@amp12 What were you doing with these Allied countries in Europe at the same time? Just curious.
German Strategy…beef up the navy or straight to Moscow?
-
ok talk this out to me. baltic carrier can’t work unless airforce takes out british destroyer and cruiser in the med, right? because it would just get wasted. and if russia buys a sub R1 then sub + 2 fighters is still coin toss vs BB and AC so that’s pretty risky. so seems like you’d have to get at least 1 fighter as well. so 1 fighter + 1 bomber + 1 AC = 36 and you only have 4 dollars left for land. and on top of it all you won’t be able to attack anglo-egypt G1. am i getting this?
The Baltic sea is North of Germany. And you do have to land FTR there in non-combat for it to work. But really look for IL’s thread to understand the numerous possibilities.
And yes, it does leave you with only 14 IPCs to spend on INF. But it’s really a different strategy then the rush to RUS.
-
well now, i feel like a geography noob. i know where the baltic is but for some reason i just got it in my head that we were talking about a mediterranean carrier. i don’t know why, i even wrote baltic in the same sentence as med. i am a clueless idiot :?
so help a clueless idiot out real quick with this one, i guess it’s a rules point: i was under the impression that you can’t land fighters on a newly placed carrier because non combat move comes before mobilization……
…oooooooooh. wait. ok. i get it now. you end the planes’ non combat move in the sea zone where the carrier will be placed, and then when mobilization happens, the plane doesn’t crash because now, the carrier is there. i’ve been playing my games thinking that you couldn’t do that but i guess it makes sense that you can.
ok now that i’ve got my head on straight, i will contribute this-- i actually did the baltic AC (only i bought two fighters to go with it, because i didn’t realize i didn’t HAVE to) a few games back, and it actually worked out rather well for me. i play against another newbie though, we’re learning together, and he just didn’t know how to handle it, and for some reason he’s resisting the idea of building nothing but navy for UK1. so i bought another carrier and owned the atlantic for the rest of the game. this probably wouldn’t have worked against someone who knows how to deal with it.
-
My opinion is that the Mediterranean can be a REALLY GOOD SPOT for German naval builds, under the right conditions.
A few German subs in the Mediterranean combined with German control of Africa can make a big difference in the Allied fleet action. Either they land at Algeria, and get blown up, or they route south and lose the use of escorts plus transports for 4 turns (one turn to brazil, second to drop, third to return to brazil, fourth to drop) or they let Germany keep Africa. Granted, this isn’t going to happen in a lot of games against strong players, but when it does come up, German subs can be super useful.
–
I am of mixed mind regarding a Baltic AC build. Germany cannot keep it if the Allies want to destroy it, but the logistic advantage of Germany/West Europe to Karelia, messing with UK1 fleet build, and added control to Norway are good compensation for the early game.
-
@Bunnies:
I am of mixed mind regarding a Baltic AC build. Germany cannot keep it if the Allies want to destroy it, but the logistic advantage of Germany/West Europe to Karelia, messing with UK1 fleet build, and added control to Norway are good compensation for the early game.
but if you build it, they HAVE to destroy it, amirite? so you buy time, time that you use to get japan into the fight against moscow. i don’t know if it works at all against good players though.
-
Re: G1 Baltic AC buy:
Allies never have to destroy Baltic fleet. As long as it lives, Germany maintains a logistic advantage for the W Eur-Germany-Karelia-Norway circle, and an invasion threat to London. But if the Allies are so minded, UK can build northwest of UK on UK2 after a minimal ground buy protecting London from a G2 invasion. From there, the fleet drops straight to Karelia. If German navy pokes its head out of the Baltic, the UK fleet plus air smashes it. The AC is a continuing problem because it disrupts UK fleet reinforcements (UK will have to retreat its navy for an entire turn to sea zone northwest of London), but that’s not too awful, considering that Germany can only drop 2 units in the Baltic circle, while UK can drop 8 to Karelia/Archangel.
As far as using the G1 Baltic AC to buy time - it DOES work, of course - but by “work”, I don’t mean I think it a superior or better strategy I only mean that the AC does effectively stall the Allies a bit in the Atlantic to some degree. Whether those IPCs would be better spent elsewhere is another matter.
Personally, I’m of the opinion that a Baltic AC is a dead end to a UK1 2-3 fighter build, and that if Germany does build navy, it should be subs in the Mediterranean, and then only when Germany’s already achieved dominance in Africa, and US looks like it may be thinking about landing at Algeria. A German Med AC is not horribly impractical, but I would prefer to use Japanese units if at all possible. (it often is NOT against veteran players).
-
i can understand that the allies don’t have to kill the baltic fleet but they have to remain ABLE to kill the fleet, which i guess is what i mean. because besides the logistic advantage you mention a strong baltic navy can force the UK/US players to build up stronger navies to make any kind of landing. right? maybe i’m not right.
-
i can understand that the allies don’t have to kill the baltic fleet but they have to remain ABLE to kill the fleet, which i guess is what i mean. because besides the logistic advantage you mention a strong baltic navy can force the UK/US players to build up stronger navies to make any kind of landing. right? maybe i’m not right.
The Baltic carrier gives German fighters better effective range, which makes the Allies have to build slightly stronger defensive fleets.
If the German fleet wanders out of the Baltic, UK can usually smash it easily with the fodder destroyers they built to protect vs German air attack, plus UK air. UK can then reinforce their fleet with their build, leaving it difficult for Germany to attack.
-
i think my understanding is hampered by the fact that my opponent never makes good use of his german fighters to keep the seas clear so i’m used to not really having to build much fleet after UK1, so the difference seems more drastic to me if he were to fleet up in the baltic. but on a higher level of play you have to build more boats as UK regardless of the german fleet. does that sound right?
-
you have to build more boats as UK regardless of the german fleet. does that sound right?
What is “more”? Like, what’s your typical UK1 build/move?
-
i think my understanding is hampered by the fact that my opponent never makes good use of his german fighters to keep the seas clear so i’m used to not really having to build much fleet after UK1, so the difference seems more drastic to me if he were to fleet up in the baltic. but on a higher level of play you have to build more boats as UK regardless of the german fleet. does that sound right?
The assumption is that after G1 the UK fleet is cleared (except for the 1 trn) and Germany has 2 fig in 5, plus maybe another fig + bmb in Norway, and at least 1 more fig in Western. The 2 subs and dd are in 7 or 3…in range of 8 and 2 in any case.
These figs in 5 can reach both SZ8 and SZ2. So a UK1 fleet build is folly.
Fortunately there is a simple and effective response. UK buys 3 figs, forcing Germany to either spend more money on boats to keep its fleet afloat or abandon the doomed project.
Germany may be able to keep pace with the British build-up, but they wont be able to outspend the Allies if both UK and USA commit to the air buys. If UK/USA start mixing in bombers with their purchases, then these bombers can start SBRing Germany. So Germany will have to be spending 30+ ipcs per turn on boats and fighters, plus paying the SBR damage, and spending enough on infantry to hold off Russia. Here is a Germany that is split extremely thin.
But if USA is 100% Pacific the Baltic Fleet isn’t such a bad move after all.
-
@Bunnies:
you have to build more boats as UK regardless of the german fleet. does that sound right?
What is “more”? Like, what’s your typical UK1 build/move?
AC + 2 DD. but then i’m usually done buying fleet for the rest of the game, other than TRN
-
The assumption is that after G1 the UK fleet is cleared (except for the 1 trn) and Germany has 2 fig in 5, plus maybe another fig + bmb in Norway, and at least 1 more fig in Western. The 2 subs and dd are in 7 or 3…in range of 8 and 2 in any case.
These figs in 5 can reach both SZ8 and SZ2. So a UK1 fleet build is folly.
The question of a UK1 fleet build after G builds a carrier for the Baltic depends on how many G fighters survived the first turn and have landed on WEur/Norway. If there isn’t no fighters on Norway then the UK fleet has an 83% odd of surviving. The same if there’s only 1 fighter on WEur (91%). If you are really into stopping the UK from building UK1 then you will need 1 fighter/bomber in addition to the carrier.
-
As usual, I think Hobbes is quite correct. To elaborate, I think you would usually send Norway fighter to UK battleship, German bomber to UK battleship, Norway fighter, Western Europe fighter, and Eastern Europe fighters to UK cruiser, and Balkans fighter to Anglo-Egypt. The Ukraine fighter is often dead at end of R1. There’s good chance of Germany losing 1-2 fighters, between the UK cruiser and battleship.
Re: Zhukov’s post - German fighter/bomber vs UK battleship has 61% win, 20% mutual destruct (leaving the UK transport). So you may see the UK battleship and transport northwest of London, and the UK transport at East Canada both wiped.
Re: Early wipe of Allied fleet - with only a single UK transport to claim as a “bonus kill”, Germany may be well advised to leave a moderately well defended Allied fleet alone.
Re: Building “more” UK fleet - It’s not that advanced play requires more UK fleet. It’s just a question of the Allies responding to the German plays. If, say,Germany builds all ground and tries to crack Russia, you probably won’t need much more than 2 DD/AC. But if Germany builds air to stall out Allied fleets (maybe even just 1 fighter or bomber a turn), the Allies will need heavier fleet.
-
The question of a UK1 fleet build after G builds a carrier for the Baltic depends on how many G fighters survived the first turn and have landed on WEur/Norway. If there isn’t no fighters on Norway then the UK fleet has an 83% odd of surviving. The same if there’s only 1 fighter on WEur (91%). If you are really into stopping the UK from building UK1 then you will need 1 fighter/bomber in addition to the carrier.
True true. Actually if G gets unlucky and loses a fig in both 2 and 13 then all they should have is 2 figs on 5 and 1 fig in Lib……this should leave sz 8 open for the Allies to concentrate there.
If someone put a gun to my head and made me buy an AC G1, I’d be inclined to buy a fighter as well…this would allow for added security in dominating 8 and making sure the 5 fleet is safe (ie if you only place 1 fig in 5 then UK has over 50% odds to sink you UK1).
With respect to UK buying fleet as a response…imho it would only be safe if you can safely place in 8 and receive American reinforcements. Otherwise the threat of Sea Lion looms, since Germany should have 2 land units, 1 cruiser, 1 bmb, and 4-6 figs at its disposal.
-
Otherwise the threat of Sea Lion looms, since Germany should have 2 land units, 1 cruiser, 1 bmb, and 4-6 figs at its disposal.
Destroyer, not cruiser :)
-
some of the discussion seems to be suggesting that Allied control of the northern atlantic is optional for britain’s strategy. doesn’t UK pretty much HAVE to have a fleet? regardless of how much G can threaten with fighters, bombers, AC, etc., UK will eventually need to be able to transport units to the mainland, which means being able to defend transports, which can only be done with a navy. otherwise landing fighters in russia will be britain’s sole contribution to taking on germany. which now that i think about it might not be a terrible strategy. (probably makes for a boring game for the UK player.)
-
You don’t need to control the Atlantic with UK to the extent of destroying any German Baltic navy. Just make enough to handle what Germany can throw at you (with a safety margin of course). If you overbuild too heavily on UK navy, you delay landing in Europe.
Usually Germany will do whatever it can to force UK to confront the Baltic navy, while minimizing the cost to Germany in air power. Good placement and movement by UK usually cuts down the German options a lot, especially if Germany didn’t drop IPCs into Baltic fleet.
Building early fighters with UK to fly to Russia doesn’t work well. A fighter is 10 IPCs and defends at 4; you pay 2.5 IPC per dice pip. Infantry is 3 IPC and defends at 2; you pay 1.5 IPC per dice pip. Considering you pay 166% per dice pip for fighters - best go inf/tank even at the cost of building a fleet.
-
i guess i was just thinking if you went fighters, they would be there and contributing 1 to 2 rounds sooner and you’re spared the cost of transports and a protective fleet. plus they can adjust their role easily, if the german front is going OK they can help against japan or even africa. but like i said, i don’t know if that would be a fun game for UK, not doing much but moving planes around and defending.
-
UK1 defensive fleet, UK2 transport and ground build, UK3 drops 6 units to Karelia/Archangel. (Could be 4 units if Germany chanced sub vs E Can transport and fighter/bomber vs UK battleship). Contrast with UK1 fighters, UK2 fighters, UK3 fighters.
UK Air: UK2 3 fighters in Europe, UK3 5 fighters in Europe, UK4 8 fighters in Europe, UK5 11 fighters in Europe.
UK Navy: UK2 nothing, UK3 6 ground units in Europe, UK4 12-14 ground units in Europe, UK5 20 ground in Europe.If the game lasts 5+ turns, you’ll want to have built UK navy as soon as possible.
–
20 IPC of fighters attacks 18 IPC of infantry. Expected result of 1 round of combat: 2 dead fighters and 1 dead infantry. That’s 20 IPCs the attacker loses and 3 IPCs the defender loses. Admittedly, it isn’t quite so simple in the actual game, but going pure air is not a sustainable long-term strategy.
-
i’ll agree that UK fighters would be weaker than unopposed UK transports to the mainland, but the planes would enable russia to take and hold more territory, improving russia’s position and denying germany income, which could significantly marginalize the difference between what the transport can bring and what the planes add up to.
i’m envisioning the planes as a support role rather than attacking anything of germany’s. with stacks of russian infantry backing them up i think they will make it very very hard for germany to gain ground against russia.
also if germany did build the navy, then he can destroy britain’s defensive fleet with halfway decent odds. in that situation, seems like going air makes a lot of sense for UK.
all of this is theory on a beginner’s part, poised against much more experience so i do honestly believe you are most likely correct, but this is a thing i will have to learn through experience :-)
Suggested Topics
