That’s why under Caspian Sub and tripleA ladder rules you can’t attack an enemy capital with ground troops in your first turn.
Like you mentioned, it turns a wonderful game into a coin flip and spoils the fun.
Can Germany win without a Baltic carrier?
-
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…
-
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.
Actually . . . no.
UK sees the German build of 3 subs, and counters with 3 fighters. Germany threatens an invasion with 1 inf 1 tank 6 fighter 1 bomber (any incoming attack from the Mediterranean can be blocked). UK defense is 1 AA, 1 bomber 2 inf 1 art 2 tank 5 fighter, and US can seal the deal with transports from W. US. UK navy can consolidate southwest of England. There is no real reason for UK NOT to run three fighters, because UK can’t run transports in the Atlantic (which it should do ASAP) while Germany still has a strong Baltic fleet.
So now you have these mostly useless Baltic subs - if you move them out of the Baltic, they are vulnerable to attack by UK navy and air - if they stay where they are, all they do is deter the Allied navy from getting close, but a 3 fighter response means the Allied navy doesn’t need to get close - and a weaker front against Russia. You have to respond to the threat by purchasing a carrier on G2. If you do not, 5 fig 1 bomber vs 5 sub 1 trns 1 destr is very bad.
If you WAITED to build Germany’s navy, to see where UK’s navy went, the UK should probably just try to blow up the Baltic fleet immediately, so it can start shuttling infantry into Europe on UK2.
-
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.
That crack-smoking owl makes some good points about the specific situation in the Baltic.
But aside from that, I still think 3 Subs are still better than 2 Destroyers.
3 Subs v. 1 Bat, Att. survives 80% of the time (Def survives 20%)
2 Des v. 1 Bat, Att. survives 51% (Def survives 32%)
3 Subs v. 2 Des, Att. survives 66% (Def. survives 28%)But air units throw a wrench into the works. That’s one thing that makes AAR a good game - if there was just one kind of unit that was always the best, everyone would just build that and there’d be a lot less strategy.
So then the question is, IF germany wants to go the Navy route, what’s the best combination of naval units, and what do you do with them?
-
in my opinion…an AC in the baltic is a good ideas…maybe a tranny as well to get troops to norway/karelia from germany.
however, i only suggest sea units if the land war is going well…you should have common sense…if russia is pressing then you should wait to build another tranny…take the 2 inf and save 2. also, the mediteranian oculd use more ships…but i’m not too fond of it…you either have to join the fleet…or make 2 fleets rele because the med can be wiped out when they go for africa. it’s good to get troops to the caucus’ and ukraine viz tranny…plus the BB shot :mrgreen:
i wouldn’t bother getting subs in the baltic…AF will just eat them alive. prolly buy 1AC 1 Des 1 Tranny…then i would have 2 subs 2 Destroyers 2 Tranny 1 AC and 2 Fighters in the baltic…not to bad of a navy there.
thats 36 IPC…possibly purchased by g3.
in the med i would buy 1 tranny, 2 Destroyers 2 subs… but i wouldn’t buy for both baltic and med.
too costly for germany…especially when russia is going all-out against you.
Feds 10
-
I think I agree that the best way for Germany to have a naval presence is to join the fleets, including the sub that’s out there by itself.
On second thought, subs don’t have to worry as much about air attack if they are accompanied by a CV, 2 fighters plus a DD. In that case the subs are certainly not sitting ducks.
-
I think I agree that the best way for Germany to have a naval presence is to join the fleets, including the sub that’s out there by itself.
On second thought, subs don’t have to worry as much about air attack if they are accompanied by a CV, 2 fighters plus a DD. In that case the subs are certainly not sitting ducks.
I usually use the lonely sub as fodder for the attack on the UK BB in SZ 13
-
Germany is not, and WILL NOT be a Naval Power.
The AC is to provide some options, some slash and burn possibilities against poorly played Allied fleets, and as a reinforcement defensive layer for Germany and Eastern in the early part of the game. Trying to go beyond such a use is inadvisable, or as others would say… sub-optimal.
Suggested Topics
