G1 naval build?

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

A German fleet could alleviate pressure from the Italian fleet.  If you are the allies which fleet do you want to sink first?  The Germans fleet because it cost them units on the ground? Or the Italian fleet because they can not readily replace lost boats as fast?  If the U.S. feels pressured to help the U.K. then Japan might feel free to help itself to the entire Pacific.

Could someone give Kevlar +1 karma for me, I’d like to thank him for helping to keep me awake at work with all this thinking!

@HannibalSW:

Could someone give Kevlar +1 karma for me, I’d like to thank him for helping to keep me awake at work with all this thinking!

Done  :-D

@HannibalSW:

A German fleet could alleviate pressure from the Italian fleet.  If you are the allies which fleet do you want to sink first?  The Germans fleet because it cost them units on the ground? Or the Italian fleet because they can not readily replace lost boats as fast?  If the U.S. feels pressured to help the U.K. then Japan might feel free to help itself to the entire Pacific.

Could someone give Kevlar +1 karma for me, I’d like to thank him for helping to keep me awake at work with all this thinking!

But the fleet fails to do it anywhere near as effectivly as air support or if you insist, the occasional well built sub.  This compounds itself even more if we are talking about a G1 build.  Air gives you much better flexibility/ better economical purchasing than anything a navy can accomplish for Germany.  If you want to spend your time threatining the UK with boats and maybe even over commit to Africa, while Russia has a field day with you go right ahead.

On top that, Japan can spare a carrier to the Med by T3 if you really want it there, AND send a fighter/bomber pipeline to the West if you really want to.

The UK has nothing better to do than defend it’s waters, that is its primary objective, never forget that.  The game is built so the UK can and must defend its waters with success (meaning the UK can always successfully defend her waters and that will be a net benefit for the allies, not a waste of money/time/resources), so why plan on building a navy?  If the UK was built to be neuterd by Germany while Germany could succefully hold off/kill Russia what the hell is the point of having the UK in the game for, massive bomber builds?  It is almost the equivlant of a plan for the Allies to allow Russia to go toe to toe with Germany with the hopes of winning.  I guess it could happen with poor axis play, but it just isn’t that great a plan.

What the navy can do that air support can’t is protect transports in SZ5 so you can easliy ship units, especially infantry\artillery from Germany to Karelia in 1 move.  That’s the point Kevlar was making, and why I like a G1 naval build.  +1 Kevlar.

Yes, but any good UK player won’t let any ships last long in the Baltic, in which case he (or she) would most likely use air power to sink it.  The best thing is probably to try and move your fleet to the med in support of Italy, that way you can land troop in Caucasus instead of Karelia.

Even though I mentioned a moderate sub tactic for Germany (+1 sub at most per turn) I have to side with those against a heavy naval strategy for Germany, especially a heavy naval G1 build.  Just to reiterate what others have said or alluded to, the UK has the advantage of being able to spend 100% of its funds each turn to sinking any German ship in the water.  I have never seen a German navy survive against a capable UK player.  At most you might set UK back a couple turns in getting their own navy going but at what cost?  You’ve devoted at least 50% of your spending in the Baltic and allowed Russia time to either build a defense against Japan or push into German territories which probably also cost you some valuable NO’s.  The UK starts 1941 with 43 IPCs and the Germans have 31.  Considering Germany has to split their funds between Russia and this navy while UK can spend everything to build a nice anti-Kriegsmarine RAF, who do you think is going to win that battle for the sea?

As others have mentioned, use the Luftwaffe (and I recommend a few subs) to delay a UK fleet until you can take away their IPCs in Africa and the Pacific.  Their threat decreases significantly when they only have 20 or so IPCs to spend each turn.  You can’t stop it but you might at least be able to control when and where.

I’d be willing to go out on a limb and say anyone who has successfully used a strong G1 naval build probably has not played a very competent UK player or one that is using a KJF strategy.

@Emperor:

What the navy can do that air support can’t is protect transports in SZ5 so you can easliy ship units, especially infantry\artillery from Germany to Karelia in 1 move.  That’s the point Kevlar was making, and why I like a G1 naval build.  +1 Kevlar.

I see what he is saying, and it is the best defense I have heard so far.  I still don’t think it is an optimal build though.  22 IPC’s on non aggressive units on T1 that I am guessing could be dead by T2, if the Allies find it neccasary to destroy and Italy can still be destroyed by T3 If the allies want.  So you shuttle out 2 extra units with a transport and lose a navy T2, while delaying the UK for 1 turn, and maybe the US for 1 turn on ship builds.  Is that worth it?

Another question to ask yourself, can the UK just ignore this navy?  All the UK needs is a fleet you can’t sink.  It can still kind of ignore an admittidly annoying navy while still funneling troops to Scandinavia and Western Europe, if it has a navy you can’t sink.  Is that money really best spent to funnel 2 extra units to russia?

Also, you could have built 2 fighters or a bomber and a fighter to help minimize the casualties when attacking karelia, and then land them there for defense, if you can hold it for a turn.

There may very well be opportunities later in the game to build a navy, but T1 just seems like a gambit and a half

Thanks all for the karma, I feel kinda like I’ve come home!  :-D  Perhaps I wasn’t completely clear on my second point, which is enticing the UK into desperately spending money to smash a German naval build.  The UK economy is based on territories spread all over the map and unless they want to see their IPC income shrink by 1/2 (or more!) they have to have both money to spend and troops in the right places to defend those territories.  To MY thinking (and this is just IMHO), if the UK spends enough to eliminate a Ger. Baltic Fleet it won’t have enough money to build and defend an IC in Ind. or SA and I believe at least one of those is a necessity unless the UK player is willing to be reduced to a minor power by turn 4 or 5. The corollary to that is that Japan (and possibly Italy) will be pulling in big bucks and able to dominate the eastern hemisphere/africa so much that they will dictate the strategic events of the endgame.  A Ger. CV build increases the strategic threat the UK has to face.  The opening for the Allies is a tightrope and the more decisions you force them to make, the greater the decision tree and the greater likelihood that errors will be made. 
Sorry for being so long-winded, but after reading so many threads about KGF’s and ‘unbeatable’ strategies, I’m just trying to bring things down to earth and present pragmatic ideas as to why a Ger. CV build, while perhaps not an “optimal” choice, is still a viable one and worthy of consideration as a strategic option for the German player.
Best regards,
Kevin

@kevlar56:

Thanks all for the karma, I feel kinda like I’ve come home!  :-D  Perhaps I wasn’t completely clear on my second point, which is enticing the UK into desperately spending money to smash a German naval build.  The UK economy is based on territories spread all over the map and unless they want to see their IPC income shrink by 1/2 (or more!) they have to have both money to spend and troops in the right places to defend those territories.  To MY thinking (and this is just IMHO), if the UK spends enough to eliminate a Ger. Baltic Fleet it won’t have enough money to build and defend an IC in Ind. or SA and I believe at least one of those is a necessity unless the UK player is willing to be reduced to a minor power by turn 4 or 5. The corollary to that is that Japan (and possibly Italy) will be pulling in big bucks and able to dominate the eastern hemisphere/africa so much that they will dictate the strategic events of the endgame.  A Ger. CV build increases the strategic threat the UK has to face.  The opening for the Allies is a tightrope and the more decisions you force them to make, the greater the decision tree and the greater likelihood that errors will be made. 
Sorry for being so long-winded, but after reading so many threads about KGF’s and ‘unbeatable’ strategies, I’m just trying to bring things down to earth and present pragmatic ideas as to why a Ger. CV build, while perhaps not an “optimal” choice, is still a viable one and worthy of consideration as a strategic option for the German player.
Best regards,
Kevin

I see the point clearly now, and while I still disagree I am going to play test it a few times Sunday it seems interesting in theory.  At least it is a strat that defends germany, pressures russia (due to the primary purpose being transport protection/shuttling 4 troops to a valuable front), and can make the UK think twice about a strat. 
Question though, is there such a thing as a UK “over commiting” to defend her seas?  I mean they can build too many capital ships which is bad, but other than that I don’t think there is such a thing as over commiting in that specific aspect of the war.  If the UK is absolutly forced into one theater, that’s going to be it right there.