Buying AC on G1

Cmdr, at least we agree on the Ger naval strat, it’s waste of money. G should only buy air/land units. Only if Jap manages to get the fleet to Italy, then maybe a Ger naval buy could be viable.
One thing is arguments for not buying navy with Ger, I also observe better players, and none of them buys any navy with Ger.

40 ipc Russia is very unlikely, allies probably won the game then  :wink:

About Ger strats, the best (LL) player I’ve seen, leaves WE G2, and this is regardless of KJF/KGF.
And the Russian strat in KJF, I think KJF doesn’t work against decent players because Russia  needs all units to defend against Ger.
US alone is not enough to CJF, even if the UK starting units is used against Jap.

Still not using TripleA, Jen :roll:

Nope.  I’ll never use TripleA.  I don’t plan to go to Vista until whatever comes out next is out and I suspect the programmers are busy getting TripleA to work with Vista, not XP (doesn’t work on my system, never did.  Can’t even copy someone else’s map and load it as a saved game…cant even save my games and load them again, not that I would want too anymore.)

A couple of quick points…

1.  I have a low-end PC at present and it runs on Vista.  I can use TripleA on this one, but could not get it to work on my previous XP system.

2.  I agree that Russia collecting $40 is game-over Axis (unless London or Washington has already fallen)

3.  Not all top ranked players ignore building up a German Navy.  I am having an off year in the League (would probably help if I was still playing after numerous early losses), but I am one of the site representatives who qualified as one of 16 players for the DAAK World Cup starting in November and still have a pretty favorable overall win/loss record of about 2 wins for every 1 loss.  I like the SZ14 TRN bid.  I like the SZ5 AC on G1.  I even like both of them in the same game!

There are several advantages to a G1 AC buy as Germany.  Among them are:
1.  UK/USA need to spend far more on capital ships (or massive FIG buys with TRN fodder) to kill that fleet.
2.  Norway is not immediately lost income to Germany.  Oftentimes an AC in SZ5 allows Germany to at least trade Norway for several turns before the Allies finally land enough forces there to hold it. 
3.  It often diverts Allied resources from Africa, and with a TRN bid to SZ14 that often allows Germany to be at or near $50 for quite a few rounds early in the game which is critical.
4.  Eventually the Allies need to sink that fleet to get at Berlin.  And 2 SUB, 1 TRN, 1 DST, 1 AC, 2 FIG can sink a LOT of Allied TRN on their way to the bottom, slowing the Allies one final round as they die.

That is not an all-inclusive list, but for the nay-sayer’s out there it might get you thinking along different lines as to how that AC can be of significant long term benefit to the Axis

I’m totally with you on thoses comments ncscswitch.

Also worth noting your 16 ipc CV will sink for more than it’s value if attacked, since you don’t pay for the fodder units already present there.
As stated before, you retreat the fighters to land when you know you can’t hold anymore. The CV and fodders will still do their job of taking out some allied units. If it does not, it’s because the allied fleet is massive enough to sink it in one swipe and that only means allies over invested in the sea/air which is also mission accomplish for the CV.

Not attacking the baltic means Berlin is safe from direct attack, good luck landing in France against a decent german turtle. I broken more than my share of so called KGF that way.

@Corbeau:

The CV and fodders will still do their job of taking out some allied units. If it does not, it’s because the allied fleet is massive enough to sink it in one swipe and that only means allies over invested in the sea/air which is also mission accomplish for the CV.

That is a really critical bit of posting there…

+1 GK to you!

I agree with Corbeau Blanc’s angle. In my gaming group the rationale for the G1 carrier been boiled down to one argument: “because we know what happens when you don’t.” ~ZP

Love the Carlin quote there ZP!

<– using XP, Triple A works  shrug :|

I find in my games that letting the british and americans rain in the atlantic undetered takes the game out of the german’s hands. If the German’s can not control the game then they are needlessly unmatched and will be overmatched by the annoying landings and broken supply lines.

Now if Russia has nice roles then you do not go CV first round but as always play the game not force the game.

I disagree.  That carrier will probably be floating when Berlin falls, or the Allies will build just as they usually do and sink it with the Americans without so much as a serious dent.  Sure, America may lose a transport or two and get their battleship damaged, but otherwise, no serious damage.

(I’m assuming you have 6 transports, battleship, carrier, 4 or 5 fighters and a bomber for the attack with 2 transports as pure fodder leaving you with 4 transports to get to England and 4 more to land troops in Euro-Asia.)

And if you do retreat the fighters when you cannot hold anymore (Turn 3) you have bought no time (usually takes America 3 or 4 rounds to get in range there anyway) and you’ve lost 16 IPC for nothing.

Furthermore, I cannot say that a carrier build has ever, in all my games, resulted in me diverting a single unit from Africa.  Dunno about you guys, but I have about a 2.141:1 win loss ratio.  I don’t play at DAAK anymore, the last game I actually played there was when the only game out was Classic (though some players like to use my ID there for their games.)

I actually welcome Germany trading Norway.  That’s going to cost Germany at least 2 Infantry a round + the loss of use of at least one fighter, maybe two to retake it.  That’s significantly less firepower they can use for other attacks, like against Russia.  So now you are attacking Norway, W. Europe, Egypt, Ukraine, Belorussia and Karelia each round.  That’s spreading your firepower awefully slim and encouraging a phenomenon known as Cascade Dice Failure.

Also, the goal is Berlin, not SZ 5.  Therefore, it is perfectly possible for the allies to dominate without sinking the SZ 5 fleet.  It’s actaully a matter of game records at some of the gaming sites that the SZ 5 fleet, even without a carrier build, sometimes survives when Germany dies.

The only thing the carrier does is give Germany the option of using the SZ 5 fleet offensively against the Allied fleet longer than normal.  Honestly, I’ve yet to see Germany make that attack since they will have to over come at least two Allied Battleships and are bringing none of their own.

So what does the Carrier bring you?

1)  A chance to stretch your forces beyond their capabilities
2)  A chance to squander your resources
3)  A chance to experience Cascade Dice Failure
4)  A chance to look in wonder at the Marineskrieg as it floats in the harbor of a capitol owned by Russia, England or America
5)  The off chance your opponent loses his mind and spends way too much on fleet to counter your carrier. (Which is stupid when you think about it.  2 Carriers, 4 Fighters, 2 Battleships, 8-10 Transports, 2 Submarines and 2 Destroyers are plenty and that’s usualy what the Allies have between the three of them anyway.  Germany will never win with 2 submarines, transport, destroyer, carrier, 5 fighters and a bomber, thus they will never try.)

And finally:

6)  A chance to waste 16 IPCs and keep it locked up forever in SZ 5.

Correct.

It’s nice to have, don’t get me wrong, but I’m not investing valuable IPC in maintaining it.  (I’ll use it as fodder if I attack the allied navies though, if the allies are silly enough to let it live that long.)