G1 naval build?

@Emperor:

My problem with subs is they defend at 1 and are useless as fodder against air attacks.  They don’t seem to be very useful in the Atlantic, i have had some success with them in the Pacific.

I see little or no use to them for the allies, or Italy.  Japan and the US may have a need for them in the pacific.  Germany I find kind of unique.  If you get them in the Med, hell at least you have fodder to get better use of the Italian fleet (barring a massive air raid). On Germany’s T1 turn you can do an aggresive Tank build and have 6 left over, I think the 6 for the sub is a legit build in that situation, and after that start building planes when Germany is taking in more money.  But the subs defense isn’t so much it defends at 1 as much as it is hard to hit (destroyers needed) and if you are doing an Attack on the Allied navy with Air and subs you have good fodder with the added bonus of the nasty attack they carry.

I am not saying it is the best build, but it has some allure to me (maybe because I haven’t tried it yet).  The fact that they are 4 cheaper than planes, can tear through ships faster, pressure the Allied navy, and “cheapen” carriers, act as Air Raid Fodder,  act as Italian navy fodder, and are hard to hit so have realitvly free movement, really makes a sporadic sub appealing to me.  However going hog wild on subs (I see no way someone could build more than 3 in a normal game and justify it) is a sure fire way to lose for Germany

@Woodstock:

@Upside-down_Turtle:

Yes, good idea, not going carrier.  My first AA50 game I bought a carrier. Worst A&A decission I’ve ever made.

Still, if feel the German fleet is just a pipe dream.  Yes, I played a game where Germany actually had more ships than US and UK in the Atlantic, but that was a heavy, KJF game. 
Hitler thought the Kaiser was stupid for building a fleet for several reasons:
1. It could be bottled up in the Baltic too easily. 
2. Just can’t compete w/ UK
3. Simply trying to compete w/ UK only got the UK pissed off, eventually leading to war.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with the Fuhrer on this one.  A German fleet is waste of IPCs.  It will eventually get destroyed, period.  And what strategic objective would you have achieved?  None, just blowing up a few UK/US ships, which you could have done with air.  So what if it ties up Allied fleets and take them down with you?  The Allies can afford to trade units with you.  By building a fleet, you play into the Allies’ hands, because it distracts you from Russia, and forces you to trade units you can’t afford to trade.  Your goal is Moscow. 
Let me repeat it.

Key to Axis Victory:Moscow!!!

Key to Axis Victory:Moscow!!!

True.
But whoever said that the Germans have to take Moscow? With each and every game I have won as the Axis, Moscow was taken by the Japanese.

Let me explain my rationale:

Almost everyone here plays the Race for Moscow with Germany vs Race for Berlin with USA/UK strategy.

What I try to achieve is break that habit, as that strategy has quite the odds to go wrong for the Axis.
Thus, I build a German navy. And here’s why.

Situation 1: Allies go full KGF.
Let them come. With Germany not focusing too much on Russia, that is one tough nut to crack. Especially if they have to deal with a decent German navy aswell.
Played well, the Allies are gonna be needing at least 6 turns before they can even pose a decent (and continous!) threat to the German shores. (Imagine what Germany can put in land, sea and air in 6 turns, and then count what the Allies can do in those 6 turns, with Japan snatching IPC’s from them everywhere).

By that 6th turn, Japan is knocking on Moscow’s doors.

Yeah, but you’re Baltic fleet will be blown to bits. So what’s the point?
Well…that is exactly the point. I’m building units to fight. And if anyone tries to attack the Baltic fleet, that fleet will defend, and take down quite some expensive units. Units, that at least UK, are unable to replace easily, setting the Allies back a couple of rounds.
By then, the fleet has served it’s purpose.

Situation 2: Allies see my Baltic built, and go KJF.
Great, I’ll go and play with UK. Good luck pulling off a KJF while UK is under heavy fire. Or I use the fleet to form a quick bridge to Karelia. Even better.

Yes, Japan takes Moscow in KGF.  The thing is, if you really want to take pressure off Japan, you’re best bet is to go hard for Moscow, not build a fleet.  The best a large fleet can do scare the allies away towards Japan.  Then what, blockade UK, b/c it’s can’t drop a huge fleet due to protecting its Empire via India, South Africa, Australia ICs?  Germany can’t invade UK unless UK is stupid, or till it has already taken Moscow, and by then, its Game Over.

Yes, you can potentially clear the Atlantic with a huge fleet, but so can a huge air force, which doesn’t have to sit idle during a KJF game.

I have a hard time understanding how the Axis could survive with people advocate building expensive fleets for both Germany AND Italy.  It seems some people are just obsessed with building fleets.  An airplane is more verstile and cost effective.  Not to mention buying fleets= money not beeing sent to kill Russia= literally, buying the Allies time.

The Allies HAVE to have an unskinable fleet, you can not count on a strategy to sink it. If you sink it it means the Allies have: already either dealt their death blow, made a mistake in calculation, or you experienced incredible luck.  In other words if the fleet goes down it is due to an Allied error not a superior German strat.  The Allies can only blame themselves (or god awful luck) if their fleet gets sunk.  This is just the way the game is designed.  You are better off directing the West to waste their transport drops, screwing around with them a little in Africa for example, you should relish moments when large Allied forces are in Africa with little Axis forces in Africa (Remember the Japs can have a little fun here too).  I would even say, if it sets them back for 2 turns and higher materiel costs, entice them into trading W Europe.  Depend more on the allies making these mistakes than a mistake with them getting their fleet sunk, as the Axis are going to still be building much more valuable ground or air units.

Kill Russia, worry about sending just enough to the West or Africa to keep you alive, those are your secondary theaters.  Every other piece of land you take, kill you make, or defensive bolstering you do should be seen as a “neccesary evil” for killing Russia.  If need be, you should even sacrifice Italy or maybe even W Europe (And if Japan has turned into a monster and is going to deliver the killing blow, even Germany itslef) if it means you can Kill Russia.  Because of this, I don’t see navy building as an optimal strat for the Western Axis (Japan works a bit different).

@Woodstock:

@dondoolee:

I have a hard time understanding how the Axis could survive with people advocate building expensive fleets for both Germany AND Italy.

I have a bunch of old TripleA games on my hard drive that could make you help understand? ;-)

It seems some people are just obsessed with building fleets.  An airplane is more verstile and cost effective.  Not to mention buying fleets= money not beeing sent to kill Russia= literally, buying the Allies time.

I am not obsessed with buying fleets, I just really…really hate an empty Baltic sea. This gives the UK a whole lot of territories to land on.
And as I said before: Russia is for Japan. My goal with Germany is to survive untill Japan reaches Moscow. A lot more secure then the Race to Moscow with Germany vs Race to Berlin with Allies - kind of games.

1. Wouldn’t fighters/bombers/a couple of well placed subs be more useful/versitile/cost effective?

2. If the allies see you buying fleets with Germany, doesn’t that send off a couple of triggers for them?  For example, they can afford to be less aggresive on Germany and priority #1 is to tie up Japan (which can be done) while Russia gets breathing room because you built fleets with the Western Axis?  Buying an IC in SAF and sitting on the rest of the money for T2 for example on the UK’s first move.  Or maybe they can even be hyper aggressive in the west now that Russia has more breathing room.  Maybe forgetting Africa all together and just gunning straight for Germany which now has less ground units and an inferior fleet (unless the allies screwed up).  The German fleet doesn’t have to be sunk, I can still land in France or funnel through Norway.

Even if I am wrong, as a German player I would feel like I was “showing my hand” if I built fleet with them.  In AAR Germany could (and I always did) build 2 Trannies in the baltic, which bolsterd defense and gave great flexibilty (You could bring the navy to the edge of the med and really force the UK to build ground troops; funny stuff), In AA50 I just do not see much use for capital ships and Germany, I see an inflexible strat and a gigantic signal that the Allies will figure out and exploit eventually.

@Woodstock:

Maybe forgetting Africa all together and just gunning straight for Germany which now has less ground units and an inferior fleet (unless the allies screwed up).  The German fleet doesn’t have to be sunk, I can still land in France or funnel through Norway.

…

…with on both options placing your fleet in range of mine, thus making it a juicy target. Even if Ger loses it’s entire fleet then, it will set back the Allies back to square one.
Except, in this square one, they have less money, whereas Germany has more then the original first square.

If my fleet got hurt that bad I would consider that “the allies screwing up”.  It means I moved them and put of place to soon/miscalculated/had awful awful luck.  It should be assumed the allies are not putting their fleet in harms way unless it is strong enough to be in harms way and there isn’t much the Axis can do about it, either that or they are desperate in which case you are winning anyway.  If the allies are strong in the Atlantic that is their job and #1 function, to have an unconquerable fleet that knows the strength and position of everything the Axis can throw at it .  You just have to count on that as an Axis player. And the greater you strengthen your fleet the more you weaken your Eastern front.

Did not read the entire thread but in all games I played as Germany, turn 1 the UK are left with 1 destroyer and 1 transport off the shore of Canada.

• Bomber/fighter/submarine to sink UK’s BB/T
• Submarine/2 fighters to sink UK’s cruiser/T
• Cruiser/submarine/fighter to sink destroyer/transport

Half the time I’m left with most of my units forcing the RAF to commit to sink cruiser.

So how it is wrong to purchase 1 sub in thoses conditions? Turn 1, UK fleet is pretty much whipped. Adding a sub force them to think hard.

I’ve tried other openings but that one was the best by far even considering egypt. I’m of the opinion it is easier to take S.Africa with Japan anyways and use Italian fleet to weaken russians with shore bombardment in Ukraine Caucasus the 2 first turns. By turn 3, I usually go all out and whipe egypt. I don’t feel thoses 5 ipcs worth rushing it when it is really easy to slowly choke it.

Consider that turn 1, Home fleet is whiped. UK has no way to get there short of weakening India. So they need to rebuild fleet turn 1, by turn 2 it is usally not in range to do anything, turn 3 is normally when they finally have a defendable force in atlantic but it’s too late for Africa.

I did not played enough games to generalise but contrary to revised edition, I beileive Germany has better options in the sea with her submarines, specially if using bombers to support them later on. ( even if sea is blocked by destroyer, you can still kill it and move some reserve subs in non combat to make it to open atlantlic where they become a pain). It’s no as easy for UK now since it cannot use it’s transports as fodder. Makes a huge difference.

@Woodstock:

Obviously, fair enough.

That makes me realise two things.

1. I either had sucky Allied opponents

or

2. I managed to weaken my Eastern front just enough to hold the Russians back, but still provide a decent threat to any navy reaching the European shores.

I know I have been and will still be on occasion, that sucky Allied opponent who gets his ships blown up due to bad planning.  I think most of us have.  Let’s say building a navy does provide a decent threat to stall the west enough for Russia to fall to the Japs, is it still the most cost effective and effecient way to do it?  With Germanys ltd production and massive amounts of money, it will be building some “big money units” it almost has to, turtuling is kind of hard in this game.  But on the 1st turn, she doesn’t have that big money so that makes T1 look like a bad turn to build a navy to me

the Bomber: this guy has insane range, if you put him on france the US has to make sure it’s trannys are protected on the East coast.  He has a attack of 4, he can back up troops trading spaces on the Eastern front, pressure the Allied fleet, and in his spare time do an SBR to either England or Russia.  This seems more diverse, aggresive, and in it’s own right more defensive and a better buy than a german navy.

The fighter:  With germanys ltd production capacity you may as well be building these anyway to maximise on defense.  On top of that they threaten the allied fleet for very cheap (attack at 3 for only 10 IPCs) and with better range than any boat.  Plus they directly defend your land at a 4.  They can also back up German ground units on the Eastern front.

The Submarine:  I am still a little iffy on these but i still say this is the best naval unit Germany can buy (though I still think it is optional).  The submarine has free movement (he can’t be blocked so easily) to get where you want him to go.  This guy can make America think twice about putting up a transport if he is moved into postion at an oportune time.  He can also re enforce the Italian Navy as a cheap piece of fodder.  On top of which for a price of 6 IPC’s his attack is better/just as good as a cruisers and he can tear through ships (to get to transports) fater and “cheapen” the value of carriers. And if you get to make an attack on the Allied fleet you now have fodder.  I think if you build anything more than 3 subs you are probably building too much, these builds are kind of “luxury builds”.

All of these units are aggresive (good stuff for the axis) while defending at the same time, and I think more cost effective than capital ships.  They are more flexible, and if the Allied player does screw up you can make him pay.  Unlike a carrier which has no attack value, or a cruiser which is 2 IPC’s more than a fighter with less rang, probably stuck to 1 or 2 seazones and serving a ltd role (just protection) and certainly for the purpose of the Axis inferior to 2 subs.

Yes, if you have extra IPCs, go subs.  They’re the best fodder now that transports are out of the question.

Still, you have to be careful.  If the Allies are bothering Japan and leaving you alone, go hard for Russia.  If no one is paying attention, Russia could easily get too big.

I have followed these boards for a little while but never posted.  However, I thought I’d just throw in my two bits here…

I’ve never really liked naval builds for Germany in previous versions of A&A and still not a fan of heavy German naval builds in AA50 but I do usually add one sub to the Baltic each turn.  It costs me one extra tank or two Inf but I think it pays for itself over time.

In AA50 I am loving subs for Germany, US (in the Pacific) and Japan (again in the Pacific).  I don’t usually bother building them with any other power.  The reason I love subs is very little can touch them if they don’t want to be touched, if you position them well.  The main reason I don’t like most German naval builds is that UK often has enough air units to take out or severely reduce the fleet you just spent 2 rounds worth of IPCs on.  However, the RAF is no good against subs as long as you keep their DDs out of the water.  It turns into a game of cat-and-mouse with the subs…moving them through the North Atlantic, Baltic, and North Sea regions but if you can stay a step ahead then UK will never get to use any naval unit they put into the water.  All for the cost of 6 IPCs per turn (and the rest goes against Russia, of course).

This has been my experience at least.  And I play US in the Pacific in a similar way.  For Japan I don’t usually have to resort to subs due to the extreme number of capital ships they start the game with.  No need for subtlety there!

Tee-hee…subtlety.  :-D  Brilliant!

@Pan:

I have followed these boards for a little while but never posted.  However, I thought I’d just throw in my two bits here…

I’ve never really liked naval builds for Germany in previous versions of A&A and still not a fan of heavy German naval builds in AA50 but I do usually add one sub to the Baltic each turn.  It costs me one extra tank or two Inf but I think it pays for itself over time.

In AA50 I am loving subs for Germany, US (in the Pacific) and Japan (again in the Pacific).  I don’t usually bother building them with any other power.  The reason I love subs is very little can touch them if they don’t want to be touched, if you position them well.  The main reason I don’t like most German naval builds is that UK often has enough air units to take out or severely reduce the fleet you just spent 2 rounds worth of IPCs on.  However, the RAF is no good against subs as long as you keep their DDs out of the water.  It turns into a game of cat-and-mouse with the subs…moving them through the North Atlantic, Baltic, and North Sea regions but if you can stay a step ahead then UK will never get to use any naval unit they put into the water.  All for the cost of 6 IPCs per turn (and the rest goes against Russia, of course).

This has been my experience at least.  And I play US in the Pacific in a similar way.  For Japan I don’t usually have to resort to subs due to the extreme number of capital ships they start the game with.  No need for subtlety there!

I think that is a pretty fair, very general look at subs (a very complex gimmicky unit).  I have no idea why the UK would build subs for a general strat, for example.  I do think however there should be some type of harsh prison sentence on you for such a god awful pun.

I had to find somewhere to use it.  The rest of my post was just filler.

Seriously, I do think subs are a good purchase for the right moment and Germany (as in history) is in an ideal location to take advantage of their “complexity”, imho.  And I agree that UK rarely finds itself in a position to use subs in any game that I have played.  The US and UK tend to play brawny with their navy in the Atlantic while the Germans are usually forced to use more…well, subtlety.  The word really does work! ;)

Welcome to the Forum, Pan.  :-)

Thanks, UDT.  Good to be here  :-D

Yes, Welcome.

Well, I’ve been watching this conversation for awhile and I do feel I might have something to add to the discussion. I have played the axis twice w/AA50 and won both times, once via Sealion.  Both times, I have bought a Ger. CV on G1.  Remember, on the Russian front, there are three IC’s and only one can be taken early and held.  The whole problem with Ger vs. USSR (IMHO) is that it takes too long to get Ger inf to the front lines. 
Take out most of the UK fleet on G1.  Build CV and 1 trans and ready capture of Karelia on G2.  That gives two inf build per turn and 2-4 land unit trans to Karelia trading/attacking towards Moscow.  Ger. arm can reach the battlezone every other buy and you can keep funneling attacks to Moscow while still keeping the UK at bay UNLESS the UK/US go KGF.  IF that happens, then Japan can go aggressively (I dislike the term ‘hulk smash’, but oh well), towards Moscow, or even US West Coast.  If Japan is allowed to have free reign in the Pacific, while US goes KGF, Australia falls, India falls, Africa falls, and you’re looking at your Allied partners saying, uh gee, I guess we lost…. AGAIN
If the UK holds Britain and challenges Japan in the middle, then Ger. can hold USSR front w/inf, build bombers and ships, Italy takes UK$ in Africa, UK economy dries up, Germany strat bombs UK factory and eventually Sealion is possible again around turn 7-8.
In that case, US MUST go all out against Japan (if they don’t, Moscow will eventually succumb to a Jap assault from the east) and still be ready to direct figs to UK to prevent any Sealion.
Perhaps what I’m trying to say is that a Ger. CV turn is viable so long as Japan is willing to take advantage of the opportunities which may be presented if the Allies aggresively attempt to refute that buy.
Best regards,
Kev