G1 naval build?

@AdamD021:

@Flying:

If the Italian fleet is off the coast of Egypt the UKs CA and DD cannot attack it anyway. I like to use the German transport to take out Jordan on G1. Then I1 use all resources to hit Egypt. You get 3 bombardments, likely hitting 2. If they miss you are in trouble though. It’s a risk I take because you get the 3 bombardments instead of a G1 attack on Egypt.

You only get 2 bombardments, you can’t have more bombardments than landing units and since there is only 1 Italian transport that leaves you with at most 2 shots.

Does this include the 2 infantry from Libya? Honestly I’m not sure now. I figure if you are commiting 3 infantry, 1 tank and 1 fighter that includes 5 units then you can bombard with 3 ships.

From what I understand it only means units coming via transports

@Alair:

You do?

Hum, if I recall, you start with 2 subs off france, plus a cruiser and sub in the baltic.  For airforce you have 3 fighters and 1 bomber.

Then again, it would depend on dice rolling and how things played out, but it’s not my style.

Four fighters and one bomber.  What I wanted to try next time is sending the two subs + 1 fighter(norway) to take out the battle ship + transport in sz 2 send the fighter from poland plus sub from SZ 5 against the destroyer in sz 6 and take your two remaining fighters and bomber send them vs the Cruiser and Destroyer in SZ 12.

Then again we have been playing without NO’s so Germany really needs to buy some time against the Brits.

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.

Thats overboard for Germany. 2 carriers?  I think you will lose if you buy 2 carriers on the first turn, because your not getting the jump on the Soviet-German equation and allowing the Soviets the lead in maintaining the balance of power, because now they will build lots of tanks to go with 39 infantry and Germany does not face a weak Soviet player who cant fight back…. all because adolf went carrier crazy.

Ya might as well build 2 CVs, 1 sure aint gonna cut it.

@Imperious:

Thats overboard for Germany. 2 carriers?  I think you will lose if you buy 2 carriers on the first turn, because your not getting the jump on the Soviet-German equation and allowing the Soviets the lead in maintaining the balance of power, because now they will build lots of tanks to go with 39 infantry and Germany does not face a weak Soviet player who cant fight back…. all because adolf went carrier crazy.

Hence why I said what I said, IF I decided my life was worth losing the game, I would buy the two carriers.

However, short of 2 Carriers, you don’t have a prayer’s chance in hell of keeping your fleet alive without insane luck and/or an opponent who just doesn’t want to kill it.

ok i get you. yes really nothing can be done unless Germany is committed to naval

Unless you build subs. Buy 2, kill the cruiser instead the sub in North Sea attack and you’ll have 3. Send fighters to France and you’ll menace allied fleets. When the dreaded dds approach, make a strafe attack, hoping kill boats with a value greater than 18 (sum of your 3 subs) without losing figs.

I like new sub rules more than I thought first time

The question of a german naval build arises only in the context of the british naval built. The problem is not, that germany has a navy but rather that the UK has none. As pointswise bombers are the most potent naval attack vehicle and can also be deployed at land, I advocate the buildup of a strong bomber force.

Still this requires the commitment of resources germany does not have at the start of game. As IMHO the optimal attack plan is to whipe out the whole royal navy, only sparing the destroyer and transport in front of the american coast (SZ9) there should be no problem - but there is. With only one carrier, one destroyer, one transport and one sub, the UK has a fleet that could start attacking germany directly where with no german fleet built the cruiser and transport have been whiped out.

Now lets assume that germany lost one fighter in G1 and built one bomber.
The german strikeforce would therefore consist of 44333.
The british fleet defence would be 44222 plus 1 additional livepoint.

So in the event of an german attack, the whole! german airforce would be lost, and the brits would still retain their
transports.

This leaves you with only two options (if you at least want to be able to contest the british fleet): Build more aircraft or build more ships.

Now the building of 3! fighters will keep your coasts free of british transports but can you really afford to spend 30 of your 31 IPCs in G1 on aircraft alone? Or are you prefering a two bomber 24 IPC solution, where one! lucky additional british hit in round one could ruin your attack? Still the building of one additional destroyer or two instead of a transport and its load would further reverse the equations.

With the base of only one cruiser (i assume the germans used the sub to kill the destroyer together with one fighter) the germans have a better base than the brit who only starts with one destroyer but who can afford to spend his whole budget on naval units.
This places the german in a peculiar place. Clearly the strategy must be to delay the attack on the german navy until B2 to conserve resources for round 1. Therefore a naval built is needed that is cheap, but that also is enough to repel the bomber and the two fighters and at best also has an attack potential that helps destroying the british fleet in combination with aircraft. That means, germany needs another surface anti-air vessel that helps keep the british aircraft away and probably some submarines - driving the price further up. Now lets test some german builts:

The british strikeforce would therefore consist of 433.
The german fleet defence:
Cruiser, destroyer, 2 subs: 32 and 2 livepoints. (20 IPC)(too weak)
Cruiser, aircraft carrier, 1 sub: 432 and 1 livepoint (20 IPC)(one fighter landed)
Crusier, battleship: 43 and 1 livepoint (20 IPC)(too weak - but might work)
Cruiser, 2 Destroyer, 1 sub: 322 and 1 livepoint. (22 IPC)(too weak - but might work)
Cruiser, 2 Destroyer, 2 subs: 322 and 2 livepoints (28 IPC)(too expensive)

(Only the fighter that attacked seazone 6 together with the submarine can land on the carrier. Other attack pattern will only allow more british ships to survive)

Only the carrier submarine combo or the battleship can survive a british air attack.
Now lets assume the british didnt attack affraid of loosing too many aircraft (although the cruiser battleship combo is still a little bit weak)

Now lets assume that germany lost one fighter in G1 and built one carrier and one submarine.
The german strikeforce would therefore consist of 4333321.
The british fleet defence would be 442221.
Probably one german bomber would survive

Now lets assume that germany lost one fighter in G1 and built one battleship.
The german strikeforce would therefore consist of 443333 plus 1 additional livepoint.
The british fleet defence would be 442221.
Probably the german battleship and one bomber or one bomber and one fighter would survive

Now lets assume that germany lost one fighter in G1 and built two destroyers and one submarine.
The german strikeforce would therefore consist of 43333222.
The british fleet defence would be 442221.
Probably the german bomber and one or two fighters would survive

Under these circumstances attacking the lone battleship / destroyers and sub and building one additonal fighter instead of the sub should be the british course of action. For those who love the risk, the battleship is the best offensive opportunity against the british fleet with least losses in counterattack.
For hardcore gaming I recommend the two destroyers and sub or the carrier sub combo as its weaker on the offence but better on defense. The carrier sub combo ist the real defence monster, but the destroyers and the sub has more offensive potential. The real question is where to draw the line in cost cutting.

Now i will try these builts against the max british fleet defence with no landing force or transports:
UK built: 1 Carrier, 2 destroyers, 2 submarines

Now lets assume that germany lost one fighter in G1 and built one carrier and one submarine.
The german strikeforce would therefore consist of 4333321.
The british fleet defence would be 44222211.
Total whipeout / the lone transport survives

Now lets assume that germany lost one fighter in G1 and built one battleship.
The german strikeforce would therefore consist of 443333 plus 1 additional livepoint.
The british fleet defence would be 44222211.
Total whipeout / the lone transport survives

Now lets assume that germany lost one fighter in G1 and built two destroyers and one submarine.
The german strikeforce would therefore consist of 43333222.
The british fleet defence would be 44222211.
Probably the german bomber would survive

SUMMARY
The german battleship should it survive B1 will totally establish total german dominance over the french coasts at the risk of losing it in B1 whereas the carrier sub combo forces the british to go all out on ships to stop. The two destroyer one sub built is a more expensive but balanced built. Eighter built ist a severe theat to any british ships and will probably force the UK to move its ships away and hide them behind GB for a B2 built preventing B1 landings I also like the 2 sub strategy of Funcionetta as an even cheaper built. Depending on UK airforce further german built of 1 submarine and solid airforce should continue keep the royal navy at bay. - But rotten luck cant be calculated.

And this “livepoint” thing means what?

Is it a senior citizen community perhaps?

And while the Germans are playing with their little rubber ducky boats in the Baltic bathtub the Russians are gearing up for a Berlin bonfire.

Not a situation I would care to pursue.

What does Germany gain from a G1 Naval build? Use of 1 transport and cruiser bombardment for what 2 more turns? At minimum it is going to take a CV with FGT on board to even keep the UK out on UK 1. That is 14 IPC spent for a 2 defense unit. Now that Germany has plunked down that carrier as the Allies build up with either navy or Air assets threatening it the Germans have to respond or just loose what they have invested in the fleet. That same 14 IPCs is 3 INF and 1 ARM. I think I would rather shove that into France than a carrier I can’t support in the Baltic. Also the 3 INF 1 ARM does not have to go to France it can fight the Russians, defend Germany, it has options.

Germany can hold France, and personally I think it should. France gives the UK 11 IPCs they have no business getting. The UK’s money quickly dwindles away. A defensive presence and a purchase of a bomber per round forces them in a bad spot. They have to have a large invasion force to even hope to take France. They also have to have a large fleet to deter the Luftwaffe from simply smashing it. Yes America can come along for the ride and if they do Japan needs to make for Alaska/W. US. Also if the US is stacked with the UK in sea zone 7 they are not threatening Italy so Italy can help defend France as well.

Now I am not saying Germany should never build ships. I am saying G1 is completely the wrong time to do so. If the Baltic fleet should live a round or two, board conditions may allow the purchase of a carrier and some follow on buys to make sure it stays there. Also at this point a decent small fleet with 2 or 3 transports can really be a bear for the Russians in Karelia if it is not solidly German or Even England itself.

Woodstock:

Have you tried out TripleA?  They just finished the AA50 map, and it works pretty good.  It’s a great way to practice figuring out the game without setting up the damn board.  There’s usually always players on in the lobby, and most are helpful in getting the program to work.

If you’re playing your first game against an exp Russian player, I’d advise NOT buying a carrier(s) G1.  The baltic strat worked well some of the time in Revised but in AA50 the UK’s early ipc count of 41 plus NOs means you’re being outbought with ships they can afford to lose for rounds B1-3.  You CAN hold the baltic with a double carrier buy, but then you’re tying down your entire air force, which won’t work with the Russians incoming.  You need those 3s and 4s fighting the Reds or holding France.

What I like to do is build at least 1 fighter or bomber a turn for defense/trading of land territories and gradually bring the number of fighters up over the course of the game.  Fighters have the mobility to attack/defend several zones away and moreover aren’t waiting around to be blown up in the baltic, plus they’re cheaper.  Once the allies get complacent with their fleets in thinking their boat stacks are unassailable and start building all land units for shucking to europe you can surprise them with the 8-10 fighters + bombers you’ve been saving up.

The extra fighters are also helpful if the Japanese can get through the Suez or around S. America and attack the atlantic fleets (usually around round 4-5, and also assuming opponent is KGF).  I’ve found if the italians build 1-2 carriers in the med, merge with the japanese fleets and have germ/jap fighters land on them, its VERY hard for the allies to beat a combined axis naval stack.  Britain and America usually have spread out their naval buys to half transports/land units and will have to respond by stacking themselves or sacrificing their fleet.  By the time they are done rebuilding (if you haven’t outright taken over the atlantic) Russia should be finished.

Good luck on your game Fri.

Please note, I am not saying that a German Baltic fleet is a good idea, but if your going to do it, this is how I would pursue it and the reasons why.

G1: Purchase BB, DD, and 1 inf
Now why no carrier? Simple, the fleet i bought would give me another shore shot at 4, would survive the UK turn 1 air force, and would be good fodder against the UK fleet.  A carrier grants very little extra offensive capability in any way shape or form, and is easily destroyed by subs, or subs +air, and limits my G1 attacks on the UK fleet as my planes have to land on it.  I would also shuttle the 1 inf, 1 art to Finland on G1.  This forces Russia to pull back on R1 and grant me my 3rd NO even if they do take Baltic States (which with 7 inf, 1 art, and 1 arm you should attack there R1 almost every game.)

G2: Choose.
If the UK went air heavy, purchase however many destroyers it would take to ensure they loose most of there air power, or an AC.
-This buys you more time against the UK building a fleet, and usually gives you enough time to have enough airpower to keep there fleet at the bottom of the ocean.  Remember, UKs income goes down as the game goes on, yours goes up.  They have 1-2 turns to get something going, then they no longer matter typically.
If the UK went fleet heavy, purchase a destroyer a round and possibly extra transports.
-This allows you to hold Finland, Norway, and Karelia for most of the game as you are shuttling up infantry while sending in tanks to reinforce. It helps you maintain good trades with Russia for most of the game as you use inf+air deep in there territory. Meanwhile, Italy has some breathing room and can help hold the Russians back in the south.  Also, that fleet can latter be sacrificed with your air to sink the UK fleet when it becomes advantageous to do so.

The big thing is not to get caught into a ‘race to the larger fleet’ with the UK and to make sure Italy uses the extra time wisely.  Now yes this opens you up even more to a KGF from the allies, but thats why japan goes hulk smash.

@bugoo:

Please note, I am not saying that a German Baltic fleet is a good idea, but if your going to do it, this is how I would pursue it and the reasons why.

G1: Purchase BB, DD, and 1 inf
Now why no carrier? Simple, the fleet i bought would give me another shore shot at 4, would survive the UK turn 1 air force, and would be good fodder against the UK fleet.  A carrier grants very little extra offensive capability in any way shape or form, and is easily destroyed by subs, or subs +air, and limits my G1 attacks on the UK fleet as my planes have to land on it.  I would also shuttle the 1 inf, 1 art to Finland on G1.  This forces Russia to pull back on R1 and grant me my 3rd NO even if they do take Baltic States (which with 7 inf, 1 art, and 1 arm you should attack there R1 almost every game.)

G2: Choose.
If the UK went air heavy, purchase however many destroyers it would take to ensure they loose most of there air power, or an AC.
-This buys you more time against the UK building a fleet, and usually gives you enough time to have enough airpower to keep there fleet at the bottom of the ocean.  Remember, UKs income goes down as the game goes on, yours goes up.  They have 1-2 turns to get something going, then they no longer matter typically.
If the UK went fleet heavy, purchase a destroyer a round and possibly extra transports.
-This allows you to hold Finland, Norway, and Karelia for most of the game as you are shuttling up infantry while sending in tanks to reinforce. It helps you maintain good trades with Russia for most of the game as you use inf+air deep in there territory. Meanwhile, Italy has some breathing room and can help hold the Russians back in the south.  Also, that fleet can latter be sacrificed with your air to sink the UK fleet when it becomes advantageous to do so.

The big thing is not to get caught into a ‘race to the larger fleet’ with the UK and to make sure Italy uses the extra time wisely.  Now yes this opens you up even more to a KGF from the allies, but thats why japan goes hulk smash.

Hmm, I’ve never really given much thought to a non-cv/non-ss G1 naval build.  One could always through down a cv or 2 on G2 or 3 if needed to beef up the fleet.  I like this thought.  +1 Karma

@Woodstock:

Do you just buy all tanks and bmb in G1 to compensate the lack of units that could otherwise reach the more eastern areas in G2?
Do you attack Karelia in G1?
Which sea zones do you attack in G1?

1. The problem is that you can’t just consider what is going to happen on the next turn when figuring out your strategy.  It’s not really worth it to spend 14 IPC so that transport lives and two more units can get to the east before it gets destroyed by the UK.  You have to think about it this way: is there a way to blitz Russia and just take Moscow within the first few turns, no matter what the Allies do?  If the answer is no, and it is according to what I’ve seen, then you’re going to have to trade units with Russia and fight over territory to win.  What are the most cost-efficient units to lose?  Infantry.  Does Germany have enough to start with to trade with Russia for the rest of the game?  No way.  What units take the most time to get to the eastern front?  Infantry.  So you need to build mostly infantry in the beginning so they have enough time to walk east and become useful by turn 3-4.  Another thing to think about is “Can Germany afford to both compete with a UK/US navy arms war AND a full land unit build by Russia at the same time?”  If you’re only planning on buying a carrier and then giving up on your navy investment, then why spend the IPC on starting the arms war in the first place?  Just having the starting transport live another round isn’t worth the expenditure of the equivalent of 4 land units.  Otherwise, if you plan on continuing to buy navy, then how is Russia going to be stopped from marching west?  Germany just doesn’t have the resources to invest in both, at least not unless they are left alone to fight Russia for a while.

In terms of cost-efficiency, it goes Land > Air > Navy.  So why not defend the Atlantic front with Land and Air units, and let the Allies pour their money in buying Navy and Air to invade with, since they have to?  You’ll be able to hold onto your IPCs and territories the longest that way.

2. I prefer to take Baltic States and EPL hard, so Russia can’t counterattack those.  Then I have 6 ARM, 2 ART and a bunch of INF pointing at Karelia next turn.  Russia’s best move is to 1-man it and trade it with me for a turn or two.  The rest depends on what the other Allies are doing.

3. I kill 2, 6, and 12 to get rid of as much navy as I can.  UK will rebuild, but it will delay their ability to build transports.  Additionally, after turn 1, I build 1 air unit/turn to keep threat over the Atlantic and for mobile attack/defense.  Pretty standard German strategy, I think.

The problem with that is

1. there is no way russia cannot counter attack baltic on R1, they have 7 inf, 1 art, and 1 arm that can reach, you would have to weaken your other attacks immensely to do so.  Now yes you have units in Finland, and I got UK trannies in range, usually enough to take Finland, Norway, and Karelia if I want on UK/US turn 2 if I desire.  Then you best hope russia doesn’t push real hard in the south and take a 3rd for the 10 IPC NO.

2. if the UK player cannot figure out a way to build a transport and fleet protection with 43! IPCs on turn 1, then they are not a good player, esp when you have 2 figs laying around and usually atleast 2 destroyers.  Unless of course Germany goes heavy air, which then negates the effect of units fighting Russia.  Just spending 14 IPCs on 1 carrier gives the allied fleet 22244, add in destroyers or cruisers as you choose (cruisers if germany went light on air, destroyers if they went heavy).