German navy

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.

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.)

Yes Squire and others have said this. It becomes even more credible if your bid is zero so you cant afford to try gambits.

@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.

A.  Germany should buy a BIG navy.  So it can send troops to Brazil.  So we can have German/Brazilian supermodels.  Uberhawt.

B.  Mmmm.  Unification.   Sounds smexy.  (But more on this in a bit)

C.  I don’t even have a paper.  I’m waiting to write a paper until there is one official sanctioned ruleset.  Then, teh paper shall be written, and owls around the world shall rejoice.

–

Here are my three approaches to the Baltic, all of which I use.

1.  Buy NOTHING.  The philosophy behind this is - the Allies can blow up the Baltic fleet on UK1?  Let them!  That’s fewer fighters they have, and Allied fighters are a pain to deal with.  So I’ll lose some navy I wasn’t going to use anyways.  No big deal.

Genghis Khan used this to beat me.  I lose maybe one out of 10 or 15 games as the Allies.  So I have to say, there is probably something to this.

2.  Buy carrier.  The philosophy behind this is - I have a Baltic navy which costs a lot of IPC; I’m going to protect it and force the Allies to deal with it.

I’ve used this successfully on occasion, and unsuccessfully on quite a few occasions.  I think my play as the Axis is not necessarily completely sound, as I do not win consistently with them.  At any rate, I think that a carrier MAY not be sound.

3.  Buy 2-3 transports.  The philosophy behind this is - I have a Baltic navy which costs a lot of IPC, I’m going to protect it AND force the Allies to defend London AND threaten the Allied Atlantic fleet.  Remember this only really works with 2 bid units in Africa!!!

This is really a CONDITIONAL buy, and two things are important to note.  First, I feel that a 2-3 transport buy is ENTIRELY pointless if Russian fighters are in Moscow.  Second, I feel that a 2-3 transport buy is POSSIBLY very good depending on Russia’s moves, although I have not yet done a complete analysis.

Cursory look - well, if you build 3 transports, that’s a real threat on London.  If Russian fighters are not in range of London, and Germany builds 3 transports, Germany threatens 4 inf 4 tank 5 fighter 1 bomber (say best case for German) vs 2 bomber 4 inf 2 art 3 tank 3 fighter PLUS possibly 5 inf 3 tank, or 3 fighters.  So you can say - what’s the point?  The point is, first, if US DOES send its units to London, then the Allied fleet in the Atlantic is open to attack.  Maybe you can force the Allies to eat two transports (if the US sent the transports in unescorted, Luftwaffe can kill them all).  If the Allies united their fleet southwest of UK, maybe you can force the Allies to eat their whole fleet, if you attack that fleet with the Med navy and the German fighters in W. Europe.  At the very least, Germany should be able to eat the Russian sub that blocks the Mediterranean navy from attacking London (because battleship support shot and additional inf/tank is a little much for London to handle, especially if London went with 3 fighters, not 5 inf 3 tank).  If the Allies DO add fighters in London, Germany can still respond with a Baltic carrier (although QUITE expensive at this point, Germany may as well go for it) . . . and if the Allies do NOT respond with fighters, the Baltic navy can be used as a significant threat; I would much rather have 2 transports than 1 carrier on an attack supported by other naval/air units, because 2 transports can take 2 hits; 1 carrier can just take 1.

I go to school and come back and the thread is 3 pages longer than i last saw … that realy discourages me from catching up  :-(

newpaintbrush your a funny guy.

You should write a “paper” and claim invincibility of your idea  :lol: :lol: :lol:

If you have a paper to back you up you cannot lose even a single game.

@squirecam:

@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

I’m sure at some point I will, just like I’d like to try out some Med fleet builds as well.

@squirecam:

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

That is worst case, and that is perfectly acceptable for the Allies since in Rd 1 the Allies have 96 IPC to spend and the Axis have 70.
And in Rd 2 the Allies should have at least 94 while the Axis have 77 (not = to 166 due to trading)

That right there is +43, with I think fairly conservative numbers.

Rd 3 might be closer to 90-80, but the Allies should still have the lead.

Further the loss of the Baltic fleet with no additional ships is one thing to look at but, also the Allies still have to take out the Med fleet at some point.  Which will probably cost you 2 more planes.

I consider the UK 1 attack on the original Baltic fleet a mistake.  Why risk 2 ftrs, bom?  When you can take it out later with possibly BB help and trns for fodder.  Why risk losing 2-3 planes when you can take it out for 1 trn later?

So under this theory, I don’t reinforce, I encourage an attack I believe to be a mistake.  I get the UK to kill off 2 ftrs, which they need to rebuild, since I could have 6 ftrs, 1 bom (possibly buy another ftr in rd 1-2 as well) and they stll need
to kill the Med fleet.

And if they don’t attack I get 2 uses out of my Baltic trn for no additional cost.

My numbers my have been slightly off with the 96 to 108, but I’d be willing to make the exchage, like I said above, for a net loss to the Allies for as much as a 30-40 IPC differnce.
Again, the reason being the Allies will have the Economic lead for at least the first 3 turns anyway and killing both fleets should be a top priority regardless, so to get them in one spot as early as Round 2 with a chance to wipe them out,  well, I’d trade a lot of Allied units for that chance.  Sure beats the Med fleet dancing around for 3-5 turns, or even sneaking into the Indian Ocean or having a Japan linkup.

@CrazyStraw:

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.

You can delay it just as easy with a 10 inf, 1 ftr buy.
With one extra IPC, I’d consider 2 ftrs, 7 inf.
And if we are talking spending 32 (on ships), with 42, I think I’d rather buy 3 ftrs, 4 inf.

It is not that easy for UK to land early if they sacked 2 planes to take out your baltic fleet.  And your subs could always submerge if the UK moved to Sz 6 to take Nor on UK 1 as well.

By Round 3-4 you can even have Japan support say 3-4 ftrs, 1 bom.  The Allies better not be careless with those ships now.

@AJGundam:

I go to school and come back and the thread is 3 pages longer than i last saw … that realy discourages me from catching up  :-(

Don’t be discouraged.

Just drop school.

Who says you don’t get good advice on these boards?!

@Imperious:

newpaintbrush your a funny guy.

You should write a “paper” and claim invincibility of your idea :lol: :lol: :lol:

If you have a paper to back you up you cannot lose even a single game.

Oo ty.

The paper I use to win most games is a piece of paper with Andrew Jackson on it.
I do not mind, just so long as I get enough pieces of paper with pictures of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln from the side bets.

–

I’ll write a paper . . . eventually . . . after there’s a standardized tournament ruleset, or after there’s more of a consensus on what a standard ruleset is.

TripleA:  Preplaced bid of 9 (fixed).  Leftover IPCs from bid saved to bank.  No invasion of enemy capitals on turn 1.

Tournaments:  LHTR.  Plus special variants (victory territories, from Yope), or other thingies (GenCon)

DAAK:  Something else.  Gawd, I can’t even understand how to work my DAAK account.  I need to go find one of those German girls I met a few summers back . . . mmm . . . Germans.

Also - I gotta work on my game.  I’m decent, but not Great yet.

@Imperious:

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.

I used the same numbers (Darth’s) that you referred to….

**The final results are German fleet sunk (120 IPC)
Heavy UK losses (81 IPC) only the BB survives
Moderate US losses (46 or 48)

Total Allied losses 129, total Axis 120.

To me, this is more than acceptable to kill both the Baltic and Med fleets in one shot in Rd 2.**

Germany has 36 IPC in baltic (DD, Trans, 2 subs). That fleet will die to 2 UK fighters + Bomber at a cost of perhaps 1-2 fighters.

So, anywhere from -16 to -26 IPC LOSS for Germany.

The darth numbers you quoted said a +9 IPC difference for Germany assuming a UK/USA fleet attack.

In which case, Germany goes from LOSING 16 to 26 IPC on the exchange, to GAINING 9.

Which means your statement was incorrect. There is not a less than 10 IPC difference. It could be 35.

Squirecam

@DarthMaximus:

That is worst case, and that is perfectly acceptable for the Allies since in Rd 1 the Allies have 96 IPC to spend and the Axis have 70.
And in Rd 2 the Allies should have at least 94 while the Axis have 77 (not = to 166 due to trading)

That right there is +43, with I think fairly conservative numbers.

Rd 3 might be closer to 90-80, but the Allies should still have the lead.

Germany, (with bid) should be at 40 or over (given Africa). Japan WILL TAKE AND HOLD THE FOLLOWING China(2)sink(2)India(3),Bury(1)SFE(1)(Yakut(1)(Australia(2)NZ(1)HI(1)

That’s 14 IPC.

Now, from 96-70, you go to 82 Allies to 84 axis

Are you going to dispute that in a pure KGF, Japan cannot by round 3 get these territories???

If not, in which case, the “allied IPC lead” you refer to is KAPUT…by round THREE

Squirecam

@U-505:

@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:

Your paper might be better than mine, but mine is more superior in the quality of the paper it’s printed on!  :-P :lol:

@squirecam:

Germany, (with bid) should be at 40 or over (given Africa). Japan WILL TAKE AND HOLD THE FOLLOWING China(2)sink(2)India(3),Bury(1)SFE(1)(Yakut(1)(Australia(2)NZ(1)HI(1)

That’s 14 IPC.

Now, from 96-70, you go to 82 Allies to 84 axis

Are you going to dispute that in a pure KGF, Japan cannot by round 3 get these territories???

If not, in which case, the “allied IPC lead” you refer to is KAPUT…by round THREE

Squirecam

Squire, you obviously have played much more than I have, not counting the original A&A, so you would know what you have accomplished, but I find it hard to believe that Japan can take all those territories you mention by T3 against a decent Allies player.  How do you have enough ground units to take all that?  I assume you would take some hits to inf somewhere in there.  If the Allies reinforce and make a stand in any one of those areas you should be at least partially thwarted.  I’m not disputing that you have done it, but I do wonder how, because I would love to learn! :-)

I did say the Allies will have the lead for the first three rds and you can’t claim all that at once.

Aus, NZ, and Hi are questionble, as is Afr.
Certainly possible but I wouldn’t guarantee it.

The UK has a lot of options with its Indain ocean fleet-troops and can counter a lot of things.

Ger should also be down Wrus, Ukr, Belo and possibly trading Balk to the Russians.

IPC totals don’t mean much if both sides got credit for them.  How much cash does each side have to spend?

Yeah it could be 82-84 after rd 3 but that doesn’t mean Russia didn’t earn 30, UK 24 and US 38.

I’d like to see the plan for how Japan holds all that stuff after J3!!!

I assume that’s based on total Russian evacuation of the East, but still…