@Baghdaddy:

@losttribe04:

…
My question for an takers is how do you 1) build, 2) maintain, 3) deploy and engage a successful Navy wile keeping a moderate to high survivability ratio.
…

For background, read Mahan’s works on Sea Power. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Thayer_Mahan

Moving an Inf by transport is the fastest that Inf will ever move.  That is what the ocean is for.

Fleets control access to that ocean.Â

To bring that point home, look at the board as a collection of sea areas surrounding land.  Most folks see the board as land surrounded by sea.  Look at the ocean as a path and the land as a barrier.  For example, moving Inf by land from Algeria to Buryatia will take 9 turns.  By transport, 4 turns whether you go through the Suez or the Panama Canal.  BTW, Australia to Great Britian is 4 turns by transport also.  This connectedness of the roads in the ocean becomes extreme in some places.  The Baltic is adjacent to 5 land territories.  One is a Capital, three of them are Victory Cities and together they are 24 IPC.  Add in a one seazone move and there is a second Capital, fourth Victory City and now the total IPC is 32.  On a board of 188 IPC, that is 1/6th of the IPC and 1/3 of the 12 Victory Cities.

To use that path you need to control it.  Controlling the ocean means DD to fight SS.  It means BB to fight BB. It means CV/FTRs to fight CV/FTRs and everything else.  You will select your fleet components based on what your enemy has.  He will select his fleet components based on whether he is trying to control the sea or deny you control.

To deny control, use submarines, in combination with bombers as the ultimate long range coastal defense system.  The bomber can reach out 3 spaces to where a couple of subs are picketed.  The mass of subs hang out closer in.  Any attempt to enter the region stops at the picket subs and the counter move is bombers and subs on the attacker.  If ths sounds familiar to the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine tactics in the Battle of the Atlantic and the Battle of the Barents, you should not be surprised.  It turns the battle into attrition warfare.

To gain control, you have to root out those pesky subs.  That takes destroyers but they are expensive relative to subs.  Bring along some fighters too.  That means you might want a carrier to base them out of.  You will need that carrier anyway when you get to the other side of the ocean.  Some folks advocate using transports (empty) for fodder.  Sure they are cheap and you will need to build them anyway but I always have to remind myself to leave a few empty 'cause a full transport, even if it is just infantry is not cheap anymore.

Better fodder is the BB.  No other unit in the game can take damage and keep fighting.  Add the free repairs and life is good.  Too bad they gold plate all of the dang things.  If you can swing the price and expect to be dealing with some signficant fleet on fleet action that BB is a sweet thing to have a long.  It also comes in handy when you get to the other side of the ocean.

Remember that the prettiest fleet in the world, controlling every sea zone in existance is gaining absolutely 0 IPC.  No dollar return on these things at all.

It is all about putting grunts on the beach and for that you need those transports and lots of them.  Early in the sea control battle you were using them to absorb hits.  Now you are protecting them with everything you have.

Of course, once those transports get to the beach you have to do that amphibioius landing.  Here is a handy place for a Battleship.  Those big guns are nice but lets be honest, for the price of a battleship there are cheaper ways to put hits on the beach.  Lets bring along a CV and some fighters.  Now that is some bang for the buck.  Not only can the fighters participate in the amphibious assualt but later on, when you actually have established that beach head, those fighters can move off the CV and on toward the front.  Wonderful dual use as opposed to that gold plated battleship.

Folks are putting out ratios for types of units.  I suppose that might be useful if there are 100’s of IPCs being spent on fleets.  The real numbers of what type of unit you buy depends much more on your objective in that sea area and the types of units your opponent has.  Ratios that don’t match what you are facing will be wasted IPC.  Those subs are useless if the other guy is depending on land based airpower.  That battle ship may never fire a shot except for the one amphibious landing you do.  Buy the units that counter your opponents navy or force him to counter you.

An example of this is the G1 2 or 3 transports in the Baltic strategy for Germany.  This is detailed much better elsewhere but essentially, by building the Baltic fleet to 3 or 4 transports, it becomes strong enough that it is no longer easy pickings for the UK airforce.  This means that the Baltic is now denied for Allied use and the transports can move grunts pretty quickly to Len or Nor even as they keep Berlin and EEU safe from amphib invasion.  The best part is not the defensive characteristic.  The best part is the implied threat.  Four transports, a couple of subs, a DD and fighters sitting in Norway and WEU make UK really nervous.  If this is a normal configuration for Germany in the early turns, the UK player has to keep some significant ground and air forces in GBR or risk a Sea Lion.

This leads me to the last thing a fleet is good for:   To exist.Â

A fleet, just by existing, is a threat.Â

The UK Indian Ocean fleet, as long as it lives, makes Germany’s advance into Africa difficult, Japan’s advance into India cautious and threatens the IPC islands in the Pacific, just by hanging out with a couple of loaded transports in the South Compass Sea.

The German Med fleet of 1 BB and 1 Tran hanging out in the West Med, with 1 Inf and 1 Armor sitting in WEU, can land forces in the UK, Canada, Brazil, French West Africa, Anglo-Egypt, Trans-Jordan or the Caucus.  If the Allies try to defend all of those locations, it will take 7 times the force that is sitting in that transport. Imagine two tranports, a CV and two fighters.  The US/UK player will have no other focus and even the USSR player will be watching the Caucus coast line.

Wanna slow down the Japanese juggernaut headed for Moscow?  Build a West Coast fleet for the US.  Japan has to build naval units in order to counter that fleet.  If he already has enough units, he is over built and you should not be having this problem to begin with…

As complicated as land warfare is, naval warfare is more so.  Naval warfare is much more a rock, paper, scissors dynamic for gaining and keeping control of the ocean and that is only the first step toward using it to move grunts and win the war.

i must say that this is an interesting post, good job, i really enjoyed reading that

@Jennifer:

There is no backbone of the navy in this game.  Every naval piece serves a vital role in a combat oriented fleet.

You need a respective number of battleboats augmenting your fleet.  Not for punch, but for absorbtion of damage.  You need destroyers for punch, and to prevent submarines from running away.  You need submarines for fodder and because they have a decent attack/defense cability.  You need carriers to bring fighters for defense and prevent the enemy from attacking you easily.  And you need fighters to be cheap fodder after submarines die off and to add signigicant range and punch.

i only used the word “backbone” so that it would make some sense, and yes your right, their is no backbone for the navy in this game
but i used that word, so that he could see that the Destroyer will augoment for the majority of the offensive power of your navy,
yes the BB is more powerful, but it costs twice as much and can only be in one place, while you can have 2 Destroyers seperate(example–>one
near Australia and one in India) the AC is better at defense, but if want something for both things, the Destroyer imho
is better(but like i said i’ve only played this version 3 times) mainly because it cheaper, and can pack quiet a punch both defensively and offensively

i’m not saying that you should have like 10 destroyers and forget about everything else, but having them be the firepower of your task force is not a bad idea,
especially if your Japan which is the only country i play as

well i’ve only played this version only 3 times, but i have to say that the backbone of any of the Navies should
be the Destroyer, why? for 12 points you get a 3/3 unit, and can shoot at anything, subs are cheaper, yes
but they can only hit other naval units, one fighter will make your submarines run for their lives

in my opinion, transports should never form part of your attacking naval force, if you want fodder for something an assault
on an enemy navy force, you should use your subs as fodder, plus they can do some serious damage, unlike transports that
can’t attack, but like i said thats my opinion

for me, i will always keep my transports and my task force(BB’s, AC’s, etc.) seperate at all times, unless my transports
are in danger, which from what i have seen in this version of the game, they aren’t as long as i control the pacific, or atleast
have the upper hand

so pretty much what i am saying is that, the backbone of your navy should be Destroyers, supported by subs, and Aircraft Carriers, and 1 or 2 Battleships

hopefully i made sense  :-D

In your opinion, how do the National Advantages affect your gameplay?

which NA do you like best?

well the reasons as to why i’m asking this is because i bought this version
a couple of days ago, infact it was on saturday after my graduation from bootcamp,
and today i played my first game and i must say i like it a lot better than the 2nd edition
in my opinion its a lot more entertaining especially if Russia gets the NA Lend-Lease, it can make them
into an offensive monster early on, making Germany go on the Defensive fast

i also like these NA’s Luftwaffe Dive-Bombers, Tokyo Express and Banzai Attacks

Tokyo Express and Banzai Attacks give the Japanese some serious amphibous power in this game,
at one point in the game, I sent an amphibous assault against Hawaii and Alaska, with two strike forces
the first one(against Alaska) contained, 3 destroyers(with 1 infantry unit) and 2 transports(two infantry units each)
and the second one(against Hawaii) comprised of 2 Destroyers(w/ 1 infantry) and 2 transports(w/ 2 infantry units each)

and that was about only half of my naval force, i also had 2 Battleships, 3 Aircraft Carriers(w/ atleast 1 Zero on it), 2 submarines, and 2
destroyers

i really like this edition, it gives Japan(my favorite nation in the game) the chance to really be a big naval power early in the game,
and it also starts with a great navy, i was able to take care off, the British Pacific Fleet and the USN Pacific fleet right in the first turn,
i had to use the entire Imperial Japanese Airforce to accomplish that, but i suffered minimal losses anyway, so it didn’t bother me

ok back on topic,
how do the NA’s change you games?
and which one(s) do you like the most and which ones do you hate the most?

If you had to make a build with a Nashorn(for a 100 point game)
what would your build look like?

i’m just trying to make this interesting since making a successful(or atleast good) build
that includes and a Nashorn is very, very hard

try this build for Germany
it has worked out pretty well for me

2 SS Panzer IV
5 SS PG’S
1 SS Haupsturmfuhrer
1 Blackshirt

this is not my creation, just so you know
but everybody that has used this has had relatively
good successes

@grandmastafargus:

Im sorry for being an a**hole, my bad. But i dont think that people give the italians enough credit. My grandfather was one of the “camice nere” now given he was only fighting for his country and is by no means a fascist but he fought valiantly and befriended some german soldiers. In some cases they were mistreated but for the most part they were militia. He was given a rifle and uniform and was instructed to meet up with a group of germans. He had no previous experience and exentually was awarded the Order of Saint Lazarus, the War Merit Cross, and an italian tank regiment medal. I guess just give them some credit. Personally i feel that they did alot with the little that they had. Maybe im wrong but for what its worth, im sorry. PEACE

no problem
but you have to admit they were the weak part of the alliance(not by choice, but they were)

on topic:
who do you guys think would be the biggest threat to Japan in a Jungle or Forest Map?

i really like to play as Germany/Italy(i also really like to play as Japan as well but it is so hard to win with them)
Germany as the main force(SS PG and TANKS)
and Italy as a distraction, by taking out enemy units whenever i can
while my main force(Germans) try to take the objective as fast as possible

in a 150pt. i always have a Carro Armato, 1 or 2 Blackshirts, and 2 or 3 Fucile Modelo
always try to out flank the enemy, with the help of a SS Panzer IV of course  :-D

ezto,
how effective is your Japanese army
can you post your army, unless the list in the first
page is your army  :-D
but either way can you tell me if it is effective
and if so against what type of builds

@grandmastafargus:

@Commander:

@grandmastafargus:

JAPS SUCK they are a disgrace to the axis powers

wow, ignorance

Italy was the disgrace to the axis, no offense to any Italians
their army, airforce and navy were so outdated, it’s not even funny
plus their commanders were as bad as they could get
after a year or 2, Italy became literally the puppet of Germany
they needed Germany for almost everything

Talk about fucking ignorance. Dude u are a retard. Italy was amazing. Talk about fucking ignorant, we shoulda nuked ur a** just like we did the damn japs. Douche bag go eat some more rice.

PEACE

honestly you need to learn about history lol
and since you couldn’t come up with a good come back
you had to insult me lol, hey and i like rice, i’m puertorican after all lol
kids this days

and even Ezto and GrimJesta agrees with me lol
the Italian were capable of amazing things, especially when they were defending
and Rommel, showed how good the Italians could’ve fight
imaging if they had better weapons, wow, WW2 would have been a lot different
plus when i said they sucked, what i meant that compared to Japan and Germany
they weren’t in the same level as they were

on topic
yeah if avalon makes a jungle or forest map, japan would rule that map no problem