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