Can Germany win without a Baltic carrier?


  • Another possibility for UK is to attack on UK 1 with planes only.  Then it would most likely leave the 3 submerged subs plus 3 bombers, against the entire UK fleet.  And Uk would likely only lose 1 bomber.  This battle (assuming a max UK buy) would be 3 subs, 3 bombers vs. 1 battleship, 1 carrier, 2 figs, 2 transports.  An 85% win for the UK with the likely result being 1 battleship, 1 carrier, 1 fighter left.  Probably not good for the Germans.  So I would assume this is the best response?

    If so, how do you play Germany from here?


  • Just a few suggestions.

    Have the UK attack sz7 with all available units.  Build an AC and transport or DD to place in sz7 - land 1 UK fighter on the new AC. Â

    On US1, attack any surviving subs with the US bomber and the US fighter from EUS.  Because of the UK AC, the US fighter can fly the 4 spaces and land on the AC. Â

    Move the Russian sub to sz12 to block the German BB and Trn from reaching sz7.  If the Germans want to attack sz7 with air only (and maybe 1 sub), so be it. Â

    SS


  • And, in response to your initial query, my answer is yes, Germany can win without a Baltic carrier.  In fact, I prefer that to wasting money on the AC.  Germany is a land power, not a sea power.

    SS


  • Hey SS, how successful have you been in your games w/o buying a German AC?  Doesn’t NOT having an AC affect your homeland defence?


  • Quite successful.  No problem with homeland defence.  The extra ground units are more than enough to do the job.

    SS

  • 2007 AAR League

    @saburo:

    Quite successful.  No problem with homeland defence.  The extra ground units are more than enough to do the job.

    SS

    16 IPCs worth of ground units dont seem to make as much as a difference as the carrier does in the overall protection of Europe. I think that without the carrier UK will be able to threaten Germany much sooner than with it.


  • All you get from the carrier is the ability to trade Norway one or two turns longer then otherwise.  Whenever I am playing Allies, I am happy when my opponent builds a G1 AC.

    SS


  • You also get protection against amphibeous assaults in Germany for several turns.

  • 2007 AAR League

    nobody would try dropping in on Germany for a while.

    That should be a power-house with some fgts around it to prevent the UK from even thinking of landing on it even if the seas are clear.

  • Moderator

    I’m with Saburo and NoMercy on this one.

    Given Germany’s starting units, I think a couple all land (or a ftr thrown in there) purchases on G1 and G2 make it extremely difficult for the Allies to consider any sort of direct landing on EE or Ger on the first several rds.

    Infact, I don’t think I’ve built a ship on G1 in my last 7-8 games as the Axis and I’ve NEVER seen an Allied 1-2 on WE, GER, or EE prior to say rd 5.  Usually you see it coming and can pull out and deadzone WE on about G5 further protecting Ger and EE and shift more towards Ukr.  Although if you wish you can still defend WE but it is around that time I try and shift everything East, since Japan sould now be built up and nearing Moscow as well.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I’d actually go so far as to say that Germany cannot win WITH a Baltic Carrier against a good opponent.  You want a carrier, put it in the Med so you can KEEP Africa.  But better yet, just make the tanks and infantry (10 infantry, 2 armor > 8 Infantry, 1 Carrier IMHO)

    Also, forgo the bombers.  It’s okay to use yours that you start with against England in SBR to keep it from recovering.  But it’s not needed.

    Same with Gibraltar.  Just keep pummelling Egypt/T-J and ignore the rest.

    The goal here is not to delay the Allies, it’s to crush Russia before Japan can eat your land!  (or before Russia can walk their troops back from the front lines to stop you!)


  • 1.  Yeah, Germany can win without a Baltic carrier.
    2.  2 bombers is probably not sound for Germany.  Germany needs early infantry for the push towards Moscow.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Germany needs tanks and infantry, not pretty little boats.  I’ll gladely give England E. Europe and W. Europe because I’ll have Caucasus and Moscow by the time he gets them. (Remember, he has to defend against 5/6 fighters and a bomber and that’s AFTER he gets through your Baltic Fleet!)

  • 2007 AAR League

    With a carrier you can also use it to strike at Britains Navy if the opportunity arises with FIGs that couldn’t normaly reach.


  • You know, I have been a fan of the Baltic AC since my second game of Revised.

    THIS game I chose not to do the AC, and it has worked out well.  But this is not a fair judge due to the US pulling that pretty worthless feint in the Pacific.

    Lesson #1:  NEVER change core strat mid-game.

  • 2007 AAR League

    I have won without a Baltic CV. Although, I do purchase a CV/TP for the Med. All it does is instantly limit Germany to defending the core European territories and gaining it’s IPC’s from Africa at the expense of the UK instead of Europe/western Asia at the expense of Russia.

    The goal is for Germany to hold the lines in Europe and Egypt to force Russia into a head to head battle with Japan. It’s risky because Russia can get pretty big so your Japanese moves have to be ultra efficient. So far, I haven’t found a critical weakness that will make it completely obsolete but, it has it’s drawbacks.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @ncscswitch:

    You know, I have been a fan of the Baltic AC since my second game of Revised.

    THIS game I chose not to do the AC, and it has worked out well.  But this is not a fair judge due to the US pulling that pretty worthless feint in the Pacific.

    Lesson #1:  NEVER change core strat mid-game.

    Admittedly, you lucked out on the dice rolls against Brition 3 rounds in a row and Russia 2 rounds out of 3.  The only ones holding their own are the Americans and only because you got slightly unlucky at Pearl and Pearl Counter attack.

    Also, I didn’t change strategy.  I just built my boats in SZ 55 instead of 10.  Not like they were needed in the Atlantic in Round 2 or 3 Anyway and now that they are a few rounds from being of use, they are a few rounds from where I want to use them.

  • 2007 AAR League

    Play LL. Germany does not need a navy.


  • @ezto:

    Play LL. Germany does not need a navy.

    1.  No.

    2.  I disagree to some extent.  My belief is that Germany must make the best of its existing naval resources, to aid in the attack on Africa, Ukraine, and the Caucasus in the Mediterranean, to counter Norway and threaten London, and to hold off the Allied Atlantic fleet.  That does not necessarily mean that Germany must build MORE naval units, but saying that Germany does not need a navy is, I feel, a very extreme statement.

    If you were to remove all of Germany’s navy before starting, I think it very unlikely that the Germans would be able to obtain any sort of good position.  Of course, I am sure that is not what you meant, ezto.  Or was it?  Dun dun dun!


  • If I could trade the 76 IPC value of the German navy, I would do it in a second.  I would take 2 Inf and 1 Arm in Libya and 13 Arm in Ukraine (or even in Germany if you think it is unfair to put them in Ukraine).  Germany is a land power.  It’s objective is to take out Russia and in the absence of being able to do that it’s objective is to stay alive long enough for Japan to take out Russia.  It doesn’t need a navy to do that.

    SS

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

44

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts