G1 naval build?

[jsp4563]

The alternative to not making a G1 naval purchase is the allies will sink the baltic fleet UK1 at little or no cost and UK is free to spend it’s 43 ducets causing mischief in Africa and Asia.

[axis_roll]

@Emperor:

The alternative to not making a G1 naval purchase is the allies will sink the baltic fleet UK1 at little or no cost and UK is free to spend it’s 43 ducets causing mischief in Africa and Asia.

Is that such a big loss to Germany?  Moving into Karelia via the ground is much cheaper safer and easier to accomplish.

If Germany is marching quickly on Russia, newly added UK units in far flung SAF won’t do much to stop that.

[jsp4563]

@axis_roll:

@Emperor:

The alternative to not making a G1 naval purchase is the allies will sink the baltic fleet UK1 at little or no cost and UK is free to spend it’s 43 ducets causing mischief in Africa and Asia.

Is that such a big loss to Germany?  Moving into Karelia via the ground is much cheaper safer and easier to accomplish.

If Germany is marching quickly on Russia, newly added UK units in far flung SAF won’t do much to stop that.

I’ve always maintained that the fleet will eventually be sunk, the point is to make the allies commit significant resources to do so, those are resources not spent elsewhere which is to Italy\Japan’s advantage.  The loss of the fleet is only a minor set back to Germany but it get’s Karelia in force G2 and helps Italy and Japan expand their IPC base.  If the allies don’t move to immediately sink that fleet, even better.

I’ve never claimed that it is a better strategy than any other, only that it’s viable and has advantages.

[Bardoly]

I’ve never claimed that it is a better strategy than any other, only that it’s viable and has advantages.

Exactly right!
When you play each and every game exactly the same, then I’m ready to find a different opponent.  One should always have a few different openers/strategies so as to not fall into a rut.

[bugoo]

Ok not sure if this was a good idea or i got lucky but here is what happened.

On G1 i setup to take egypt heavy and then the other typical things, but what happened that really made me happy were 3 things.

1 - UK abandoned Egypt
2- Russia abandoned Karelia
3 - Nothing could hit the Italian fleet on turn 2 in SZ 13

Now on Italy’s turn I really wanted that 2nd NO but couldn’t take trans-jordan, so i moved 1 inf into egypt and my entire fleet into SZ 13 grabbing Gibraltar.  On germanies turn I knew i’d have a load of money to spend on turn 3 so I purchased a factory in france, took my NOs, and moved back my forces a bit against russia.  On turn 3 I dropped a large G fleet of destroyers and a carrier into SZ 7.  Now the UK could have hit, and sunk that fleet, but, she would have only a few boats left and italy was in position to counter, sinking the remainder.  And with the UK down in the 20s income, she did not wish to do so.  This allowed me to move all troops from france and send them at Russia, wearing her down maybe not as fast as i wished, but fast enough.  Also in later turns (5th I think) my fleet and air force sunk the UK fleet pretty much ending the game.  Other funny things that happened were Italian figs landing on a german carrier, and a german DD block of SZ 6 to protect the fleet one turn.

Not sure if its a great strat or not, but the keys were UK’s income gets so low they cannot compete those turns with boats.  Also, russia cannot get too aggressive or your air force and recent purchases will stomp them.  And of course the UK/US could do a combined attack against your fleet, but it would be inefficient and then you accomplish your goal anyway, the sinking of the UK’s fleet.  Other things that could enhance this idea would be Japan figs landing on german carriers (if they get in range in time), or just Japan being in a position to counter with planes against a weakened UK fleet.

[axis_roll]

@Bardoly:

I’ve never claimed that it is a better strategy than any other, only that it’s viable and has advantages.

Exactly right!
When you play each and every game exactly the same, then I’m ready to find a different opponent.  One should always have a few different openers/strategies so as to not fall into a rut.

Well, IMHO, Germany can choose <almost>ANY strategy and still be in the game early on.
You obviously have to implement that strategy properly.

It helps alot to go first.</almost>

[Omega]

G1 : German can take things smoothly. Russia’s offensive force is weak, so even spending half of your money on naval build, you won’t be behind Russia.
Naval builds are to slow down Allies, to pose minimum threat to England and if left in the Baltic, can be used to move Infantry quickly to the front. (Suppose an initial 16 IPC for a Carrier, you can spend 8+ per turn to slowly grow your fleet, depending on UK purchase). With a BB, that fleet should be ok for a while. And since you are making more money than Russia, you aren’t falling behind him. Faster Infantry = your offensive material will likely stay alive. + slowing down Allies can be a good strategy
Of course, this is all theoretical. But I intend to test it this Thursday, when I will finally meet with my 5 others friends to play :)

[dondoolee]

@Emperor:

@axis_roll:

@Emperor:

The alternative to not making a G1 naval purchase is the allies will sink the baltic fleet UK1 at little or no cost and UK is free to spend it’s 43 ducets causing mischief in Africa and Asia.

Is that such a big loss to Germany?  Moving into Karelia via the ground is much cheaper safer and easier to accomplish.

If Germany is marching quickly on Russia, newly added UK units in far flung SAF won’t do much to stop that.

I’ve always maintained that the fleet will eventually be sunk, the point is to make the allies commit significant resources to do so, those are resources not spent elsewhere which is to Italy\Japan’s advantage.  The loss of the fleet is only a minor set back to Germany but it get’s Karelia in force G2 and helps Italy and Japan expand their IPC base.  If the allies don’t move to immediately sink that fleet, even better.

I’ve never claimed that it is a better strategy than any other, only that it’s viable and has advantages.

The German fleet is definatly viable, and could be a lot of fun.  I am at a stage right now though where I am looking for optimal since I have played this game for less than 6 months.

[jsp4563]

@dondoolee:

The German fleet is definatly viable, and could be a lot of fun.  I am at a stage right now though where I am looking for optimal since I have played this game for less than 6 months.

There is never an Optimal strategy, no matter what version you play.  As for AA50, We are all newbies, it’s such a completely different game from AAR.  Everything I knew in AAR went out the window with AA50.  I’m rebuilding my strategies with each game, and that’s the fun!

[Aljehans]

In my playgroup the G1 carrier buy is a very used strategy.
We play boardgame: NOs, no tech, no bid, dice (obviously;)

G1 buy:
1 carrier, 1 tank, 4 inf
or
1 carrier, 1 transport, 1 art, 2 inf

Attacks:
sz2 with 2subs, norway fighter, bomber
sz6 with sub, holland fgt
ukraine with a minimum of forces
Baltics hard
East Poland hard
transport troops to Libya

Often we don’t attack sz12, because we consider the UK attack on italian fleet too risky. And we need 2 fgts to land on the Carrier.
But this sets up to take Karelia hard on G2.

England is now forced to buy all fleet, witch is not necessarily bad. But it leaves Italy alone to expand. And UK’s builds may consist of destroyers and subs, that cannot be used after eliminating the Kriegsmarine. So those 14 spent on the carrier is evened out with UK’s builds.
I have to agree with Emperor Molari, that losing the german fleet is not a disaster - the difficult part is to recognize, when it has to be abandoned by the fighters…

We have had many succeses with the G1 carrier buy! I don’t think you should discard the idea untested :)

[axis_roll]

@General:

England is now forced to buy all fleet, witch is not necessarily bad. But it leaves Italy alone to expand. And UK’s builds may consist of destroyers and subs, that cannot be used after eliminating the Kriegsmarine. So those 14 spent on the carrier is evened out with UK’s builds.
I have to agree with Emperor Molari, that losing the german fleet is not a disaster - the difficult part is to recognize, when it has to be abandoned by the fighters…

We have had many succeses with the G1 carrier buy! I don’t think you should discard the idea untested :)

IMHO, this is a sub-optimal move, especially when SZ12 DD and CA are not attacked.  UK/US need only add air force to sink the Germany navy (no subs, and with 2 UK DD’s, perhaps not even another DD).  Anyways, absolute rules/judgements are very hard to make when speaking in strategic generalities.

I think the $14 is better spent elsewhere for Germany, like a ftr and an art or a bomber!

[a44bigdog]

I will agree with axis_roll about the importance of sinking the UK ships in SZ12. I also agree that using them against the Italian navy can leave a very bad taste in the UK player’s mouth if it does not go well and it is not a strong attack by the dice odds anyway. If the SZ12 units are not sank that, with SZ9 gives the UK 1 TN 2 DD 1 CA as a core to add units to on UK 1. The UK can purchase 3 INF 1 CV and 1 BB on round 1, which is now a significant fleet that can be added to with just TNs and some DDs as needs require.

[Bigtiti]

@Black_Elk:

I think if you buy a carrier in the first round, it will be dead before it does you any good.

An extra destroyer is maybe doable, if you’re just trying to deter a round one air strike by the UK. You might even be able to sneak in a second cruiser instead of a destroyer, but whether that’s advisable or not I couldn’t really say. I certainly wouldn’t waste the money on Subs though, thats for sure. Carriers are still expensive even at 14 ipcs, and once you buy it you then have to protect it with fighters, which locks you into a much more defensive posture. I’m sure it would deter the British from attacking you, but at what cost to the overall war effort?

If I was going to make a commitment like that, I would try to factor in a second or third transport, so you can at least threaten UK with invasion. The people in my playgroup will usually just trade aircraft for ships in rounds 2 or 3 regardless, so it tends to be a losing proposition for G. Add to that the fact that if Germany buys ships, you’re basically calling down on yourself the mother of all KGF strats, so I’m not sure what the benefit would be. If they wanted Germany to buy ships in this game they should have done more to bolster the Baltic fleet, added convoy zones, or subs that do economic damage. The way its set up right now, I can’t imagine why anyone would try for it. Germany is never going to win the Battle of Jutland in this game, let alone the battle of the Atlantic, so what would be the point?

Sorry for the pessimism, but I’m still irked that Germany wasn’t given a battleship in sz 5. If it was a battleship instead of a cruiser then at least they’d have a chance against the Royal Air Force.

:?

14 IPC? germany gets in most of my gmaes middle 50’s, so more than enough to spend once 14 IPC so they can delay british for quiet a time

[axis_roll]

@Frontovik:

@Black_Elk:

I think if you buy a carrier in the first round, it will be dead before it does you any good.

An extra destroyer is maybe doable, if you’re just trying to deter a round one air strike by the UK. You might even be able to sneak in a second cruiser instead of a destroyer, but whether that’s advisable or not I couldn’t really say. I certainly wouldn’t waste the money on Subs though, thats for sure. Carriers are still expensive even at 14 ipcs, and once you buy it you then have to protect it with fighters, which locks you into a much more defensive posture. I’m sure it would deter the British from attacking you, but at what cost to the overall war effort?

If I was going to make a commitment like that, I would try to factor in a second or third transport, so you can at least threaten UK with invasion. The people in my playgroup will usually just trade aircraft for ships in rounds 2 or 3 regardless, so it tends to be a losing proposition for G. Add to that the fact that if Germany buys ships, you’re basically calling down on yourself the mother of all KGF strats, so I’m not sure what the benefit would be. If they wanted Germany to buy ships in this game they should have done more to bolster the Baltic fleet, added convoy zones, or subs that do economic damage. The way its set up right now, I can’t imagine why anyone would try for it. Germany is never going to win the Battle of Jutland in this game, let alone the battle of the Atlantic, so what would be the point?

Sorry for the pessimism, but I’m still irked that Germany wasn’t given a battleship in sz 5. If it was a battleship instead of a cruiser then at least they’d have a chance against the Royal Air Force.

:?

14 IPC? germany gets in most of my gmaes middle 50’s, so more than enough to spend once 14 IPC so they can delay british for quiet a time

It’s not that Germany can not afford to spend IPCs on a navy.  It’s a question of how much return they get on that investment.
What does this German navy force the allies to do?  Buy a few extra ships (cruisers might be the best naval purchase in this situation)…or a few more fighters to eventually sink that navy.

Neither of these ‘forced’ buys are bad for the allies.  In fact, they might buy these units anyways, so much so they might be called ‘required’ units for the allies to buy.

However Germany does not normally buy naval units.  Naval units could never be construed as ‘required’ buy units for Germany.

So Germany is buying units that they would not normally buy to force the allies to buy more units of what they WOULD normally buy.

In that light, is a German navy really a good return for the money now?

[a44bigdog]

One thing I have found that a German navy does axis_roll is that it tends to keep the UK at home defending for a couple of rounds and it allows quick reinforcement of Karelia. Granted all of my experience so far is in AA50-42 which is a vastly different animal from AA50-41. Occupying the Allies attention for the first few rounds may let the other Axis powers get up and running to take care of Russia.

I really think more experimentation is needed with German Naval builds before they are simply dismissed out of hand.

[Gargantua]

German Naval strategies are interesting.

In revised, one particular game, I built a German Battleship a turn, for 3 turns.  Laugh at it, call it crazy.  Against competent opponents here on the site.  It worked.

The allies took it WAY too seriously.  Albeit I was almost bankrupt, it didn’t matter, america was too busy building planes, aircraft carriers, and destroyers to combat my navy, than transports to actually take territory.

Once you get 3 Bat’s together, with 1 acc supporting,  there is almost nothing that can stop you in the water, no one buys Bat’s really, en mass they are almost a broken unit, especially for axis, being able to avoid 1-2 punches, by tip and re-tipping….

The counter is simple of course, avoid the BB’s entirely, and go for a massive land offensive :P  But depending on play style, some opponents play their game, or if you are good, you can make em play yours.

[axis_roll]

@a44bigdog:

One thing I have found that a German navy does axis_roll is that it tends to keep the UK at home defending for a couple of rounds and it allows quick reinforcement of Karelia. Granted all of my experience so far is in AA50-42 which is a vastly different animal from AA50-41. Occupying the Allies attention for the first few rounds may let the other Axis powers get up and running to take care of Russia.

I really think more experimentation is needed with German Naval builds before they are simply dismissed out of hand.

in 1942, yes, a German navy is great.

1941 it might work OK, but my point is that there are many better other choices for Germany than building a navy.

[Bardoly]

Well, I’m just wondering how many other folks out there are actually going for a G1 naval buy in the '41 setup?

I have felt that it might be doable, so I decided to play a few games with a G1 naval build.  Right now I’m playing 6 different League opponents as the Axis, and in each of the games, I purchased 1 bb, 1 dd, 1 inf for G1.  (It seems that the bb/dd purchase may be better than a cv purchase, but I’m not sure.)  I’ll post my results later, but so far, it’s been a mixed bag.  I’ve got the definite advantage in a couple of the games, a definite disadvantage in a couple of the games, and for the other 2, the games are still fairly balanced.

A G1 naval purchase in the '42 setup definitely seems a little easier to do for sure, but in '41 does it stand a chance?

Answers from people who’ve actually played with a G1 naval purchase please.  :wink:

[calvinhobbesliker]

@Bardoly:

Well, I’m just wondering how many other folks out there are actually going for a G1 naval buy in the '41 setup?

I have felt that it might be doable, so I decided to play a few games with a G1 naval build.  Right now I’m playing 6 different League opponents as the Axis, and in each of the games, I purchased 1 bb, 1 dd, 1 inf for G1.  (It seems that the bb/dd purchase may be better than a cv purchase, but I’m not sure.)  I’ll post my results later, but so far, it’s been a mixed bag.  I’ve got the definite advantage in a couple of the games, a definite disadvantage in a couple of the games, and for the other 2, the games are still fairly balanced.

A G1 naval purchase in the '42 setup definitely seems a little easier to do for sure, but in '41 does it stand a chance?

Answers from people who’ve actually played with a G1 naval purchase please.   :wink:

Apparently, 41 is broken in favor of the axis, so a “bad” move like a significant German navy might still win.

Is it true that after 2 turns, the Axis’ income is the same as the Allies’?

[Jennifer]

@Gargantua:

Once you get 3 Bat’s together, with 1 acc supporting,  there is almost nothing that can stop you in the water, no one buys Bat’s really, en mass they are almost a broken unit, especially for axis, being able to avoid 1-2 punches, by tip and re-tipping….

Disagree, really.  America has only to spend one round building submarines (48 IPC = 8 Submarines) and let the British navy protect them before attacking with the aircraft they normally have and the submarines to sink the German fleet (unless Germany reinforces it more.)  This is a build I’ll normally perform anyway as it’s a great way to dispose of the pesky fleet in the Med or add to a Pacific fleet.

I do agree 3 battleships are a pain to get rid of, however.  Do it a lot with America or Japan since it gives a nice damage buffer zone.

I’m currently stuck in a '42 rut since everyone I play wants to play that, and I’ve been pretty consistent on German naval builds (except one game and I’m horribly losing that one game.) Best one, so far, is with Botider.  England’s stuck putting warships in the water while Russia cowers with fear in Moscow/Stalingrad, but it’s draining German resources now too. (2 rounds of nothing but navy).  It’s fun though!  It helps that American went KJF so there’s no threat to the Italian fleet and the only boats I have to counter are the British which leads me too….

Is a navy build worth it when the allies all turn to focus on Germany?