G1 Carrier Build



  • For G1, I seem to always hear CV + 2xTTs recommended as a build. I’ve tried to work it over, or play it out in TripleA, but I just can’t make myself into a believer. Still, the seeming consensus on this issue has me questioning myself.

    Would anyone care to sell me on this build?

    My typical G1 builds are either:

    a) 10xINF, headed immediately for Russia. Since Armour and Mecs can catch up later, early turn infantry fodder seems essential.

    b) No build. ~92 IPCs for my G2 build forces Britain to prepare for a huge Sea Lion, since it’s on the table for G3 and can’t be stopped with with UK2 builds/deployments alone. It also doesn’t give Russia enough information to make an aggressive build, since it can easily turn into tanks and men.

    I just can’t see how invading Russia with 10 INF less than usual wouldn’t be crippling. And it seems to me that the best (cheapest) way to deal with Allied landings is to simply smash them with your Air with a handful of infantry to soak hits. It takes ages for them to build up a big and secure transport fleet and drop enough units to become a real threat. At that point, the carrier isn’t going to be more helpful than a couple of subs, and you can build those later - while early slow moving Infantry can’t be built after turn 3-4 and expected to be useful against Moscow.


  • 2018 2017

    The german fleet move is so that you can continue to project that defensive threat.  With the 5 planes, its not advisable to attack you in SZ 112 most of the time, and its in 112 that you need to be in order to actually travel away from the Baltic and threaten 91, 127 AND 115.

    You can make a defensive fleet with less, but not much less.  Most of the time you’re going to want to have the cruiser, the battleship (if it lives), a carrier and 5 fighters.  Now your fleet can stand out (to the left of Denmark) and it can strike out and project threat.

    If you have something less than that, you have to hide in SZ 113, and you can be screened in (during combat) by a single destroyer placed in 112.  controlling 112 is the key to flexible threat and keeping the allies scrambling to cover all their fleets and cities.

    I don’t personally love infantry as German stackers, they are the worst unit in the game and not better than two units that cost only 1 more.  Of course, they remain good cheap defenders and blockers, but they are much worse in global than in the other games simply because in the earlier games, there were no other cheap unit, whereas in Global, you have several other better choices.  The mechs (and armor) are way better, bought early or late.  Its better to build that infantry stack G1 in the other AxA games IMO.

    your second idea is awesome, if they fall for it;  remembering you have to keep yourself to ONLY 10 units (lol)

    to your last point;  what you wanna do with Germany is threaten them with the Air AND the sea stuff, this way, if the US and UK didn’t build enough combat ships, their plans are simply delayed or cancelled while they run from your 15 hit offensive threat that can attack anywhere and lose subs, rather than fighters.

    Strategic bombers are better for both purposes, so I actually recommend buying one SB per turn with Germany, starting G1, every game.  Its not complicated and its generic against all allied moves.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016

    The coolest idea I ever came up with for an Axis victory required a G1 carrier/transport build. No, not sharing it, but it was hella fun!

    Marsh



  • A carrier (or at least a destroyer) allows you to retreat a BB from one of the sea zone battles and keep it alive long enough to repair.  That can be very beneficial to hinder the Allies from quickly building up a fleet off of Gibraltar.  Without Gibraltar, Italy loses a bonus and likely also loses the no-ships-in-Med bonus.  Furthermore Italy will have to spend a bit on reinforcement troops in Rome and Germany needs to start putting infantry in Paris.  Finally, buy purchasing all ground troops on G1, UK can simply purchase a couple planes in London and call it adequate protection against Sea Lion.  So much benefit from a carrier or destroyer, potentially.

    On the flip-side, getting additional ground troops into Russia is important. I do like building 6 art + 2 inf.  That gives an effective attack power of 20 compared to just 10 that you get from ten infantry.  Slightly weaker on defense but not dramatically.  My typical move is building 2 bombers which can be used to clean up sea zones, threaten Sea Lion, and also be used against the Russians.  All of these potential openings are valid and good.

    The big trap for the Axis is continued spending on an Atlantic fleet.  Eventually the US will be able to crush it.  Meanwhile Russia gets out of control and there is no chance of capturing Moscow or driving to the oil fields in the Middle East.


  • 2019 2017 2016

    Cv and tt build g1 is for sea lion,  which most players feel is not optimal in most situations.

    And an art build g1 is far better than an inf one.



  • I don’t like buying a ton of ground units on G1 unless I’m doing a G1 Barb. If UK sees an all ground units buy, then they can take the gloves off against Italy. Others have enumerated why a carrier can be an effective G1 build, but I’d be hesitant to buy those transports. Maybe save the money or get something else.

    My favorite G1 buys are either saving that money up or spending a partial buy getting 1-2 bombers. The bombers give you a little bit more options G2 and can still be used in a SL.



  • I’m not a large fan of Heavy German Naval buys although a G1 buy of 8 Inf 1 Sub works well followed by a 10 Tank 1 Destroyer buy on G2.



  • @ScottishOne:

    I don’t like buying a ton of ground units on G1 unless I’m doing a G1 Barb. If UK sees an all ground units buy, then they can take the gloves off against Italy. Others have enumerated why a carrier can be an effective G1 build, but I’d be hesitant to buy those transports. Maybe save the money or get something else.

    My favorite G1 buys are either saving that money up or spending a partial buy getting 1-2 bombers. The bombers give you a little bit more options G2 and can still be used in a SL.

    I normaly add a sub and destroyer to the carrier, sure you cant land as much stuff but since i pull out the BB i got a nice proto fleet in 112 that forces the last remaining UK fleet pieces away from europe. And i can still add 9 transports to it if the UK does not build enough forces, and sends the RAF out for italy.

    It gives the fleet a little backbone and i can swing it in the med if i want to, clear the russian sub that is convoying me once i attack, clear the baltic. So many options and i force the UK into some thinking.



  • Thanks for the responses! I’m still not quite convinced…

    On spending the 30IPC on ground forces against Russia:
    While I agree that ART/MEC/ARM are better ground forces against Russia - I think INF are a better first turn build. ART can be built on G2, arriving in time for Moscow but kept safe from the small attack/counter attack battles that take place in pushing Russia out of Leningrad and Ukraine. ARM and MEC are best built on G2-5, since they can catch up. I digress though: the important aspect here is spending on land forces against Russia vs spending on naval units.

    On projecting power out to Gibraltar:
    I think this is, in effect, a pipe dream. When the US does move to Gibraltar it will do so with a navy that is simply too large for Germany to hit. Even if it doesn’t, the Allies can easily place blockers in SZ110 or SZ104. Even if THAT doesn’t prove true, losing German ships and aircraft against Allied ships and aircraft - even significantly in German’s favour - is hugely costly for Germany and plays into the Allied goal - to siphon resources from the Russian theatre. Worse, you’re almost certainly going to have to retreat behind the straits after US4 or US5 because the US Navy will be large enough to take you out and the Allies would love to get a chance to trade American fighters for German ones.

    On projecting power against the UK Sea Zones:
    I still think this is best done with the German air. With 8-12 starting aircraft in Germany plus occasional SB builds, UK already has to put a huge fleet in place to defend it’s transports. A few German ships forces that to be slightly larger, sure, but aircraft can be redirected against Russia when it’s time for Moscow while ships aren’t much more cost effective against the UK and represent resources permanently removed from the Russia theatre. Forcing the Allies to build fleets to protect it’s transports and then ignoring those fleets, leaving huge amounts of Allied IPCs floating in the Atlantic, costs Germany next to nothing.

    The long and short version:
    I think that engaging the Allies in the Atlantic is a mistake. It plays into Allied economic strength. Even if you’re very successful, air and naval battles are incredibly expensive, Germany can’t really afford dead aircraft, and the Allies will win eventually. Building up infantry in France and W. Germany, on the other hand, and using them to attack allied landings covered by a dozen German aircraft is very cheap, preserves your aircraft for the critical battle against Russia, and plays against the Allies’ poor logistical position while still forcing the Allies to spend huge amounts of IPCs in the Atlantic.


  • 2019 2017 2016

    @Amalec:

    On projecting power out to Gibraltar:
    I think this is, in effect, a pipe dream. When the US does move to Gibraltar it will do so with a navy that is simply too large for Germany to hit. Even if it doesn’t, the Allies can easily place blockers in SZ110 or SZ104. Even if THAT doesn’t prove true, losing German ships and aircraft against Allied ships and aircraft - even significantly in German’s favour - is hugely costly for Germany and plays into the Allied goal - to siphon resources from the Russian theatre. Worse, you’re almost certainly going to have to retreat behind the straits after US4 or US5 because the US Navy will be large enough to take you out and the Allies would love to get a chance to trade American fighters for German ones.

    It has some merit G2 if there is to be no J2 DOW. That way you can bring your fleet into the med where they can actually be useful and gain an NO for occupying Egypt.

    Re: inf vs art G1. You do realise that Germany starts with a mass of inf anyway. Very, very unlikely for the USSR to kill any art in the early rounds.



  • I agree with Simon (and the others) that if you are going to buy ground units for the push to Moscow on G1 you should buy mostly art to pair up with the large amount of inf you already have (not more inf attacking at 1). You need to bump your existing inf to a 2 attack value, then as your inf die off in battle the art pairs with mech.

    I agree that you need to buy inf to use as fodder w/air to counter attack any allied landings, but you would do that a later once the allies start to set up.


  • 2016 2015 '10

    I would only recommend 1 ac 2 tt as an opening buy if Germany is seriously thinking about Sea Lion.  Now, if UK is smart and reacts defensively, then at least you’ve prevented a UK1 SZ 97 attack as well as UK buying factories or bombers or airbases on UK1.  If Japan doesn’t declare on J1, then Germany will have the option of sailing the fleet down to 112 (hopefully taking Gib, at least temporarily) to link up with the Italian fleet on G3.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Amalec,

    I’ve seen Carrier, Destroyer, Submarine - havnt seen Carrier 2 transports thought.

    The destroyer makes a hit on the carrier super suicide and gives Germany a potential unit for blocking later.



  • @Amalec:

    Thanks for the responses! I’m still not quite convinced…

    On spending the 30IPC on ground forces against Russia:
    While I agree that ART/MEC/ARM are better ground forces against Russia - I think INF are a better first turn build. ART can be built on G2, arriving in time for Moscow but kept safe from the small attack/counter attack battles that take place in pushing Russia out of Leningrad and Ukraine. ARM and MEC are best built on G2-5, since they can catch up. I digress though: the important aspect here is spending on land forces against Russia vs spending on naval units.

    Any inf/art placed down in Berlin will take an additional 5 turns to get to Moscow. That means any G2+ inf/art buys in Berlin will arrive after the Soviet Far East forces could potentially return home. Unless economic parity is attained and maintained, the axis chances of victory will decrease each round they fail to win. IMO, the axis must be in position to win by Rd 8 or very shortly thereafter. While they are cheap, I don’t really think Germany can afford to be buying slow movers to push into Moscow past G1 unless you’re building them in captured factories.

    Germany does start with a bunch of infantry, so I’m not sure more infantry are needed. If nothing else, get arty to boost your existing infantry plus all the planned mech builds that will be rolling off the factories G2+.


  • 2019 2017 2016

    You are trying to say that units bought after G1 can’t reach Moscow before the eastern units potentially arrive so therefore not buying art is a missed opportunity?

    With all the IPCs Germany gets G1, if the G2 buy has 10 art placed in Berlin they will make a much bigger contribution to an attack than 6 inf from the East. If supplemented by a 9 inf buy it seems to break even on paper wrt first round power.



  • Art built on G1 can reach Eastern Poland on G3 and Belarus on G4.  The 10 extra attack power of 6 art+2 inf compared with 10 inf might tip the scales to force the Russians to step back away from contact.  If you can get him to turtle down to Moscow, that opens up the Caucasus and Middle East oilfields, a major game changer.  It is rare, but not impossible, that the 4 extra defense power of 10 inf will prevent a Russian counter-strike as you approach his stack.

    Art built on G2 reach Belarus on G5.  By that time the Russians have an extra full turn to reinforce the front and you might not be able to push back the defenses if they had been sufficient to hold the previous turn.  G4 vs G5 is a huge difference in benefit.  Depending on the Russian’s decision on the Siberian forces, they might be back in Moscow by G7 and G8.  A single round of delay will allow 6-20 additional defenders in the Capitol.  Add in a further 3 or 4 allied fighters landing in Moscow and the slight delay will turn a good chance of dominating victory into an unreasonable risk. Each game is different but this scenario happens quite frequently.



  • A lot of interesting thoughts!

    I personally don’t really get the carrier purchase. The main argument for carrier + 2 TT’s is to be serious about sealion. But people keep writing, that if London falls, USA will almost always take it back. I have not enough experience to know anything about that.

    I can see some meaning with the TT’s though.
    It shows your intent to land in london, which may scare the UK player to keep his planes in defence instead of crushing italian fleet. But why not use the TT’s to offload in Sovjet, preferably Leningrad? In that way, you can move a lot of infantry waaay faster. If the Sovjet player is smart, he can hold this maneuver back the first round, but then you can do it in the second round after DOW on Sovjet

    A&A is a moneygame. To have a strong fleet is wishful, no doubt. But controlling the atlantic is not changing the income balance. It’s a fact the allies start out with about 67% of total IPC income, this can be changed to a 60/40 within the 1 round, when Ger takes out french economy, Japan decimates China and maybe USSR depending on tactics, and USA is not being brought in to the game.

    2. round: If you want to change the IPC balance, going for Sovjet will help. I’ve played only one game of G40, and represented Sovjet, so maybe I have missed something.
    But from a Sovjet perspective, Germany has so much coming. You kind of have to prioritize what to defend. Since you want to prevent as many German bonusses as possible, it makes more sense to give up Leningrad instead of opening up in the south, where axis players gets bonuses for Stalingrad, Caucasus, has factories in Ukraine as well, and gets access to the middle east, where axis also gets bonusses. damn

    Back to german perspective. TT’s makes it look like a threat against london, but could be used for landing troops in northern russian territories, backed by the finnish reinforcements, and changes IPC Balance.

    But the carrier? It doesn’t do much by laying around in the baltic sea. sure it can keep planes on it for defensive reasons - but you don’t win a game where you so economically behind, by playing defensively…



  • @Arthur:

    Art built on G2 reach Belarus on G5.  By that time the Russians have an extra full turn to reinforce the front and you might not be able to push back the defenses if they had been sufficient to hold the previous turn.  G4 vs G5 is a huge difference in benefit.  Depending on the Russian’s decision on the Siberian forces, they might be back in Moscow by G7 and G8.  A single round of delay will allow 6-20 additional defenders in the Capitol.  Add in a further 3 or 4 allied fighters landing in Moscow and the slight delay will turn a good chance of dominating victory into an unreasonable risk. Each game is different but this scenario happens quite frequently.

    For clarity:
    If the Russian far east infantry head straight home, 6 INF arrive on R6 and 12 INF + 2 AA on R7.
    INF/ART built on G2 in Berlin can reach Moscow by G7 - a turn ahead of the bulk of the far east units.

    Germany is incredibly powerful offensively, between it’s armor and it’s air, but somewhat weaker on defense. My experience with Barbarossa is that it is, oddly, primarily a defensive struggle for Germany. Germany must figure out how to push forward continuously and apply pressure in several directions without opening itself up to Russian counter attacks that delay it or destroy vulnerable armor while it’s airforce is landed elsewhere and it’s forces are split.

    Plenty of attack power can be achieved for Moscow (with a 10 inf G1 buy):
    For a G6 attack: G2-3 armor/mec purchases
    For a G7 attack: G2 10xART build in Berlin followed by armor/mec purchases on G3-4.

    In the turns leading up to Moscow, however, the extra infantry are more helpful than artillery in making Russian counter attacks unattractive or exchanged in Germany’s favor.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    My experience with Barbarossa, limited as it is (I am a full time grad school student and full time employee, so I don’t have a lot of time to play anymore) is that it is better to have Italy grab territories and use the Germans to reinforce.

    I believe the loophole still exists that Germany doesn’t have to be at war to reinforce Italian held Russian territories too.  So there’s at least one round of that if you organize right.


  • 2019 2017 2016

    @Cmdr:

    I believe the loophole still exists that Germany doesn’t have to be at war to reinforce Italian held Russian territories too.  So there’s at least one round of that if you organize right.

    It still exists in 2nd Ed but not in BM2.0.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @simon33:

    @Cmdr:

    I believe the loophole still exists that Germany doesn’t have to be at war to reinforce Italian held Russian territories too.  So there’s at least one round of that if you organize right.

    It still exists in 2nd Ed but not in BM2.0.

    Gotcha.  BM came out after I started my graduate degree, so I am far from well versed in it.

    Anyway, it wasn’t a “huge” loophole, at best you got an extra round of IPC for the objective because a smart Russia would just declare on Germany on their next turn.



  • Retaining control of Norway (and Denmark) and Finland means 10 IPC per round for G.

    I believe it’s harder to maintain control of them with no CV-purchase G1? UK can just sink your puny fleet UK1.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016

    Against a determined Allied effort, Germany cannot retain control of Norway without turning back some forces from Russia. It’s more profitable to let the Allies have Norway once they mount sufficient force and use the forces that you would use for recapturing Norway to capture Moscow instead. Once Moscow falls, the Allies cannot hold Norway against a half-determined German effort.

    I would build the carrier only for specific purposes, such as sending it to the Med or using it to support Sea Lion (or other nefarious plans for attack). I would not spend German IPCs to build a carrier for defense – those IPCs are better spent killing Moscow.

    Marsh



  • The idea would be to maintain control of those territories for as long as possible. Again it’s 10 IPC’s a round for G.



  • It should be relatively easy to retain control of Scandinavia for the first four rounds.  One transport + 10 planes is enough to obliterate a small landing force.  The big trouble is when the Americans land 4-8 ground units and UK reinforces with a bunch of planes.  I don’t know how a carrier build will stop this anyway since you don’t want to get into an Atlantic naval race with the USA.  That is assured defeat for the Axis.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 6
  • 20
  • 5
  • 22
  • 45
  • 23
  • 7
  • 2
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

51
Online

13.7k
Users

34.0k
Topics

1.3m
Posts