• So iv’e heard alot about a german navy. if i wanted to just build up a minor navy, to control the atlantic what would be crucial to have. (LHTR)?

    i dont exactly see why an AC is that important, id rather get wolf packs or destroyers. what do you guys say.

  • 2007 AAR League

    German Navy can control the Atlantic, but not a minor one.
    Carrier buys is preferred because of the value of being able to place 2 fighters for defense.  They are less preferred if you plan to attack with your navy.
    All depends on what you want to do.

  • 2007 AAR League

    put up 1 bb, 1 dst, 1 trn (if you got 4 extra ipc) on G1.

    make the allies worried. (but russia tends to be happy)


  • I am basically a “newbie” to Axis & Allies Revised and LHTR, and the Caspian Sub policy papers provide a wealth of information about this and other topics.

    http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Caspian_Sub/

    It’s really easy to register.

    Anyway, one way to build German navy and make it effective is to start by building 3 transports in SZ5.  I am currently experimenting with this.  Your navy is then big enough to either (a) threaten London, (b) possibly even threaten Eastern US, or more likely at least © help funnel more ground units into Karelia to put added pressure on Russia.

  • 2007 AAR League

    Oh good lord, not another thread on German naval purchases…

    IMHO the best naval buy for Germany is 2 or 3 TRNs in the Baltic. Keeps UK on her toes, and adds as much defensively as an AC does (without fighters, which may be busy elsewhere anyway.)

    Transports in the Med can be nice too, but then you have to keep your BB in SZ 14 to protect them when they are built from Russia’s Fighters.

    Nix’s plan though is sheer madness!  :lol:

  • 2007 AAR League

    Nix’s plan though is sheer madness!

    have you checked my league games?  (mateoo, and vs Randmacht)

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    If you’re doin a navy go either:

    Carrier + 2 Figters from initial setup
    and
    2 transports, 1 submarine

    or

    Carrier + 2 fighters from initial setup
    Industrial Complex - W. Europe
    Transport
    Save 1

    Though, honestly, I love to build an IC with England or America in W. Europe. 🙂


  • Has any one ever built an italian navy? I would only do it if russia takes ukraine 1st turn. but the navy can help with ukraine, caucus and africa. thats an extra 19 ipcs(inculding syria). i’m not sure what you would build but you would be able to attack the US if they try to take algeria.

  • 2007 AAR League

    An Italian TRN as a bid unit is really nice to have. Building TRNs in the Med gets expensive because they can be hit by Russian fighters from Caucasus (learned that lesson the hard way 😞 ).

    If you can afford to park your fleet off Italy for a round you can get away with it but otherwise you have to build an AC or a BB for protection at the same time. Only do it if Russia is playing defensively, otherwise, Germany needs ground units more.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Italian fleet is nice, but you have to have a bid in Libya strong enough to take Egypt and you have to build the fleet on G1 to do it.


  • If you are buying navy as Germany…

    Limit it to an AC (and MAYBE a TRN) on G1, and take your pick of Baltic or Med placement (depending on your short and mid-range goals), and leave it at that.

    Don;t get too attached to those pretty ships though… they WILL die.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Well, if you’re going to build a navy, I think you go whole hog and make sure to set up a unification.

    This will keep America and England out of Africa for a few crucial turns.  Problem is, you need at least a 7 IPC bid to pull it off (inf/art in Libya so you can reliably take Egypt and close the Suez.)

    A pull back to Germany/E. Europe wouldn’t be a bad idea either.  Hit the Russian armor if they’re left vulnerable, but otherwise, conserve what you can.  Next round, get Artillery, next round armor and push back.  Or infantry, then artillery, then armor.  Whatever tickles your fancy.

    That’s just my humble opinion.  Havn’t actually done it in game yet.  Though, I betcha I could whollop Switch with it. 😛


  • By the time you bought the ARM, Eastern would be a tough nut for Germany to crack, since they could only afford 3-4 ARM when they finally bought the ARM on G4 😛

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    THat’s why I said G3 first. 😛  I relented after and said, if you must, you can go Inf then Art then Arm.  Though honestly, you should be down to Germany, S. Europe and W. Europe at that stage, in which case you can easily retake Balkans and E. Europe since Russia’s spread out.  Then Ukriane, Belo and Karelia.  By then, (Turn 5?) Japan should be more then ready to stack Novos and inflict imminent danger upon the Russians forcing a pull out.

    England and America neutrallized trying to get a fleet together to stop Germany, Germany in control of Africa and Europe.  Japan massed on the Eastern Flank of Russia.  Game over.

  • 2007 AAR League

    I have begun to think that the Baltic fleet is a lost cause.
    Wouldn’t building in the Med be better for the long term?
    Helps keep Africa which helps a lot, if Germany bases many of its forces in E Eur which it usually does you can get forces into karelia easily without the Baltic Trn
    The Med fleet also has the potential to be more versatile threatening more territories than the stationary batlic fleet.
    I think i will try a Med build sometime soon rather than a Baltic


  • One fleet buy by Germany is dead on Allies 3, with the TRN’s hitting Europe and Africa NLT T4… about the time Germany is buying that armor to try to push back the Russians that are no longer spread out, but now have only a 2 territory front on Germany… Eastern and Balkans, instead of a 3 territory front as they ahve anywhere else in Europe.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I don’t think the allies can take out a unified German fleet on Turn 3.  It’ll take 3 turns just to get your American Battleship to the Atlantic and that’s assuming you ignore Japan. (Turn 1 to SZ 20, Turn 2 to SZ 10, Turn 3 to SZ 8.)  Meanwhile, you have Germany with a Battleship, 3 Submarines, 1 Aircraft Carrier, 2 Fighters, 2 Transports and that’s assuming the only fleet purchased is a Carrier.  You can raise that to 5 Submarines, 3 Transports easily in 1 rounds purchases.  Maybe.  Because the Germans also have 4 more fighters and a bomber they can bring into the fray on attack, so they MIGHT still be able to sink the Combined allied fleet.  I havn’t run the numbers.

    Meanwhile, the combined British and American fleets, too strong to sink, are also too weak to beat the German fleet.  I think you’d need AT LEAST 5 or 6 rounds to build up and manuever a big enough fleet to get the Germans out of the Atlantic.  Even out of the atlantic, it’s a threat that has to be contended with because it can easily slip into the Atlantic followed by Japanese ships from SZ 34 for support.

    And let’s not forget by Turn 3 England is reduced to cinders.  All of Africa gone, all islands in the Pacific gone, the middle east gone, leaving England with Canada and England herself.  Hardly a nation putting up a valiant navy to sink the Germans, if you ask me.  Likewise, America is dumping all she can onto England to prevent Germany from taking it in Operation Sea Lion.

    Yes, the Russians are at Berlin’s doors, for a round.  Hardly enough time to make up for starting in the hole militarily and getting chewed up on the tail-end charlie by Japanese forces (who, wisely should be keeping enoug transports in SZ 60 to threaten an invasion of North America, just to keep America from going insane navally.)

    Buy the time England or America is strong enough to push the Germans out of SZ 6/7, Russia should be in its death throws.  Unless you can prove otherwise.


  • You were not paying attention to the last German Fleet Unification Thread were you?

    The unification is cheaply blocked for G2, and even with TOTAL air support, results in catastrophic German loses on the G3 attempt to unify.


  • The allies suffer a bigger loss than the Germans do,  even assuming your theory is correct.

    It is by no means a “cheap” block.

    But this debate is ancient and  little is gained by repeating it.

    Squirecam

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Naw sorry that idea has been refuted and was proven faulty by many people. Its a complete waste against competent play. Its just another C-Sub faulty analysis.

    The numbers of IPC lost prove germany has basically scored a net of a few extra dollars by the investment of an entire turns worth of income and secondly, playing to the strength of England which is much better position as a sea power to counter it. Thirdly, it offers nothing to the real front which is against the Soviet player because it allows them to build up forces and unbalance the ratio of power of land forces.

    We even had a guy open a game  offering anybody who wants to attempt/ prove this strategy was a silly and play a game. That challenge was declined as well. Figures…

    ncscswitch is one of the better players and he should know. If you dont think so then play him in a game.


  • 1.  Let’s play nice boys.

    2.  Honestly, it’s a bit silly to cite an unwillingness to play a particular challenge as refutation of a theory.  After all, everyone has busy schedules, and it shouldn’t be expected that anyone can simply play a game on demand.  I think ncsswitch’s queue is like twelve long.

    3.  My personal opinion is that G2 unification is potentially quite costly for both Axis and Allied fleets, barring a G1 IC in W. Europe.  I believe that the Allies can quickly rebuild, but that Germany cannot, and  therefore, the only time G2 unification is “correct” against experienced players, is as a threat that forces the Allied fleet to act in a certain way.  Therefore, I think that G2 fleet unification is more of a positional play that forces the Allies to delay in the Atlantic, rather than a power play attempting to directly challenge the Allied power in the Atlantic.

    (The Caspian Sub paper does mention that as well)

    Can’t we all just get along?

  • 2007 AAR League

    Yeah, let’s get along.

    IIRC, the CSub paper suggests building 2 or 3 Trns in the baltic, with 2 Trns being the advanced (read “better for skilled players”) option. That is hardly a whole turn’s income. It also offsets the loss of ground troops b/c the Baltic fleet will live longer, and thus allowing Berlin and Eastern to be more lightly defended, and more units to be brought to Karelia or even Norway rather quickly.

    The reason that’s a sound play is that it makes fleet unification an OPTION. Yes, the Allies CAN block it, but the point is, now they have to, and you are starting to direct the Allied line of play, esp. as it also sets up a threat against London.

    If Germany brought its med fleet and Atlantic Sub to Gibraltar, Germany could potentially unite for a fleet of 4-5 TRN, 3 Subs, 1 DD, 1 BB, and could also have 5 or more air units landed in Western. That suddenly is a significant threat, so the Allies will wisely play to block it. However, the point is, it must be blocked, and in any event the Baltic is more secure and a few more troops can be brought to Karelia for initiative against Russia.

  • 2007 AAR League

    Are you guys done with your petty bickering?

    Clearly IL and Switch are talking about the long term while Squirecam and Crazystraw are talking about the tournament setting where the games typically last between 5 and 7 rounds.

    My analysis is that in the short term, such as a tourney, it can be a good strategy since it forces the Allies, and the US in particular, to build an attack navy and aircraft to remove the German naval threat as opposed to a mixed build of ground units, TPs, and capital ships to begin immediate landings. However, in the long term, being away from Africa and it’s income for such a long time or worse, for good, can be dangerous to Germany’s ability to hold off the Allied hordes that come down once the German navy has been neutralized.

    For the people who come here for help or insight, it would much more helpful if you were specific about whether you were speaking in terms of the short game or the long game.


  • @U-505:

    For the people who come here for help or insight, it would much more helpful if you were specific about whether you were speaking in terms of the short game or the long game.

    For me, its BOTH short and long games.

    Squirecam

  • Moderator

    As an Allied player, I don’t think there is really anything to fear by a German fleet unification.

    I will go about my business and then deal with it when they hit Sz 7 with a combined UK-US attack.  US of course reinforces UK on US non-com.

    I should note that I typically buy some air with UK and AC + air with US regardless of what Germany does, so none of the counters here go against what a normally do.  I will modify my UK buys based on how aggressively Germany is in the water.

    First if Ger only buy an AC to unify they’ll get slaughtered, so I’m not even going to consider that a threat.

    I’ll look at AC + 1 trn and 4 trn to start.

    With the AC + 1 trn, UK can go 1 dd, 1 sub, 1ftr and stirke on Rd 2 (attack 2 rds then retreat with BB)
    US can go AC + 2 ftrs and strike in Rd 2 and finish off.

    The final results are German fleet sunk (120 IPC)
    Heavy UK losses (81 IPC) only the BB survives
    Moderate US losses (46 or 48)

    Total Allied losses 129, total Axis 120.

    To me, this is more than acceptable to kill both the Baltic and Med fleets in one shot in Rd 2.

    Now a 4 trn buy works out even better number wise, but UK still takes a beating.

    UK buys dd, ftr, inf, arm
    US - same buy 1 ac + 2 ftrs

    Ger losses - 6 trns, 3 subs, 1 dd, 1 bb = 108
    UK can do 2 rds and retreat with the bb and bom (maybe dd as well, but we’ll count that as a loss)  = 58 ipc (pending your ool)
    US losses 2 trns, 1 dd, 1 ftr = 38 ipc

    So total losses are: Allies 96 to 108.

    Again, this is more than acceptable to me for killing both the Baltic and Med fleets in Rd 2.

    UK-US can still go heavy to Afr in Rd 3 and Nor on Rd 4 in either case.  This isn’t much different then what I normally do.

    Now the problem would be if Ger goes AC + 2-3 trns or an all out 5 trns.  That may indeed be the best bet in terms of hoping to survive, but I have a hard time with Germany spending 40 on navy.  My hunch is Russia will become too powerful.

    IMO, I don’t like the idea of buying stuff to unify just for the sake of unification, I think if you are going to do it, then DO IT and go with the AC + 2 trns (or all out trns) and make a heavy play on the UK, Atlantic, and Afr to offset the losses to Russia.  Extend the Russian supply lines and hope you can station that moster in sz 13 (or heck 14) and own Afr, the ME, and threaten Cauc for the game.

    My final conclusion would be anything less than about 32 spent on navy in the baltic is a waste.

    But again, would it not be better to spend the 24 for an AC and trn directly into the Med?  Or DD + trn?

    Oh yeah, I’m generally biased against navy anyway, but am always looking for a way to make it work to my satisfaction.   🙂

    Edit: fixed typos and stuff.

Suggested Topics

  • 2
  • 33
  • 88
  • 46
  • 24
  • 38
  • 83
  • 20
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

55
Online

15.7k
Users

37.1k
Topics

1.6m
Posts