Island hopping is great, but its not critical. Sometimes just having a presense in the region will do just great. This is how I build my fleets…… My flagships are my carriers. They are great for defense and their fighters can support amphibious assaults. I will have no less than 2. I then will support my fleet with destroyers. I try to build 2 for every carrier. If you build destroyers and in order to get more bang for your buck, get combined bombardment. This will increase your amphibious firepower drastically. Basically you’ll be able to do the job of a battleship at half the cost and twice the firepower. Then build the rest of your force out of transports and a couple of submarines. If you use this fleet right, you will have everyship being productive on every aspect, offense, defense, and logistics. Your maximizing your money and strength. Lets take a fleet of 2 AC’s, 6 destoyers, 2 subs, 4 troopships with 2 tanks, 2 artillary, and 4 infantry. You attack the phillipines with an amphibious assault. the 6 destroyers should pretty much wipe out all opposition. But if not, you have 4 fighters and all the ground units to clean up. Battle should be over without losing anything. Your fighters land for fleet defense. Basically you have a fleet that can hit hard on land and sea. Your enemy will think twice before hitting you.
Alternate Turn 1 buys…
-
We have all been throuhg the traditional Turn 1 buys. How about some alternates?
Russia:
1 AC, 1 TRN (Black Sea)
4 ARMGermany:
1 BB (Baltic)
1 AC (Med)
1 IC (Ukraine)
12 INF, 1 ART (defensive)
2 BOM, 1 FIG
4 FIGsUK:
1 BB (somewhere around UK)
2 BOM (discussed in some threads)
3 TRN, 2 INF (TRN safely in SZ2)Japan:
2 BOM
multiple SUBs
3 FIGsUSA:
2 BOM (discussed in some threads)
4 FIGs
5 TRN
BB (Atlantic) -
J1 this helps for a sea lion game and also if japan whats to be apart of africa so germany can dash to moscow
1ic to east indies
1ic To indochina -
J1 this helps for a sea lion game and also if japan whats to be apart of africa so germany can dash to moscow
1ic to east indies
1ic To indochinaif japan gets a 1 ipc bid could build 2 trns instead of both ics
-
What are the traditional R1 buys. I have used the armor one for Russia and the bomber one for Britain.
My typical turn one buys for each nation:
Russia: 4 Armor, one Artillery
Germany: 1 Bomber, 2 rocket tech rolls, three tanks
Britain: 2 Bomber/2 Transports, 2 Armor, and one infantry
Japan: IC in Shanghai, save money
America: 1 Battleship, one bomber
-
Those are some interesting Turn 1 buys Nub.
I usually don’t do anything out of the ordinary on turn 1 buys … craziest thing would probably be a 2 IC build as Japan. -
this is a fun topic.
buying navy for russia is nuts, but one of my buddys was buying bombers for russia for sbrs,he had 4 at one time, he lost
i have bought 1 ac+ 1 bomber for germany, but i like tc’s buy of 2 ac+ 1 tran. i’m gonna try 2 ac + 1 sub.
uk we’ve tried jsut about everything from ic’s in south africa to australia to 2 bombers
japan 2 ic’s are nice, or 2 bombers, 3 figs. i’ve tried many times for japan to go all out at USA, i almost won once
usa not many choices, you can try an ic somewhere, but USA needs navy to go anywhere. -
you should chang ethe name of the thread to “Buys that would make you lose”
-
you should chang ethe name of the thread to “Buys that would make you lose”
Lol.
O wait, not lol.
.
.
.LAWLZ.
it funny becos it tru
(edit) although I applaud ncs for putting up a new thread for discussion (/edit)
-
@ncscswitch:
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 BOMAgain, 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.
-
I have bought a German BB on turn 1. It works kind of like the German carrier on turn 1. More money invested, but the free shot is useful sometimes.
-
@ncscswitch:
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).
J1 this helps for a sea lion game and also if japan whats to be apart of africa so germany can dash to moscow
1ic to east indies
1ic To indochinaif japan gets a 1 ipc bid could build 2 trns instead of both ics
Imagine if you combined this 2. the africa thing wouldn’t much matter and there could be a possiblty to hurt the uk badly.
-
Anyone up for a game? pref LL
-
ALternate KJF:
Russia: 8 inf buy leave nice stack in buryatia(tempting for the japs attact it.) and move into perrsia and chinaUK: 2 ic 1 to india and austraila. land fighter in india and move navy off austraila coast.
US: 2ic to alsaska and china and 2tech(if playing with it) or save it(maybe even 1 fig)
-
okay heres just something you can try out Rus 1: 1 ic to kar and 3 inf to cauc. is this a bad idea. eventhough you can stack in karelia so it doesn’t fall and the allies can reinforce you. this just lets you strike a lot of territories from kar that you can’t reach from cauc.
-
You would not have the income to maximize productions at all 3 IC’s… EVER (unless the game was already over).
2 INF in Karelia for a cost of 21 IPC’s over 2 turns is not a good Russian buy… just buy 4 ARM in Moscow 1 turn, and send them to Karelia the next instead :-)
-
i was thimking germany buying 1 ac+ 2 dd. i will try a wacky german navel buy soon.
-
i was thimking germany buying 1 ac+ 2 dd. i will try a wacky german navel buy soon.
like if ukraine can hold untill Ger2 : then 1st round 2trn and 2inf and 2art to italy and 1 fig for germany. if not you can build more rns becuase the arm and inf will already to be picked up. this will allow you to invavde cauc by sea.
-
What are the traditional Turn 1 buys?
-
Russia:
8 INF
3 INF, 3 ARM
3 INF, 1 ARM ,1 FIG
4 INF, 3 ARTGermany:
1 AC, 8 INF
9 INF, 3 ARM
10 INF, 3 ARTUK:
3 FIG
1 AC, 1 TRN, 2 INFJapan:
4 TRN (w/ bid)
1 IC, 2 TRN (w/ bid)
3 TRN, 2 INFUSA:
INF, ARM, and TRN’sAsian IC’s buys excluded from the above…
-
@ncscswitch:
Russia:
3 INF, 1 ARM ,1 FIGwhy whould anyone need a fig for russia? that one makes no sense
Suggested Topics
