Building Italian fleet - is there a point?

If Germany goes all armor, the Allies should be going for a very aggressive navy build in the Atlantic.  An Allies player that really pushes the pace can be making substantial threats on France and Germany by turn 3.  Even if Germany turtles on G3 and builds all defense, they will likely still lose France at the very least with such an aggressive build.  With Russia, you just need to play a little cautious.  I would recommend going defensive with your builds, and abandoning Karelia, pulling those units back to Archangel.  Even if you have to stack Moscow on R2 and leave Caucasus open, there’s no way that Germany can take Moscow on G3.  Once Germany starts having to play defense in France and Germany, Russia can start building tanks to push the unreinforced German line west.  It’s the beginning of the end for the Axis in Europe.

@supremem:

take the aussie fleet load it up and go to india……you will be there by b2…help protect the indian ic…it has always worked for me…but as i have only played 1 person in 20+ years i know his thinking…

Don’t you think it’s about time to jump on the bandwagon of PBF (Play by Forum) here on this website?

I also like that Italians help to support the Germans againts the Russians that way.
But I suspect that Russia would survive longer if counterattacking with tanks
instead of building up infantries.

I’d throw 8 IPC into the water if it meant I kept both Italian NOs (10 IPC a round.)  I was just wondering if you played against a destroyer build. (Or even a carrier build since you have a fighter that can land on it, and Italy could really use the fighter starting in the med so it can attack both theaters of operations.)

CmdrJennifer, I modified the build which was from the start 2 bombers and 1 carrier, in order to have some fodder units instead. It is true of course that Italy has three builds before US3 and can build more than 1CV+1DD which US alone can beat with my proposed US1 build. My idea then was to use the UK navy to finish the attack, probably on the turn after US strikes, UK4. You then send in air and fodder units, 3-4 DDs or subs, and spare your CV and CAs in sz12 to minimize losses to the UK invasion fleet. (A Russian blocking attack against TRJ is then needed to hinder Japanese deployment into the Med., and if Italy survives with a CV don’t forget that figs can be flown onto it before UK moves!)

This is a simplification, of course, because you might try to hide ships in sz15/sz16 as Italy and so forth. I haven’t played this myself that much yet, when I tried it Italy has acquiesced in losing their fleet but for one game where I built two bombers US1 and didn’t have enough fodder units.

UK doing the killing alone I think is a bad idea. They need to be invading and sending the fleet into battle first does too much harm to it. In the example above of a double US/UK strike at the Italian fleet, you can survive with the core of your Royal Navy if you play well. In this scenario you can’t invade FRA/NWE for a turn or two for a long-term benefit of destroying plenty of Axis IPCs.

@Octopus:

Interesting topic (for it goes beyond the obvious).

I just finished a long game as the Axis and the potential to sink the Allied fleet was always on my mind. At one point I did pull it off and sink the British fleet after entering SZ 8. The kicker was the cost benefit of attacking the fleet that made it a no brainer. Fighters are worth 10 while cruisers are worth 12. Going 1 for 1 is a cost benefit. The Allied fleet’s cheapest unit defends the strongest (a fighter at a 4) meaning they will lose their cheapest units last and sacrafice their most expensive units early.

Keep in mind that bombers cost the same as a cruiser while having a higher attack value. The advantage goes to the airforce.

Having a fleet with 2 Cruisers, a battleship, and a carrier (with 2 fighters) is looking to get popped by an airforce that consists of fighters and bombers (assume comparable combat values). Economics demands it (especially if there are 4 juicy transports in tow).

To this end, I think the destroyer (cost of 8) is fantastic as a fighter/bomber eater as it will clearly take the fall for the more expensive ships that need to stay in the fight.

Good Luck!

Right.  Regardless of Capital ships the UK (or US) needs some DDs to shift the cost differential.  With 1 BB and maybe 2 DDs, you are only losing 16 ipcs for 3 hits while Germany would be losing 10 for each ftr.  I typically like to have just enough DDs + intial BB hits for the first wave of a potential G attack.  So 6 ftrs require 3 Allied DDs.  The good thing is you can split the cost of DDs between UK and US, meaning each could supply 1-2.  If you buy 1 AC, 1 CA, 1 DD on UK 1 and US follows with 1 AC, 1 DD on US 1, you probably won’t need another DD unless Germany makes a significant investment in more air.  In Rd 3 you can have a stacked Sz 6 fleet (additional UK3 buy if needed) and also enough to protect Sz 12 with the US ships.

It is beneficial to have a few US ships with firepower in Sz 6 (prior to moving to sz 5) if the Ita ftr is lingering around Fra.  A loaded US AC also gives the US some fighting power up north, even if you only get 1-2 trns up there it still helps and gives you some punch, but it is not enough of an investment to cripple you if you need to start spending in tha Pac or Afr.

@Lynxes:

I think DM is on the right track here, you need to have a core of your fleet in place early and then add DDs as fodder during the game. Getting caught having to buy expensive ships in mid-game when you should be pumping out land units that land in Europe is a bad idea. Also, you need a mix of high and low strength units. 1 CV+2 fig, 2 CA, 2-3 DDs is a nice fleet to have as UK and not too hard to reach. A CV is, as many have said, mandatory, having your fighters parked in UK is useless. And if you send fighters to Karelia, you should STILL buy a CV and put US or UK fighters on it.

Yes, it is a lot easier to find an extra 8 ipcs to buy a dd mid game then to worry about an AC buy.  Plus, if you have enough Capital ships early Germany usually won’t even bother contesting the Atlantic.

Why not just put an Italian flag on Italian East Africa instead of a British one and put no troops on it? The balance of power would remain the same and it would be more accurate historically.

And I guess I need not say a word, just read the above post. Little do I post but it seems like I’m obliged.

@Woodstock:

In Revised, the Indian IC pretty much always was a bad idea, as Japan could simply react on it on J1.

Unless playing minor victory (which is better balanced than major victory), wherein an Indian factory is essential.

@Woodstock:

And to get back on topic: I think the key difference here opposed to Revised is that in AA50, UK moves after Japan.
If Japan moves away from India, going for the China or Russian route, it might be very liable to buy an Indian IC at UK1.

In some ways, Japan going first hinders the Indian factory.  If UK went first, they might actually get to build in the IC before Japan can capture it.