How many ships do purchase as Germany in a typical game?

[ToySoldier]

Well I play my first game of “Revised” in a small tournament of all things. I’m a long time 2nd ed. Player via Zone.com

I’ve been pouring all over for ideas (I play Allies this Sat)… I went to  http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Caspian_Sub/ and reviewed his strategy of putting 2 tra instead of an AC. I’ll quote some of it here… any thoughts?

Two Transports
What else can we get with those 16 IPCs?  Subs are still not a great buy since we’re worried about planes, so let’s look at 2tra.  Here are the top three outcomes in the sim when we add two transports to the navy:

Outcome Times AFtr Abmr DTra DSub DDes
Defender    Wins 210 2 1
Defender    Wins 185 1 1
Defender    Wins 165 3 1

**The defender wins about 72% of the time.**  That is comparable to the destroyer.  The UK could strafe this fleet, but that is a substantial gamble.  A strafe is likely to only trade UK fighters for German subs, and most German players would be very happy with that trade.

The objective is to escape and merge with Med

[trihero]

I’ve done 2 transports before. It has its own sets of pros and cons.

The first thing to understand is that you require a bid in Africa (Libya/Algeria). You must take Egypt on G1, otherwise the UK gets a windfall of units to use against you across your underbelly, meaning you’ll make no progress in Africa whatsoever. How large the bid is depends on your confidence. It could be as low as 1 inf, and it may be as high as 1 inf 1 arm if you’re counting on losing the fighter in Ukraine.

The next in line is that you’re attempting to link the med and baltic fleets together to create a threatening navy. If you don’t do so, the carrier is a better buy if you simply want to sit there because of the immense increase in defense it presents (+9 dice points, +1 count vs 2 transports).

The third thing is that if you’re serious about threatening UK/US with those transports, you need to keep a modest number of units in W. Europe. Some people don’t do that, and sometimes you really don’t want nor need to because the landing the Allies can present early on is insignificant.

If you understand those points, then the 2 transport buy works viably. The major pro of 2 transports vs 1 carrier is that you don’t need to keep your fighters out at sea. Buying a carrier essentially does mean you create another territory you have to defend with fighters. 2 transports also gives you potentially great flexibility if the linked fleet makes it back to the med. 2 transports is also better than 1 carrier if you’re just going to suicide your navy.

There is one counter that I like as the US against a 2 tran buy. The US starts off with 2 fighter 1 car as their purchase, and moves their existing navy to SZ1. On US2, they can attack the linked fleet with 5 fighter 1 bomber 1 dest 2 tran, which has a high chance of wiping everything out there. Still, the US is set back. It has likely lost 2 of its existing transports, and has built none to compensate for it. According to my experience in a few games against myself, the results still tend towards an Allied victory, but I couldn’t tell you for sure as my style keeps changing a bit and you can never tell with some fluky dice here and there.

A carrier buy + naval link is pretty deadly. The US doesn’t have a quick counter to it, and it’s a very nasty fleet defensively. It may have not much flexibility as 2 transports and does require your fighters float out in the waters, but neither do you have to station troops in W. Europe, and it’s very likely that your fleet will live past Turn 2.

[Jennifer]

And yet, I still fail to see how spending 5 IPCs to get Jet Power, a round, is going to hand Eastern European Provinces to the Russians. :P

Seriously, if you’re going to go with a carrier and loose the carrier, 2 planes, a destroyer, 2 submarines and a transport, you are going to need to beef your airforce.  So you get 1 less tank until you get the tech.  big deal.  But two fighters defending at a 5 or less is infinitely better then 2 fighters defending at a 4 or less.  IMHO.

[Aretaku]

I don’t think I’d bother wasting money for Jet Fighters as Germany. Those fighters only purpose is to die…it’s just a question of where, when, and who they take with them.

Now Japan or America, on the other hand, both have the income early to spend $5 IPC per turn for a NICE defensive boost to any carrier group.

[trihero]

Infinitely better?

For each jet fighter you have, that is 1 extra defense point. If you have 6 fighters, that means on average you will kill 1 more unit per round once you get the research. You spent approximately 30 IPCs to gain 6 defense points? How about instead purchase 10 infantry for 20 defense points and 10 units to lose, in addition to capability to invade territories?

[Jennifer]

@trihero:

Infinitely better?

For each jet fighter you have, that is 1 extra defense point. If you have 6 fighters, that means on average you will kill 1 more unit per round once you get the research. You spent approximately 30 IPCs to gain 6 defense points? How about instead purchase 10 infantry for 20 defense points and 10 units to lose, in addition to capability to invade territories?

Actually, assuming your fighters get 3 rounds or more of combat before they are even targetted by an attacker, you’re getting 15 points vs 12 points per fighter, 6 fighters, that’s 18 extra defense points, or 3 more hits on average.

I’d say that’s a pretty darn good investment at the least.

[trihero]

Let’s say you get 18 defense points with the research at 30 IPCs cost on average. 30 IPCs = 10 infantry = 20 defense points multiplied by however many rounds (since you wanted to multiply the fighters, you’d have to be fair and multiply the infantry), and 10 bodies to take hits for the fighters. That’s an infinite improvement over Jet Fighters. Infantry in addition have the ability to take territories, to add insult to injury.

Admittedly there are some strange cirumstances in which you’d rather get Jet Fighters rather than infantry, but those are very strange circumstances and extremely unusual in terms of defense. You would need to have a lot of fighters to make Jet Fighters worth it.

[ajgundam5]

With jet fighters you have much more mobility to move them to where you want. Although you can’t just leave them someplace by themselves it definently boosts your defense quicker then infantry can.

[Jennifer]

Not to mention jet fighters are not only 2.5 times better at defense then an infantryman, but it has 4 times the range and 3 times the attack power.

[cdassak]

@trihero:

There is one counter that I like as the US against a 2 tran buy. The US starts off with 2 fighter 1 car as their purchase, and moves their existing navy to SZ1. On US2, they can attack the linked fleet with 5 fighter 1 bomber 1 dest 2 tran, which has a high chance of wiping everything out there. Still, the US is set back. It has likely lost 2 of its existing transports, and has built none to compensate for it. According to my experience in a few games against myself, the results still tend towards an Allied victory, but I couldn’t tell you for sure as my style keeps changing a bit and you can never tell with some fluky dice here and there.

I use a similar counter - buying the same for US but also buying 3 ftrs on UK1. This way UK can hit the merged German fleets in sz 7 on UK2 with 5ftrs 1bmr 1BB and 2 TRN and US can follow with the forces you mention on US2. Depending on how the UK attack goes the Allies can save either the UK or US transports and the German fleet death is certain. Also with the 3 ftr UK buy the German Baltic fleet is under threat for UK2 and MUST either come out and merge with the Med fleet or buy more vessels in the Baltic

[General_D.Fox]

What about buying a second carrier mebbe later on down the road, such as Ger 3 or 4? I realize it might nto be around that long even with  1 AC, but it could boost your Baltic defenses even more, especially with 4 fighters. yes, they may/will get wiped out, but they will provide some great defense and will destroy a nice part of the Allied fleet, depending on who it is.  I just thought of a 2nd AC lately, but you’d probably ahve to have lots of guys on the ground first. Just do a mass inf build from Ger 2 to 4/5, then do the buy, if the fleet is still around.

[DarthMaximus]

I’m normally a “no-ships or 1 ac” kind of player but I am seriously considering a second AC on G3 in this game I have going at DAAK.

I’m thinking it may lead to a “going after UK strat” BUT I’m just not sure if I’ll pull the trigger on it.Â

It is only J2 right now so I still have time to come to my senses, but I may indeed try it.  I’ll have to see how my opponent plays US 2 and R3.

[Flagstaff]

I only buy enough transports to secure africa.

[NoMercy]

africa is not secureable.

its a matter of how long you think you can stay in or delay or a matter of how badly you want the americans or amercians/british to pay for it.

[Jennifer]

I’ve thought of hte +2 trasports in the Med idea.  Allows germany to have 3 transports and a battleship, plenty to counter in Africa for a few rounds.

[General_D.Fox]

You could always use those transports to secure Africa and get more forces to Ukraine/Caucasus. That could work as well.

[88 Millimeter]

if you’re going to buy anything beyond a G1 carrier, a transport on G2 and G3 is a nice purchase, and it still allows you to build 10+ infantry per round on those two turns. The idea is that you add to your ability to hold/ counter Karelia, and counter landings in Norway. With your 6-7 unit Luftwaffe (depending on whether Russia killed the Ukraine on R1), any landing in Norway can be countered by 6 land units and multiple aircraft. If Norway is not being traded, those German units end up in Karelia instead, causing a headache for the Russians.

The idea of continually contesting Norway/ Karelia is to destroy Allied forces as they hit the ground. The Allied player feels good because German pieces are being killed in Norway rather than against Russia alone- but in actuality Russia is slowly being isolated to fight a 1 on 1 battle against a menacing Japan.

I don’t do this, because I personally can’t pull the trigger on that much German navy- but it is an effective strategy when coupled with an unhindered and well played Japan.Â

By the way, an intriguing antidote to a G1 naval build is 5 US subs. On US4 you can say goodbye to the Baltic fleet unless a substantial contribution was made to it. It also makes the German fleet link up feel a little less secure. Again- I’d go with a carrier, 2 transports and boots personally, but I know a player who does this and wins with it.

The transports in the Med idea is interesting, but it sacrifices the entire north of Europe to the Allies. IMO Germany contesting the north is hugely important. Once Karelia is firmly in the hands of the Allies, things had better be going REALLY well for Japan.

[Jennifer]

The idea would be to have the transports in the med.  Pump forces into Africa to secure it, but keep them close to Algeria, Libya and Egypt so you can make a sudden strike on Caucasus with 6 extra units that the Russians were not expecting.  Meanwhile, you slide completely under the Allied build up in Karelia.

Now, they can either move south to attack you, or retreat to Moscow.

You give up Karelia and Fin/Nor (5 IPCs) but you gain 8 in africa.

[88 Millimeter]

Those are all good points, Jen, but the Allies landing in the north on a consistent basis is a shot in the arm to Russia, and allows Russian troops to have more versatility.

Once the UK and US start eating into Belo and E Europe on a regular basis, and sliding some troops into West Russia and beyond, Russia can concentrate on defending against Japan.

As an Axis player you don’t want to see British and American infantry/ artillery/ armor/ fighters pooling in the middle of the game board. If they die in Noway, or Karelia, or Africa you are isolating Russia to do all the heavy lifting by themselves. By the time the Allies start arriving in force it may be too late if Japan has done its job.

I’m not saying your idea doesn’t have validity, but that’s just my experience.

[Jennifer]

well, one would hope Germany could convince America to go africa instead of Finland here.  that would curtail 50%-75% or Russia’s aid.  :)