Thanks for the help guys
Can Germany win without a Baltic carrier?
-
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. -
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!)
-
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.
-
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.
-
@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.
-
Play LL. Germany does not need a navy.
-
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
-
No, it does not NEED one, but it DOES help, especially to keep income up in Africa for the first couple of turns :-)
-
The idea bolstering the Baltic fleet with a carrier is that it dictates the tempo of the game by forcing the Allies to respond to your purchases rather than immediately being on the defensive in the Atlantic.
Spending much more than 16 IPCs on navy with Germany is IMO risky at best. But that 16 IPCs creates a threat to Allied shipping and Britain itself that must be taken into consideration. When coupled with the Luftwaffe it creates some logistical problems for Allied Atlantic movements for several turns. It allows at least a credible chance to retake Norway and burn up some Allied troops before they can provide relief to Russia. And it lengthens the range of 2 fighters while the carrier lives.
Yes Germany can win without a Baltic carrier; I’ve done it a bunch of times as I’m sure most of us have. But the initial cost seems to be outweighed by the benefits.
All this is coming from someone who used to swear I’d never buy a naval piece- all land was the way to go with Germany. But I’ve seen the light, and I win more consistently with it than without it.
-
@saburo:
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
Dope! OF COURSE YOU WOULD TRADE NAVAL UNITS FOR GROUND UNITS WITH GERMANY! The question is NOT whether or not you can trade in naval units for ground units. It is whether or not Germany needs its navy given the existing board setup. Or specifically, the Baltic carrier.
If you want to do wildly hypothetical things like swap out naval units for ground units, then start a new thread!
(edit: flame against Sakai not needed)
“It doesn’t need a navy to do that.”
Oh, okay, so hows about you trade your entire navy for ONE German infantry in Ukraine? Clearly not a fair trade?
My viewpoint is that you NEED the German navy to stall out the Allies in the Atlantic. I debate whether or not it is necessary to purchase new naval units for Germany, but I believe Germany needs its existing navy. Without going into hypotheticals about switching out units!
-
I missed the flame. It got edited before I read it. Can I at least know what it said :-D
-
@saburo:
I missed the flame. It got edited before I read it. Can I at least know what it said :-D
Oh, it probably had something to do with a crack pipe, you know, my usual thing. No real and serious harmful intent. But probably abrasive (nods owly head), yes, very probably. I do that sometimes, you know. Tee heez. :evil:
-
I’ve never bought a Baltic CV (or any navy with Germany) but sounds like it is worth trying.
IMO the game comes down to how efficiently the US and UK manage to project their superior production across the Atlantic. For that they need clear shipping lanes. If Germany can prevent or delay that, then Germany has the time to project its superior production against the Soviets.
When I’ve won as Germany it’s because I blew up allied transports as quickly as the allies could build them. If a CV helps with that, I’m all for it.
-
Play LL. Germany does not need a navy.
Never give Germany a bid higher then 1 IPC in LL. They’re way too strong otherwise. Hell, I’d take Switch with a 5 IPC bid to be subjected to being the allies in a LL game of AAR. (that’s 5 IPC he gets to spend for the allies!) Why? Cause there’s not a bat chance in hades you’re getting an Allied navy in the Atlantic until Turn 5.
-
Ya know, Frood, I’ve gone pretty heavy Navy with Germany a couple of times. Works out well. Russia’s at a disadvantage in most games with Japan comming in and Germany starting with so much in the way of land forces.
Add in 1 inf, 1 arm in Ukraine so he has almost no chance of taking it and plop down an 40 IPC in naval units (BB/AC works beautifully) and then just crush the British. They can only get 8 units a round in England. 5 Transports +2 starting and 2 battleships plus 7 infantry, 7 armor and England’s toast. Russia’s in E. Europe/Balkans, but England’s non-existant.
-
I was wondering about a battleship too, but thought, “that’s a bit pricey…”
Another alternative is a stack of 3 subs. Consider:
- They cost the same as 1 BB.
- They add 6 to punch, rather than 4
- They sustain 3 hits instead of 2 (although not self-healing, but cheaper to replace)
- They get that nice opening attack
- But downside: vulnerable to air attack. Depends how and where the RAF are. If Germany has no navy I often fly the RAF to Caucasus to help defend against Germany and be available for support in the east, but if there are a bunch of fighters in UK the BB may be better.
I’m liking that naval option more and more as I think about it. Just spend what you need to to keep Russia at bay, and let Japan grind it out. It makes D-Day a lot more expensive for the allies.
-
Well, suceptability to air attack only matters if you cannot get a unit to protect it.
3 Subs are slightly better then 1 battleship.
2 Destroyers are way better then 1 battleship. They are just as good as fighters attacking them in defending themselves. They prevent submarines from escaping or going under the fleet to attack soft targets and they negate sneak shots. Still a punch of 6 on both offense and defense at a cost of 24.
-
But in SMALL battles that “free hit” is worth a hell of a lot also…
Again, depends on the battle and the situation which one is better…
Suggested Topics
