G1 naval build?

@General:

England is now forced to buy all fleet, witch is not necessarily bad. But it leaves Italy alone to expand. And UK’s builds may consist of destroyers and subs, that cannot be used after eliminating the Kriegsmarine. So those 14 spent on the carrier is evened out with UK’s builds.
I have to agree with Emperor Molari, that losing the german fleet is not a disaster - the difficult part is to recognize, when it has to be abandoned by the fighters…

We have had many succeses with the G1 carrier buy! I don’t think you should discard the idea untested :)

IMHO, this is a sub-optimal move, especially when SZ12 DD and CA are not attacked.  UK/US need only add air force to sink the Germany navy (no subs, and with 2 UK DD’s, perhaps not even another DD).  Anyways, absolute rules/judgements are very hard to make when speaking in strategic generalities.

I think the $14 is better spent elsewhere for Germany, like a ftr and an art or a bomber!

I will agree with axis_roll about the importance of sinking the UK ships in SZ12. I also agree that using them against the Italian navy can leave a very bad taste in the UK player’s mouth if it does not go well and it is not a strong attack by the dice odds anyway. If the SZ12 units are not sank that, with SZ9 gives the UK 1 TN 2 DD 1 CA as a core to add units to on UK 1. The UK can purchase 3 INF 1 CV and 1 BB on round 1, which is now a significant fleet that can be added to with just TNs and some DDs as needs require.

@Black_Elk:

I think if you buy a carrier in the first round, it will be dead before it does you any good.

An extra destroyer is maybe doable, if you’re just trying to deter a round one air strike by the UK. You might even be able to sneak in a second cruiser instead of a destroyer, but whether that’s advisable or not I couldn’t really say. I certainly wouldn’t waste the money on Subs though, thats for sure. Carriers are still expensive even at 14 ipcs, and once you buy it you then have to protect it with fighters, which locks you into a much more defensive posture. I’m sure it would deter the British from attacking you, but at what cost to the overall war effort?

If I was going to make a commitment like that, I would try to factor in a second or third transport, so you can at least threaten UK with invasion. The people in my playgroup will usually just trade aircraft for ships in rounds 2 or 3 regardless, so it tends to be a losing proposition for G. Add to that the fact that if Germany buys ships, you’re basically calling down on yourself the mother of all KGF strats, so I’m not sure what the benefit would be. If they wanted Germany to buy ships in this game they should have done more to bolster the Baltic fleet, added convoy zones, or subs that do economic damage. The way its set up right now, I can’t imagine why anyone would try for it. Germany is never going to win the Battle of Jutland in this game, let alone the battle of the Atlantic, so what would be the point?

Sorry for the pessimism, but I’m still irked that Germany wasn’t given a battleship in sz 5. If it was a battleship instead of a cruiser then at least they’d have a chance against the Royal Air Force.

:?

14 IPC? germany gets in most of my gmaes middle 50’s, so more than enough to spend once 14 IPC so they can delay british for quiet a time

@Frontovik:

@Black_Elk:

I think if you buy a carrier in the first round, it will be dead before it does you any good.

An extra destroyer is maybe doable, if you’re just trying to deter a round one air strike by the UK. You might even be able to sneak in a second cruiser instead of a destroyer, but whether that’s advisable or not I couldn’t really say. I certainly wouldn’t waste the money on Subs though, thats for sure. Carriers are still expensive even at 14 ipcs, and once you buy it you then have to protect it with fighters, which locks you into a much more defensive posture. I’m sure it would deter the British from attacking you, but at what cost to the overall war effort?

If I was going to make a commitment like that, I would try to factor in a second or third transport, so you can at least threaten UK with invasion. The people in my playgroup will usually just trade aircraft for ships in rounds 2 or 3 regardless, so it tends to be a losing proposition for G. Add to that the fact that if Germany buys ships, you’re basically calling down on yourself the mother of all KGF strats, so I’m not sure what the benefit would be. If they wanted Germany to buy ships in this game they should have done more to bolster the Baltic fleet, added convoy zones, or subs that do economic damage. The way its set up right now, I can’t imagine why anyone would try for it. Germany is never going to win the Battle of Jutland in this game, let alone the battle of the Atlantic, so what would be the point?

Sorry for the pessimism, but I’m still irked that Germany wasn’t given a battleship in sz 5. If it was a battleship instead of a cruiser then at least they’d have a chance against the Royal Air Force.

:?

14 IPC? germany gets in most of my gmaes middle 50’s, so more than enough to spend once 14 IPC so they can delay british for quiet a time

It’s not that Germany can not afford to spend IPCs on a navy.  It’s a question of how much return they get on that investment.
What does this German navy force the allies to do?  Buy a few extra ships (cruisers might be the best naval purchase in this situation)…or a few more fighters to eventually sink that navy.

Neither of these ‘forced’ buys are bad for the allies.  In fact, they might buy these units anyways, so much so they might be called ‘required’ units for the allies to buy.

However Germany does not normally buy naval units.  Naval units could never be construed as ‘required’ buy units for Germany.

So Germany is buying units that they would not normally buy to force the allies to buy more units of what they WOULD normally buy.

In that light, is a German navy really a good return for the money now?

One thing I have found that a German navy does axis_roll is that it tends to keep the UK at home defending for a couple of rounds and it allows quick reinforcement of Karelia. Granted all of my experience so far is in AA50-42 which is a vastly different animal from AA50-41. Occupying the Allies attention for the first few rounds may let the other Axis powers get up and running to take care of Russia.

I really think more experimentation is needed with German Naval builds before they are simply dismissed out of hand.

German Naval strategies are interesting.

In revised, one particular game, I built a German Battleship a turn, for 3 turns.  Laugh at it, call it crazy.  Against competent opponents here on the site.  It worked.

The allies took it WAY too seriously.  Albeit I was almost bankrupt, it didn’t matter, america was too busy building planes, aircraft carriers, and destroyers to combat my navy, than transports to actually take territory.

Once you get 3 Bat’s together, with 1 acc supporting,  there is almost nothing that can stop you in the water, no one buys Bat’s really, en mass they are almost a broken unit, especially for axis, being able to avoid 1-2 punches, by tip and re-tipping….

The counter is simple of course, avoid the BB’s entirely, and go for a massive land offensive :P  But depending on play style, some opponents play their game, or if you are good, you can make em play yours.

@a44bigdog:

One thing I have found that a German navy does axis_roll is that it tends to keep the UK at home defending for a couple of rounds and it allows quick reinforcement of Karelia. Granted all of my experience so far is in AA50-42 which is a vastly different animal from AA50-41. Occupying the Allies attention for the first few rounds may let the other Axis powers get up and running to take care of Russia.

I really think more experimentation is needed with German Naval builds before they are simply dismissed out of hand.

in 1942, yes, a German navy is great.

1941 it might work OK, but my point is that there are many better other choices for Germany than building a navy.

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:

@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:

Apparently, 41 is broken in favor of the axis, so a “bad” move like a significant German navy might still win.

Is it true that after 2 turns, the Axis’ income is the same as the Allies’?

@Gargantua:

Once you get 3 Bat’s together, with 1 acc supporting,  there is almost nothing that can stop you in the water, no one buys Bat’s really, en mass they are almost a broken unit, especially for axis, being able to avoid 1-2 punches, by tip and re-tipping….

Disagree, really.  America has only to spend one round building submarines (48 IPC = 8 Submarines) and let the British navy protect them before attacking with the aircraft they normally have and the submarines to sink the German fleet (unless Germany reinforces it more.)  This is a build I’ll normally perform anyway as it’s a great way to dispose of the pesky fleet in the Med or add to a Pacific fleet.

I do agree 3 battleships are a pain to get rid of, however.  Do it a lot with America or Japan since it gives a nice damage buffer zone.

I’m currently stuck in a '42 rut since everyone I play wants to play that, and I’ve been pretty consistent on German naval builds (except one game and I’m horribly losing that one game.) Best one, so far, is with Botider.  England’s stuck putting warships in the water while Russia cowers with fear in Moscow/Stalingrad, but it’s draining German resources now too. (2 rounds of nothing but navy).  It’s fun though!  It helps that American went KJF so there’s no threat to the Italian fleet and the only boats I have to counter are the British which leads me too….

Is a navy build worth it when the allies all turn to focus on Germany?

@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:

I’ve seen it attempted many times.  It doesn’t stand a chance if Allies counter appropriately.

The only time it will work is if USA is mostly or exclusively Pacific.  But in that case, Germany would be better off going for Russia than building fleet.

If Germany builds a bb/dd, and UK responds with a 4 fig purchase UK1, what does Germany do then?  Give up on the navy and accept that its 46 ipc fleet will be sunk?  Or get into a naval race?  On G2, buying just 1 AC ain’t gonna cut it, as UK’s 6 figs 1 bmb will have superiority…Germany will have to buy an additional naval unit as well.  So Russia will have a huge head-start, and if USA is coming for Germany, then it’s only a matter of time.  If Germany goes for the naval build-up against an Allied air build-up, they will be outspent on the ground by Russia and eventually overwhelmed by the Allies as well.

The problem with German navy in the newer rulesets is transports and subs cannot be used as fodder against air attack.  To keep its fleet in the water, Germany must invest in (useless) dds and acs.  So imho German Baltic navy will not be as effective in AA50 or AA42 as it was in Revised…the superiority of air power is too pronounced.

Well, first off, may I say that Germany need not get into a naval race.  They can accept the losses in SZ 5 in hopes of costing England position and resources on the board.  Note, it is hoped that Italy is exploiting Africa while England builds up to sink the German fleet.

Second, if America DOES go Exclusive Pacific (and if you go Pacific, I think you have to go almost exclusively with the odd bomber for SBR campaigns in Europe perhaps) then Germany can easily put minor resources into a fleet to keep England building surface warships to sink it instead of transports and troops to invade Africa/Europe.  Keep in mind, an investment of 14 IPC gives you 3 units with a combined defense of 10 (2, 4 and 4) and lets you still use your fighters for ground assaults…perhaps even giving your fighters a better position!  Of course, there are only so many German fighters on the board, so you may need to build more armor than you otherwise would to make up for the defensive abilities.  I think this is off set by Germany’s ability to hit SZ 2 however, as England cannot put transports there undefended (neither can America) and you dont need to sit fighters in Norway to reach it. (Or a bomber in France).

Just my opinion.  And of course, assumes you sank the battleship in SZ 2 at least, preferably the destroyer/cruiser in SZ 12 as well.

@Cmdr:

Well, first off, may I say that Germany need not get into a naval race.  They can accept the losses in SZ 5 in hopes of costing England position and resources on the board.  Note, it is hoped that Italy is exploiting Africa while England builds up to sink the German fleet.

Second, if America DOES go Exclusive Pacific (and if you go Pacific, I think you have to go almost exclusively with the odd bomber for SBR campaigns in Europe perhaps) then Germany can easily put minor resources into a fleet to keep England building surface warships to sink it instead of transports and troops to invade Africa/Europe.  Keep in mind, an investment of 14 IPC gives you 3 units with a combined defense of 10 (2, 4 and 4) and lets you still use your fighters for ground assaults…perhaps even giving your fighters a better position!  Of course, there are only so many German fighters on the board, so you may need to build more armor than you otherwise would to make up for the defensive abilities.  I think this is off set by Germany’s ability to hit SZ 2 however, as England cannot put transports there undefended (neither can America) and you dont need to sit fighters in Norway to reach it. (Or a bomber in France).

Just my opinion.  And of course, assumes you sank the battleship in SZ 2 at least, preferably the destroyer/cruiser in SZ 12 as well.

Even if USA goes Pacific (and imho this is a mistake, since if Germany builds fleet in 41, USA should go KGF and exploit the opening), UK should easily outspend the Baltic fleet if it spends its money exclusively on fighters.  4 figs turn 1, 3-4 figs turn 2.  Germany can buy 2 acs G2 and keep its fleet alive, but after that, it will be at a disadvantage.

You can either abandon the navy as suggested (in this case, the initial 28 ipc naval investment will be traded for 1-2 British fighters) or you can continue with the naval build-up.  Germany will have only 3-4 figs to start, so eventually it will have to shell out 34 ipcs per turn (1 ac 2 figs) to keep pace with the UK build-up.

I don’t understand how the math could ever work for Germany…won’t Russia overwelm Germany on the ground if Germany has to spend 34 ipcs a turn to keep its fleet alive?

Sure, it could work if UK ignores the fleet and buys surface navy, but why should UK ignore the fleet?  If UK can force Germany to either buy expensive useless boats or abandon its expensive navy to destruction, then it should do so.

But, keep in mind, England has now spent 70 IPC on Fighters it spend nothing on surface ships which implies it does not have any at the start of round 3.  Fine.  9 Fighters, 1 Bomber (7 fighters purchased, plus starting equipment) should be enough to take 2 destroyers, 2 carriers, 4 fighters and a cruiser with decent odds to have 4 or 5 fighters and a bomber left.  All well and good.

Now, England has 2 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 armor, 4 or 5 fighters and a bomber.  Germany has lost her fleet and 4 fighters. Germany has Karelia, all of Europe, Baltic States, East Poland and Ukraine at least, every round, so is earning about 50-60 IPC a round and Italy has Egypt, Jordan, Sudan, Fr. Equitorial Africa and Italian East Africa so is earning 25-30 IPC a round.

What does England do?  They have no transports and even if they did, they have nothing to transport!  So Round 3, you build ground units and save the rest (so you dont have to defend against German bombers I presume).  Round 4 you build transports and carriers to defend them.  Round 5 you can land somewhere.

By investing some cash into SZ 5, I stopped England from being a threat to my Financial Production for 5 rounds and I was able to leave a vast majority of Europe undefended so I could apply extra pressure to Russia (making up for not building as much ground forces at the start of the game.)

Remember, we are assuming America decided round 1 to go Pacific.

And of course, I could extend England’s lock out (and outspending just by Italy chewing up Africa and Japan the Middle East) by taking my 52 IPC to put 1 cruiser, 2 battleships in the water.  Yes, there is no army build this round, but England’s now forced to again build airships or give up it’s strategy all together - a costly option.  Meanwhile, Germany holds and does not trade in Western Russia costing them 10 IPC but saving their fleet.

Well, that plan hinges on USA going Pacific.  But the decision to buy navy G1 occurs before USA1.  So the Baltic fleet idea depends on USA making a mistake and going the wrong way.  If USA goes Atlantic, then Italy is unlikely to expand and Germany will have a hard time defending its shores after spending 44-56 ipcs on boats that are sunk UK3.  Since in this scenario Germany loses all of its air (except perhaps a bomber), then the Allies will be able to attack Europe with 2 different fleets without fear of being sunk.

Bear in mind also that UK should invest in a fleet on the turn when it sinks the fleet.  So on UK3 it puts down a starting fleet (it needs only 1 dd 1 ac, since the Luftwaffe will be no more) and can invade Scandinavia or Africa right away on UK4.

Plus, keep in mind that in the 41 scenario Germany starts out way short on infantry.  If Germany spends 44-56 on navy G1 and G2, then there is no way Germany’s income will be above 50 after G2 because the Russians will be come forward and will have a good shot at getting a stack on East Poland.  The Luftwaffe will be destroyed so Germany won’t benefit from trades.  Scandinavia will be overrun by UK4, so from R5 on Russia will be in a good position to get its big NO and will be almost as strong as Germany financially.  If played properly, Russia will probably be on the offensive the entire game.

Germany building navy is the ideal scenario for a KGF game, because it gives the Allies a way to trade with Germany favorably in the early rounds, and allows Russia to gain the upper hand in the land war.

We’re talking 22 IPC on G1 and 28 IPC on G2 though, so that’s only 50 IPC over two turns, Germany will easily have the troops to press the attack.

But  I do agree, Germany needs not to spend any cash on Navy round 2 if America goes fleet, but the carrier is still a good build since it puts pressure on SZ 2 immediately making it statistically prohibitive for England to put ships in the water there. (Germany can easily have 6 fighters, bomber in range of SZ 8 as well.)  In which case, the carrier does still buy a delay in England and added pressure in Russia.

The German fleet, on the other hand, does not really give Russia any tactical advantage on Round 1.  It won’t on round 2 either and by Round 3, Germany should have plenty of infnatry on the ground to trade for two rounds without having to bring up reinforcements if necessary (because England’s got a large fleet and you want to make it very costly to sink yours by putting the battleships and carrier in).

Further, since by Germany 3 America should be well committed to the Pacific (because you are not building any navy on Germany 2 if America puts carriers and destroyers in SZ 10 instead of SZ 56) then England should be financially crippled, Russia locked in red territories (Japan should be in India/Persia and Evenki/Yakut by now, as well as next to if not in Chihang forcing Russia to divert troops to holding the line on their aft while using troops to push back on Germany) that a German fleet could be the difference between winning the game and losing the game.

After all, if England’s dumping 40-30 IPC a round into aircraft, they are not reinforcing Russia nor are they reclaiming Africa. (And they cannot afford that Industrial in India, so that’ll fall super fast to a strong Japanese attack down south, by which I mean, a Japanese Industrial in Burma round 1 - 1942 version, FIC - 1941 version.)

Yes, America is putting pressure on Japan, but America has a large disadvantage in fleet strength to recover from first, before they can match and out build the Japanese. (Not to mention, me tossing down a Japanese battleship or two as well as a couple of destroyers periodically throughout the game is not completely unheard of, Japan can afford 20 IPC, 16 IPC, 20 IPC easily with a 60 IPC income.)

BTW, I am NOT implying this is an automatic win strategy!

A lot of things can happen:

1)  England’s battleship survives Germany 1. (It’s happened even with fighter, bomber, 2 submarines in the attack.)
2)  England’s fighters do exceptionally well early, and your fleet is sunk before you’re ready.
3)  England’s fighters do exceptionally bad and you do not need to put in nearly as much IPC as the plan called for.
4)  Russia’s defense is crippling and you need to alter your strategy after turn 1.
5)  Russia lays down and dies without firing a shot giving you the ability to put out more armor and fighters than you originally planned for.
6)  America goes Pacific Round 1 in a feint and dumps 2 rounds of submarines in SZ 10 afterwards uniting with the SZ 56 fleet on Round 4 starting African invasions Round 4 or 5

You know the funny thing about this is you have a post on Page 2 that’s a lot more sensible than your recent posts on this topic…

Okay, with more experience now, if, and that’s a HUGE IF, you decide to build navy on Germany 1, as if someone had a gun to my head and threatened to kill me and I balanced the loss of position on the board to be worth my life, here’s what I would say to build:

31 IPC to spend on Round 1:

2 Aircraft Carriers >> 28 IPC
+4 Already Owned Fighters

This is the only way you’re going to have enough firepower to make that transport last for a few rounds, IMHO.  Otherwise, England and America are going to have enough bombers by round 2 to sink whatever you have in SZ 5.

This seems reasonable to me….maybe playing 42 instead of 41 has skewed your perspective?  Indeed, given your proposed opening, you take a substantial risk only hitting SZ6 with a sub/dd.  If either you don’t kill the dd or (worse) the fig and sub die, then you will have no fig to land on sz5 (assuming you are hitting SZ2 and SZ12, which requires your other 3 figs).  So the only way to really be sure your fleet will survive is to go ahead and buy a 2nd dd for a total investment of 30$ G1.  Either that, or forego 2 or 12, improving the Allied position still further.

However you stretch it, if Allies invest in air power, they will force you to either abandon your expensive fleet to destruction on UK2 or UK3, or engage in a protracted build-up where the Allies will inevitably get the better of the exchange.  And the initial naval investment will cost Germany on the ground (ie 7 less land units then they should have had).  At this point the KGF will burn Germany to the ground…Germany won’t have the defense to resist.  Don’t pretend that you can buy only 3 infantry on G1 and still hold more than 1 national objective after G3…it ain’t happening, a good Russia will advance on East Poland on R3 or R4…at that point if you attack that stack then you probably have nothing left to defend France/Germany with.  Germany is thin on infantry at the outset of 41…this is why KGF is the most viable option.

Against a well-executed KGF, Germany cannot afford to throw away 50 ipcs on navy just to delay UK a turn or 2.

And investing in fighters is not a liability to United Kingdom.  Those extra fighters will be useful every single turn for the duration of the game; they will help UK get maximum value in exchanges AND project power to France and Germany, forcing Germany to defend those locations, and weakening Germany’s position vis a vis Russia still further.  Combine that with the loss of the German Luftwaffe on UK3, then you are granting the Allies air superiority for the entire game.

Well, page 2 is a year ago, and yes, I am more thinking along the terms of 1942 even though we are in the 1941 thread.

However, I still cannot help but think that 4 or 5 rounds without England landing troops in Africa or Europe has got to be worth it.  I can make Russia fall in 5 or 6 rounds, so we’re talking an English threat a round before Russia falls.  As far as I can tell.

@Cmdr:

Well, page 2 is a year ago, and yes, I am more thinking along the terms of 1942 even though we are in the 1941 thread.

However, I still cannot help but think that 4 or 5 rounds without England landing troops in Africa or Europe has got to be worth it.  I can make Russia fall in 5 or 6 rounds, so we’re talking an English threat a round before Russia falls.  As far as I can tell.

I’m talking exclusively about 41.  German navy is much more viable in 42.  I don’t think it’s the best strategy, but I don’t consider it an error.

German navy in 41 and German navy in 42 are entirely different discussions, and are impacted by the vastly different positions on the boards…most prominently Germany is way weaker and has insufficient infantry at the start in 41.  Maybe you can spend 40+ ipc on surface navy in 42 and still be offensive against Russia but you certainly cannot in 41.