German navy

@DarthMaximus:

Now the problem would be if Ger goes AC + 2-3 trns or an all out 5 trns.  That may indeed be the best bet in terms of hoping to survive, but I have a hard time with Germany spending 40 on navy.  My hunch is Russia will become too powerful.

Perhaps you should try it instead of just relying on a hunch. You might find it works for you.

Squirecam

DarthMaximus has come to the same conclusion as many others. The plan offers a marginal net increase in income for germany in the exchange, while other options on normal buys will offer more to Germany than this gambit. It is a gambit because Germany’s strength is on land and not the sea, The Soviet threat is a constant battle that is won by marginal improvements in Germany’s position and the first turn is very important if the Soviet player is given basically what amount to a free turn to freeze Germany on the eastern front.

Additionally, the unification plan doesn’t actually unify the German fleet, because as a result if any ships are left from this debacle then the Baltic is left with a hole and the medd is too weak to offer any serious counter to the rebuilt Allied fleets or Air units. This is the part of the plan that proponents of this tend to leave out of their analysis which is the long term conclusions for the axis ability to defend from Allied threats and the lost tempo in the Eastern front and Africa.

The math is the math and their no arguing the numbers. However, the posts of the math by some of the proponents was fudged to make it look better than it was.

Clearly IL and Switch are talking about the long term while Squirecam and Crazystraw are talking about the tournament setting where the games typically last between 5 and 7 rounds.

U-505:
This is probably the only redeeming thing about unification because it presents a wild game, that possibly could lead to something in the short term ( providing the dice go your way and not average luck) and make the position look good for a few rounds if it works… In any real game where the dice were average and the game had no limit on rounds then these strategies are much less satisfactory.

A good strategy should be one that: 1) has an immediate goal, 2) has very good chances for success, 3) plays to your strength and your opponents weakness

The fleet unfication allmost never (again by the math) actually results in this bacause theirs basically nothing more than a ship left,It relies on some good rolls to shift the value of this plan into a “value based plan”, and it does not play into your strength but in the opponents strength.

now to the questions:

A) It is clear he did not understand the threads about the fleet.

B) It is clear he doesn’t even remember the basics about the Baltic.  Germany does not spend “an entire turns worth of income”; they spend 16-24 IPCs.

If he’s going to spray bad strategy around the board, he should at least correctly quote the sources that drive his incorrect conclusions.

A) I understand the strategy and that does not work by the math and your math is fudged to make the idea look better.
b) They spend at least 24 because if they spend less the plan has even a less chance in hell or working
c) I dont have to quote any source that that is faulty… This forum produced much greater analysis of this topic than any report anybody else has come up with. Its probably a good idea to get your facts from this place because its the main Axis and Allies site for information exchange.

but Squrecam was correct but only marginally:

The allies suffer a bigger loss than the Germans do

That statement is correct ( by the math)  except its only about 4-6 net IPC, hardly worth the effort of this gamble. If the germans roll low it will be a battle that may decide the game right away, If they roll high it will give them a marginally better position. Neither of these alternatives is acceptable. You cant rely on "good’ dice rolls when making a strategy. Even a novice can understand that.

@CrazyStraw:

A good strategic analysis can be out of date as soon as it is written, even if it is quite good.

That’s the beauty of the game  :mrgreen:

Peace

orly.

I suppose that’s on par with “A good printer can stop printing the day after you buy it, even if it is quite good.”

I’m like “rawr, my printer!”

“no, no, it’s a good printer”

“rawr!  new toner!  new paper!  new USB cords!”

“no, no, don’t eat me”

“rawr!”

–

Look, let’s just say that general success is the acid test of whether or not something is “good”.

If it is out of date as soon as it is written, I define that as “bad”.

So total losses are: Allies 96 to 108.

Again, this is more than acceptable to me for killing both the Baltic and Med fleets in Rd 2.

This is an astute conclusion. If i remember correctly i got these numbers but the difference was the allies lost about 6 more than the Germans… but your right its a better trade to exchange because it just makes the allies job easier. The Soviets get strong and the Allies build a fleet ( which they do anyway) but this time it has more options because Baltic is open and the medd cannot counter the Allied fleets, because once Germany loses this fleet she is not buying another one. Its something that once is gone is gone never to come back. But this is one of the main Allied plans is to remove this threat and this faulty plan has allready played in the Allied hands.

Just buy your carrier in baltic and stay put… much better idea.

The point of debate seems to be that people are thinking that the Caspian Sub paper simply recommends buying three transports.

That IS NOT actually what the Caspian sub paper recommends.  What is recommended is a CONDITIONAL purchase of 2-3 transports.  If certain factors apply, then it is NOT recommended that transports be purchased.

In other words, Caspian Sub is saying “Water is good to drink”, and people are pouring water into their cars gas tanks.  No no!  That’s not what’s supposed to happen!

–

For EXAMPLE, the Casp Sub paper says “If Russian fighters in range of London, that should be considered as a factor against a transport purchase”.  Not in words per se, but there’s a list of conditions.

Anyways - if UK builds 3 fighters and transports tanks from E. Canada, and UK and US unite fleets off southwest of London (depending), and Russia flies 2 fighters to London from Moscow on R2, then what you have is:

London:  2 bomber, 4 inf, 2 art, 3 tank, 8 fighter, AA gun

which is pretty decent against even 4 inf 4 tank 6 fighter 1 bomber, which is the most Germany can bring, assuming USSR blocks the German Mediterranean fleet on R2.  (This does not prevent German fleet unification; Germany can send a fighter to sink or submerge the sub, and Germany unites on G2 anyways)

And UK can follow with 5 fighter 1 bomber vs 2 sub 4 trns 1 destr on the next turn (if the German Baltic navy does not move out), or 2 trns 5 fighter 1 bomber 1 btl vs 3 sub 5 trns 1 dstr 1 btl on UK, and US followup of 2 trns 1 destr 1 fig 1 bom (minimum), which DOES spell the end of the German navy, even if the Allies have to completely rebuild on their turn (which may not be necessary if UK retreated their battleship and left US to finish the job).  I do not see that this position offers the Axis any sort of substantive advantage.

So does that mean that 3 Baltic transports is wrong if Russian fighters are in Moscow at the end of R1?  I think the answer to that is yes.  But notice that the Caspian Sub paper DOES pretty much say the same.

@CrazyStraw:

Actually I’d do the same thing short or long term.  The game I play is FTF domination; tournaments do happen from time to time, but the majority of the time I play as close to box rules domination as possible (meaning bid and a couple of minor fixes).

The reason the German buy is the same for short and long term is the cost/benefit analysis of a Baltic purchase.  If you buy nothing, then UK should sink Germany on the cheap, build transports in Z02, and be landing signficant troops in Europe R2.  If you build even a single transport in the Baltic the UK strategy changes quite significantly.

Good posts from Darth, Frood and others.  Couple more notes:

Darth, in the long term the Unified German fleet DOES die.  But if you don’t at least threaten the move, the Allies go into ground-production mode immediately.  By spending a few IPCs in the water you force a significant upgrade of Allied boats/planes, and you delay the landing of ground troops.

Again, I will try to take my own advice.  :-D

I was speaking, in particular, about the argument between you guys of buying a fleet worth combining in sz7 on G2. I don’t dispute that Germany should buy some sort of navy on G1 in most cases( a really bad R1 or a heavy Russian push toward Japan being the main exceptions).

I’m just still skeptical about combining the German navies in a long term game. As I haven’t seen it or done it very often, I can’t say exactly what I would do but I get the feeling I would probably be willing to take the IPC hit by attacking it with the US/UK on round 2 at least to knock out the TP’s if anything. I place a pretty high value on taking early African IPC’s when I’m Germany(possibly more than most) so taking steps to eliminate Germany’s ability to do it would be a high priority for me as the Allies.

I might even just let it go. I would obviously build to prevent it from sinking the combined Allied fleet, advancing into the Atlantic, or invading UK(situational depending on the composition of the fleet) so it would eventually retreat to either the Baltic or the Med. In that case, I would probably try to work around it in the area it operates in and take advantage of it’s absence in the other.

It’s hard for me to get into specifics since the fleet compositions are nearly endless, but an exclusive TP build would probably draw an attack while a CV would mean trying to work around it. Until I could challenge it in force, at my leisure if possible.

Just one point on this XX to YY IPC loss.

The German fleet, without any purchase, will likely die UK1 to 2 fighters and a Bomber. Even if you kill a fighter, or even 2, you LOSE 36 IPC worth of units at a cost of 20.

With a fleet buy, those units, which were WASTED, now do MORE damage to Allied IPC/units than they suffer. Even if this were the ONLY benefit (although there are more), it is worth it.

Edit out flame: Imperious

Squirecam

The point of debate seems to be that people are thinking that the Caspian Sub paper simply recommends buying three transports.

Nobody cares about somebodys “paper” … This debate is about fleet unification and the very idea of the direct threat for Sealion and a direct confrontation with UK. Were looking at all the possibilities for the game with any system that uses this idea.C- Sub is just one idea and many posters have their own ideas and modifications to this plan. Some of the proponents of this plan dont even follow it and have made modifications on the idea. Again this idea is an old one “tried” by a few, and  the approach is not the same. However, the refutation is based only at this point on the “big” solution of this issue based on the buy of 1 carrier and 3 transports. Of course you can go “small” and try the idea with 3 subs or whatever. However, if the math works less well for the big solution than how much better can it work for a partial solution? The plan assumes unification on G2… any additional wait will only get worse for germany.

The German fleet, without any purchase, will likely die UK1 to 2 fighters and a Bomber. Even if you kill a fighter, or even 2, you LOSE 36 IPC worth of units at a cost of 20.

regardless by the math the net difference is less than 10 IPC worth gain for axis. Its still hardly worth the effort. If the dice are not average it can go much worse for germany and ruin her game. Why take the chance?

No.

Without a fleet, Germany loses 36 to UK’s 10 or 20. That is, Germany is -26 or -16.

With a fleet, using your #'s. Germany ends up  +9.

That is a TOTAL gain, from -26 to +9, of 35 IPC.

Squirecam

@squirecam:

Some people will never learn/listen/debate without getting petty. So it is useless to continue this…

ya i kno!  guys just don’t like to listen!  they just want to put they hands all over u!

–

Mmm.  I want to get “pet-ty” with Marisa Miller.  Rawr.

–@Imperious:

The point of debate seems to be that people are thinking that the Caspian Sub paper simply recommends buying three transports.

Nobody gives a (insert mad lib here!) about somebodys “paper” … This debate is about fleet unification and the very idea of the direct threat for Sealion and a direct confrontation with UK. Were looking at all the possibilities for the game with any system that uses this idea.C- Sub is just one idea and many posters have their own ideas and modifications to this plan. Some of the proponents of this plan dont even follow it and have made modifications on the idea. Again this idea is an old one “tried” by a few, and the approach is not the same. However, the refutation is based only at this point on the “big” solution of this issue based on the buy of 1 carrier and 3 transports. Of course you can go “small” and try the idea with 3 subs or whatever. However, if the math works less well for the big solution than how much better can it work for a partial solution? The plan assumes unification on G2… any additional wait will only get worse for germany.

Mm.  I’ll give u a (insert mad lib here!).  Yummeh.

You’re saying the refutation at this point is based on a solution of 1 carrier vs 3 transports.  But how can you justly criticize the 3 transport build idea when you do not know the critical conditions under which the 3 transport build is recommended?

"OK, when the red light goes on, press the “Nuclear Control Rod regulator”.

“OK, I pressed it!”

“No, when the red light goes on.”

“OK, I pressed it!”

“No, when THAT red light goes on.”

“OK, I pressed it!”

–

The question is, is it supposed to be a DISCUSSION, an ARGUMENT, or a COMEDY?

Just for the record, I said nothing inflamatory.

I see IL is now editing posts, so I thought I would just make that clear.

Squirecam

I tell ya, this has to be the most contentious issue on these boards bar none…well, maybe aside from whatever’s going on in the “general discussion” thread.  But here, it probably has to be this: a) what/should Germany buy navy? b) should it attempt a unification c) my written paper is better than your paper.

Just for the record, I said nothing inflammatory.

Squire: We done need any more of your posts where you say " this is a total waste of discussion because of X and Y and THEN post repeatedly"

You need to get off the stove if your hot… Its simple to either post something that adds to the discussion or to not post because you feel any contribution to it is a “waste” You denigrate other posters who ARE trying to be happy about posting here and share their ideas. If you don’t like them i don’t want to see you bringing down things for your own purpose.

You allready made 2 posts with the same tirade. Either be or not to be. You cant have both.

And for the record Im not going to let the same people every time turn a discussion into a war. I will edit out anything that refers to another poster in a negative light because that is not fair.

so watch yourself.

a) what/should Germany buy navy? b) should it attempt a unification

I think they should buy a carrier for baltic while doing item B is probably not a good idea.

Also buying a battleship has a some merit if you plan on using it for its support shot more than a few times.

I think something should be done to protect the baltic fleet rather than to throw it in the trash can and leave a hole in the baltic.

@General_D.Fox:

I tell ya, this has to be the most contentious issue on these boards bar none…well, maybe aside from whatever’s going on in the “general discussion” thread. But here, it probably has to be this: a) what/should Germany buy navy? b) should it attempt a unification c) my written paper is better than your paper.

Well that’s because MY paper is better than yours. What were you thinking, Fox?  :evil:

It’s mainly because everybody goes with what works for them and since they are more familiar with their opening they will argue more adamantly for it’s defense. The options for Germany’s opening build’s are endless and the Allied responses to those openings are endless squared. I say try every one you see and if a few win for you, try them again. And if a few lose for you, try them again anyway. What the hell, it’s only a game. Except when you play ME. Then it’s the ultimate battle of wits which will end up in me proving my clear superiority to whoever I’m playing. Even if I lose.  :-P :mrgreen:

Without a fleet, Germany loses 36 to UK’s 10 or 20. That is, Germany is -26 or -16.

With a fleet, using your #'s. Germany ends up  +9.

That is a TOTAL gain, from -26 to +9, of 35 IPC.

Can you show me the numbers? Just to make sure we are on the same page?

You may have to refer to the other thread if thats not too much trouble.

Help find the solution- maybe your correct and maybe your not.

@Imperious:

We even had a guy open a game  offering anybody who wants to attempt/ prove this strategy was a silly and play a game. That challenge was declined as well. Figures…

That’s a problem.  You know what to expect and thus know exactly how to counter, not a realistic test.  I’ve oft thought of challenging anyone to stop a KJF game, but if you know, ahead of time, that a KJF is comming, it is very easy to stop it.  Pull the Japanese fleet back to SZ 60, augment it fully and then dedicated a few IPC a round to keep it supplied and no way you can lose it.  But who does that on J1 w/o knowing a head of time that the allies are going ballbusters against Japan first?

@Imperious:

a) what/should Germany buy navy? b) should it attempt a unification

I think they should buy a carrier for baltic while doing item B is probably not a good idea.

Also buying a battleship has a some merit if you plan on using it for its support shot more than a few times.

I think something should be done to protect the baltic fleet rather than to throw it in the trash can and leave a hole in the baltic.

Wait, that sounds like a consensus; squire basically said the same thing (I mean the part in bold).  That’s the whole point of why I have been trying out these various ideas.  (Problem is, I have done it without a bid, which is a different story.)

It’s mainly because everybody goes with what works for them and since they are more familiar with their opening they will argue more adamantly for it’s defense.

Thank god somebody made this point…. sometimes i feel that people just wont accept any ideas that run different. Its so dogmatic and largely results in failure on so many levels.

Its fine if you prefer your ideas… but Math is objective so if the truth can be seen for what it is then this ‘defense’ will become more flexible.

Papers are fine but it looks silly if your not willing to look at the situation on the board and be flexible.