G1 naval build?

Honestly, I’ve never tried it with an allied bid and, as I said before, I dont think a hard line approach to building a fleet is a wise idea if America comes in the Atlantic.  In that case, IMHO, the Carrier/Destroyer is good enough to stop England from sinking the fleet for a few rounds giving Germany the option to use her transport.  It also should dissuade England from building a bunch of ships since it locks America into going to SZ 8 to protect them instead of Africa to liberate/conquer.

That along is worth the 22 IPC invested.  And as long as the odds are 40% or better for your defense, you can leave the fighters there since they might turn that 40% into 100% chance of something living at the cost of your attackers! (Besides, with a 50-60IPC paycheck, you can afford 2 fighters to replace them.  You might have to build fighters to fill the quota of your industrial complex and use all your cash without buying navy.)

The other strategy that MIGHT work, is 4 submarines a round with Germany. It’s only 2 IPC more for the first round than the destroyer/carrier - they cant be sunk by British airpower but they also dont protect that transport at all.

Of course, you COULD try a fleet unification, clearing the SZs with fighters and putting the Med/Baltic fleet together as well.  I dunno if that would work, but it certainly would panic England to protect against invasion or get America to come protect it.

Most seem to agree on these premises regarding German navy builds:

•A: Main objective: Delay D-day
•B: Secondary objective: Ship units to Karelia/Scandinavia
•C: Major problem: Cost
•D: Major problem: Vulnerable to RAF counter(UK fighter builds)
•E: Minor problem: May end up in sub-optimal battles on the defense. Dilemma in when to abandon

I think this sums it up very well. I would say that the decision to build German ships reduces the defensive land commitmemet to places suc as Northern Europe France/ Italy/ Finland/ Norway. If the UK has no ships and the Germans do then that a whole lot less infantry required to defend German conquests. I would say therefore that German fleet building is only effective if it can achieve a dollar for dollar saving in infantry builds and /or additional IPCs gains through holding areas such as norway etc for an extra turn or more. I think that the German naval option and sinking as much UK shipping as possible is a good way to basically avoid a two front war for at least 5 -6 Turns.

I also think that there’s no best unit for Germany.

BBs give the free hit and repair capability which would deter bombing raids by the RAF.
CVs take advantage of the 4 existing fighters
DD, prevent secret sub attacks
SUBS give cheap health points and are a big threat to the royal navy.

As a first round buy I think CV + DD  + reunite all surviving subs (if any) would  pose a signifigant dilemma for the brits. The German Navy would be strong enough to destroy any shipping built by UK on turn 1.

After that a few extra DD or a BB and an extra TRN would help the big push into Karelia.

@Cmdr:

Given that my navy strategy is working great in a 1941 game against an oppenent on this forum, I really can’t say it’s an error, but maybe not the greatest idea of all time either.

Currently we have Germany with:

4 Fighters
2 Carriers
2 Battleships
2 Cruisers
3 Destroyers
7 Submarines (Super)
4 Transports

And the allies with:

6 Fighters (2 American)
3 Carriers
2 Battleships
1 Cruiser
4 Destroyers (1 American)
5 Submarines (1 Russian)
3 Transports

Both sides have one bomber on the mainland they could bring when they attack.

England is completely out of Africa, tho it remains not 100% captured.

Russia is pressed on all sides, though will liberate Karelia for the first time since Round 2.  But the Germans, Japanese and Italians are posed for a three pronged attack on Caucasus should the Russians stack there.

Japan’s got two decent sized forces flanking the northern and southern approaches and has eliminated china as any real threat.

America;s attempted two naval incursions into Japanese waters, both have been repelled causeing the Americans to have to rebuild.  This could be why the German naval strat is working so far.

I admit, it was very risky putting two full rounds of income into the water for Germany on Rounds 5 and 6, but I think it paid off since the entire allied force has to sit in SZ 6, cannot sink SZ 5 (without major additions to their attack capabilities - film at eleven) and Russia has been on her own for 6 rounds.

As I see it, 50% of Germany’s income goes to negating the Allied fleet at this point.  And half of Japan’s income does the same to start rebuilding to fight off the third American incursion.

Thus, we have:

Japan (62) = 31 IPC
Germany (56) = 28 IPC
Italy (24) = 24 IPC

vs

Russia (26) = 26 IPC

Virtually each attacking nation has more income than Russia makes each round and the Allies have no ability to land a serious force in Euro-Africa.

For the record:  With an NO, England is making 29 IPC, so Germany’s 28 IPC to counter is equivalent to what he can build in a round.

America is making 48 IPC which out strips Japan’s income, but America has to come over to attack Japan, I can sit in a defensive position and build fighters to juggle and attack should he get close. (Launch 4 from the ground, 4 from carriers to get 8 fighters, etc.)

---

While I realize the above is a case study, much as my much acclaimed game of Kill Japan First in AAR against NCSC_Switch where he claimed over and over and over again that Russia could never hold it’s own against Germany without American’s assistance and I pulled off the Russian triple and pounded the snot out of Germany with the British demonstrating it could be done, case studies do not prove the rule, they only demonstrate that it is possible and anything that can be done once, can be done again.

Yes, I know maybe you got lucky dice…well, over 37 turns, lucky dice should have evened out somewhere.

Thus, my claim is, even in 1941, a German flotilla can be built and maintained denying the Russians their 10 IPC National Objective and, in fact, assuring Germany at least two of their National Objectives every round, and, in my case, all of them for at least half the game.

---

I will, however, admit that my opponent did not go full aircraft, and if he had, things might be different.  I do not know, we would have to play another game and find out.  The issue that would be raised is the same one that I ran into with Mr. Switch.  Namely, your opponent would know your tactics prior to the game, you could not evaluate the board and decide to change strategies to compensate for the dice here or there, because you are testing a specific strategy.  These two flaws may nullify your test.  Luckily for me, Mr. Switch was a formula player and when I did not play by his formula, his entire strategy rolled up and died. (Coincidentally, this was also why he started to hate me and eventually left the boards altogether.)

Anyway, I only use that game to demonstrate that not all strategies that may not work against some players will work exceptionally well against others.  Mr. Switch was considered a very strong player, yet, he was unable to shift gears from an Allied KGF strategy to an Allied KJF/Slow Germany strategy and thus lost the game in very short order.  Similarly, my opponent expressed surprise to my German opening with a navy build and may not have been practiced in repelling such a strategy, thus chose the route he chose to counter it.  Of course, I cannot read his mind and he may have a dastardly trick up his sleeve, fact remains, we are in Round 7 and the Allied forces are not in Grey territories (I lost Scandinavia between England 6 and Germany 7, but it was immediately reclaimed.)  The allies have never invaded Africa (though the Germans stand in silent vigil awaiting the day Patton or Montegomery do!)

It is my, most humble of opinions, that it may be a proper opening for Germany to put a Carrier and a destroyer in the water round 1, see what the allies do, and if America goes after Japan, then keep building to stay equivalent to what England builds (remember, you should have a naval advantage at the start of England 1, one in which he will have to overcome to sink your fleet whether with submarines, fighters, surface ships or whatever.)

If America comes after you, well, your transport has lived for at least 3 rounds before your fleet is sunk, and you can pull the fighters before that happens minimizing your losses if you want too. (or if the battle is close, I sometimes leave them there, to inflict damage and perhaps, allow me to win anyway.)  Meanwhile, that puts immediate threat on Karelia, and ability to reinfore Scandinavia.

Wow, you went that heavy on ships and Russia hasn’t steam rolled you yet?

Play me as Russia with those buys, and I’ll be in Poland by R3.

Yea, problem with that theory is that I refuse to be locked into a specific strategy from turn one and not be able to adjust it to counter someone else’s strategy in an attempt to beat it.  Switch tried that crap all the time.  It’s super simple to beat any strategy if you know exactly what they are going to do from before the game starts AND they cannot change their strategy to counter it.

Otherwise, a German naval strategy DOES work, IF your opponent does not know how to counter it.  Just like an all tank strategy.  A kill America first strategy.  A typical infantry push mechanic strategy, or any other strategy.

What the naval strategy (Germany) does do, uniquely and in every game thus far to my knowledge, is to allow Germany the flexibility to deliver stacks of war materials anywhere it needs too in relatively short order.

@Bardoly:

Well, I’m just wondering how many other folks out there are actually going for a G1 naval buy in the '41 setup?

I have felt that it might be doable, so I decided to play a few games with a G1 naval build.  Right now I’m playing 6 different League opponents as the Axis, and in each of the games, I purchased 1 bb, 1 dd, 1 inf for G1.  (It seems that the bb/dd purchase may be better than a cv purchase, but I’m not sure.)  I’ll post my results later, but so far, it’s been a mixed bag.  I’ve got the definite advantage in a couple of the games, a definite disadvantage in a couple of the games, and for the other 2, the games are still fairly balanced.

A G1 naval purchase in the '42 setup definitely seems a little easier to do for sure, but in '41 does it stand a chance?

Answers from people who’ve actually played with a G1 naval purchase please.  :wink:

Well, this thread kind of died off, but I wanted to post an update.

I started 6 ’41 setup games against different opponents with me playing as the Axis.  In each of these tech games, on G1, I purchased 1 infantry, 1 destroyer, and 1 battleship.  This anchored my German Baltic fleet in reality.  Here’s how the games have played out so far.

Game 1 – +9 IPC Allied bid to Asia (1 inf each to Yun, Ind, Kaz) – Axis won in round 11.  German navy survived until the end.

Game 2 – +9 IPC Allied bid to Asia (3 inf -> Phi) – Axis won in round 5.  German navy survived until the end.

Game 3 – +3 IPC Allied bid to Asia (1 inf -> Phi) – Axis won in round 11.  German navy was destroyed in round 3.

Game 4 – +9 IPC Allied bid to Asia (1 inf each to Yun, Bur, Nov) – Axis won in round 10.  German navy survived until the end.

Game 5 – +9 IPC Allied bid to Asia (1 inf each to Yun, Ind, Kaz) – still going in round 17, and the Allies have a strong advantage.  German navy was destroyed in round 5.

Game 6 – +3 IPC Allied bid to Asia (1 inf -> Phi) – still going in round 9, and the Allies have a slight advantage.  German navy was destroyed in round 7.

So, if the Allies pull out the last 2 games, then the Axis will have won 4 out of 6.  That’s not too bad.

I’m wondering though if the following G1 purchase would be better though.

3 infantry, 1 destroyer, 1 aircraft carrier

Thoughts?

IMO, the best turn 1 buy for Navy is just 1 Carrier, 1 Transport. This leaves space for ground troops, and you can hit Karelia quickly with 2 trannies and the AC defends the fleet. For the further turns, I usually go for subs if I purchase navy at all, and try to sink the UK fleet with subs and air.

To make a long story short IMHO 41 navy works if the allies do not counter corretly.

THe correct counter is for an aggressive Russia pushing hard, esp in the south, with the US gunning for Italy, along with the UK going heavy sub/air.  Its not hard to spread the subs out a bit, or to use a US dd as a blocker.  In that case, as early as turn 2 the US can block the baltic, in combination with a UK navy buy in SZ 8 which should be possible without the additional purchase of a bomber on G1 depending on how the dice go.  Subs+air slaughter navy.

Hi all. Interesting Debate so far.

THe correct counter is for an aggressive Russia pushing hard, esp in the south, with the US gunning for Italy, along with the UK going heavy sub/air.  Its not hard to spread the subs out a bit, or to use a US dd as a blocker.  In that case, as early as turn 2 the US can block the baltic, in combination with a UK navy buy in SZ 8 which should be possible without the additional purchase of a bomber on G1 depending on how the dice go.  Subs+air slaughter navy.

If Brits go heavy naval build on turn 2 I think Germany should go after it with all air and naval units available. This is why I would lean towards the AC + DD for better air defence when sitting in the english channel. Whilst this would make the karelia battle more difficult it secures france for the time being. This frees up french land units for africa/norway.
In fact I can’t see how Germany can win a land based arms race against the UK/US when trying to garrison everywhere from norway to morocco.

@bugoo:

To make a long story short IMHO 41 navy works if the allies do not counter corretly.

IMHO, 41 navy works if America and/or England goes for Japan and not for a triple crush on Germany.  Otherwise, America has more than enough cash to put bombers in the air and submarines in the water to sink anything the Italians or Germans have.

Thing is, though, do you want to leave Japan completely unfettered for an untold number of rounds?

If I were to go Navy on G1, it would be Carrier, Transport, Fighter.

I think the transport that early is over kill.  The carrier, sure.  Carrier and Destroyer sure.  But you probably dont need the transport yet.  Germany 2 maybe.

Likewise the fighter.  If you go ground forces with the cash you are putting into Transport and Fighter, you’re talking 17 IPC or 4 Infantry, and an Armor…with which you can certainly use to fill holes that will appear in your front with Russia (or to liberate France if you let the Allies trade it for a round or two.)

I guess, 32 IPC in the water, might be better with Carrier, Cruiser, Submarine instead.  At least that is significant defensive punch (and you WILL have that submarine if England attacks round 1 (probably the SZ 5 starting one too) since England has nothing with which to attack SZ 5 that can hit submarines. )  And you’ll have significant offensive punch with 2 cruisers, 2 submarines, carrier, destroyer in whatever fighters you put on the carrier (thus allowing at least 4 fighters to hit SZ 2 on G2, probably a bomber as well.)