• Wandering of the mind…

    I just read this article, covering the thoughts behind buying an Aircraft Carrier on Germanies first turn.
    But now I am wondering. Why an Aircraft Carrier? Why not but a Destroyer, saving you 4 IPC’s, plus it seems more beneficial.

    The Destroyer has more attack cap. then the AC.
    The Destroyer is cheaper.
    Another extra sub-annoyance.

    The only benefit of the AC is that you create an extra landing spot for 2 fighters, which otherwise wouldnt be able to land after an UK attack.

    However, actually doing the invasion on UK seems very tough for Germany, still.
    So if you decide not to invade UK, but you do want to preserve your Baltic fleet, the Destroyer would be a better choice then the Ac right?
    Or am I overlooking something?

    And if you dó decide to invade the UK, then you could also just move your fighters in G1 within range of UK in Norway or Western Europe. That way you don’t even need the AC’s extra landing spot. This would mean less force on the Eastern front to cope with Russia for 1 turn though, but that seems like something you could overcome.


  • I think the general consensus has now shifted to that of any naval purchase G1 is less than a hot idea. Its something I no longer do as a carrier only buys 1 or 2 turns at the most of an invasion of Eastern units. I prefer instead to purchase 8 infantry and 4 artillery which can subsequently march towards the Caucasus suplemented by tanks purchased in latter rounds.


  • Yeah, I’m doing the math now on any (G1) naval buy and a (G2) possible attack on UK, and it seems a bit risky.

    But imagine if, if you decide to do this…wouldn’t a Destroyer make more sense then the AC?


  • What are the VC (Victory Conditions)? If you need a navy to reach the 9th VC for victory, then the first turn German AC is the best time to buy it. You need to set up for the future and the other moves of the players are predictiable on turn 1 as they are set in funds and locations, then you know what you are facing round 2.

    This also provides flexability for your future advances and defenses. If you aren’t playing for 9+ VC conditions, then I say to heck with a German navy.


  • What purpose would the destroyer serve?

    The carrier allows Germany some more flexibility with its fighters on G1. It also provides much greater protection for the Baltic fleet. G2 without a transport bid the most Germany can bring is two transports worth of ground troops. And that is provided the Allies ALLOW the Mediterranean units to come north. What happens if the British place their Battleship and one available transport in seazone 6? Never mind if they purchase more naval units that they will need anyway. Also consider that if England falls the US can liberate if the British fail to do so one their turn.

    The last two games I have played where Germany invaded and took England early resulted in Germany loosing their Airforce for the gain of England not producing units for one round. I won both of those games for what it is worth.


  • @Raunchy:

    What are the VC (Victory Conditions)? If you need a navy to reach the 9th VC for victory, then the first turn German AC is the best time to buy it. You need to set up for the future and the other moves of the players are predictiable on turn 1 as they are set in funds and locations, then you know what you are facing round 2.

    We usually go for a Worl Domination for both sides, just for the heck of it  😉
    But even in that case, wouldn´t the Destroyer still be more valuable then an AC?
    If I take UK, and want to work my way to either Russia or US, I can reach both nations with my planes rather swift eventually.

    And Bigdog

    Agreed. It´s a hell of a risk to attack UK in G2 (and according to my math, it is…in the best case scenario 5 TRN´s which I could bring btw…but that´s a big IF though), but that would still mean the Allies have to focus on UK in their first rounds, giving Japan more or less free play to attack Russia.
    If they ignore my threat, UK might just fall.

    So I would like to try it some day. But then still the question remains. Why the AC instead of the destroyer, which is cheaper, and only limitation is the lack of a landing zone ?


  • Japan attacks Russia anyway. So no big loss there. All the Allied concentration on the UK is now quite conveniently close to Germany. Also would you please layout how you are going to purchase a destroyer on G1 and then have 5 transports on G2 to invade England.


  • @a44bigdog:

    Also would you please layout how you are going to purchase a destroyer on G1 and then have 5 transports on G2 to invade England.

    Okay, this is a big IF and a definite best case scenario in which UK and USA scramble everything to UK for defense, etc and not interfeir in your plan.

    G1
    I buy 1 DSTR, 3 TRNS, 1 INF which is 40 IPC (German starting income)
    I attack UK Battleship in SZ13 (Gibraltar) with sub, Med. TRNS and Battleship, plus some fighters. (Battleship takes first defensive return hit, and possible 2nd is for the sub).
    TRNS 1 survives and is in range of UK on G2.
    And so is the Battleship for some shore bombardment aswell btw.

    The Destroyer that might attack these two ships in UK1, is no match for my Battleship.

    The other 4 are the 1 already in Baltic Sea, plus the 3 I bought.

    That is, offcourse, if the UK will not attack the Baltic fleet on their first round with the air. But then you might even consider taking the Destroyers or Subs away as hits. This will not deminish your amphibious strentgh on G2, and might even take out some defense strentgh in the form of the attacking planes.

    If UK places his fleet in the way on UK1, you still have quite some force to attack their fleet in G2 (fighters and ships), killing his fleet. Nice odds for G3.

    Ow wait….I think I just figured out the benefit of the AC over the Destroyer. If you deploy a AC, you can place 2 fighters from an adjacent territory on it right ? That would make the fleet even more powerful, withstanding any UK attack on UK1.
    And thus, you have 5 TRNS available for attack on G2.


  • @a44bigdog:

    Japan attacks Russia anyway.

    But now Japan does not have to worry about a possible UK IC in India, or a large US force, as it´s scrambled to UK.
    In the worst case scenario, both UK and US decide not to do so, and beat on Japan the normal way. This is still acceptible for Japan, as it´s used to that. And a KJF by the Allies should be noticed by Japan by the time UK´s turn has ended, so it can switch plans and prepare for that.
    But then German will definitely have the edge in the UK, and still have some strength to keep Russia outside of it doors, with enough time and money to either attack USA or RUS.


  • An AC is able to boost up the Baltic fleet defense of 11, because you already have 2 figs to land there. A DD is only able to boost up the defense of 3.
    Considering that UK may attack the fleet in UK 1 with 2 fig and 1 bmb, these are the odds:

    • buying no naval units: UK chance of victory 73,34 %
    • buying 1 DD: UK chance of victory 23,04 %
    • buying 1 AC and landing 1 fig on it: UK chance of victory 1,82%
    • buying 1 AV and landing 2 fig on it: UK chance of victory 0,07%

    It is clear for the math the reason. If Germany wants to spend money on ships best thing is to spend on AC.

    I usually spend my money in infantry and panzers, sometime i buy fighters, rarely I buy the Baltic AC.


  • because you already have 2 figs to land there

    Yeah, I only just thought of that. Thanks though  🙂
    Stll have to get used to Revised rules. I dont recall from Classic that you were able to immediately put two FTR on a AC upon it´s deployment.


  • Possible blocks UK fleet seazone 6. US or UK ships to seazone 12. Again the Med fleet goes north ONLY if the Allies allow it.

    You might want to read up on some more revised strategies in this forum as the UK IC in India is no longer a great idea either, unless backed up by a US IC in Sinkiang and that still is not considered all that great of an approach.


  • @Woodstock:

    because you already have 2 figs to land there

    Yeah, I only just thought of that. Thanks though  🙂
    Stll have to get used to Revised rules. I dont recall from Classic that you were able to immediately put two FTR on a AC upon it´s deployment.

    Excuse me, I did not realize that you have not applied the “landing of fighters on newly built carrier” rule in your reasoning.

    The strong argument in favour of an AC is all due to that rule. Without available fighters the AC is equal to the DD in defense with the only difference that AC cost 4 more IPCs!

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    The original idea was to land two fighters giving Germany an added 11 Punch vs a destroyer that only added 3 more defensive punch.

    However, some of us have given up on the idea of even attacking SZ5 anyway with England since the risk/reward is heavily skewed to the axis advantage if things go south in SZ 5 (and they can easily do so.)

    Top that off with a serious investment with the axis for a capitol ship they will never actually use and it COULD effect how easily it is to take out Russia.

    Honestly, I’ve been leaning, for a while now, towards a bomber purchase instead of the carrier.  Sometimes I even go insane and go Fighter/Bomber on Germany 1 (Still leaving enough cash for 5 Infantry) and moving 3 submarines, transport, destroyer in SZ 7 or SZ 6.  Gives me a good shot at sinking the British Battleship in SZ 2 if he attacks (because of the counter attack by 6 or 7 Fighters, 2 Bombers) and leaving the British virtually without a navy.

    If England does not fall for the trap, well, I have two long range fighters and 6 or 7 short range fighters to use in trading territories vs Russia with only 2 fighters. (In my mind I envision Bombers as just long range fighters with piss poor defense.)

    In any event, if I was to purchase naval units, it would be in SZ 14 where it can be added to my Battleship to help me hold Africa.  At least Africa’s worth 11 IPC (not including Madagascar) and a Submarine/Transport only costs 8 IPC, so it’s a net profit to me.


  • All very good stuff, thanks.


  • @a44bigdog:

    You might want to read up on some more revised strategies in this forum as the UK IC in India is no longer a great idea either, unless backed up by a US IC in Sinkiang and that still is not considered all that great of an approach.

    Yes, It’s a bad idea, unless you also build z55 USA fleet


  • The problem with an India IC on turn 1 is that you have to commit before any dice are rolled in the East, and I feel that Asian ICs (and perhaps KJFs in general) only well if Japan gets bad dice on UK1 and/or J1. Building an IC in Sinkiang won’t stop Japan from capturing India on Japan 3 as outlined in the CSub paper. But this is a bit off-topic probably blush


  • In fact, the IC can be placed after z59 combat. If trannie is killed, you can put it at India. If not, you must place it at Australia or South Africa (thus changing the strategy). I had that error in our last game, KGB, but it will be the last time I make that error  😉


  • @KGB:

    The problem with an India IC on turn 1 is that you have to commit before any dice are rolled in the East, and I feel that Asian ICs (and perhaps KJFs in general) only well if Japan gets bad dice on UK1 and/or J1. Building an IC in Sinkiang won’t stop Japan from capturing India on Japan 3 as outlined in the CSub paper. But this is a bit off-topic probably blush

    Dont worry, I lik off-topicness. The more thoughts spread around, the better 😉

    Would you mind linking me to this CSub paper you speak off? I’ve been going through quite some pages in this board (rather swiftly, agreed) but was unable to find any “complete” strategy layouts for Revised.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    IF, and that is a BIG IF, you put an Industrial Complex in India on UK1; and it is not from the National Advantage; then I believe you should have moved the infantry from Caucasus and/or Kazakh to Persia on Russia 1 that way you can have them in India on Russia 2 before Japan can stage a hail mary attack on India and thus, give the British time to build troops there.

    And yes, I would suggest a complex in Sinkiang with forces coming in from North/East Russia to support it.


  • Okay, so the majority here is not keen on the buy fleet thing on G1.
    But how do you all stand towards at least preserving the Baltic fleet? (by, I gues the only option is a AC).
    That tranny there, does provide it’s use as a bridge to Norway and Karelia, allowing German to threaten Russia a lot easier.

    (which is what I like about the 3 TRNS + AC buy. If you dont attack UK on G2…which prolly is the case if UK and US respond to your threat, you still have some flexibility on G2. You can put quite a force in Russia with the 3 TRNS, or respond to an allied landing on either Norway or W-Europe, giving a big punch on the UK fleet. )

    Or do you all take the loss of the Baltic fleet, and not invest at it at all, going for air and ground units solely?

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I either entice the British to attack it in the hopes of destroying some planes and maybe, if lucky, the bomber too OR

    I make a run for the Med hoping to at least trap the British fleet OR

    I build almost all navy and really make a play for the North Atlantic.


  • AC costs 16 ipc. The baltic fleet buys germany 2 units 1 extra space. So lets say we wanted to stack Karelia. By round 3, the surviving baltic fleet can have 4 extra inf. Or maybe 2 inf and 2 art. for a cost of ac = 16 4inf=12 or 2inf2art=14. or 28-30 ipc. With no AC buy, you can have 10 inf in kareila on r3 (mixed with any art). Clearly, for the cost, its better to buy more inf and march them east, then to buy an AC for minimal benefit.

    The AC purchase to me was an idea that was meant to throw money at an issue that people tried to avoid as a “sunk” cost. The blastic fleet is a sunk cost. I sometimes bring it out to bate UK. or try a unifiication, but any benefit i get is a “nice” to have.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I view the carrier as lost IPC to Germany because it prevents England from attacking the SZ 5 fleet.  The whole idea of a SZ 5 fleet is a way to sink British planes.  IMHO


  • @Woodstock:

    @KGB:

    The problem with an India IC on turn 1 is that you have to commit before any dice are rolled in the East, and I feel that Asian ICs (and perhaps KJFs in general) only well if Japan gets bad dice on UK1 and/or J1. Building an IC in Sinkiang won’t stop Japan from capturing India on Japan 3 as outlined in the CSub paper. But this is a bit off-topic probably blush

    Dont worry, I lik off-topicness. The more thoughts spread around, the better 😉

    Would you mind linking me to this CSub paper you speak off? I’ve been going through quite some pages in this board (rather swiftly, agreed) but was unable to find any “complete” strategy layouts for Revised.

    Then DO NOT RELY ON C-SUB.

    C-Sub “papers” are a few page “cheat sheet” for a beginner. They are not complete in any sense.

    Secondly, that India paper is poorly written, years old, and was incorrect when first written.

    You can defend an India IC very well, by using USSR and USA to help.

    And, to discuss the OT, A baltic carrier was and IS still a viable strategy.

    Do not listen to the nay-sayers, but think out of the box and you will have much more fun playing.

Suggested Topics

  • 13
  • 4
  • 247
  • 24
  • 12
  • 54
  • 2
  • 6
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

63
Online

15.1k
Users

36.0k
Topics

1.5m
Posts