Welcome! If you're a returning member of the forums, please reset your password. If you don't receive an email within minutes, it means your account is listed under another, likely older, email address. Contact webmaster@axisandallies.org for help.

Optimal Offensive Naval Purchases



  • The general consensus seems to be that when you are attempting to protect your transports carriers fighters and destroyers give the best returns for the income invested.

    However in a large scale naval battle requiring full movement the attacking player is at a disadvantage because their carriers cannot take hits without sacrificing the planes they carry. Meanwhile the defender can assign hits to their carriers the same way they would with battleships and have their planes land in adjacent friendly islands.

    So, when you need something to turn the tables in the Pacific and break the defensive arms race what is the most cost effective purchase?

    I would argue submarines but I’m interested to know what you think.

    Submarine - This is the best purchase. Because you need to spare your carriers you need units that can absorb casualties. Submarines are the cheapest naval units you can field and they have the same combat score as destroyers. They force the other player to buy destroyers to defend their fleet and they lose economically paying 8 for a 2 when you only pay 6.

    Strategic bombers are consistent in damage, but do they out damage 2 submarines?


  • 2019 2018

    Submarines certainly have both offensive and defensive (as hit soakers) value, but strategic bombers offer greater flexibility due to their movement and attack values.

    If, for example, your opponent buys a bunch of subs (for use as hit soakers) in anticipation of an attack by your fleet, you can hit them with aircraft only and take the subs out of the equation.

    Even if your opponent doesn’t go that route, well-placed bombers can be used for strategic bombing raids which enable you to out-spend your opponent on naval purchases and break the “stalemate at sea” in a few turns. On the other hand, if your opponent fails to buy enough destroyers, subs are a more cost-effective way to achieve the same result.

    In my opinion, it comes down to this: If your opponent has few destroyers, buy subs. If he has many destroyers and/or subs, buy bombers.



  • @KGrimB If its a large naval battle then its OK to lose some carriers because you are almost certainly going to lose some planes, too.

    So, to break a stalemate presumably you’ll be the attacker. If you already have a fair number of non-subs and planes, go ahead and buy stacks and stacks. Once they’re moving into position, bombers are a nice choice for their range, for instance, taking off from the Philipines to hit the coast of ANZAC and landing on Java… Or leaving W. Germany and hitting ships off Gibraltor or Cairo.



  • @The-Pripet-Martian Dont’ forget the extra planes carriers can bring to a fight…

    Let’s say the U.S. takes the Caroline Islands. If Japan’s fleet is at the Philipines… the planes on your carriers can attack and still land on one of the little islands nearby while every other plane from Kwangsi or Japan, etc can reach and land on a carrier in the attack sea zone.


  • 2018

    @weddingsinger yea getting suckered in to take carolines to early is probably us fleet destruction and then Jpn do whatever it wants or well maybe idk : )



  • @barnee Doesn’t even have to be early but if Japan is convservative, preventing the U.S. from moving in the Pacific a bored U.S. player can make the move without realizing just how many planes can reach their fleet.

    /last time my buddy lost over 200 ipcs of fleet… 3 or 4 carriers, etc.



  • This all boils down to what you can afford, and I dont think there is a naval composition that is guaranteed to be successful at all times. As the USA, the only drop I will drop a lot of income on subs. Is I see Japan both not buying destroyers, and also burning the few it has on blockers. Otherwise, I am putting as many carriers and destroyers down as I can, with a handful of transports to keep Japan honest.

    As Japan, I always build destroyers. Also if I can afford it. I like to get a 4th carrier down on turn 2. Its not a crazy expensive purchase, but it can trip up a USA player that may be planning on spending the bats minimum in the pacific.



  • @ReturntoNES Japan can and should afford at least 1 new carrier a round J2-J4 if the U.S. is buying on the Pacific side. Your income should increase enough to afford the units built on the mainland and adding the carriers which shield sz6 and/or the Money Islands.


  • 2018 2017 2016

    Japan can buy CV’s anytime it want.
    It doesn’t has to be each turn.



  • @aequitas-et-veritas True. I’m very used to a U.S. player who keeps dropping new ships in the Pacific for Hawaii, so our opposing fleets keep getting larger. Carriers are the cheapest option for defense since they let you keep adding fighters you already own.



  • @weddingsinger it is usually between that, or an air base in SEA ontop of what I need for land.


  • 2018 2017 2016

    I started to buy a BB paired with a CV and if sz 106 was taken, two DD’s on round 1.
    Why?
    This simply allows me to keep up with IJN in the Naval deployment race for the first few turns.


Log in to reply
 

Welcome to the new forums! For security and technical reasons, we did not migrate your password. Therefore to get started, please reset your password. You may use your email address or username. Please note that your username is not your display name.

If you're having problems, please send an email to webmaster@axisandallies.org

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 2
  • 4
  • 8
  • 23
  • 9
  • 18
  • 12
  • 12
I Will Never Grow Up Games

29
Online

13.3k
Users

33.5k
Topics

1.3m
Posts