Battle for the Atlantic

1.  Staging a reinforced Baltic fleet off France to link up with the Med navy prevents Germany from closing the Suez and allows the UK Indian Ocean fleet to enter the Med, making the naval situation even worse.

This is actually one of the best ways to stall the Atlantic fleet. You do allow the Indian ocean fleet to enter the med, but it takes two more turns for him to be able to use that to engage you. Linking fleets I believe is one of the best strategies out there that’s available to stalling the Allied forces. Your linked fleet is enormous, it’s 3 subs, 1 fully loaded carrier, 2 transports, 1 BB. It’s also now in a position to strike at most of the places the UK fleet is hiding in. And if they don’t strike it fast enough, you can always send it towards the med to wreak some havoc on Africa. The US is now forced to do something to get rid of it (the UK can’t do it alone fast enough), which means he’s building less transports in the first round at least.

2.  A second AC pulls too much of Germany’s AF out of the land theater, and results in nearly 40% of Germany’s first 2 builds being spent on Navy, leaving them building land forces at a rate below Russia.  Any other type of Naval build is even WORSE in terms of IPC depletion.

Correct, I wouldn’t try this. Overspending in navy is not worth it.

3.  Relying on coastal AF for naval defense (massed figs/bombers in France) allows the UK and USA to get forces into theater against Germany before they can be counter-attacked, allowing the UK to do a strong landing in Norway and the US a strong landing in Africa.  Even IF both fleets could be obliterated, the land forces are already in place and can then raid German IPC’s.
4.  Ignoring the allied navies and building only land forces also appears to be suicide.  By Turn 2 or 3, the combined US and UK fleets can be landing forces equivalent to Russia’s build each turn.

I believe these go hand-in-hand; if you ignore building a navy you’re basically trying to rely on your coastal AF to defend. That is not a good idea, because the UK can simply hide transports in sz2 until he’s strong enough and then bust in to Western/Norway and build a carrier on the same turn to make an attack on him pretty much suicide.

There’s a group of very experienced players I’ve been following on their forums, and they think that the best German build is 3 transports on round 1 in the Baltic. The UK’s initial AF is not enough by far to sink it as it is, so you should link your fleets on G2. Also with 3 transports built, the UK is almost forced to buy ground troops instead of air/navy since they have at least 4 trans worth of equipment + 6 fighters/1 bomber about to invade London. This can throw a fairly big wrench in the Allies strategy; the UK now has to spend round 1 defending, round 2 building stuff, then round 3 to kill the navy. The US has to spend 1 round of a bunch of fighters or other assorted anti-navy stuff.

Yeah you do basically give up Africa, but think about it; the Allies will have Africa no matter what you do. Did you ever have Africa in our game that’s continuing? Not really, and I’m just about to wipe out the Med navy and all German presence from Africa on the US turn. I just kept suiciding UK infantry from India and Africa to keep you from ever advancing. It may be better not to spend any money down there and instead link up your fleets to create a big headache; one of the core precepts of A&A is to keep your forces together rather than dividing them in most cases.

24 IPCs in transports may seem like a lot, but now that you’re not spending/wasting money in Africa you should have about enough to still mess around with Russia, and a linked fleet does cause a large problem in the Allies’ strategy.

How well does the transport strategy follow through, do you ever successfully invade england, or is it a bluff to make them dig-in and u then just transport to Leningrad???

You won’t be able to invade England unless the Allies are oblivious to the threat, but it does force some extra ground defense from the UK player when he’d rather be getting transports/planes. The linked fleet is pretty monstrous and requires coordinated effort from the UK and the US to kill, a lot of which diverts their money away from transports to get enough punch to kill it.

Buying those transporters is a very interesting point!
However, I still wonder (probably because I can’t visualise the game board now exactly): how do you link up the Med and Baltic fleets? So in G1 you take out the British BS and Destr; that leaves you a Trannie, a sub and a BS in G2, in seazone… 12 I think (the one underneath Spain) ?
In G2, what exactly do you do? Where do you meet up both fleets? You can’t just send the Med fleet to the Baltic (who remain motionless in the Baltic I suppose), for the RAF can easily take them out then. Do you meet them up somewhere?

No, you basically ignore the destroyer in SZ15. You kill the Gibraltar Battleship with your sub from SZ8, and the battleship/trans from SZ13 in the med. You must take Gibraltar with 1 inf so the UK can’t use his fighters against you. Sure he can send his dest/bomber against you, but it’s not a fight in his favor.

On the next turn, both navies link in SZ7. If the Allies sent the Russian sub to “block” your med fleet, simply use your fighters in Western Europe to clear the zone, then still link your navies during noncombat.

I really don’t think this game was geared for germany taking the UK early… I mean did you read the Tournament rules?  OK(whew), so now that we have done that … moving on… Yeah… its just damn near impossible to stop two nations with one in any naval engagement … so i must say… Men and Tanks … yeah i know this may seem against germany, 8 ipc = 1 man one tank… oh wait… that also = transport… again i say make them fight your war… buy nothing but men and tanks off the bat… use what you got off the bat to attempt to stop/slow the us invasion… and when ever the chance allows itself destroy transports… you have a few subs… lots of airplains and a bomber… i like the norway air base on the first turn… it gives you all kinds of options for that end… really if a transport = 16 ipc against you … is a fighter(ipc) such a loss?

There’s a group of very experienced players I’ve been following on their forums, and they think that the best German build is 3 transports on round 1 in the Baltic.

You won’t be able to invade England unless the Allies are oblivious to the threat, but it does force some extra ground defense from the UK player when he’d rather be getting transports/planes.

I’m not understanding either how this is a good move or how it forces a UK ground unit purchase. Wouldn’t the UK player move the SZ 2 transport+battleship to SZ 6 for the block? These units would be supported with a heavy UK naval purchase for SZ 6 (a carrier+another naval unit decided on a case by case basis) and the Russian sub. Move the UK fighters to the carrier. US might want to send fighter support to UK (again, case by case).

Germany does not have a realistic chance of winning both a battle in SZ 6 and the UK.

If Germany only attacks SZ 6 in G2 then UK and US will have yet another round of purchases and moves to fully secure UK for the rest of the game.

If Germany doesn’t attack at all, he either has to waste more income in G2 on a naval war of attrition or abandon a G2 naval build which ultimately almost completely wastes the 24 IPC purchase of the 3 transports on G1 (Germany could use the transports for a G2 amphibious assault on Karelia, but is this worth the 24 IPCs?)

I don’t see how it works out that this purchase isn’t just a wasted 24 IPCs of German money.

I really don’t think this game was geared for germany taking the UK early… I mean did you read the Tournament rules?  OK(whew), so now that we have done that … moving on… Yeah… its just damn near impossible to stop two nations with one in any naval engagement … so i must say… Men and Tanks … yeah i know this may seem against germany, 8 ipc = 1 man one tank… oh wait… that also = transport… again i say make them fight your war… buy nothing but men and tanks off the bat… use what you got off the bat to attempt to stop/slow the us invasion… and when ever the chance allows itself destroy transports… you have a few subs… lots of airplains and a bomber… i like the norway air base on the first turn… it gives you all kinds of options for that end… really if a transport = 16 ipc against you … is a fighter(ipc) such a loss?

It’s a bad idea not to buy any sort of protection in the Baltic. This lets the UK become a menace 1-2 turns earlier on your coastal lines. He will just build transports and he’ll be ready to board Western Europe on like turn 2, building a carrier on the same turn he attacks so that it’s a bad idea to attack his fleet. The most basic and easiest way to protect your Baltic navy is a carrier buy and land 2 fighters on it. This is a fairly significant force to deal with, and it gives you the most bang for your buck. I would, however, retreat the fighters onto land once it looks like the Allies are about to sink your navy; you do not want to lose fighters just to protect a sea zone; they are just sitting there to force the Allies to build up a bigger force.

The idea behind buying 3 transports is not so much that you’re trying to board the UK, but that you’re threatening such a move and beefing your navy up significantly once you link them. The UK has to spend money on defense, as well as figure out a way to get offense to sink the navy. If you just spend money on a carrier, your defense is very beefy but the UK is going to spend all his money to sink it, instead of splitting his money.

I would highly suggest trying to link your navies at least once; the power of this is very hard to ignore. Once your navies are linked in SZ7, the UK is forced into a very awkward position since his navy has nowhere to hide. The UK/US can sink it, but it is very likely that they will be spending a lot of transports/fighters to sink it on round 2.

You are sorta giving up Africa, but that’s not really a big deal since the Allies usually have it anyways. You can still do a pretty big attack on Anglo-Egypt with 1 inf 1 tank 2 fighters 1 bomber; you may have to lose 1 and sometimes 2 fighters but you will definitely win and close down the canal as well as nail a crucial fighter before it gets used.

I’m not understanding either how this is a good move or how it forces a UK ground unit purchase. Wouldn’t the UK player move the SZ 2 transport+battleship to SZ 6 for the block? These units would be supported with a heavy UK naval purchase for SZ 6 (a carrier+another naval unit decided on a case by case basis) and the Russian sub. Move the UK fighters to the carrier. US might want to send fighter support to UK (again, case by case).

That’s an extremely poor counter. The German attack on SZ6 will consist of at least 4 fighters, 1 bomber, 4 transports, 2 subs, and 1 destroyer. Running a dice simulator indicates a 95% win against a fully loaded carrier, destroyer, battleship, transport, and sub.

The whole point of the Germany navy is not to win in the Atlantic, but to suicide and delay. I’d extremely gladly trade my suicidal baltic navy for the UK’s navy. If you spend nothing in the Baltic then you lose 36 IPCs in equipment and the UK might lose 2 fighters, usually just 1 though. But if you spend 16-24 IPCs and unite the fleets you raise the cost tremendously and buy yourself some time. I wouldn’t recommend anything over that amount because then Russia will run all over you.

Both sides have merit- as always there’s no one true path.

If you want to be solid, and hold off the allies for a long time, assuming KGF, lots of manpower is necessary. In that scenario Infantry and Armor builds make alot of sense (with the emphasis heavily on Infantry).

If you want to maintain versatility (most likely for a limited time), two transports on G1 (followed as necessary by naval puchases which keep the threat of British naval annhilation alive) is a great purchase. As Trihero said, it forces Britain to keep an eye on their own island, and threatens the British navy. Â

The game is all about initiative- who can take and hold a territory first. For example, if Russia takes and holds W Russia, advantage Russia. If Germany takes and holds Karelia, advantage Germany. This only applies as long as the edge can be maintained and the position continually resupplied , and you are not forced to retreat and get into a trading war.

The naval purchase gives Germany the initiative vs. the allied navies, and the ground purchase (once the Infantry has advanced) gives the initiative vs. Russia. Pick your poison. You can’t have it all vs. experienced players.

Personally I’m a fan of bulking up on land and saying to hell with the Kriegsmarine. Germany becomes the anvil and is very tough to crack, as Japan grows in power. But the more I play the more I see the benefits of the Baltic fleet surviving, at least long enough to force allied naval purchases to counter it, and long enough to send several waves of Infantry via land bridge to Karelia. The north is worth nearly as much as Africa, and allowing the U.S. and Britain to get rooted in in Norway and Karelia can be fatal to Germany. The German naval purchase can stall this from happening, potentially giving the initiative to Germany.

I personally think that you must buy SOMETHING for the Baltic navy; either a carrier or 2-3 transports. I’ve tried going plain ground war, and it’s a setup for disaster since the UK can directly ramp into transports. Thus, though you think you “saved” money buy not buying a navy, you are immediately turned around and have to send troops to Western Europe because the UK can threaten it much faster with low fear of retaliation since your navy is dead. He kills your navy on the cheap since you only have 2 units that hit air and one of them does so on a 1. A carrier is worth about 5 infantry, and I think it is a very cheap price to pay to keep the UK out of my hair for 1-2 turns. If I had purchased those 5 infantry, they would have immediately been sent to defend Western Europe since a smart UK would start with something like 1-2 trans and a lot of ground troops and threaten a landing.

Overspending on a navy is more disastrous than not spending anything though. If you can’t field enough manpower to go through the meatgrinder with Russia, the problem escalates very quickly since the IPCs shift in Russia’s favor soon if you don’t contest the territories almost every turn.

That’s an extremely poor counter. The German attack on SZ6 will consist of at least 4 fighters, 1 bomber, 4 transports, 2 subs, and 1 destroyer. Running a dice simulator indicates a 95% win against a fully loaded carrier, destroyer, battleship, transport, and sub.

The whole point of the Germany navy is not to win in the Atlantic, but to suicide and delay.

I’d be surprised if Germany didn’t win the battle. I don’t agree that a mutual annihilation of the UK and German fleets on G2 is beneficial for Germany when they have to spend over half their G1 income on navy to do so. The major point for me here is that the more IPCs Germany spends on Atlantic front, the better it is for the Allies. This is because Germany is investing in a front that is either a lose or tie situation for them (no decent player will lose UK- at least with LHTR). Germany can’t statistically win the battle of the Atlantic but they can win the war against Russia. Every IPC misappropriated to the Atlantic instead of against Russia is a victory for the Allies.

If Germany attacks SZ 6 on G2, let’s assume Germany wins. However, any German navy that isn’t destroyed in that battle will be picked off by airforce (and possibly even navy) before G3. The result is essentially a mutual annihilation of the UK and German fleets in the area. True, Germany gave more IPC damage than they received, but look at where they are– They spent less money on ground units than Russia did. The narrow window Germany has of winning on that front has just gotten much narrower. The entire German airforce was used in SZ 6 leaving any attack on any other fronts on G2 severely weakened. UK can just rebuild their navy in SZ 6 again and if Germany wants to sink it again they will once again be hoping at best to get a mutual annihilation on G3. If Germany doesn’t try to sink it again then Germany has essentially been “pushed back” in the Atlantic front. Anytime you are pushed back on the front that you just invested the majority of your IPCs from on the previous turn is a major strategic loss in my opinion. Germany, or anyone for that matter, should not invest income on a lose-tie front. Germany’s strength lies in their massive number of ground troops. Reinforce this strength so Germany maintains it. Use intelligent maneuvering and rationing of ground troops to play into this strength and try to take out the Allies when they land. This gives them a much greater probability of success.

I don’t think you get the point. If you spend all your money on ground troops, the UK can very cheaply destroy your navy and ramps up transports quickly. You think you have “extra” land troops to deal with Russia, but you’re sending them right back west to defend against the UK  who doesn’t even have to blink to destroy your navy with his 2 fighters + 1 bomber.

And you speak like the destruction of a massive UK navy is easily replaceable. It’s not. The UK lost a battleship which they are unlikely to ever build again, a fully loaded carrier which takes 2 turns to replace, and a transport/destroyer. Now he has to spend a turn getting defense in the water, then tranports, then land troops. The Germans probably haven’t even lost any of their airforce in the exchange.

The major point for me here is that the more IPCs Germany spends on Atlantic front, the better it is for the Allies.

Of course that’s true, but if you spend nothing on the Baltic that’s also a bad situation. You clearly haven’t played against a skilled UK player who takes advantage of you if you don’t beef up the baltic with at least a carrier. Spending nothing in the Baltic is pretty devastating as like I keep saying, the UK will just mass up transports and get ready to land in Western Europe with no fear of retaliation, as well as threaten Germany/Eastern/Karelia/Norway once he gets into the Baltic.

Well Ike I think our game when I crashed you on UK2 was pretty much a huge fluke since you didn’t have any of your airforce in a position to strike my fleet since you were overly aggressive against Russia and you were overprotecting Southern Europe instead of Berlin, but yeah still…it’s bad to not do anything about the Baltic…

Anytime any nation (even Russia) falls before around turn 7 is a ridiculous game IMHO. Interpret that how you will.

I’m getting the sense that Trihero is getting a little more aggressive with his tone of voice in this debate. That’s good. I like the passion.

I don’t know if it’s clear that I haven’t played against a skilled UK player, but either way it’s not an assertion I can really argue against because one man’s skilled player can easily be another man’s novice.

I still believe that 3 Baltic transports is not a good purchase. Unfortunately, I guess I’m not doing a good job expressing my point since we are still at a standstill. I don’t know how to say my point in any clearer a manner.

Maybe we should just play it out a couple times to see how good or bad the naval purchase really is. I have never played online before just because I like the social aspect of playing the board game in person. I have been meaning to try out online play. What software do you use for online play? If it’s freeware, I’ll get it and we can play 1 or 2 games to see the probable long term effects of a G1 Baltic naval purchase. (This way I get to say I’ve played against a skilled UK player  :wink: )

Ugh….I’m quite burned out from A&A gaming right now. I’ve been duking it out with Switch in the game forum and with another guy through email. I kinda want a week of break from it  :evil:

Isn’t it pretty plainly easy to see that linking the navy on G2 is hard to deal with? And that if you try to block the link you’ll end up sacrificing tons of stuff you really didn’t want to?