Basic Allied shipping options–Baltic vs. Barents?



  • This is a pretty basic Allied question, I guess, but I suck with the Allies so I’m still figuring out the basics.

    I’m specifically interested in the subset of Allied strategies which have both the UK and US shipping units into Europe using the north Atlantic.  I realize there are also viable strategies which use the Mediterranean (US fills North Africa with units and then starts shuttling them to Weu/Seu/Ukr/Blk/Cau), not to mention KJF.  But narrower questions tend to get more useful answers, so I don’t want to get into the relative merits of KGF vs KJF or Eurocentric vs Afrocentric at this point.

    Among the subset of strategies which I’m asking about, it seems the UK and US have two major options.  One is more aggressively oriented, and has them using the Baltic (SZ 5) to shuck units from the UK every turn into Western/Eastern/Norway/Karelia.  (The US would, of course, have a second fleet shucking units from Eca into UK, but that’s also true in the second strategy.)  This strategy is more directly focused on attacking Germany with piles and piles of units.  The other is more defensively oriented, and has them using the Barents Sea (SZ 4) to shuck units into Archangel and Karelia.  From here they can reinforce the core Russian territories of Moscow and Caucasus, and then expand outward against Germany and/or Japan as needed.  Basically you try to turn Russia into a 90 IPC country that moves 3 times per round.  (Except that each of the three moves only uses some of the 90 IPC…so that’s a pretty limited analogy.)

    In the Baltic approach, you typically end up building a stack in Karelia until it’s big enough to push forward to Eastern.  If Germany stacks Eastern before you get your system running, you may need to start in Norway and then push to Karelia.  If Germany manages to stack Karelia early, you may have a couple turns of annoyance where you drop into Norway/Eastern/whatever and get smashed before you deplete the Karelia stack enough to start a stack of your own.  The Baltic approach has the advantage of keeping pressure on Berlin–both UK and US are threatening to drop at least 8 ground troops (more if you overbuild your transports, which I like to do at least with the UK) plus air, so Germany may need to keep 15-20 units in Berlin to be safe.  This makes it hard for them to put any pressure on Russia.  If they try to stack Western too then they’re really tied down.

    The Barents approach has the advantage that you can help Russia survive against Japan instead of just trying to take Germany down faster than Japan takes Russia down.  It also allows more opportunities for specialization, as a way of getting around multi-attackers disadvantage (say, one country could help against Japan, another against Germany, or whatever).  However, you also give Germany a bit more breathing room since the only core German territory within your reach is Western.

    There are tons more advantages and disadvantages of each, I’m sure, but remember, I suck with the Allies, so this is where y’all come in…

    Personally, I usually try to start with an aggressive Baltic strategy, mainly I guess because I like attacking in general (I guess there could be some tie-in to Switch’s last thread here) and don’t want to give away the initiative.  Then I switch to supplying Archangel if I get desperate.  Unfortunately it takes an extra turn to do the switch (you have to spend one turn dropping in either Norway or Western during the transition), so if I ever get into a situation where I have to then I pretty much lose.  I’ve never really tried going to Archangel from the start, or splitting the two up (e.g. having UK go to Archangel and the US work in the Baltic–one possible downside being that you might need more fleet defense to protect against the Luftwaffe).

    Any thoughts/experiences?


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    My thoughts are thus:

    If Germany wasted 16 IPC on a Carrier, go Barents until you can sink the Baltic fleet for no cost (or relatively no cost) to the allies.  It’s just as fast as Baltic and it saves a lot of firepower until later in the game when you can afford it better.

    If Germany did not blow 16 IPC on a Carrier, and you find yourself set up to hit SZ 5 anyway, go for it.  Otherwise, Barents is better anyway.

    In either case, SZ 4 allows you to liberate Karelia and dump reinforcements in Arkhangelsk as convenient thus saving your forces and putting them close to Moscow/front lines.



  • Unfortunately, so much depends on what Germany is doing. I’m loathe to land units in a territory (WEu, Nor, Kar, Arc) where a German stack is just going to obliterate them for the cost of a few inf, but sometimes this is your only option.

    I’ve sort of found that landing in Arc leads to a longer game, where the Allies are more sort of reinforcing the Russians as opposed to actually striking out on their own against Germany. This can even be the case for Kar sometimes, too. So it’s really more of a question among WEu (uber aggressive), Nor (usually safe), and Kar/Arc (conservative/safe).

    If Germany is putting serious pressure to deadzone certain territories, then I’d certainly go for the other one(s). Anywhere where the western Allies can start building up a stack is a good place. You don’t want to keep throwing 4inf 4arm into German stacks.

    But, if you can choose, I’d say Kar is the place (or, bv extension, just marching through Nor into Kar). It allows for reinforcement into Russian territories and a march through Germany’s lines.

    WEu can be quite a sucker punch. Once the UK holds it, they can maybe drop an IC to make use of their extra income, and once the US takes Seu, Germany is like 1-2 turns from dead. Not that I know this from experience, but just looking at the numbers Germany must have a ridiculously huge stack on Ger/EEu or Weu/Seu/Lon/EUS will overrun it very quickly.

    It really depends on the G player whether WEu can be taken. Even among the most aggressive (who abandon WEu early), it can still be hard to make a strong landing that leads to UK holding WEu and US taking SEu. Against more so “turtle” players your best bet is to avoid the heavily defended WEu and just go Nor/Kar.

    However, a key thing is to look at the board. If Russia is really straining to survive, maybe some reinforcements will get it out of a tough spot and ensure that Mos or even Cau doesn’t fall. But if the Allies have a sizeable lead, it’s only going to get larger: Make calculated moves through Nor/Kar/EEu and just slog your way into Ger.

    Really, G shouldn’t be able to defend both Kar and WEu for more than a few turns, so once the pressure is off, you look at the board, choose north or throat, and go go go.

    I completely agree with overbuilding the UK on transports (usually the Aus trn becomes the fifth), and with that and an efficient US, you should be making G sweat bullets.



  • Personally I’m strongly in favour of Karelien as landing spot for the allies (once the german baltic fleet is destroyed and you are quite save from the german airforce).

    By having the allied fleet positioned in SZ 5 you put consinderable pressure on 3 important german countries (Weu, Ger, Eeu). If you also have already a stack in Len (Karelien) then the pressure on Eeu is obviously greater then on the rest.

    As you already mentioned, it is a good idea to overbuild trn with the UK, because you increase the pressure on Weu and Ger considerably not only in the prospect of taking one of these countries against larger ammounts of defenders but also you increase the threat of stacking Weu (In my last game I went so far to have 8 trn). If ever germany is in the position to threaten your stack in Len you can always move backwards to Nwy for one round and come back the turn after (since now you have the additional material of 2 rounds of purchase).

    Furthermore as the UK I would build mainly inf and some art as mobility is not your major concern. As the US I’d like to buy some figs since there great mobility and defens value allows you to strengthen your defeses where it is needed and even with few ground units in europe the US can do a lot of effective trading if they have sufficient airforce, since in most cases it is unimportant if you actually take the counry or not because russia can claim these empty territories instead.



  • @Cmdr:

    My thoughts are thus:

    If Germany wasted 16 IPC on a Carrier, go Barents until you can sink the Baltic fleet for no cost (or relatively no cost) to the allies.

    Is it such a bad idea to buy a AC on G1? It is something that happens a lot in the games I play…



  • @FM_Rommel:

    Is it such a bad idea to buy a AC on G1? It is something that happens a lot in the games I play…

    Some say yes, some say no.

    Yes: Any naval investment means less INF or ARM. Your main goal is Moscow.

    No: It buys some turns for Germany in which GER and EEU isn’t threatened by an amphibious attack. But you should be very carefully to add some more ships that fleet because of INF shortage as you buy expensive naval units.

    Sometimes I buy two transports on GER1 and (if UK doesn’t attack my fleet in UK1 via air) add an AC on GER2. It brings some pressure to UK (the british player now must have an eye to amphibious attack of UK), make NOR to a deadzone for some turns, and INF from GER can go faster to KAR.

    Some more naval units can bring pressure to an UK fleet (only if US goes KJF completely, otherwise it’s a waste of IPC), but in the most cases any further german naval investment gives to few pressure to Russia. And UK can easily outproduce Germany in navy as long as Germany have a land war with Russia.

    But if you buy an AC and if you stay in SZ 5, you should have an eye to the FIGs on it: Bring them back to land before the allies attack and sink your fleet. Don’t lose these fighters while defending some doomed ships …

    Hope that helps …


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    I don’t think it buys Germany any turns with Germany/E. Europe being unthreatened.

    All the carrier does is sink 16 IPCs.  SZ 5 will be cleared when I want it to be either with or without the carrier and many German players, realizing that the fleet is sunk with or without their fighters, will pull the fighters anyway, thus negating the benefit of the carrier. (If they don’t you just netted yourself 2 fighters which significantly helps the allies!)



  • In my personal experience, the AC purchase buys Germany 3-5 turns of security for Berlin and Eastern.  Those 3-5 turns are $35+ IPC income turns, so that is a LOT of units bought by Germany in the interim.

    Without an AC on G1, Eastern is threatened immediately, and Berlin has to be left with a solid stack to prevent a “quick grab” of the German capital.

    However, CONTINUED naval purchases by Germany (2 units every 3 turns) with a mix of SUBs and TRNs has given me some very positive results as Germany, giving me an average of 2 additional turns of security after the destruction of the SZ5 fleet as the Allies re-build to replace losses in the battle.  The extra TRNs also allow Germany to potentially trade Norway for several additional turns (gaining income and slowing the Allies further) and allowing additional forces for Karelia counter-attacks.

    The cost is that in keeping the Baltic Fleet boosted, the Med Fleet is toast in most cases.


  • Moderator

    I’m usually not an AC buyer BUT (aside from Switches point of buying time until you have to worry about Ger/EE) if Germany sees an early stacking opportunity for Kar, maybe on G1 it could really help.  Now you can shuttle units from WE/Ger directly to Kar.

    As for the Initial question, I’ll go Baltic unless I really feel Russia is in trouble.  I usually won’t commit to Sz 5 too early though.  I’m content unloading into Nor from Sz 6 as long as Russia is holding her own and isn’t in immediate danger.  This way if I need to make the emergency move and directly unload into Arch I can.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    Okay, I can see the benefit in that you don’t have to have any units in Germany if you don’t want too, allowing you to build up in S. Europe instead.  However, who builds up in S. Europe in the first 3 or 4 rounds?  I mean SERIOUS building, like 6 units, not one or two units to fill the transport.

    And if you are putting 10 units into Germany a round, in the first few rounds, there’s not really going to be a major threat of a quick grab of Berlin anyway.

    But I can concede that there is a significant peace of mind in knowing that the SZ 5 fleet will live for 3 or 4 rounds before America sinks it without significant loss.


  • Moderator

    I tend to agree that with infantry heavy buys there won’t really be a threat to Ger/EE anyway, but if you do keep the Baltic fleet alive it is the same distance to go from SE to WE to Kar (via trn) then it is to go from Ger to Kar with no trn.  So if Germany were earning 42ish early which isn’t out of the question it isn’t that bad to place 8 in Ger and 6 in SE.  You shuffle the 4-6 to WE (maybe 2 went to Afr) to fortify then move 2 to Kar the next turn.  After your initial 8 and 6 placement you can then place 10 in Ger and 4 in SE and move however you see fit.  If WE needs more inf then you can do the same SE to WE move but if you’ve secured WE then just send the 4 East.



  • @DarthMaximus:

    I tend to agree that with infantry heavy buys there won’t really be a threat to Ger/EE anyway, but if you do keep the Baltic fleet alive it is the same distance to go from SE to WE to Kar (via trn) then it is to go from Ger to Kar with no trn.  So if Germany were earning 42ish early which isn’t out of the question it isn’t that bad to place 8 in Ger and 6 in SE.  You shuffle the 4-6 to WE (maybe 2 went to Afr) to fortify then move 2 to Kar the next turn.  After your initial 8 and 6 placement you can then place 10 in Ger and 4 in SE and move however you see fit.  If WE needs more inf then you can do the same SE to WE move but if you’ve secured WE then just send the 4 East.

    SZ5 (Baltic) fleet is very nice to have around for Germany.  It offers flexibility as Darth mentions and threatens UK too, especially if you’ve added another tpt (or two).  Problem is how much do you spend to keep it alive?  That’s a very hard question to decide in general/absolute terms.

    If USA is going pacific, I might be more willing to invest in a SZ5 fleet because it forces UK to invest in shipping instead of ground units.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    I’m not saying that the SZ 5 fleet should be volunteered to be removed before game play.  It’s always nice to have equipment, even if you don’t need it.  After all, the SZ 5 fleet does provide fodder against the British for a round or two before they are sunk without loss to the English fleet.

    However, I am saying that it is not financially optimal to augment the SZ 5 fleet with a carrier and tie up two fighters defending it IN EVERY GAME.  There are SOME games that I will.

    One game that comes to mind is one where i got the fleet combined, then retreated it all to SZ 5.  Okay, now I have a battleship 3 submarines, destroyer and 2 transports.  That I’ll augment with a couple of carriers and some fighters because there is a LOT of units there, no matter what you attack me with, realistically, will get out of that battle without serious damage.  And that protects me from shore bombardments in Germany and forces the Allies to take W. Europe or E. Europe over land.

    But that is a RARE game!



  • An augmented SZ5 fleet is not going to be killed “without loss” by either the UK or USA.  If both nations spend a lot of money on naval and/or air power, they may destroy it with MINIMAL losses, but it will not be without loss, unless Germany chooses to withdraw and/or suicide forces from the SZ5 fleet.

    And so long as that fleet is alive, the Allies have to be aware of the potential for German landings in Karelia, Norway, AND LONDON (if the Allied Fleet is shuttling to SZ4, which is listed as one of the options in the original question in this thread).  And to support, as an example, a London landing, Germany can grab forces for their TRNs from Norway, Karelia, Eastern, Germany and Western WITHOUT MOVING.  And on follow-up attacks, they can re-land in London grabbing from the same territories.

    That is a lot of available force, enough that the Allies have to garrison London to prevent a landing there by Germany.

    And so long as the risk of a London landing is present, then the Allies cannot maximize their landings to Karelia/Archangel from SZ4.

    Add in the options of blockading the Allied Fleet in SZ4 (by moving the German fleet to SZ3), or of strafing un-escorted TRNs in SZ4 with the Luftwaffe, and the Allies need to be VERy careful about exactly how they use their north Atlantic Allied fleets and available land units.

    I have won several games over the past couple of years due to the Allies not paying enough attention to the risk to London from an existing SZ5 fleet…


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    I’ll sink the SZ 5 fleet without loss every time, Switch.

    USA shows up with 3 battleships, 5 fighters and an assundry of surface ships and that fleet is GONE.  Unless, of course, you invest SERIOUS money into augmenting it, in which case, Russia will walk into Berlin uncontested.

    And before you say it’s unrealistic to have 3 battleships with America, realize they start with one and can easily buy two more without serious damage to their shipping each round there-after resulting in Round 3 starting with 3 American Battleships.  Then it’s just a matter of putting two fighters on the board in Round 3 and on Round 4 Germany is looking at an America with:

    2 Destroyers (Free)
    3 Transports (Free)
    1 Battleship (Free)
    3 Fighters (Free)
    1 Bomber (Free)

    2 Battleships (48 IPC)
    3 Transports (24 IPC)
    2 Fighters (20 IPC)

    In 4 Rounds that leaves 66 IPC for America to purchase ground units with.

    Also, with movement taken into account you have:

    SZ 55 to SZ 20 on Round 1 (2nd Battleship built)
    SZ 20 to SZ 10 on Round 2 (3rd Battleship built)
    SZ 10 to SZ 8 on Round 3 (2 Fighters built)
    SZ 8 to SZ 6 on Round 4 (Everything in range of SZ 5)

    Round 5 - Attack.

    Notice, this is as fast as America can POSSIBLY move anyway.  And the battleships don’t lose their usefulness after sinking the German fleet because they can be used for bombardments or to provide free hits discouraging Luftwaffe attacks on the Merchant Marines.

    Now, what does Frood say:

    Defender: 2 Fighters, Destroyer, 2 Submarines, Transport, Carrier

    vs

    Attacker: 5 Fighters, Bomber, 3 Battleships, 2 Destroyers (no fodder transports brought)

    50% No loss to Attacker
    26% Loss of ONE Fighter to Attacker
    18% Loss of TWO Fighters to Attacker

    In other words, almost all the time there is NO LOSS to the attacker.  And, seeing as there is no escape from the attack for Germany, Germany will generally speaking pull his fighters to save them from certain death which means America will win without loss 92% of the time.


    Now, that’s if you want to give it 5 rounds.  Honestly, I have no problem with that since England’s going to be landing troops every round those five rounds in Arkhangelsk anyway so the SZ 5 is impotent as a threat.

    However, you COULD sink them with the British at high cost if you wanted too.



  • 1.  I would be happy to have the US spending that kind of cash on naval units as Germany (and with them in the Atlantic I would be happy as Japan as well).
    2.  I do believe that I posted about adding 2 naval units every 3 turns as Germany, which would ass 3 or 4 German units to the fleet compared to the forces you listed.

    But I am not going to get into a minutia debate over odds and exact units 5 rounds in to the game.  Predicting THAT far ahead is beyond even Miss Cleo’s psychic abilities…  😛


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    Well, as I said, those extra Americans really don’t detract from America’s war efforts in the ground war and are easily placed.  However, if Germany is adding two or three naval units a round, that’s a minimum of 16-24 IPC a round off their totals.  That means out of the expected 40 IPC they are making (up 4 in conquered lands, down 2 in Africa, down 2 for W. Russia) they’ll only have 16-24 IPC for ground units.  That’s about what Russia has for ground units and does not even take into account the 24-30 IPC England has coming in and the 30+ America is bringing.

    So I’ll take that trade.  Sure, you’ll keep SZ 5 alive, but Germany will fall and then SZ 5 will be an isolated island of resistance.



  • Please stop mis-stating my words.

    I said 2 naval units every 3 turns, not 2-3 every turn.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    I apologize, it was not intended, I just misread what you said.

    Anyway, that’s still a self-SBR run with no risk to the allies.  Presumably, your 2 to 3 NAVAL units (you stated navy, so I will assume that is not fighters for carriers, but ONLY navy units) is not doing you an offensive good and is not harming the Allies offensive good.

    Granted on Round 3 it’s too late to change America’s decisions to put two new Battleships in the water, but that doesn’t mean I have to worry about killing the SZ 5 fleet.  As I’ve oft said, I think it is far superior to send at least the British to Arkhangelsk.  With a fleet building, I presume America would also go there if only to persuade Germany not to road block.  If the Germans were not building fleet units, I’d either sink them with the American fleet or focus on running Americans through Africa.

    Honestly, I think UK to Arkhangelsk and USA to Algeria is the more superior method.  Mainly because it stops Japan from turning Persia into a strong hold and you build up British forces in and around Moscow to use liberating Evenki/Novosibirsk/Kazakh if you need too saving Russians for later.



  • The augmented SZ5 fleet is a mix of the initial AC purchase(plus land based FIGs moved out) and TRNs and possibly SUBs built after that.

    The extra TRNs boost Germany’s trading power in Karelia and Norway, adding range to their INF purchases.

    If UK is going to Archangel, then Germany maintains revenue for Norway (either by control of it or by trading), as well as trading revenue for Karelia.  So that is +5 IPC compared to a more traditional UK landing in Norway, then Allied control of Karelia.  Five IPC every round that Germany normally writes off is $15 every 3 turns… $1 shy of the naval spending every 3 turns.

    The lost land units that are being transported are offset by the destroyed Allied units that are being killed in the trades.

    If the US is coming north to go after the SZ5 fleet with those BB’s they bought, then Africa income is going to Germany, and staying with them for much longer… giving Germany revenue in the mid 40’s or greater.

    And with that income, should I decide to make the US “pay” for SZ5 by adding an AC around G4 and moving 2 more FIGs out… I can afford it.

    Regardless, by Turn 5 when the US finally makes a move on my fleet, Germany has collected around $200-$250 of income.  INF heavy buys, control of much of Africa, and preservation of initial ARM…  With $44 spent on navy (2 AC, 1 TRN, 1 SUB), that leaves nearly $200 to hammer Russia…  And Russia will have $125 to $150 over the same time frame…


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    Yea, I already worked into my assumptions that Germany was up 2 IPC for Karelia and up 2 IPC for something else somewhere, but down 2 IPC for Algeria and Libya and down 2 IPC for W. Russia.

    With the US Fleet going north to stop Germany from playing roadblock, the American Air Force is going to go South to sink the German fleet and then move north again.

    Meanwhile, the British Industrial Complex in S. Africa coupled with initial landings of troops by England and America (Round 1) in Algeria should pretty much eliminate all German resistance in Africa.

    So by turn 5 you will have collected about 200 IPC +/- 20 IPC but you’ve spent 16 in Germany 1 and 24 in Germany 3 and probably another 12-16 on Germany 5 just to maintain enough presence to ensure you are not eliminated for negligible cost to America.  So that means you’ve actually put 144-148 IPC of units (Air/Land) into Europe.

    Meanwhile, Russia’s put 127 IPC in Ground/Air units in those save 5 rounds. (Assuming Japan takes Buryatia on Round 1, Yakut and SFE on Round 2 and that Evenki/Novo/Kaz are at worst liberated each round by the allies.)

    144 vs 127 is not exactly a significant improvement in the ground.  Not when you have to figure England’s only down India, Persia, Australia and New Zealand and most of that is recently lost.  That means England’s probably averaging about 24 IPC a round for 5 rounds, you figure 3 of those rounds are tanks in Africa (30 IPC) + 1 round of an industrial (15 IPC), and a carrier, transport in there some where, leaving them 51 IPC in ground units.

    So in Euro-Asia Russia and England have added 178 IPC in ground units vs Germany’s 144 IPC in Ground Units.  That’s not including the troops America’s bringing in by that point. (USA to Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Trans-Jordan, Persia so by the end of Round 5 America can have troops ready to walk into Caucasus.)  Or USA goes to England then lands them in Arkhangelsk later in Karelia directly.

    Any way I look at it, there’s no winning scenario for Germany.  They just cannot produce enough equipment, given normal dice results, to win with a SZ 5 fleet build.  They either lose the fleet for next to no loss or they are forced into spending so much on fleet that they get stalemated by the Allies in very short order.

    Anyway, your assumption of Africa is off.  As I said, with the IC in S. Africa + American landings or even just initial allied landings + IC in S. Africa there’s not much chance Germany’s holding Africa for more then a round, and even then, it’s only a few territories.  Unless they put significant investments into the Med fleet and/or tie up fighters to stall the allies.  In which case the allies will actually have to fight for it, but Russia will be much more liberated to exploit the German countryside.

    Any hope of Germany staying in the mid-40s after round 3 is a lost cause.  After round 3, Germany’ll be lucky if they get into the 40s, but should be ready to expect incomes in the upper 30s.

    And no, the Japanese fleet will NOT be able to take out the IC in S. Africa.  I’ve got a good 3 counters to any Japanese aggressions there, I can chose what suits the situation best.  But suffice it to say, there’s no hope for Japan.  It’s never been done in any game I’ve put a complex in.  Well, not before England itself falls.


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 '13

    IMHO the baltic/sz5 shipping option is clearly the best route to take.

    Allies then threaten everything vital to Germany including Germany major itself. It may take 1-2 turns longer to solidify this shuck from a possible successful German air assault but it effectively stops the german advance and all Russian strength can turn East if needed.

    W/respect to helping MOS, Brit & US armor can land in MOS at the same time once dropped in LEN from the sz5/Baltic shuck vs the Barent’s shuck into ARC so you really don’t lose much there.



  • @JWW:

    IMHO the baltic/sz5 shipping option is clearly the best route to take.

    Allies then threaten everything vital to Germany including Germany major itself. It may take 1-2 turns longer to solidify this shuck from a possible successful German air assault but it effectively stops the german advance and all Russian strength can turn East if needed.

    W/respect to helping MOS, Brit & US armor can land in MOS at the same time once dropped in LEN from the sz5/Baltic shuck vs the Barent’s shuck into ARC so you really don’t lose much there.

    then, after all we ve been discusing here

    the Baltic carrier almost has no alternative



  • Ahhhhhhhh, it’s been awhile since I have replied to a specific option.
    The most important question……WHAT ARE THE VICTORY CONDITIONS?
    If you don’t have to reach a foreign shore to win, then navy be damned!
    If you need a navy to reach the victory city, then axis better start early and protect.
    Allies respond to what the axis need to do, and where they are focused, and be prepared to respond to either the Baltic or Barents sea.



  • Carriers are a DEFENSIVE purchase for the most part…

    They serve to protect either your fleet, or by default your shores, from enemy landings.

    Thus the Graf Zeppelin is a German DEFENSIVE move.


Log in to reply
 

20th Anniversary Give Away

In January 2000 this site came to life and now we're celebrating our 20th Anniversary with a prize giveaway of 30+ prizes. See this link for the list of prizes and winners.
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys
T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 55
  • 38
  • 17
  • 63
  • 1
  • 16
  • 21
  • 27
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

62
Online

14.9k
Users

35.6k
Topics

1.5m
Posts