German buys turn one

@froodster:

Just read the CSub paper on this - it suggests building two or three transports in the baltic as the best German naval option. It sounds sensible as do most strategies when I read them, and now it seems better than U-505s plan. The transports create a lot of options for Germany which it can take advantage of if the unification is blocked.

I like the TRANs in the Baltic.  I read the paper (and made sure the Allied players did also) then built the TRANs on G1.  It kept the Baltic in the hands of the German fleet, kept Norway as a traded space into G4, kept Karelia reinforced and when the UK player got distracted by Africa gave me the means to do SeaLion with a fleet that he had forgotten to be worried about.

I also find the ongoing debate about the Med interesting.

We don’t play with bids.  None.

As Germany, I normally take Gibraltar and Anglo-Egypt on G1. 
Against the UK BB, I send 1 BB, 1 SS, 1 TRAN(INF,ARM), 2 FTR.  I take losses to damage the BB, sink the SS and lose FTR before I lose the TRAN.  Taking GIB is important and that INF and ARM are part of the G2 taking back Algeria.
Against Anglo-Egypt, I sent 1 INF, 1 ARM, 2 FTR, 1 BMB.  I take losses on INF, and then FTR.  The ARM has to survive to take AE.

This seals the Med for G1.
When the US hits (empty) Algeria, the BB and TRAN along with the INF and ART take it back.  With a little preplanning, the 2 SS from the BAL were moved to SZ7 on G1 and they can come down to SZ 12.  If that is the case the BB and the TRAN come to SZ12 also along with 2 FTR.  Now the US fleet is dead and the US is out of Africa.
If the UK wants to fight for AE with their ground forces, it will see-saw back and forth a bit.  If the UK sends their CV, Japan gets orgasmic since they can go a-hunting a UK flattop.  More frequently, the UK player is more concerned about trying to keep India or reinforcing the Caucus to get cute in Africa.

This sequence give Germany access to the Africa for several turns before US/UK get back on their game.  The UK is nervous about that Baltic Fleet.  The US is hearing the non-stop whine from the USSR about how he needs Murmansk convoyes now.

The down side to this is 4 FTRs to the Med for G1 and G2.  Odds are 1 or 2 are lost in order to keep ground forces in Africa alive.  This makes things nervous on the Eastern Front.

The answer is the “draw play”.  Let the Russians come.  Germany is picking up Africa territories as fast as or faster than the USSR is eating up land on the Eastern Front and every step closer to Berlin they get the further they are from Moscow and the Japanese Army.  Germany controls the Baltic and the Med and has TRANs in both.  Russia has to defend her flanks or risk an unpleasant surprise amphib landing behind the front.  Finally when Russia does get too close, it is amazing how many INF and ART you can buy with 40+ IPC.  Now the USSR has the long supply lines, a threat from the East and no quick way to move their forces back to defend against Japan.

I find this plays nicely against the KGF, especially with an overly agressive USSR player.  Germany collapses the UK economy by occuping Africa and hold the US at bay by sinking anything that even looks like it might carry men.  Russia rushed toward Berlin only to discover that by leaving Japan unoccupied, they are losing land and IPC as fast as they gain it and the Russian horde is in Warsaw when the Japanese come calling on Moscow.  When Moscow falls, the game is over.  London is next and then the US has to decide if they like beer or raw fish better.

So then you have 1 DD 4 TRN in the baltic and 2 Subs in SZ 7? Won’t the UK just sink those subs? And your baltic fleet has less fodder too.

Without a Libyan bid, I don’t think I’d want to sacrifice air units just to close the canal. I’d maybe take TJ instead and sacrifice my SZ 8 Sub to kill the UK BB. I dunno.

The subs dive after the first round.  He might get lucky and sink one or even both if he sends all his air but that means he did not go for Norway. Â

I actually build just the 2 TRAN in Baltic to bring the total to 3 TRAN and 1 DD.  If he hits it with 2 FTR and 1 BMB, half the time he loses his entire airforce.  I like that kind of exchange especially since it also means Norway was not attacked with real strength.  If he sends his air to either the SS or the BAL, the best he can bring to NOR only has a 56% of making it ashore.  If I chose to leave Norway more exposed by pulling the FTR out, it becomes a tempting target over the SS or the Baltic Fleet.

The fun part about that is with 3 TRAN taking Norway back is fairly easy and puts a flanking move on the Russian charge.  It also exposes his BB and 2 TRAN to some action.  The DD and 2 FTR along with a surviving SS(?) can make a mess of the invasion fleet.  Taking out the BB might be too hard but you can certainly put some hurting on the 2 TRAN and that will slow down the northern operation.

Nothing quite like chewing up his amphibious force and his landing on G2 along with doing a similiar number on the invasion force in SZ12 and the US forces in Algeria.  This tends to put some sand in the US/UK transmission and gives Germany room to start chewing on the USSR. Â

If the USSR player has been agressive enough to threater or even push into EEU and BAL, those mass INF builds are on the front line and the Baltic and Black are nice highways to his rear area.  Nothing is more amusing than watching Russian INF fighting its way back to Moscow.  By G3/G4, the Luftwaffe is mostly free of other duties and with those tanks you did not expose to destruction USSR is suddenly wondering how he found himself looking at a fully armed and undistracted Germany even as Japan starts to put pressure Moscow.

This sequence plays out strangely enough that I have done things like put a German INF in Brazil.  The US player decided, based on IPC that the 3 IPC I was getting was not sufficient payback for the INF and TRAN to keep it so he left me alone.  Then in T7 when the US player became extremely focused on dealing with Operation SeaLion that same INF pulled off a high risk raid on Fort Knox.  Talk about killing the momentum of the US! Even if he had instead chosen to retake Brasil, I count it as a win.  A turn spend sending US forces to retake Brasil is a turn that the Fatherland can breath a little easier.

I have also used the Luftwaffe that was tagging along into Africa to make that pesky UK CV, DD and TRAN go away.  Was I over committed to Africa with more units than the IPCs in Africa?  Definitely yes.  Did it pay for itself in being able to destroy that CV before it got to the Atlantic?  I say yes big time.  As important as IPC counting is in this game, the value of an INF that is 4 moves away from your nearest factory is higher than that FTR that can be back in action next turn.  FTRs as casualties sucks BUT they typically can participate in attacks from their build location so you don’t spend three turns getting those INF to the front line in Africa.

In all the reading I have done at CSub and the playing I am doing FTF, I see Africa as a huge win for Germany (non-tournament play).  The ecomonics of taking away Africa from the UK makes Europe safer and because it brings those points to Germany, it makes it easier to fend off the US.  The UK and the US find themselves faced with an “Africa First” strategy and that makes the USSR awfully nervous.  With a little PSYOP contention placed between the US/UK player(s) and the USSR player and the Allies start to sound like little old ladies arguing over the last biscuit on the plate.

I’m sure there are counters for this but all of them seem to require the Allies to play more cautiously and be more deliberate in their moves.  Norway, Algeria and the Eastern Front suddenly don’t get as much pressure as fast.  This puts the USSR under time pressure with Japan beating down China and the Yakut door.  The biggest counter is to pull a KJF but this requires the USSR to make that move before Germany’s turn or to be one turn delayed as compared to the US/UK moves.  This is a less than optimal KJF and Germany is still eating up Africa.

In short, an agressive use of Naval forces to speed troop movements, a willingness to take casualties in FTRs to push the African Campaign and Japan sticking it to Russia can really change this game.  If you get the Allies to give you a bid in Africa, it is even better!

@Imperious:

Ok here my long winded take on the Channel Dash “gambit” I use gambit in place of another word just to be nice to people who play it.

Switch is correct. The threat is a failure as well as the channel dash idea is a total unmittigated failure.

Channel Dash is a total waste.

That’s funny, since c-sub people have used a fleet build to win FTF tournaments. I would suggest you play with the c-sub build a few times before proclaiming it a total waste.

And, this goes back to my earlier point. You are trying to create a comprehensive paper for people, when you proclaim strategies are “total failures” and you have never tried it or seen it FTF.

I do mean this Respectfully IL. I dont think you should be doing this paper without getting some more experience with the strategies which you say wont ever work.

@squirecam:

@Imperious:

Ok here my long winded take on the Channel Dash “gambit” I use gambit in place of another word just to be nice to people who play it.

Switch is correct. The threat is a failure as well as the channel dash idea is a total unmittigated failure.

Channel Dash is a total waste.

That’s funny, since c-sub people have used a fleet build to win FTF tournaments. I would suggest you play with the c-sub build a few times before proclaiming it a total waste.

And, this goes back to my earlier point. You are trying to create a comprehensive paper for people, when you proclaim strategies are “total failures” and you have never tried it or seen it FTF.

I do mean this Respectfully IL. I dont think you should be doing this paper without getting some more experience with the strategies which you say wont ever work.

If we all listened to the naysayers about not being able to do this or that or not being successful, we’d all still be stuck in the damn Industrial Age…or the Dark Ages! Just let the man write the paper.  Even if it is flawed, it would still be an good analysis/dissertation/examination/discussion on this topic.  Yeah, we’ve hashed it out already, but something else might come about from IL’s writings that might provide some useful morsel.  Besides, even if you’re experienced up the quazoo, you don’t need to take it into consideration.  It could help the new people who start playing.  Just like the CSub papers which are very helpful for those starting off and getting going, so too can this possibly be in the same league/category.

All other scenerios in this thread aside, I’d like to know what is the point of a German Naval build in the Baltic?

I can think of 4 possible scenerios:

1.  Delay Allied landings in the North
2.  Unify fleet in Atlantic
            2a)  Attack/Continue to pester Allied shipping
            2b)  Head to the Med
3.  Take London
4.  Disrupt/threaten US (land in Canada/Canadian Shield)

Am I missing any?

I don’t like the idea of delaying, b/c I don’t think it works.
I don’t like the idea of unifying (if you aren’t going to go after UK) b/c you can’t compete ship to ship with the Allies and a round 2 1-2 by UK-US should be able to sink the fleet fairly easily.
I don’t think the disrupt US will work b/c I think you’ll be sunk right after unifying.

So I think the best option would be if you do indeed intend to go after UK and continue your naval/air buys.  This means sacrificing some (or a lot) of the Eastern front to Russia, which is dangerous.

But I think all the options may leave Russia a bit too strong.

Which is why I’d like to know some of the rationale behind the naval purchase to begin with.

I can go into greater detail on why I don’t think some things will work, but figured we can take them one at a time depending on why you buy ships.

@DarthMaximus:

All other scenerios in this thread aside, I’d like to know what is the point of a German Naval build in the Baltic?
…
…
I can go into greater detail on why I don’t think some things will work, but figured we can take them one at a time depending on why you buy ships.

Germany buys ships because she can not afford to simply surrender the high seas to the Allies. Keeping the Baltic and the Med free of allied transports means Germany only faces amphibious action in WEU and only faces a ground threat from the USSR and entrained Allied forces.

When/if the Baltic and Med fleets fall, all of Europe is in the landing zone and the tactical mobility that the Med and Baltice provide now goes to the enemy.  In my book, it is just a few short turns later until Berlin falls.

@DarthMaximus:

Am I missing any?

It’s nice to be able to jump German Inf straight from Berlin to Karelia via the Baltic transport.  Or to Norway for reinforcement there.  Fewer rounds spent marching, more spent in the face of the foe.

~Josh

@Imperious:

The Channel Dash study is pretty much refuted but it remains a possible plan amoung others.

If by "Channel Dash study is pretty much refuted " you mean “United Fleet is confirmed as an excellent strategy”, then I agree with you.

I’ve studied the situation, I’ve backed it up with numbers, I’ve used it against some of the best players in the game, and I have a pile of trophies that validate my theories.

The proper version of the gambit is the setup for the Land Bridge followed by the United Fleet.  It is a very good move.  It may not be the best move.  It may not be unbeatable.  But is exactly the type of move a good player would do, has done, and has used to successfully beat other good players.

It is SO obnoxious that people in this forum insist that they know “what good players do”.  The only guy I’ve seen post here that I know has a good record against other top players is Squire.

That’s about it for me.  Losing… interest… must… not… sleep… keep… head… off… keyboard…  hghbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb

@Baghdaddy:

@DarthMaximus:

All other scenerios in this thread aside, I’d like to know what is the point of a German Naval build in the Baltic?
…
…
I can go into greater detail on why I don’t think some things will work, but figured we can take them one at a time depending on why you buy ships.

Germany buys ships because she can not afford to simply surrender the high seas to the Allies. Keeping the Baltic and the Med free of allied transports means Germany only faces amphibious action in WEU and only faces a ground threat from the USSR and entrained Allied forces.

When/if the Baltic and Med fleets fall, all of Europe is in the landing zone and the tactical mobility that the Med and Baltice provide now goes to the enemy.  In my book, it is just a few short turns later until Berlin falls.

I think Germany can afford to surrender the Baltic Fleet provided they don’t spend anything more on it and I think there is a greater potential if you get the Med Fleet into the Indian Ocean, rather then sending it towards the Atlantic.

@OutsideLime:

@DarthMaximus:

Am I missing any?

It’s nice to be able to jump German Inf straight from Berlin to Karelia via the Baltic transport. Or to Norway for reinforcement there. Fewer rounds spent marching, more spent in the face of the foe.

~Josh

Yeah, it is nice, but I think unnessary.  I don’t think the UK or US should be worried about Kar or Nor until about rd 3-4, so I think Germany worry about retaking it is a waste.

I think Allies should combine in the Atlantic in rd 1, go to Afr in rd 2 (and 3), then start landing in Nor in Rd 3 (or 4).  And by the time the Allies land in rd 3 or 4 they can do so with about 4-6 UK troops and another 4-6 US troops.  A German counter is futile there.

My point is the Allies priorities should be Afr #1 (rds 1-3), then worry about Northern Europe.  So I’m not sure why the Germans would bother with Nor or Kar.  Let the Allies go there early while you are cleaning up in Afr and moving stacks of troops to Ukr.

@Imperious:

That’s funny, since c-sub people have used a fleet build to win FTF tournaments. I would suggest you play with the c-sub build a few times before proclaiming it a total waste.

And, this goes back to my earlier point. You are trying to create a comprehensive paper for people, when you proclaim strategies are “total failures” and you have never tried it or seen it FTF.

I do mean this Respectfully IL. I dont think you should be doing this paper without getting some more experience with the strategies which you say wont ever work.

Well in the first case you should be addressing your own experences with the Channel dash rather than hide behind what results somebody else might have achieved. This actually makes you look in poor form because you don’t even have your own information to back your claim nor did you choose to debate my post of study on it. This clearly shows you dont want to do any homework.

Secondly, The project is a study of different ideas of which the Channel dash will be exposed as what i would stick in the “desperado” catagory. As i keep telling you the project will basically lay down the facts of different ideas and allow players to decide.

The Channel Dash study is pretty much refuted but it remains a possible plan amoung others.

Of course any plan can work or fail its not the execution but the dice rolling that also has some say. So if you like to gamble then the Channel Dash is for you.

I’ve laid out my fleet build in this debate which is different from C-sub, or “channel dash” or whatever you are terming it. I cannot debate you more because you are not listening.

You keep saying this channel dash theory wont work. Yet you have no actual experience with any version of it. You admitted so yourself a few pages ago. So based upon this thread, you have made an assumption (a poor assumption IMHO) that it wont work. I assure you there are versions which clearly work, C-sub among them, given its track record in tournament play.

My objection is based upon NEW PLAYERS. I DONT WANT NEW PLAYERS TO BE MISLED.

People will read your paper and assume they cannot create a successful fleet strategy. Your paper will give them the wrong impression.

This is the SAME objection I had to C-sub’s India IC paper, where I thought it was misleading. This is the SAME issue I had with the AARE (enhanced) people, who kept arguing AAR had only “one” viable strategy and so AARE was better. It misleads new people.

Your goal, unlike c-subs simple paper, is to create a comprehensive paper. But really, AND I DO MEAN THIS RESPECTFULLY AND NICELY, dont you think an author should have experience with theories before he dismisses them ???

I am not trying to make you upset. I’d like to see a great paper done. But if you are not familiar with what really works and what doesnt, how can your paper be accurate. Isnt the paper’s accuracy the most important thing???

@Baghdaddy:

@DarthMaximus:

All other scenerios in this thread aside, I’d like to know what is the point of a German Naval build in the Baltic?
…
…
I can go into greater detail on why I don’t think some things will work, but figured we can take them one at a time depending on why you buy ships.

Germany buys ships because she can not afford to simply surrender the high seas to the Allies. Keeping the Baltic and the Med free of allied transports means Germany only faces amphibious action in WEU and only faces a ground threat from the USSR and entrained Allied forces.

When/if the Baltic and Med fleets fall, all of Europe is in the landing zone and the tactical mobility that the Med and Baltice provide now goes to the enemy.  In my book, it is just a few short turns later until Berlin falls.

I think you have said it well. Once the allies can land anywhere unmolested, you are forced to defend Germany, WE, EE, and try to maintain enough troops for taking Moscow. A hard road.

Instead of “stopping the allies on the beaches” you are stopping them in the water.

BTW, if you can “hold” USSR and “hold” the allies shipping (by gaining Africa income), eventually Japan, which is umolested, will force USSR back. Japan is being left alone while the allies triple team germany. It should be making progress you know…

I think the simple fact that there is a debate shows that Germany can do well with / without naval buys or fleet unification attempts. Maybe it depends more on you and your opponent’s playing style.

My last two games I’ve done the channel dash, lost the Baltic fleet in UK1 but gone on to win both games. So ultimately it was not a losing strategy but I’d like to get more out of the Baltic fleet than I’ve done. Whether that’s uniting with the SZ8 sub in SZ 7, buying TRNs and sending only the subs out, or buying  TRNs and just staying put, or just buying nothing is the question.

My attitude toward Norway is that it’s impossible and not worth holding from a determined Allied Assault. However, Karelia can be really nice to control as Germany.

I think I am leaning toward buying 2-3 TRNs in the Baltic, and then in G2 you can choose what to do - unite in SZ 7 if that’s an option, or stay/build more in the Baltic.

As the CSub paper outlines, that at the very least keeps the fleet alive longer and I don’t think the purchase really hurts Germany on the ground. Here’s why:

• the Baltic fleet frees up units that would otherwise have to defend Berlin. So, even though you have built less land units, you get more use out of the ones you already have.
• the Transports also greatly increase your land forces’ potential because with 4 TRNs you can bring 8 Inf to Karelia plus your armor and Fighters can all get there on their own. And that’s only one step from Moscow’s border.
• You can also get units back to WE quickly if Allied landing is threatened there.
• If the Allies allow you to unite the fleet, Germany will own Africa and pretty soon Caucasus.

My philosophy is that ultimately it is only active units that count. Building the TRNS means that the units you build in Germany on G1 will be fewer in number, but more active because of all the places they can go. The Allies don’t care that much about units that can move to EE or WE. Units that can go to Norway, Karelia or London, on the other hand…

In a word, the transports provide a mobility that increases the value/usefulness of your land forces, which Germany starts with in abundance. Germany’s key to victory is to leverage its early military/tactical superiority to deny the Allies the benefit of their economic superiority while the Axis achieve economic parity. Transports help with that, whether in the Baltic or in the Med. Germany’s Inf are immediately active, rather than just starting out on a long trek to Caucasus.

So I guess I like the TRN build. As for the channel dash, I think the Med fleet, sz 8 sub and Luftwaffe are sufficient to deal with the UK BB and to deter the US from landing in Algeria with 1 DD 2 TRN (or do they have more in range?). I’ll try the dash in G2 if it seems appropriate, but I’ll be happy either way.

Of course, if I like the TRNS in the med, why not just build them there? I guess the UK DD and Russian Ftrs mean they need an escort.

@DarthMaximus:

I don’t think the UK or US should be worried about Kar or Nor until about rd 3-4, so I think Germany worry about retaking it is a waste.

I think Allies should combine in the Atlantic in rd 1, go to Afr in rd 2 (and 3), then start landing in Nor in Rd 3 (or 4).  And by the time the Allies land in rd 3 or 4 they can do so with about 4-6 UK troops and another 4-6 US troops.  A German counter is futile there.

My point is the Allies priorities should be Afr #1 (rds 1-3), then worry about Northern Europe.  So I’m not sure why the Germans would bother with Nor or Kar.  Let the Allies go there early while you are cleaning up in Afr and moving stacks of troops to Ukr.

I wonder though, how will the Allied assault on Norway look if Germany has been reinforcing it for 3 rounds? Or, if Germany leaves Norway vacant but has a monster force in Karelia plus of course 4 TRNs to bring more from Germany? Deadzoned!

The TRANs build in the MED should either be after the UK DD has met an untimely demise or it should have a couple of SS built the previous turn to help the DD meet that untimely demise.  I like the picket SS to deny the Allies an easy trip up to the landing zone and it is a cheap casualty when used to support air strikes by the Luftwaffe.  With its submerge capability it is very survivable unless the Allies start building DDs to chase SSs.  Hmm.  DDs, yet another unit that can’t occupy Berlin.

@Imperious:

Its not an idea that BELONGS to only the C- Sub people. Its not like they invented it. Its just an idea amoung many… its just an idea and BTW you by your own admission dont even follow it correctly… so why defend somthing you dont even fully believe in? I call it a ‘desperado’ play for germany because the outcome on many levels is not 1) obvious and 2) requires more than a few things happening for it to work.

But this is looking at it with the intention of moving out of the baltic on G2.

I suppose it can work but i would not say it was a “book move” or even a Gambit.

In terms of ideas its possible that ANY idea can win a tournament. Their is no reason why it should be the main line for german play. I would say its refutable as a primary way to win a game otherwise it would be played as such and its not.

Its true, I dont follow their build. It’s not that theirs is correct, or mine is. Its two different methods.

I am not, however, saying their build does not work. It does. I just like what I do better.

But I have seen it. I know its potential due to similarity with my strategy. You said you were unfamiliar with it. In which case I thought you should try it before dismissing it.

But I’m through arguing this. Its not worth it.