Carrierland

[newpaintbrush]

@Bean:

I was thinking with the Germans, start by adding a carrier to the Baltic, then slowly crank out two more as they are needed to keep the Baltic alive?

. . .

But the UK/US had to buy much more than 16 IPCs per carrier to counter the 16 IPCs of carrier that Germany put down.

What do you guys think?

3 carriers = 48 IPC = 16 infantry.  When you take 16 infantry away from the Russian front, you WILL pay for it.

Placing fighters in the Baltic does not create a problem insofar as using the fighters to attack ground targets is concerned.  It does cause a problem insofar as the defense of West Europe is concerned.  Of course, you are using the German carriers in the Baltic to threaten an Allied invasion of West Europe - but carriers are not very powerful on the attack.  So if you stay in the Baltic to threaten the waters off Western Europe, the Allies can continue the shuck from E. Canada to Algeria.  If you move the Baltic fleet off Western Europe, you have to survive two rounds of attack from the US and UK combined naval and air forces.  That is not promising.

As far as the Allies having to buy more - that is true.  However, if the Allies want to kill the German navy, they should invest heavily in fighters, so when the Allies DO wipe out the German navy, those extra fighters can be used to fortify Moscow.

All in all - IMHO German carrier in Baltic is one max.  Three is far too many.

[Jennifer]

If you absolutely MUST build carriers and throw your money out the window, why not put them in SZ 14 where you at least have a Battleship to help defend AND you force the British and Americans away from their stacks to come kill you?

[Romulus]

I think primary task of AC in Baltic is defensive one and to fulfioll the fleet in being principle.
Fighters on Baltic Carrier are subtracted from EE and GER but staying in sz5 still are able to defend. Moreover from the sz5 they may participate in the combats in Russia.

AC in Mediterranean Sea are well protected by the BB and draw away Allied ships from their stacks. However when they enter in Mediterranean they may assault SE. Moreover the fig for the AC in Mediterranean are themselves forced avay from the stacks in GER and EE, and so subtracted totally by the defense of GER and EE.

[Jennifer]

I view the fighters on carriers in SZ 5 as lost anyway.  They defend for nothing because they are not attacked until the battle is ridiculously skewed in favor of the allied attackers.  You are building something that is designed to earn no income and lose more then twice it’s value in the long term.

[cyan]

@Cmdr:

I view the fighters on carriers in SZ 5 as lost anyway.  They defend for nothing because they are not attacked until the battle is ridiculously skewed in favor of the allied attackers.  You are building something that is designed to earn no income and lose more then twice it’s value in the long term.

where do you get that figure?

[newpaintbrush]

@cyan:

@Cmdr:

I view the fighters on carriers in SZ 5 as lost anyway.  They defend for nothing because they are not attacked until the battle is ridiculously skewed in favor of the allied attackers.  You are building something that is designed to earn no income and lose more then twice it’s value in the long term.

where do you get that figure?

Diet and exercise.

[cyan]

@newpaintbrush:

@cyan:

@Cmdr:

I view the fighters on carriers in SZ 5 as lost anyway.  They defend for nothing because they are not attacked until the battle is ridiculously skewed in favor of the allied attackers.  You are building something that is designed to earn no income and lose more then twice it’s value in the long term.

where do you get that figure?

Diet and exercise.

lol

[Sproit]

I think Germany should stay fighting Russians until Japan has enough ships to come to the Atlantic,  then they should invest in their navy and build up together very strongly,

Until then they should just try to hide their fleet a bit, so the investment is not that big when Japan comes by.

Btw, if Germany owns the Suez, can Japan use it? I would say yes, but is it a no?

[cyan]

@Sproit:

I think Germany should stay fighting Russians until Japan has enough ships to come to the Atlantic,  then they should invest in their navy and build up together very strongly,

Until then they should just try to hide their fleet a bit, so the investment is not that big when Japan comes by.

Btw, if Germany owns the Suez, can Japan use it? I would say yes, but is it a no?

yeah they can. have to have Egypt and ISrael for it to work. its okay if germany owns egypt and japan Israel.

[Sproit]

Ok thanks for that answer! Will take that for truth. ;)

[trihero]

3 carriers = 48 IPC = 16 infantry.  When you take 16 infantry away from the Russian front, you WILL pay for it.

My friend, as you quoted so obviously, I said add carriers slowly as needed, not as soon as you possibly can. And as I originally said, I know you will pay, but there is a large benefit.

I view the fighters on carriers in SZ 5 as lost anyway.  They defend for nothing because they are not attacked until the battle is ridiculously skewed in favor of the allied attackers.  You are building something that is designed to earn no income and lose more then twice it’s value in the long term.

It is precisely the long term I am looking at. Let’s say for whatever reason I did have to add 3 carriers over 10 turns. That 16 infantry I paid does this: the UK and US are each three turns behind on troops available to attack the capital, and also no bb shots. That’s amazing. That’s 48 units I prevented from attacking my capital that turn. That’s how I’m looking at this.

Let’s stop trying to say there’s no benefit to this, and instead look at this logically: how do we compare the benefit of the massive delay of the UK/US to having fewer infantry?

The trading against Russia might be paler on the short term, but do you really need 10+ infantry every turn to trade with Russia? 8+ should be enough, and 1 carrier + 8 inf isn’t terribly shorthanded. Of course you need to add more defense to W. Europe which is where the shortage comes into play, but you got tanks to make up for defense. Sure, Russia will probably occupy Ukraine a turn earlier than normal, but Russia alone doesn’t win this game. A 2 turn delay to E. Europe and a 3 turn delay to the capital is absurd in my opinion. Maybe the best Allied response is simply to overbuild fighters for a turn or 2 to dislodge the navy.

[Jennifer]

@cyan:

@Cmdr:

I view the fighters on carriers in SZ 5 as lost anyway.  They defend for nothing because they are not attacked until the battle is ridiculously skewed in favor of the allied attackers.  You are building something that is designed to earn no income and lose more then twice it’s value in the long term.

where do you get that figure?

Aircraft Carrier -16
2 Fighters -20

Total: -36

36 > the cost of 2 Aircraft Carriers by an amount of 4 IPC.

It’s simple arithmetic.  Building the carrier has the very realistic potential to cost Germany twice the cost of the carrier in under sea condominiums and possibly, with high probability, not cost the allies much at all.  Damage a battleship, sink a couple submarines, end of story, dead German fleet.

---

Best allied offense against a crazy Kraut is to consolidate fleets then hit them with the Ameircan fleet when ready.  Of course, I build more fighters then I need anyway.  It’s no strange sight to see my Germany with 9+ fighters or my Russia with 4 or my England with 7 or my America with 7.  Though, once I did have 18 fighters, 3 bombers with America…I think that was probably WAY over kill, but it was fun!  “I attack your picket infantry with 2 infantry, 6 fighters and a bomber!  DIE BITCH!”

[Romulus]

Fighter in sz5 are not lost: they are concurring to the defense of GER and EE, instead of staying in the territories they stay in the sea zone.

Are they lost when the Allies have gathered an overwhelming force? For sure they are lost… if they stay in the sea zone. As Bean said when the Allied forces are overwhelming then the fighter may be retreated on the mainland, before the attack.
Meanwhile the AC+figs have accomplished three objectives:

• indirectly defended the German coastline;
• delayed the Allied attack to EE and GER;
• participated in the trading battles on the eastern front.

On the point of discussion about number of Allied aircraft I would like to say my opinion.
Units are the most important asset in A&A, more important than IPC and more important than  territories. But the game have also an objective to be pursued: winning the war by conquering VCs and capitals. And for that scope every unit may be useful if used in the right way and in a coordinate strategy.
Baltic fleet may delay invasion from Baltic sea. With 1 AC may delay more.
Buying more than one AC may be too much but not because the AC+fig are useless. The reason is that German will lack infantries.
Usually I do not buy any AC in the Baltic with Germany, but sometimes it is useful to try to surprise the opponent making an unexpected move.

[Jennifer]

In my mind, any fighter floating in SZ 5 is lost.  Any round you keep them is a gift.  But that’s just MY mind on the matter.  And only because I see the SZ 5 fleet go down hard on numerous occasions.

[Romulus]

@Cmdr:

In my mind, any fighter floating in SZ 5 is lost.  Any round you keep them is a gift.  But that’s just MY mind on the matter.  And only because I see the SZ 5 fleet go down hard on numerous occasions.

Yes, and it is the final destiny for the Baltic Fleet: going to the bottom of the Baltic Sea. Moreover the AC cost in term of less infantry available for the mainland fronts.
This is the reason for which it may be considered a risky move.
But also German Infantry is doomed to die. So what? We should not buy infantry because it will be destroyed on the Russian front?
Is not the final destiny of a unit that is important is the usefulness of the unit during is service that is important.

There is an observation I would do.
To make strategic reasoning it is necessary to abstract from the specific situation of the games, whitout considering single situation or games.
In this case German trade infantry on the mainland for a more longer life of the Baltic fleet. Is it worhty? It may be useful if played accordingly. It may give Germany more time to attack Russia, delaying Allied action. Or may give to Germany more time to wait for Japan coming to outskirt of Moscow.

Now, which is the point of Bean? Iterating the purchasing of AC during the games, may be useful? That is: adding another AC to the Baltic Fleet will continue to delay Allies?
Maybe no. Maybe Allies are already too much powerful for the second AC to be scary.
Maybe it is too costly, in term of lacking land units, so German will pay for sure this lacking of infantry at Russian hands!

But the efficency of the fleet is for sure increased and fighter in sz5 defends Germany as well as they was in Berlin… maybe even better.

[Jennifer]

A german infantry that dies has the potential to kill a Russian, that’s a gain in my book.  Also, the loss of a German infantry is only 3 IPC, not 36 IPC like losing two precious fighters and a worthless carrier.

[trihero]

Is not the final destiny of a unit that is important is the usefulness of the unit during is service that is important.

There is an observation I would do.

Romulus is a genius! By the way, the grammatically correct way to say it is “This is an observation that I would make.”

Anyways Jen, I respect your opinion and also Gamer’s. Perhaps the short term cost against Russia is too daunting. I simply believe that starting with a carrier then gradually adding them is not only surprising to the Allies (very annoying for the US to build 1-2 subs when they see the first carrier, then all of a sudden a second carrier comes into play and now they have to build more subs or fighters because their production zone is so far away), but it is also critically delaying to their shuck. The Allies do not want to be shucking and walking from Norway or Archangel, because it takes 3 turns longer to reach the capital and 2 turns longer to reach E. Europe. I think that long of a delay is worth some short term worries on the Russian front, if at all - because Germany may not have to build the second carrier for a few turns, and in between that time you can binge on the necessary infantry. I think the 32-48 IPCs in the long run that you lose in infantry is worth it to either “force” the Allies to build lots of planes early or massively delay their assault on your capital.

Maybe the counter is very simple, just overbuild planes with the Allies for one turn then strike it with both UK and US; the UK will lose a lot of planes but should have removed all the fodder units then the US cleans up with a big airforce. But overbuilt planes means a delay in getting necessary transports and men to Africa/Europe, which may help both Japan and Germany. And most people don’t really respond to one carrier by overbuying planes, they maybe buy a couple extra but then that second carrier pops up in your face and you have to adjust.

[Romulus]

Bean, thanks for the help with my grammar.

Summarizing the concept in discussion is: a trade off between infantry with AC.
Pros: delaying the UK/US, particularly the assault in EE from the Baltic. Indirect defense from the sz5 of GER and EE.
Cons: lack of infantry means more difficult in stacking Europe and less efficiency in trading Eastern territories with Germany.

As I said usually I do not buy any AC with Germany. But sometime, to have a variation in my opening, I have did it.
Maybe if the position on the board is favourable and the possible evolution are carefully assessed even a second AC may be bought.

[axis_roll]

Another Pro I would add is the possible taking of Norway by Germany.

Without a baltic fleet, unless Germany has established a karelia presence (a very key territory), once Norway falls, she’s allied forever.

[Romulus]

Right Axis_roll, I agree.
Baltic fleet presence may allow for reclaming the Norway, adding another delay factor to UK/US operations.