multiple SUBs
Why would Japan build subs? Japan needs transports. Japan builds subs, US goes KGF, Japan has useless subs. Going to the Mediterranean is not a good idea; the moment the Japs commit (they go through the Suez), America builds a Pacific navy. Then Japan has to hustle back to the Pacific or lose all its islands.
3 FIGs
There just isn’t any need. Seriously. Fighters are good for J2 against KJF, but you need transports early. Transports, seriously.
USA:
2 BOM (discussed in some threads)
You should have packed in “Bomber buys” under ONE separate topic within your post. The SAME exact reasoning for not getting bombers applies, better things to do with IPCs, bombers are fragile and can’t help defend territories very well, industrial bombing isn’t a good risk to take unless playing Low-Luck, even under Low-Luck, bombers are probably better used against other targets.
4 FIGs
If you like to lose Africa. If Japan didn’t do Pearl Harbor. If Germany built a Baltic carrier. Four fighters for US is very conditional. It works, but the Axis have to have done the right things, or the wrong things, depending on how you look at it.
5 TRN
Honestly, what are you going to transport with FIVE TRANSPORTS in addition to the one in the Pacific, in addition to the two in the Atlantic? That’s EIGHT TRANSPORTS, with SIXTEEN CAPACITY, and there are only TEN ground units in the mainland United States and Alaska to begin with; and one of those is an AA gun.
BB (Atlantic)
No. Because there should not be an extended scrum with Germany. The Allied naval battle should look like “cower, cower, cower, RAWR”, or “RAWR”. That is, the Allies stay out of range of the German air force, so even if the German navy attacks the Allied navy, the Allied air force can wipe out any German navy remnants. Then the Allied defensive navy starts shuttling infantry to either Europe or Africa or both. If the Germans get close, the Allied navy and air combine to kill the German navy. Alternatively, the Allies just buy this really gigantic fighter force and go after both German fleets like crazy, then use those fighters to reinforce Moscow, or if Japan is really bad, the fighters can be used to aid in attack on German coastal territories along with offloaded infantry. A battleship in the Atlantic doesn’t do much for either of those plans.
