@ncscswitch:
Leave the TRN behind when you mearge the fleet and transfer from Western to Algeria, out of range of Russian and UK FIGs. You still get the forces in, with added defense against a US landing, and in a solid mass that completly covers Africa by the time you are done.
Okay, so you have the following fleet layout on UK1:
1 Aircraft Carrier, 2 Fighters, 2 Submarines, 1 Destroyer, 1 Transport in Sea Zone 5
1 Battleship in Sea Zone 13 with possession of Algeria
1 Transport in Sea Zone 15.
UK 1: 2 Fighters, 1 Bomber to Sea Zone 13. Dead Battleship. Land in Gibraltar.
USSR 2: 2 Fighters to Sea Zone 15, dead Transport.
Fleet Linkup? None.
And, for the record: UK buys 3 fighters to use in conjunction with the Battleship and 2 Transports should Germany be audacious enough to attempt to get out of SZ 5. Meanwhile, W. Europe is a juicey target for both Britian and America as they can now build there. That means, Germany actually has to protect it instead of bouncing back and forth allowing landings then slaughtering them.
No, you have GOT to take Gibraltar with your transport to protect your Med fleet from attack. Otherwise, a linkup on G2 is 100% impossible.
A couple of thoughts on this.
First, this is where I am coming from:
Can Germany afford to be a naval power?
Assume the worst case for Germany, and that is when the Allies are all concentrating on Berlin. That is called KGF, or Kill Germany First. Russia has about 5 rounds before they need to spend a nickel on Japan because it takes that long for Japan to threaten Moscow. So assume that between 24 and 32 Russian IPCs are heading west every round. If Germany is down money to Russia but up money in Africa, they could maintain a paycheck between 30 and 42. On average, Germany will be ahead of Russia by somewhere between 6 and 10 IPCs. That has a few implications:
If the Allies are really going KGF, then the UK has nothing better to do than to put boats in the water until the German boats are dead. That means the UK will buy 30 IPCs of boats and planes every round. Compare that with the 6-10 IPCs Germany can spare from Russia, and it is clear that the Germans can’t be naval builders for long even if the US does nothing.
That’s from Caspian Sub Policy Paper #11.
So in that context, building 1car in the Baltic and 1IC in WEU and you’ve spent 31 IPCs. The implication of building the IC is that you will build MORE navy, or you wouldn’t bother building the IC. So figure a minimum of 2 more units for 16 IPCs. **That is 47 IPCs in the water.** Based on the differential between the Russian and the German paycheck, Russia should be all over Germany with explosive growth.
R1 Russia builds something like 4inf 3art.  R2 if they see 1car 1IC they should build all tanks and go down Germany’s throat.
The Allies should be over-joyed to see those builds. Who needs to land UK and US units in Europe if Germany has no ground troops and Russia has a lot of Germany’s money?
Straw:
Fundamental flaw with your scenario. Do you really think England is going to own Africa those first few rounds? I doubt it, so you’re not going to have 30 IPCs a round to be doing anything. Heck, you might not even have 30 IPCs on R1 if Germany goes SBR on R1 to England.
Hey J.
The quote from the paper is talking about typical games, and yeah, in most games I have 30 or more IPCs for the UK for the majority of rounds. I go back to Anglo R1 so I collect 30 R1. I often take Norway R2 or R3 to offset the loss of India. By the time I lose other territories like AUS, I am swapping places like EEU and WEU, so I tend to have about $30. I’m sure that’s not the case for all games, but it’s a decent baseline figure for the analysis.
In this SPECIFIC instance with the massive WEU naval buildup, UK would still own Africa since the German fleets are united. The UK may or may not get NOR R2, but you’re not really talking about a dramatic deviation in the situation; the UK will still be able to put down 3 boats per round if they want to. The point of the quote from the paper is that if Germany is putting money in the water, then Russia should be stomping Germany like a narc at a drug rally.
Thanks for the feedback.
The Germans have a strong fleet to start with, and a better air force. They do NOT have to spend as much as the Allies to maintain superiority. It is easier and cheaper to build a defensive fleet than an offensive one, but the German fighters give the German navy an added punch.
On the other hand, if Germany spends any sort of serious resoruces on ships and/or an industrial complex, Russia is going to be very strong, and Germany has to race BOTH the Allies. Add to that the fact that if the Allies position their navy correctly, the German navy will have to commit to attacking the Allied fleet before it can reach full power, but the weakened German navy will then be far more vulnerable to an air attack.
Let’s say you had an African bid (German fleet unificaiton is very costly otherwise because of Anglo-Egypt). German takes Anglo-Egypt and Gibraltar, and attacks the UK Gibraltar battleship with battleship, sub, and transport (for Gibraltar), possibly a fighter or two. The UK destroyer at the Med is now stranded, and UK fighters from London cannot hit the Mediterranean fleet because of a lack of landing space. If the Germans built a Baltic carrier for protection (which I do not necessarily say is a good idea), and put only four fighters land in Western Europe, the Allies cannot stop fleet unification except at a heavy price. If the Allies put a USSR sub west of Algeria, it’s just cleared by the W. Europe airforce. If the Allies put the entire Allied fleet of 4 trns, 1 sub, 1 btl west of Algeria, this is crushed by Germany’s 1 trns, 1 sub, 1 btl, 5-6 fighter and bomber.
So assume the Allies run away, and the Germans can unite their fleet at West Europe, which will now be 2 trns, 3 sub, 1 destr, 1 carrier, 2 fighters, 1 battleship. Now what? If the German fleet stays west of W. Europe, US can build an air force and fleet, unite with UK elements. Germany can smash that first fleet as soon as it comes within 2 spaces, but then Germany’s fleet is far away from reinforcements and also vulnerable to a massive US air attack. If Germany doesn’t smash that first fleet, the Allies just build it up until the Allies can smash the German fleet. (What else do the US and UK have to spend on?)
US already starts with 2 destroyers and two transports, as well as probably three fighters (Hawaii, W. US, E. US) and bomber (E. US). The UK starts with a battleship and 1-2 transports (but if the Germans attacked a UK transport, it will lose a sub to UK air). USSR has a sub. So you already have a defensive fleet of 4 trns 1 sub 2 destr 1 btl without the Allies spending a single IPC. Two subs and a carrier make the Allied fleet STRONGER on defense than the German fleet’s defense, and just a few subs and carriers or battleships or fighters allow the Allies to even attack (a multinational force is lousy for attacking, but good on defense; in this case, though, US can ramp up production very quickly and become a real threat).
All this could possibly be countered by Germany, but factor in the USSR bashing down the door in the east, and the fact that Germany can’t seriously threaten anything with the German fleet, and the fact that the UK and US really have to worry about building anything but navy/air (because Germany should not be able to invade London against a good Allied player, so the US and UK can produce almost nothing but ground and air).
You could say that Japan might attack the US, but that means less pressure on Russia, and the US can easily counter, even while maintaining a defensive fleet in the Atlantic.
Germany does NOT have to withdraw to the Baltic. They can stage in SZ6 on G3, sealing hte Baltic, able to be directly reinforced from Western, and still be an immediate invasion thread to UK.
They can also move out form there and drop a mass of forces in Archangel… behind the Russian front lines.
If they stay in SZ7, then WCan is at immediate risk.
There IS a definite risk to Germany on the Russian Front, no doubt about that.
But in a defensive posture, Germany can hold their territory a LONG time… especially if Japan can shuck hard into Asia (11 divisions J2 forward)
As for Africa… The US is closed out due to the Germany fleet (they can kill any early US fleet in SZ12 without breaking a sweat). An IC by UK in UOSA is suicide, sicne Germany can do a mass TRN buy and hammer London over and over whhile UK spends money in Africa. And of course Japan can come for Africa too.
It would indeed be a fun game to play with a massive Kreigsmarine. But I would only do so for fun for the first SEVERAL attempts to see where the mid and long term flaws are in the strat. It is just TOO radical to attempt in a game that counted (such as a Tournament…).
Mmm . . . well, it really isn’t a topic that can be covered in one or two short posts, although I did mention how I thought the mechanics would work out (I’ve tried it myself, but without the W. Eur IC).
I would think, though, that the Allies should be able to force Germany to commit either to the Mediterranean or the Baltic (the German fleet doesn’t actually have to be IN the Med or the Baltic, but the German player will play differently depending on if Africa or a push through Archangel is the focus.
If Germany concentrates on Africa with a unified fleet, it gets Africa and security for Western Europe, but trades off most of the eastern front and allows the Allies to attack Norway/Karelia/E. Europe or fortify into Archangel.
If Germany goes into the Mediterranean to help attack Caucasus, Western Europe is put at risk.
If Germany concentrates on the Baltic, it gets security for Western Europe, but is vulnerable to a major landing at Algeria that threatens S. Europe the next turn.
Both scenarios are vulnerable to Allied air/naval buildup.
Germany’s threat of 5 transports at Western Europe on G2 is pretty good, but the Allies SHOULD be able to defend; it’s an attack that can be seen coming after the G1 naval moves and IC build.
Don’t hink short term. Think long term.
Forget massed TRNs (they only need a few). Think AC’s for Germany… AC’s that can be dropped with an existing fleet that is in the Atlantic, not caged in the Baltic of Med.
Africa is cut off for quite a while. Allies can make ONE landing there before their fleet is sunk. Germany retreats to SZ7 or 6 and rebuilds.
Northern Europe is cut off. UK sends fleet to SZ3 or 4, Germany kills it, then back to Western to reinforce what is left.
Britian basically can’t build navy AT ALL early on. Even SZ2 is within range of teh German fleet and Air. They can build FIGs and BOM, but for Navy, they have to accumulate enough cash to do a massive drop all at once. And the US has to build up for several turns before THEY can move.
So Germany is left with just Russia. And I mean JUST Russia, because the Allies can;t touch Germany without losing their fleets and taking even LONGER to get to Europe.
Germany starts out with a major advantage in offensive units. After G1, Germany is building about 2/3 land, 1/3 naval. That puts them even with Russia in terms of INF. But with the ARM advantage Germany can, if played well, leverage thsoe ARM into solid gains against Russia.
TripleA much? Why not see how it works out, is what I say.
I am sure I will test it sometime in the not too distant future.
Just can;t pre-declare it. Need R1 to go off “as normal” :-)
@ncscswitch:
I am sure I will test it sometime in the not too distant future.
Just can;t pre-declare it. Need R1 to go off “as normal” :-)
Funny, that’s how I feal about American Pac Strat. :)
Seriously though, I don’t think Germany can pull it off. You’d most assuredly loose the entire Med Fleet with your positions, Switch, I’d see to it knowing exactly what you plan to do with that solitary battleship. Meanwhile, if you don’t do it that way and move the Transport and shut off Gibraltar, I’d still know what you are doing and set up to take out your fleet that way with a 1/2 punch from England/America and maybe a follow up with a Russian sub if you happened to have anything left standing.
I just don’t see it being fiscally possible, strategically possible or realistically possible given the strategies today.
Only Playtesting will ever tell :-o
Yea, it will. I honestly don’t see how Japan can both keep America at bay and move into Russia. Russia is too vast in Revised. And if America moves fast enough, Japan’ll loose out trying to do a land grab in Asia before committing in the sea.
Same things with the German factory in W. Europe. You built an AC on G1. A factory on G2. On G3 you have nothing to fight back against the Russians with. On G4 you have no fleet due to RAF/R.Navy, Army Air Corps/US Navy and now you have to protect Germany, Western and Southern from invasions, thus limiting your ability to jostle back and force from Western to Eastern and back building up a large stack of men to feed into the furnace on a push to Moscow.
In other words, I think the IC gives you nothing back and ties you down too much. You cannot allow America or England to take and hold it for a turn, which means you have to defend it or committ to retaking it after every landing.
If America goes KJF in this situation, then a Candian Shield variant opens up for Germany.
And it si real darn tough to build ships to send after Japan as the US when you have German INF, ART, and ARM pounding at Washington.
I definently think it is possible because you only need to match Russia and they can’t break your line and if US is going after Japan then UK will definently have to save up for about 3 turns to build an effective navy which gives Germany some more time to build up assuming 1/3 income goes to Navy so I think it would be a realy fun game!
@ncscswitch:
Only Playtesting will ever tell :-o
I’ve had that idea a year ago and played it twice. It was pretty funny, but I was too inexperimented to fully explore the possibilities as Germany.
I tried doing a German Navy strat by playing all 5 powers on TripleA and the dice always seem to be bad for me on there but basically what happened was pretty early on America could out produce Germany in Navy and was ready to take the Kriegsmarine out pretty quick
It comes down to the other element of the strat…
Germany ahs to ALSO get forces into Africa. They ahve to take those IPCs from UK as quickly as possible, while also forcing UK to biuld expensive naval units. IPC losses early will cripple UK’s navy, and the Kreigsmarine/Luftwaffe take out the navy, the remnants reinfroce to hold the Americans back another round or 2, and UK is left with needing to build both TRNs and land units with an income under 20. THAT takes a while.
@ncscswitch:
If America goes KJF in this situation, then a Candian Shield variant opens up for Germany.
And it si real darn tough to build ships to send after Japan as the US when you have German INF, ART, and ARM pounding at Washington.
I think I didn’t explain myself well. I meant that just as the American Pac Strat cannot be proven until a game that no one suspects it happening occurs, likewise you cannot test this one until the same circumstances occur.
I wasn’t saying that America should do a Pac Strat if Germany builds an IC in France. Actually, Brition should make all effort to get that IC and let America reinforce them heavily with fighters, armor and infantry to prevent a recapture and then use that IC to build massive forces to attack Germany forcing them to either sacrifice more men and equipment holding it, or retaking it, then they would normally need to do when offering to trade the land.
Here’s what I see happening:
G1 Aircraft Carrier, move BB to SZ 13
UK1: 3 Fighters, 2 Fighters, 1 bomber attack SZ 13 (most probably case BB gets to hits and is sunk), BB returns to England
USA1: 2 DD, 4 TRN in SZ 10 (2 tran purchased)
G2: SZ 5 fleet moves to SZ 7 or 6, build IC in W. Europe
UK2: BB, 2 TRN, 3 FIG, 1 BMB attack Germany Fleet, worst most likely case England left with a damanged Battleship, German fleet sunk
USA2: Move to Sea Zone 8, unload in England 4 full transports, build 1 transport, and move BB/Trn from Panema up to E. USA
The only way to stop that is to invade Gibraltar in which case England cannot legally bring her fighters to SZ 13 (since there’s no where for them to land). 1 BB, 1 TRN vs 1 BMB is a loosing proposition for the bomber.
If you do that, you might have a chance of a unification in SZ 7, but you’re still going to get slammed by 5 Fighters, 1 Bomber, 1 Battleship, 2 Transports on UK 2 which is a 58% chance of reducing you to a damaged Battleship. Add a second strike by America with a fighter and a bomber and you loose that battleship before you can build more fleet.
As I mentioned, I really, REALLY don’t see you pulling this off. Sure, if you can manage to decieve the allies and get your fleet unified in SZ 7 with an IC in W. Europe you can start putting a sub +/- a transport or a destroyer in the water every so often to annoy them. Maybe even a second carrier and 2 more fighters. But don’t try it against me, your fleet will be rusting before you even get the paint dry.
Here’s what I see happening:
G1 Aircraft Carrier, move BB to SZ 13
UK1: 3 Fighters, 2 Fighters, 1 bomber attack SZ 13 (most probably case BB gets to hits and is sunk), BB returns to England
USA1: 2 DD, 4 TRN in SZ 10 (2 tran purchased)G2: SZ 5 fleet moves to SZ 7 or 6, build IC in W. Europe
UK2: BB, 2 TRN, 3 FIG, 1 BMB attack Germany Fleet, worst most likely case England left with a damanged Battleship, German fleet sunk
USA2: Move to Sea Zone 8, unload in England 4 full transports, build 1 transport, and move BB/Trn from Panema up to E. USAIf you do that, you might have a chance of a unification in SZ 7, but you’re still going to get slammed by 5 Fighters, 1 Bomber, 1 Battleship, 2 Transports on UK 2 which is a 58% chance of reducing you to a damaged Battleship. Add a second strike by America with a fighter and a bomber and you loose that battleship before you can build more fleet.
As I mentioned, I really, REALLY don’t see you pulling this off. Sure, if you can manage to decieve the allies and get your fleet unified in SZ 7 with an IC in W. Europe you can start putting a sub +/- a transport or a destroyer in the water every so often to annoy them. Maybe even a second carrier and 2 more fighters. But don’t try it against me, your fleet will be rusting before you even get the paint dry.
Yeah, if it was pulled off like that,. But -
1. I think it was actually a G1 IC allowing immediate reinforcement of the W. Europe fleet on G2. As far as I could tell, that was the whole point of a W. Europe IC.
2. It isn’t UK bomber 2 fighters vs lone battleship. Every time, it should be German sub from Atlantic, German battleship and transport from Med at Gibraltar. Germany attacks with a few fighters, and kills the UK battleship with no losses in most cases. But notice that a German bid is essential because you can’t really leave Anglo-Egypt alone without paying a heavy price. So this pretty much ASSUMES a German African bid that lets Germany hit; should be at least 2 units placed to hit Anglo G1. So you have 3 inf 1 tank 1-2 fig 1 bom vs Anglo, you take Gibraltar with probably no losses, and ignore the UK destroyer, so it’s battleship, transport, sub against UK destroyer and bomber.
Everything else depends on those initial assumptions. Change them, and you change the analysis.
