German Mediterranean Cruiser?

@eqqman

In PMs, Imperious Leader disavowed the German Med cruiser.

1. My guess is you’re thinking about a G1 Med cruiser. But German Med cruiser is not a G1 or even G2 buy. It’s a situational buy that may happen on G2. You only buy it when it’s appropriate.

“You’ve saved a little money over buying a Carrier just to get far less operational capability”. Rethink that whole sentence.

2. Squeeze the most utility out of every IPC like squeezing blood from a stone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRBPS3o_IvU

3. You’re thinking about the Mediterranean. But the game is not the Mediterranean. It’s because the game isn’t just the Mediterranean that it’s not actually far less operational capacity, it’s more.

@eqqman said in German Mediterranean Cruiser?:

How exactly

My previous post in this thread, as typical for me, rather than listing out all the details, only alluded to the things that needed to be considered. Two reasons why.

A proper address would involve an amazing amount of text that I refuse to undertake without a collaborative effort with very able people. Simply, I can make mistakes, and to find and work those out I’d need people that have different perspectives. (It’s not that I object to a few thousand words, but addressing “how exactly” for this question in particular, maybe a few hundred pages?)

Also, I find that often points I’m making are lost by people trying to make their way through text.

But you did ask specifically, and to leave things where I did might be considered dismissive. So perhaps some details (though hardly a proper address).

Before starting, I tend to use a lot of specifics and numbers, far more than other writers addressing Axis and Allies that I’ve seen, so my writing can be very convincing. But I could miss something. Even if you have a load of mathematical tools, there is a question of whether or not those tools were used in a way that would find any weaknesses in premises or reasoning.

That said, if someone says things don’t work as I say, you should ask them exactly how.

Another thing, I myself don’t play on the level I describe. First, I don’t have the tools available to play on that level. Second, even if I had the tools I wouldn’t bother to use them. I’m not trying to say “this is the correct way to play”. More it’s I’m saying “if you want to use mathematically analyzed lines then here’s how you would start going about it, though remember the game’s very different if your opponent has a different understanding of the game to you.”

OK, let’s begin with some premises.

1. You try to squeeze EVERY BIT of utility out of EVERY IPC. Sometimes that means you don’t spend IPCs or do other things that might seem odd.

2. The game collapses around control of industrial complexes, production, stack bleeding, and building.

3. The game’s initial board state leads to only a few different optimal lines, which branch into other optimal lines, which in turn branch into yet others but that recombine at some point. Roughly speaking, for the first two turns a player’s purchases are very much dictated by a combination of starting position and necessary responses to other players’ moves; it’s only after those first two turns that deliberate actions of a player start to really have an impact.

4. There is no general purpose advice. There is ONLY the specific. If specific advice is diluted into general purpose advice to try to guide newer players, that’s fine if the new players want to eat it up, but it’s not how you play.

So we talk about “how exactly”? All right. Let’s talk.

First, we need to understand what board setup we’re looking at. LHTR, or OOB? And we’re going to say LHTR, why? Because the ladder uses LHTR. Because LHTR is more balanced (an unbacked assertion, I know. If you disagree on any point, feel free to bring it up.)

And we MUST know our starting setup! Again, this is not “general purpose” stuff for the masses. It’s very specific stuff, that “how exactly”.

Besides knowing the setup, we also assume a competent opponent. This is very very important. And we also assume reasonable dice.

So, German Med cruiser. We know it’s not a G1 build. But why? Why do we know this?

I’m not looking at the board, but if I remember right it’s something like UK controls a cruiser in the west, a destroyer in the east, a bomber on London, a fighter on Egypt, a fighter, transport, cruiser, and carrier in the Indian Ocean.

And what else? USSR blew up the German bomber on Ukraine, because USSR is competent and we’re not stipulating aberrant dice. (It’s not that I object to assuming incompetency and/or aberrant dice. But addressing each such means addressing a lot of additional branches. Suffice to say if your opponent is bad you win. If you get a load of aberrant dice you can get a temporary advantage in a theater that maybe you can leverage into gains. But your opponent will find somewhere else to push back. That’s how it is.

So let’s say Germany hit the UK cruiser. I’m not trying to do a proper address so I won’t get into the opportunity costs and projections, but better believe it’s not an easy thing for Germany. Let’s say Germany bridges units from Europe into Libya and bulks Libya and lands a fighter there, and builds a cruiser.

UK can hit Germany’s battleship/cruiser/transport with destroyer/two fighters/bomber. I don’t need to run the numbers by you. You can see that’s garbage for Germany. Especially since the UK bomber can safely land on Trans-Jordan. It’s just so garbage for Germany. That’s how we know it’s not a G1 cruiser.

(But you didn’t want to assume? Perhaps. But UK keeps its bomber, blows up Germany’s reinforcement to Africa, and leaves UK freedom to act in both Trans-Jordan and Egypt, plus leaves passage through the Suez to UK. And there’s other things I’ll get to in a bit. Simply, Germany walks face-first into a bad-odds expensive defense, loses position, loses pressure, UK gains flexibility and keeps its valuable bomber that has huge applications if it lives.

If you don’t want to assume a line of play is invalid, all right. But if you see a lot of compelling points to think it invalid and no counter-reasoning, well, you have to act on the information you have and the paradigm you’ve constructed. Because doing nothing is probably going to be worse than whatever plan, no matter how flawed.)

So we know it’s not a G1 cruiser. But then do we see it on G2? Maybe not. It is situational.

Particularly, what I expect to see is Germany capturing Trans-Jordan, then UK hitting Germany’s battleship and transport with two fighters and a bomber.

As an aside - a lot of writers that I’ve read assume that there’s this big standard meta or whatever, they have vague projections that involve their opponents collapsing, or they have this convoluted string of things that doesn’t actually happen resulting in them getting some glorious victory. It’s bad practice to assume, so why do I do it here? But I am calling out the point that it IS an assumption, rather than simply taking it as a given that an assumption be accepted.

Though I will also comment as to why I think those specific things happen.

Suppose Germany just parks its battleship and bridges to Libya. Destroyer, fighter, bomber, UK keeps its bomber in all likelihood, too bad for Germany. Suppose Germany captures Gibraltar. Then Germany misses a drop to Africa, which affects Germany’s holdings there. Germany also must destroy UK’s cruiser, or face destroyer/cruiser/bomber. Which I get to later.

But what if Germany captures Trans-Jordan? It could fail, the UK destroyer can blow up the German battleship. But it’s improbable (and again, for simplicity we’re not addressing all the branch scenarios). But then Germany’s out of range of the UK cruiser in any event and the Suez is closed. If UK wants to take the German battleship out, UK must risk its air. Also Germany puts pressure on Egypt so UK has to abandon it.

Why does UK hit the German battleship with air? Because it can and should. If UK doesn’t do it, then Germany can do another cheap ground drop into Africa. And that creates real problems.

In future posts in this series -

G2 cruiser - why not a destroyer, or two destroyers, or a carrier? Differentiation to the G1 Med carrier line.

Projected outcomes of the UK battleship, opportunity costs, and France

German income in Africa as it relates to starting stack sizes, German logistics, and timing

UK3 fleet timing and German air positioning.

maybe some other stuff

I read through my previous post.

When I say I don’t play on the level I’m describing - mm, okay, I sort of do. Players that have played commented games with me know that I’m regularly running projections that go four or five turns in advance as a matter of course. Sometimes I even use aacalc (gasp).

But that’s not the same as having a detailed complete playbook of branches and contingencies in case of aberrant dice and/or player action, or having the tools necessary to building such a playbook. I know it’s possible in a practical sense. I just haven’t gotten around to it personally. Lot of work. Collaborative effort.

Okay so, back to German Med cruiser. From the last post we know it wasn’t a G1 cruiser.

But let’s take a glance at some other lines. Destroyers and carriers.

First, G1 Med carrier. I don’t know if it’s a solid line of play, but I think it very well might be. I wrote out details of the projection somewhere on Steam, but for here let’s just say Germany can bridge to Libya, risk a fighter to hit the UK destroyer, use a sub and fighter to hit the UK cruiser, and if Germany gives up position on G2-G3 as it’s sending infantry to defend France against UK invasion from East Canada, what of it? Sending a single submarine against the UK destroyer/transport only has a 1/3 chance of clearing the transport anyways; sending a submarine to the UK cruiser instead has compensatory factors in that Germany threatens any US1 landing to French West Africa. And if you’re playing for the long game with a German Med carrier for African income, if you give up some short-term considerations oh well. Costs and benefits, that’s how it goes.

But a G1 carrier is not the same as a German Med cruiser. A G1 carrier is part of a calculated brute force strategy that sacrifices some of Germany’s ability to push in the first few rounds in exchange for a good chance at African income. A G2+ Med cruiser is not a brute force strategy, it’s an opportunistic build that exploits dice outcomes and/or opponent play to change key timings in Africa.

That said, why not a German destroyer? Or two? Instead of a cruiser?

Because Germany is never meant to hold the Mediterranean by itself.

At this point, we have to consider some aberrant dice and non-meta moves. Why? Because you can expect the German Med battleship to be destroyed after capturing Trans-Jordan (previous post had details). So why didn’t UK blow up the German battleship?

Three major possibilities.

1. USSR did not attempt to hit Ukraine and/or failed, possibly contributing to 2)
2. Germany wiped out Egypt’s units
3. UK hit Japan’s East Indies fleet so didn’t have any forces to allocate to Germany’s battleship.

Other things, like UK did try to wipe out Germany’s battleship but failed - it happens. But whatever.

This is where things start to branch out a bit.

First, when does Germany probably NOT have to build any Med navy whatsoever? Suppose UK tried to hit Germany’s battleship and failed. UK lost all its air, Germany kept its battleship. Now what? USSR risks its fighters against Germany’s battleships? Ew. US isn’t in position. If Germany DOES want a fleet, it should maybe try building it on G2 while bridging to Libya make sense. On later turns Germany certainly wants to push Egypt and/or Trans-Jordan and/or slip its fleet out through the Suez. But that game isn’t necessarily a G2 Med fleet buy. There won’t be any air for a while, and why bother to buy expensive navy if Germany does all it really wants to do with its Med fleet anyways

But when would you want a German cruiser? Again, if Germany hit Trans-Jordan on G1 and its Med fleet survived, here’s how it plays out.

Probably UK hit the East Indies fleet. I’m not saying it’s a fantastic attack, but I think it can be argued the line is competent. But then, UK is not in position to blow up Germany’s fleet on G2 either. If the UK Indian Ocean fighter survived it’s on Persia. The UK Egypt fighter is probably destroyed (no place to land unless the UK carrier survived which is pretty aberrant dice though it does happen). UK’s bomber is wherever. UK’s starting London fighters are on West Russia. So of those, how much has range to Italy’s sea zone? Just the bomber.

Meanwhile, remember Germany bulked up at Libya (moved Algeria units over, the transport went with the battleship to hit Trans-Jordan), perhaps even using a Germany fighter. Perhaps not. But whatever. If UK doesn’t blow up Germany’s battleship then there’s really not much point in UK trying an aggressive hit on Libya against not-great odds as Germany can just drop bridge units to hit Libya even if UK wins, and UK loses Egypt anyways when Germany hits Egypt from Trans-Jordan, and if UK hits Egypt and Trans-Jordan, just look at what UK has in the area, it’s going to give up odds somewhere. And remember, we’re thinking about hitting UK hitting the East Indies fleet which is probably why the German battleship and transport aren’t destroyed in the first place.

But then what? On G2, Germany’s Libya stack advances to Egypt and Germany can re-take Trans-Jordan. And what does UK do, exactly? The UK bomber can have range, no question. But how do the UK fighters reach? If the UK fighters park in Persia they’re out of range of the Italy sea zone, and Germany can still be pushing units with units fed into Africa from Libya. I know it’s expensive for Germany but more on that later. If UK doesn’t counter Germany’s push, great, Germany controls the Suez and that gets dirty. If UK does counter Germany’s push, great, Japan has less to deal with in capturing India. And if Japan builds pressure on India then the UK fighters have to park on India unless the Allies pull out early, and every turn the Allies pull out early mean three less units for UK’s medium-sized India stack and three more units for Japan’s push.

Yes, you don’t use UK to fight a losing-stack battle for India. But you don’t just give up that unit differential either without fighting for it like crazy. You stick around until the last moment (remembering that UK has to pull out of India before Germany cuts it off with a capture and hold of Caucasus). And if Africa has to go, that’s just too bad. If India gets bled out faster to protect Africa, Japan captures India then leapfrogs into India and grabs it all shortly anyways.

So if UK has fighters at Asia, then how does it really use them to destroy Germany’s fleet, especially if Germany is just bridging units to Libya? UK2 the fighters aren’t in position at all, Trans-Jordan can be recaptured but the fighters can’t land there this turn. Egypt is unsafe. UK can try to defend Trans-Jordan past G3 then land fighters so Germany can’t escape. So you start to see if the German battleship wasn’t taken down on G1, even with no build it’s still very tough to take down.

But that only accounts for UK in the east. We still have to think about US in Atlantic or Pacific.

First, the Atlantic. I already described that maybe you get this whole scenario off a KJF, so I’ll get into the KGF first to get it out of the way.
Suppose US1 builds a carrier, then US2 captures Morocco. (Ideally UK2 captures then US2 reinforces but eh.) So as early as US3, US threatens to whack the German battleship; the US bomber on London can hit the Italy sea zone and land in Morocco which was captured on UK2/US2. This cuts off Germany’s options in the west.

But here you start to see where a G2 naval buy can make sense under the right conditions. If you only think about UK then it looks like Germany can play keep-away in the Mediterranean forever. But actually Germany’s on the clock if US pushes in Atlantic, and if Germany doesn’t get its business done before the clock runs out then it just runs out of time.

What if US is pushing in Pacific? There doesn’t seem to be any clock on Germany then. But Germany doesn’t want to bridge to Libya forever; that’s just inefficient. Besides if Japan’s pulled away from India then UK has more breathing room. So again, you can get UK pushing into position then threatening to destroy Germany’s fleet with air. Regardless, Germany wants to consider some sort of naval reinforcement. It’s just too easy and cheap to blow up a lone battleship.

So this gets into the question of why a German Med build at all, and exactly how it’s used. Depending on the Allies’ play, if you want to defend against air, then subs won’t do, and cruisers have a little bit of an edge over destroyers. Cruisers also give the bombard ability, which helps in capturing isolated territories. If you’re satisfied with what you’re doing in Europe and want to send Germany’s fleet to help do something, then what do you send? Do you really want to allocate a full carrier and fighter escort, considering you may need each and every fighter to get an on-odds attack to break Russia? Probably not. Will a destroyer be adequate? The odds on the defense are not as good. And what about a cruiser? The cruiser can be used for naval bombardment; if you’re trying to hit isolated territories that are defended by 1 unit, does it make sense that you would bring a cruiser or destroyer? As to destroyer coverage, that should be handled by Japan in any event.

If you sent two destroyers with Germany’s battleship, well, that would be a lot better than a cruiser. But you don’t know that you’ll need those destroyers. You want to make use of every IPC to fight in Europe.

That said, why get a cruiser at all?

Because of German income in Africa. Japan starts with few forces in Asia/Europe, Germany starts with a lot. Germany has a load of production capacity and all its territories with industrial complexes are connected through land to Russia. So either Germany pushes sheer unit count (in which case it needs income; it has 15 capacity between Germany, Italy, and Karelia, then 19 after it captures Caucasus, and you can see how Germany even with Africa probably won’t have 57 IPCs every turn to spend on infantry. Or if Germany wants to push speed, then it needs IPCs to buy tanks. Regardless, Germany wants income and can use it.

Contrast to Japanese income in Africa. Japan’s industrial complex on Tokyo is horribly placed, and industrial complexes on Asia are expensive. Japan can build air for flexibility, but there’s nothing Japan can do about starting stack sizes. Instead of feeding Japan to try to get its stacks to eventually rival USSR’s for a major stack battle it just makes sense to feed Germany to get its already large stacks over the top. If you have a choice between Germany getting IPCs and Japan getting IPCs, it’s probably best to choose Germany.

So you look at Africa and think well it’s just four or five IPCs. But that’s another entire whole unit, or another tank instead of an infantry that’s produced on Germany, which can catch up to the front and hit the timing. And you’re also doing this a bit early, robbing UK of IPCs, and UK has an IPC income issue especially once Africa falls. UK just has a hard time building up forces to really make a difference; true UK is best used to make a lot of small plays all over the board that add up to a big difference, but it does mean UK has a hard time trying to build any sort of critical mass.

So far I wrote mostly about the KJF scenario. But returning to the KGF scenario. Maybe UK thinks it has something really important to do with its bomber and air elsewhere or something and the German battleship survived to G2.

So far I’ve been writing about the German timings and counters in the Mediterranean/India region. But there’s a lot more to the game than that. What does UK do? What does US do? What if it’s KGF?

Well suppose it is KGF. Suppose Germany builds an early carrier in the Med. And how is that good, exactly? A carrier is a lot more expensive than a destroyer but has the same defense and can’t even hunt submarines. So when is it good? When you land fighters on, of course. You can cycle fighters into Africa and southeast Europe, and that’s nice.

But if you have fighters in the Mediterranean, then they don’t have range to the Atlantic. And this creates some weirdness.

Suppose you say that you don’t want to use German air to hit Allied fleet anyways. You use German air to threaten Allied fleet, but actually you want to use German air to trade with USSR. But then what? If there’s a light escort fleet with a huge juicy stack of transports, you want to hit it right?

Consider UK. Suppose UK1 builds 3 infantry, destroyer, carrier. You’re already doing okay as that’s fighters that didn’t land on West Russia. But depending on whether UK’s East Canada destroyer/transport survived or not, maybe you’re starting to look at a kind of bulky fleet. If USSR captured Ukraine Germany only has 5 fighters. Risking 5 German fighters to go after 5 UK defenders isn’t the greatest, and if you win you only get one transport. Eurgh.

So this is why some Germany players just shrug and go ahead and build the Med carrier. They feel that they’re not going to challenge UK in the Atlantic meaningfully anyways. But actually that’s not really how it plays out.

So now we have to look at projected outcomes of the G1 attack on the UK battleship and various opportunity costs.

In future posts in this series -

Projected outcomes of the UK battleship, opportunity costs and France
UK3 fleet timing and German air positioning

Informally, in this post I’m explaining how a G1 German Med carrier is inferior to a German cruiser on G2+ in specific situations.

In a previous post I wrote how UK can have a pretty hefty UK1 fleet. Could be easily up to 2 destroyers 1 cruiser 1 carrier 2 fighters if the East Canada destroyer and Atlantic cruiser survived. But that does not look at the German greed scenario.

Which is? G1 open 11 inf 2 art, hits Trans-Jordan, 1 Atlantic sub goes after the UK destroyer at East Canada.

So what you can get in some games is Germany having 1-2 subs surviving the UK battleship fight, with the Allies having no destroyers in range to pick off any survivors. If the UK transport off East Canada is destroyed, then Germany is free to leave France and NW Europe entirely undefended, which means a faster harder push towards Europe. Then if UK wants to build a fleet, it perhaps has to fight off up to six or seven German attackers, one of which Germany is perfectly fine with seeing destroyed. Even if Germany doesn’t carry out the attack, the German submarine can perhaps escape into the Mediterranean where it poses a threat for quite a while.

Or Germany can send the German submarine after the UK cruiser with a better than 50% chance of survival if assisted by the German fighter. Then Germany has two groups of submarines, and it’s not like the Allies just want to hunt them with destroyers if Germany has a chunk of fighters. Could be. But maybe not.

But if you build a G1 carrier? Well, I’m not saying any of these possibilities threatening any UK1 naval build will happen. There are different variations based on dice. But if you build a Med carrier and land fighters on then you have fewer options in the Atlantic. There’s no way around it.

(Note - I wrote if Germany hunts the UK destroyer/transport there are advantages. But then that leaves US free to dump to West Africa (perhaps). So there’s more to it than just what I’m writing here. Also, if you take off more than one sub off the G1 attack on the UK battleship, that’s going into risky territory. It’s already risky to take one, heck even not taking any away the attack still has some risk.)

But why would fewer options in the Atlantic be a problem? Because of UK2-3.

Let’s say UK1 ends with a UK fleet in Atlantic. Depending on Germany’s ability to threaten such a build, you could see UK being greedy (in turn) to a weak German threat and building, say, carrier, transport (and three infantry for India).

Say the UK transport off East Canada survived. If UK1 built a carrier and transport then it ends UK1 with two transports, then on UK2, UK can capture both Norway and Finland. That gives UK badly needed income and starts the Finland stacking that pressures Germany at Karelia. But it also means German fighters on France can’t hit the UK fleet. UK gets early income, Germany loses income. It’s not something you want to happen. If you decided that you really wanted Africa income and you were willing to take some risks and maybe make some sacrifices then okay. You pay for what you get, and that’s just how the game is.

But then things get awkward all around. UK can’t build more navy without it being subjected to German air attack. So if UK wants to build more navy, absent other factors it’ll have to park its fleet adjacent to London. It’s also awkward for Germany, as trying to have air in range to hit UK’s fleet can mean leaving it out of position to pressure USSR.

If Germany’s threat in Europe continues to be weak, UK can continue to get away with sheananigans. And timing, well.

Suppose UK doesn’t make a drop of eight units to Europe. What will UK do? Buy two more transports and try to make up the difference over a couple turns? UK will never recoup the costs of those two transports. UK loses out one way or another, IPCs that could have been spent for ground units were spent for something else. But if UK doesn’t buy any more transports? Then that’s eight units that never landed in Europe. It’s like destroying eight units for effective purposes without ever firing a shot.

Finally, the UK3 fleet timing. Imagine if the Axis have a huge threat against the Atlantic. There’s still not much the Axis can do about a US1 Pacific carrier build, US2 air build, then UK3 building a full fleet all at once (having saved IPCs on earlier turns), then US3 moving its fleet and air to reinforce. That navy is gigantic.

But think about what happens in Europe during that time. UK1 there’s no drops. Nor on UK2. Or even UK3. The first UK drop of eight units happens on UK4, then you can perhaps have a fifth transport catching up from southeast Australia on later turns until UK’s excess land units are spent (if it had any). Nor is US necessarily dropping to Europe during that time; you could get a defended US3 drop to Finland/Norway, but not if US’s fleet is trying to protect a UK fleet build. Or you could get US3 to the sea zone adjacent to London and Norway but the US will have to miss a drop anyways if it’s rerouting transports to avoid Japan’s bomber which should be in the area by then.

So if Axis credibly threaten the Atlantic, they have a lot to gain. It’s not necessarily flashy with units being blown up, but if UK/US units are not being funneled into Europe, it’s almost like they died without ever firing a shot. Actually yes, the Allies are saving IPCs to hit harder for when they do hit, but all that time Germany’s benefiting from increased income while the Allies have less income, and it’s exactly these small differences that strong players use to their advantage.

To end - I’m not saying G1 carrier is wrong. But I’m saying sometimes in niche situations a G2+ cruiser is appropriate, and that that when it is, it’s a different situation. You’re not fighting for prolonged control of the Mediterranean, you’re just trying to fight long enough to establish control of the Suez for a turn then you want a fleet that can escape to safety without being easily targeted and blown up at little cost. Then you take that fleet and grab Madagascar and points east then Japan reinforces, securing German income in Egypt unless the Allies really fight for it (which detracts from their Europe game). If you manage to get into the long game, again you want Germany’s fleet to have some survivability so you can move it around without UK easily blowing it up, then Japan can reinforce. And again, you can just buy a carrier and park fighters on, but you won’t necessarily be able to spare the fighters. If it’s KGF then German fighters probably end up on Karelia; if it’s KJF then German fighters probably end up in Ukraine or east of that, rather than floating around.

One more thing. If you’re considering Germany seriously trying to contribute a naval effort against KJF, forget it. The first problem is Japan goes, then US, then Germany. If Japan wants to initiate anything then US can respond before Germany can do anything. So Germany has to end up initiating, and Germany just doesn’t have the force to really do anything, even if it does bring a loaded carrier and battleship. So Germany just gets relegated to helping Japan’s defense, which is admittedly something, but you take the cost of the carrier, and putting German fighters in the Pacific where they can’t help out against Russia at all, and the opportunity cost is pretty big. You CAN get away with it in some games and it works fantastically, but if your opponent is competent and dice aren’t too weird, then probably you won’t get much out of a German carrier pushing into Pacific. What you can really use is a German bomber. If US tries to push its main fleet and use a destroyer blocker, a German bomber can blow up a blocker - and a German bomber can simultaneously threaten targets in Europe.

UK goes after Germany so could destroyer block anyways, but UK should have difficulty establishing a surface fleet as 1942 Online is different to 1942 Second Edition. (If UK fighters could land on US carriers, US could push a lot faster and harder). Plus there’s getting UK established in Borneo or East Indies which can be a lot easier if US transports can load UK units.

The core for Pacific fighting is subs for Japan, fighters, and its starting fleet. Maybe some carriers if it lost some early and some destroyers for hunting/blocking, and fighters/bombers later. For US it’s destroyers, carriers, fighters and transports.

But Germany in the Med is not like that necessarily. If you’re trying to fight UK and US’s navy, that’s a loss. You don’t want to fight, you don’t even want to block sea zones, you just want to fend off opportunistic air attacks, and a cruiser can also naval bombard.

It runs into the same issues cruisers always do, how is it worth the extra 4 IPC compared to a destroyer.
Defense wise a battleship + cruiser is not that different from a battleship + destroyer. Since you said it’s primary purpose is against small air attacks, which I agree with by the way, I’ll compare some air attacks. Playing around with the calc a bit 3 fight 1 bomb has 90%+ against both, while 2 fight 1 bomb has 58% against the cruiser and 65% against the destroyer. In both battles I’d be comfortable going in with 3 fight 1 bomb, and not with 2 fight 1 bomb. The extra defense only matter in 2% of cases (91 vs 93) for those battles since ideally you’d want your opponent to not go for it at all.

So if the extra defense doesnt make a big difference you’ll have to get the value back from bombards. With a value of 1.5 IPC per bombard you’ll need 3 bombards for it to be worth it. To actually make a difference it’ll have to hit where other units wouldnt have wiped the enemy units round 1 already. So if you’re naval invading egypt with 1 inf blocker in it and the battleship hits its bombard, the cruiser bombard is irrellevant. Of course I cant say you’ll never get value back from the bombardment(especially if it goes into a KJF endgame), but I will assert that in the majority of cases you wont.

Tl:dr: Dont let the cruisers allure fool you, the trusty destroyer is better.

@quintin said in German Mediterranean Cruiser?:

Playing around with the calc

You “play with the calc” saying UK is hitting with loads of fighters. But I already addressed those scenarios and more besides to explain exactly how they don’t happen.

The process of logical fact-based reasoning requires resolving differences between frames of reference. It’s a lengthy process. If that was “Tl:dr:” (too long didn’t read) to you, it’s on you if you refuse to read the point, just as it would be on me if I didn’t make the point. (But I did make the point.)

I understand running projections and thinking through the details isn’t for everyone. But game mechanics and probability distributions don’t care if you don’t care to read or think through the details. It’s purely a question of mechanics and numbers. Not egos.

@aardvarkpepper said in German Mediterranean Cruiser?:

So if UK has fighters at Asia, then how does it really use them to destroy Germany’s fleet, especially if Germany is just bridging units to Libya? UK2 the fighters aren’t in position at all, Trans-Jordan can be recaptured but the fighters can’t land there this turn