• 2007 AAR League

    @bugoo:

    Depends on how many boats and which ones i have left as UK vs a baltic fleet.  Typically i’ll sacrifice my transport to grab finland/norway with plane support, or hide my bomber somewhere like persia to trade with, or try to bait G into hitting my boats with there air, it really depends.  Sometimes i’ll just build destroyers and an AC in SZ 6 to blockade the G fleet and kill them at my leisure, as carriers are really bad at attacking.  The big thing is this, UK’s job is to keep Russia alive by costing Germany IPCs.  This can be done by taking there land, killing there units, bombing there factories, or watching them build boats and sinking them.  I always make sure if they sail out of harbor, they will die.

    And if you ever have to choose between denying Russia 5 IPCs to deny Germany 7, do it.

    Also keep in mind this is from a KGF mindset using LL, i leave Africa and Italy to the US, where it belongs.  To hell with japan they don’t even enter the game till turn 3, usually not till turn 4 aside from taking my money.  By then Germany is loosing ground to Russia, the UK is threating Berlin/France heavily, and Italy has no boats nor NOs with a US fleet in the water.  Then, after japan gets a few factories going will i build a harassment US fleet in the pacific.

    LL?!  That was never part of the equation, the game wasn’t meant to be played with anything but ADS, there’s a reason for that.  ADS compensates for all the incalculable variables of war that can’t be incorporated into the game, strength of the commanders, terrain, weather, etc. IMO it takes all the fun out of the game, you might as well play chess.

    You ignore Japan at your peril, an unfettered Japan will have 60+ IPC and be knocking on the door of Caucaus by T3.

  • 2007 AAR League

    @dondoolee:

    @Emperor:

    Excellent posts gentlemen, prehaps there is some use for UK subs after all, I still remain skeptical.  I’m still curious, what is the UK doing elsewhere while plopping these subs in the water?  Have they abandoned Africa and the Far East?

    Bourgeoisie Capitalist fighters on the soil of Mother Russia?!  Stalin would have a fit, not to mention it would cost them their NO. 😄

    I still think a G1 naval build is a viable strategy.  The alternative is to lose the batltic fleet UK1 with no real cost to the allies.

    I am enjoying this debate as well.
    I usually try to avoid UK troops on USSR land (if NO’s are on).  Off the top of my head, I could just build 2/3 subs and sit on the rest of the money (or build a few ground troops) and prepare for a T3 attack on Europe/Afr, which is usually about the time the UK does anything for me anyway.  A factory build may also be an option.  Another radical option (I have no idea how well it would work) would be an Allied T1 all bomber build.  That may be enough bombers to wipe out both fleets and have some bombers left over to do dmg elsewhere.

    But as far as more conservative play, I would try to find ways to just ignore the navy (I can still land in Afr/ W. Eur/ Nor) and make sure I had a navy that couldn’t be sunk.  If you built a navy, I could still get a navy started T1 by icceland w/o worrying about getting sunk.  Russia is going to get about two turns to really shore up her forces on Germany, which as an allied player I would find a good thing.

    Here is really what is driving me wild though, I have seen people advocate A german carrier, a german tranny with an Italian carrier/fig build, and even some say an extra Italian tranny and an extra German destroyer.  I don’t think the UK has to worry too much about anything with a build like that as Russia can just mop the floor with both Italy and Germany simultaneously with an opening build like that, they may even have enough troops to speed bump Japan a little too.

    Look at the map after G1, UK has only a TP, and DD left off the Coast of E. Canada.  There can be up to 3 Geman SS left in the atlantic.  Germany has just built a fleet in SZ5 (make up undetermined…as I have only advocated a G1 naval purchase, not a G1 CV purchase).  UK has two options, Kill the fleet UK2 or Ignore it.  Killing it means a huge investment for that purpose at the expense of all other options, or ignore it, which means it can be added to or not at Germany’s discretion.  In either case the allies have to react, and Germany’s baltic fleet isn’t going to davy jones locker UK1.


  • After theoretical talking with my friend, we concluded that the German Baltic fleet was very useful, especially at sending infantry to the front. Plus, a decent fleet can be a small threat to London. I’m not sure how much to buy though. A CV sounds ok if you want your fleet to survive UK1. Or you could make a cruiser. But then, UK can still sink it. UK has 2 fighter and a Bomber on London that can attack the Baltic Fleet. 
    A CV with 2 aircraft on it sounds like the best option to survive UK1. That leaves German with 16IPC to spend on ground unit. Granted that Russia can not go offensive on his first round, buying mostly infantry with the 16 remaining IPC look like decent. After G and R 1, Germany should have alot more IPC to spend on ground units
    With the Baltic fleet, you can spend 8-12 IPC a turn to keep it alive a little longer.
    On G2, Karelia should be “easy to take” with ground units from Finland, Baltic states, tanks and aircraft. One shore bombardment too with 2 infantry in amphibious attack. If UK makes a fleet, some Submarine are great to sink them.

    If only German had access to MED! They could use the transports to move infantry to the frontline faster!

    Robert

    EDIT: My bad, CV  costs 14. So it leaves Germany with 17. He can easily build 4 infantry + 1 tank. The tank is fast enough on its own to reach the eastern front. 2 infantry to be shipped via the transport for amphibious attack on Karelia G2. The two other can be used to reinforce France.


  • the guy i play against always builds a IC in France G1.  then G2 he builds a navy in the med to hook up with Italy’s navy.  he amasses a huge navy in SZ13, which is troublesome.  from there he can attack caucasus or london, or head for africa.  so i let him build it, while i stock pile men and fighters in UK, and build a fleet and tanks in SAF.  the USA sends fighters and bombers to UK, and bothers JAP in the pacific. meanwhile russia gets her poop in a group, and starts to harass GER from the east.  the axis navy in the med just keeps me from getting to loose.  keep things tight, and it is just a matter of time before GER looks kind of barren, or overrun with Ruskies.


  • So, the big question that makes this whole discussion moot is: What does building navy in the Baltic actually -do-?  What is the goal of building it?

    1. It ferries a few additional troops to Karelia faster.
    Ok, but taking and holding the Karelia factory accomplishes the same purpose without wasting IPCs on building navy.  In any case, the land units you build in Germany will get to the eastern front eventually, whether by walking there or taking a transport.  Does a few of them getting there slightly faster until the navy dies accomplish that much (i.e., is there a quick attack that kills Russia very fast where you need those few extra troops in the east a couple of turns earlier)?  Nah.  The game designers were smart enough to make sure there’s no cute tactics like that which Germany can pull - it takes at least 6 turns or so to really take Moscow against any sort of decent Russian player, and the Baltic fleet should be dead long before then if you don’t play the naval arms war with England more than a carrier or two.

    2. It threatens the UK with invasion.
    There is no way that Germany can build enough of a navy to compete with the UK -and- hold the east against Russia.  It’s just not possible with the IPCs that Germany has access to in the beginning of the game.  So, one or the other will have to go.  Besides, the UK can easily build enough land units to prevent Germany from ever really taking the UK.  US can come with assist if it’s ever needed, but it won’t.  So this threat is empty in that it doesn’t gain any territories for Germany, and they’ll be losing territories to Russia while sitting around building this empty threat.

    3. It makes the UK focus on fleet for an extra turn or two instead of prepping invasion of France or Scandinavia.
    Ok, but it also makes Germany focus on building ships instead of land/air units, like they should be.  So this is a trade-off, and one that Axis can’t really afford to make IMO.  UK will eventually crush the Baltic fleet, and by crush I mean not a fair battle.  Axis will lose on the IPC trade and UK should be left with a fleet that is unassailable, and -then- they can start the invasion prep.  Also, by building ships, Germany is going to start losing instead of gaining land IPCs to Russia as they begin losing the land arms race since they are preoccupied with ship building.

    So, I think we’re left with admitting that building ships as Germany has no real goal to it, and therefore, it’s a bad move.  Whether it’s a lone carrier, or something more substantive, those Baltic ships that Germany builds will either sit there useless, or get destroyed, and you’ll wish you had spent those IPCs on something else, like maybe inf/arm/fig/bmb.


  • @cymerdown:

    So, the big question that makes this whole discussion moot is: What does building navy in the Baltic actually -do-?  What is the goal of building it?

    1. It ferries a few additional troops to Karelia faster.
    Ok, but taking and holding the Karelia factory accomplishes the same purpose without wasting IPCs on building navy.  In any case, the land units you build in Germany will get to the eastern front eventually, whether by walking there or taking a transport.  Does a few of them getting there slightly faster until the navy dies accomplish that much (i.e., is there a quick attack that kills Russia very fast where you need those few extra troops in the east a couple of turns earlier)?  Nah.  The game designers were smart enough to make sure there’s no cute tactics like that which Germany can pull - it takes at least 6 turns or so to really take Moscow against any sort of decent Russian player, and the Baltic fleet should be dead long before then if you don’t play the naval arms war with England more than a carrier or two.

    Not just Karelia. Scandinavia aswell. UK and RUS can easily take that, taking valuable IPC’s from Germany. Beig able to ship some men there helps out a lot.

    2. It threatens the UK with invasion.
    There is no way that Germany can build enough of a navy to compete with the UK -and- hold the east against Russia.  It’s just not possible with the IPCs that Germany has access to in the beginning of the game.  So, one or the other will have to go.  Besides, the UK can easily build enough land units to prevent Germany from ever really taking the UK.  US can come with assist if it’s ever needed, but it won’t.  So this threat is empty in that it doesn’t gain any territories for Germany, and they’ll be losing territories to Russia while sitting around building this empty threat.

    If UK has to resort to defending, my goal is already accomplished. That means less British IPC spent elsewhere. That means a field day for Japan.
    As for Russia, let them come. Once they get stretched far enough, they’ll be pushed back again. In the meanwhile Japan is nearing from the East.

    3. It makes the UK focus on fleet for an extra turn or two instead of prepping invasion of France or Scandinavia.
    Ok, but it also makes Germany focus on building ships instead of land/air units, like they should be.  So this is a trade-off, and one that Axis can’t really afford to make IMO.  UK will eventually crush the Baltic fleet, and by crush I mean not a fair battle.  Axis will lose on the IPC trade and UK should be left with a fleet that is unassailable, and -then- they can start the invasion prep.  Also, by building ships, Germany is going to start losing instead of gaining land IPCs to Russia as they begin losing the land arms race since they are preoccupied with ship building.

    UK focus on fleet for an extra turn or two

    You mean, delay UK by a turn or two? Great. Another goal achieved.

    So, I think we’re left with admitting that building ships as Germany has no real goal to it

    In your opinion, yes. In my opinion, no. There’s other goals that you didn’t describe yet (next to delaying UK in building a fleet, you will also eventually have a very big chance to wipe out the same fleet, whilst Ger is sitting on +50 ipc, and UK is sitting on +20 IPC. Good luck in rebuilding the UK fleet after it got wiped…) and so on.

    Look, I cant say it just as good as Mollari and some others did , so I am just gonna say…

    “Prretty much everything MOllari and those others said” 😛


  • @Emperor:

    @dondoolee:

    @Emperor:

    Excellent posts gentlemen, prehaps there is some use for UK subs after all, I still remain skeptical.  I’m still curious, what is the UK doing elsewhere while plopping these subs in the water?  Have they abandoned Africa and the Far East?

    Bourgeoisie Capitalist fighters on the soil of Mother Russia?!  Stalin would have a fit, not to mention it would cost them their NO. 😄

    I still think a G1 naval build is a viable strategy.  The alternative is to lose the batltic fleet UK1 with no real cost to the allies.

    I am enjoying this debate as well.
    I usually try to avoid UK troops on USSR land (if NO’s are on).  Off the top of my head, I could just build 2/3 subs and sit on the rest of the money (or build a few ground troops) and prepare for a T3 attack on Europe/Afr, which is usually about the time the UK does anything for me anyway.  A factory build may also be an option.  Another radical option (I have no idea how well it would work) would be an Allied T1 all bomber build.  That may be enough bombers to wipe out both fleets and have some bombers left over to do dmg elsewhere.

    But as far as more conservative play, I would try to find ways to just ignore the navy (I can still land in Afr/ W. Eur/ Nor) and make sure I had a navy that couldn’t be sunk.  If you built a navy, I could still get a navy started T1 by icceland w/o worrying about getting sunk.  Russia is going to get about two turns to really shore up her forces on Germany, which as an allied player I would find a good thing.

    Here is really what is driving me wild though, I have seen people advocate A german carrier, a german tranny with an Italian carrier/fig build, and even some say an extra Italian tranny and an extra German destroyer.  I don’t think the UK has to worry too much about anything with a build like that as Russia can just mop the floor with both Italy and Germany simultaneously with an opening build like that, they may even have enough troops to speed bump Japan a little too.

    Look at the map after G1, UK has only a TP, and DD left off the Coast of E. Canada.  There can be up to 3 Geman SS left in the atlantic.  Germany has just built a fleet in SZ5 (make up undetermined…as I have only advocated a G1 naval purchase, not a G1 CV purchase).  UK has two options, Kill the fleet UK2 or Ignore it.  Killing it means a huge investment for that purpose at the expense of all other options, or ignore it, which means it can be added to or not at Germany’s discretion.  In either case the allies have to react, and Germany’s baltic fleet isn’t going to davy jones locker UK1.

    @ Mollinari: To be honest, in over 50% of the games before UK1 I lose every naval piece on the map other than the AUS Navy.  If the UK has any ship left other than that it is considerd a great luxury, and will turn into a giant pain in the butt for Germany (and on 1 occasion my destroyer in India survived and took out 2 fig for japan, that was an awsome day for the allies).  I am used to getting the worst set up in the world with the UK (I still struggle when germany takes Egy and has 2 tanks left over AND blows up all my navy).

    Regardless, the allies always have to react to the Axis on the early turns.  I don’t see that neccasarily as a disadvantage.  What is worse is when the Axis do something and FORCE you to make a move.  For Example, If Italy and Germany forgoe a navy, Italy focuses on Tank production and creating a decent tank force, around T3 Russia is going to be Forced into only defending 2 out of 3 critical areas much of the time in fear of a double hit.  Also, it wont be able to leave any 1 man Inf guarding a critical area, as Italy can take it out, and Germany can storm in and hit the Critical territory.  That’s a great way to get Karelia (and if you’re really lucky the Cauc)

  • 2007 AAR League

    The alternative to not making a G1 naval purchase is the allies will sink the baltic fleet UK1 at little or no cost and UK is free to spend it’s 43 ducets causing mischief in Africa and Asia.


  • @Emperor:

    The alternative to not making a G1 naval purchase is the allies will sink the baltic fleet UK1 at little or no cost and UK is free to spend it’s 43 ducets causing mischief in Africa and Asia.

    Is that such a big loss to Germany?  Moving into Karelia via the ground is much cheaper safer and easier to accomplish.

    If Germany is marching quickly on Russia, newly added UK units in far flung SAF won’t do much to stop that.

  • 2007 AAR League

    @axis_roll:

    @Emperor:

    The alternative to not making a G1 naval purchase is the allies will sink the baltic fleet UK1 at little or no cost and UK is free to spend it’s 43 ducets causing mischief in Africa and Asia.

    Is that such a big loss to Germany?  Moving into Karelia via the ground is much cheaper safer and easier to accomplish.

    If Germany is marching quickly on Russia, newly added UK units in far flung SAF won’t do much to stop that.

    I’ve always maintained that the fleet will eventually be sunk, the point is to make the allies commit significant resources to do so, those are resources not spent elsewhere which is to Italy\Japan’s advantage.  The loss of the fleet is only a minor set back to Germany but it get’s Karelia in force G2 and helps Italy and Japan expand their IPC base.  If the allies don’t move to immediately sink that fleet, even better.

    I’ve never claimed that it is a better strategy than any other, only that it’s viable and has advantages.


  • I’ve never claimed that it is a better strategy than any other, only that it’s viable and has advantages.

    Exactly right!
    When you play each and every game exactly the same, then I’m ready to find a different opponent.  One should always have a few different openers/strategies so as to not fall into a rut.


  • Ok not sure if this was a good idea or i got lucky but here is what happened.

    On G1 i setup to take egypt heavy and then the other typical things, but what happened that really made me happy were 3 things.

    1 - UK abandoned Egypt
    2- Russia abandoned Karelia
    3 - Nothing could hit the Italian fleet on turn 2 in SZ 13

    Now on Italy’s turn I really wanted that 2nd NO but couldn’t take trans-jordan, so i moved 1 inf into egypt and my entire fleet into SZ 13 grabbing Gibraltar.  On germanies turn I knew i’d have a load of money to spend on turn 3 so I purchased a factory in france, took my NOs, and moved back my forces a bit against russia.  On turn 3 I dropped a large G fleet of destroyers and a carrier into SZ 7.  Now the UK could have hit, and sunk that fleet, but, she would have only a few boats left and italy was in position to counter, sinking the remainder.  And with the UK down in the 20s income, she did not wish to do so.  This allowed me to move all troops from france and send them at Russia, wearing her down maybe not as fast as i wished, but fast enough.  Also in later turns (5th I think) my fleet and air force sunk the UK fleet pretty much ending the game.  Other funny things that happened were Italian figs landing on a german carrier, and a german DD block of SZ 6 to protect the fleet one turn.

    Not sure if its a great strat or not, but the keys were UK’s income gets so low they cannot compete those turns with boats.  Also, russia cannot get too aggressive or your air force and recent purchases will stomp them.  And of course the UK/US could do a combined attack against your fleet, but it would be inefficient and then you accomplish your goal anyway, the sinking of the UK’s fleet.  Other things that could enhance this idea would be Japan figs landing on german carriers (if they get in range in time), or just Japan being in a position to counter with planes against a weakened UK fleet.


  • @Bardoly:

    I’ve never claimed that it is a better strategy than any other, only that it’s viable and has advantages.

    Exactly right!
    When you play each and every game exactly the same, then I’m ready to find a different opponent.  One should always have a few different openers/strategies so as to not fall into a rut.

    Well, IMHO, Germany can choose <almost>ANY strategy and still be in the game early on.
    You obviously have to implement that strategy properly.

    It helps alot to go first.</almost>


  • G1 : German can take things smoothly. Russia’s offensive force is weak, so even spending half of your money on naval build, you won’t be behind Russia.
    Naval builds are to slow down Allies, to pose minimum threat to England and if left in the Baltic, can be used to move Infantry quickly to the front. (Suppose an initial 16 IPC for a Carrier, you can spend 8+ per turn to slowly grow your fleet, depending on UK purchase). With a BB, that fleet should be ok for a while. And since you are making more money than Russia, you aren’t falling behind him. Faster Infantry = your offensive material will likely stay alive. + slowing down Allies can be a good strategy
    Of course, this is all theoretical. But I intend to test it this Thursday, when I will finally meet with my 5 others friends to play 🙂


  • @Emperor:

    @axis_roll:

    @Emperor:

    The alternative to not making a G1 naval purchase is the allies will sink the baltic fleet UK1 at little or no cost and UK is free to spend it’s 43 ducets causing mischief in Africa and Asia.

    Is that such a big loss to Germany?  Moving into Karelia via the ground is much cheaper safer and easier to accomplish.

    If Germany is marching quickly on Russia, newly added UK units in far flung SAF won’t do much to stop that.

    I’ve always maintained that the fleet will eventually be sunk, the point is to make the allies commit significant resources to do so, those are resources not spent elsewhere which is to Italy\Japan’s advantage.  The loss of the fleet is only a minor set back to Germany but it get’s Karelia in force G2 and helps Italy and Japan expand their IPC base.  If the allies don’t move to immediately sink that fleet, even better.

    I’ve never claimed that it is a better strategy than any other, only that it’s viable and has advantages.

    The German fleet is definatly viable, and could be a lot of fun.  I am at a stage right now though where I am looking for optimal since I have played this game for less than 6 months.

  • 2007 AAR League

    @dondoolee:

    The German fleet is definatly viable, and could be a lot of fun.  I am at a stage right now though where I am looking for optimal since I have played this game for less than 6 months.

    There is never an Optimal strategy, no matter what version you play.  As for AA50, We are all newbies, it’s such a completely different game from AAR.  Everything I knew in AAR went out the window with AA50.  I’m rebuilding my strategies with each game, and that’s the fun!


  • In my playgroup the G1 carrier buy is a very used strategy.
    We play boardgame: NOs, no tech, no bid, dice (obviously;)

    G1 buy:
    1 carrier, 1 tank, 4 inf
    or
    1 carrier, 1 transport, 1 art, 2 inf

    Attacks:
    sz2 with 2subs, norway fighter, bomber
    sz6 with sub, holland fgt
    ukraine with a minimum of forces
    Baltics hard
    East Poland hard
    transport troops to Libya

    Often we don’t attack sz12, because we consider the UK attack on italian fleet too risky. And we need 2 fgts to land on the Carrier.
    But this sets up to take Karelia hard on G2.

    England is now forced to buy all fleet, witch is not necessarily bad. But it leaves Italy alone to expand. And UK’s builds may consist of destroyers and subs, that cannot be used after eliminating the Kriegsmarine. So those 14 spent on the carrier is evened out with UK’s builds.
    I have to agree with Emperor Molari, that losing the german fleet is not a disaster - the difficult part is to recognize, when it has to be abandoned by the fighters…

    We have had many succeses with the G1 carrier buy! I don’t think you should discard the idea untested 🙂


  • @General:

    England is now forced to buy all fleet, witch is not necessarily bad. But it leaves Italy alone to expand. And UK’s builds may consist of destroyers and subs, that cannot be used after eliminating the Kriegsmarine. So those 14 spent on the carrier is evened out with UK’s builds.
    I have to agree with Emperor Molari, that losing the german fleet is not a disaster - the difficult part is to recognize, when it has to be abandoned by the fighters…

    We have had many succeses with the G1 carrier buy! I don’t think you should discard the idea untested 🙂

    IMHO, this is a sub-optimal move, especially when SZ12 DD and CA are not attacked.  UK/US need only add air force to sink the Germany navy (no subs, and with 2 UK DD’s, perhaps not even another DD).  Anyways, absolute rules/judgements are very hard to make when speaking in strategic generalities.

    I think the $14 is better spent elsewhere for Germany, like a ftr and an art or a bomber!


  • I will agree with axis_roll about the importance of sinking the UK ships in SZ12. I also agree that using them against the Italian navy can leave a very bad taste in the UK player’s mouth if it does not go well and it is not a strong attack by the dice odds anyway. If the SZ12 units are not sank that, with SZ9 gives the UK 1 TN 2 DD 1 CA as a core to add units to on UK 1. The UK can purchase 3 INF 1 CV and 1 BB on round 1, which is now a significant fleet that can be added to with just TNs and some DDs as needs require.


  • @Black_Elk:

    I think if you buy a carrier in the first round, it will be dead before it does you any good.

    An extra destroyer is maybe doable, if you’re just trying to deter a round one air strike by the UK. You might even be able to sneak in a second cruiser instead of a destroyer, but whether that’s advisable or not I couldn’t really say. I certainly wouldn’t waste the money on Subs though, thats for sure. Carriers are still expensive even at 14 ipcs, and once you buy it you then have to protect it with fighters, which locks you into a much more defensive posture. I’m sure it would deter the British from attacking you, but at what cost to the overall war effort?

    If I was going to make a commitment like that, I would try to factor in a second or third transport, so you can at least threaten UK with invasion. The people in my playgroup will usually just trade aircraft for ships in rounds 2 or 3 regardless, so it tends to be a losing proposition for G. Add to that the fact that if Germany buys ships, you’re basically calling down on yourself the mother of all KGF strats, so I’m not sure what the benefit would be. If they wanted Germany to buy ships in this game they should have done more to bolster the Baltic fleet, added convoy zones, or subs that do economic damage. The way its set up right now, I can’t imagine why anyone would try for it. Germany is never going to win the Battle of Jutland in this game, let alone the battle of the Atlantic, so what would be the point?

    Sorry for the pessimism, but I’m still irked that Germany wasn’t given a battleship in sz 5. If it was a battleship instead of a cruiser then at least they’d have a chance against the Royal Air Force.

    :?

    14 IPC? germany gets in most of my gmaes middle 50’s, so more than enough to spend once 14 IPC so they can delay british for quiet a time


  • @Frontovik:

    @Black_Elk:

    I think if you buy a carrier in the first round, it will be dead before it does you any good.

    An extra destroyer is maybe doable, if you’re just trying to deter a round one air strike by the UK. You might even be able to sneak in a second cruiser instead of a destroyer, but whether that’s advisable or not I couldn’t really say. I certainly wouldn’t waste the money on Subs though, thats for sure. Carriers are still expensive even at 14 ipcs, and once you buy it you then have to protect it with fighters, which locks you into a much more defensive posture. I’m sure it would deter the British from attacking you, but at what cost to the overall war effort?

    If I was going to make a commitment like that, I would try to factor in a second or third transport, so you can at least threaten UK with invasion. The people in my playgroup will usually just trade aircraft for ships in rounds 2 or 3 regardless, so it tends to be a losing proposition for G. Add to that the fact that if Germany buys ships, you’re basically calling down on yourself the mother of all KGF strats, so I’m not sure what the benefit would be. If they wanted Germany to buy ships in this game they should have done more to bolster the Baltic fleet, added convoy zones, or subs that do economic damage. The way its set up right now, I can’t imagine why anyone would try for it. Germany is never going to win the Battle of Jutland in this game, let alone the battle of the Atlantic, so what would be the point?

    Sorry for the pessimism, but I’m still irked that Germany wasn’t given a battleship in sz 5. If it was a battleship instead of a cruiser then at least they’d have a chance against the Royal Air Force.

    :?

    14 IPC? germany gets in most of my gmaes middle 50’s, so more than enough to spend once 14 IPC so they can delay british for quiet a time

    It’s not that Germany can not afford to spend IPCs on a navy.  It’s a question of how much return they get on that investment.
    What does this German navy force the allies to do?  Buy a few extra ships (cruisers might be the best naval purchase in this situation)…or a few more fighters to eventually sink that navy.

    Neither of these ‘forced’ buys are bad for the allies.  In fact, they might buy these units anyways, so much so they might be called ‘required’ units for the allies to buy.

    However Germany does not normally buy naval units.  Naval units could never be construed as ‘required’ buy units for Germany.

    So Germany is buying units that they would not normally buy to force the allies to buy more units of what they WOULD normally buy.

    In that light, is a German navy really a good return for the money now?


  • One thing I have found that a German navy does axis_roll is that it tends to keep the UK at home defending for a couple of rounds and it allows quick reinforcement of Karelia. Granted all of my experience so far is in AA50-42 which is a vastly different animal from AA50-41. Occupying the Allies attention for the first few rounds may let the other Axis powers get up and running to take care of Russia.

    I really think more experimentation is needed with German Naval builds before they are simply dismissed out of hand.

  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    German Naval strategies are interesting.

    In revised, one particular game, I built a German Battleship a turn, for 3 turns.  Laugh at it, call it crazy.  Against competent opponents here on the site.  It worked.

    The allies took it WAY too seriously.  Albeit I was almost bankrupt, it didn’t matter, america was too busy building planes, aircraft carriers, and destroyers to combat my navy, than transports to actually take territory.

    Once you get 3 Bat’s together, with 1 acc supporting,  there is almost nothing that can stop you in the water, no one buys Bat’s really, en mass they are almost a broken unit, especially for axis, being able to avoid 1-2 punches, by tip and re-tipping….

    The counter is simple of course, avoid the BB’s entirely, and go for a massive land offensive 😛  But depending on play style, some opponents play their game, or if you are good, you can make em play yours.


  • @a44bigdog:

    One thing I have found that a German navy does axis_roll is that it tends to keep the UK at home defending for a couple of rounds and it allows quick reinforcement of Karelia. Granted all of my experience so far is in AA50-42 which is a vastly different animal from AA50-41. Occupying the Allies attention for the first few rounds may let the other Axis powers get up and running to take care of Russia.

    I really think more experimentation is needed with German Naval builds before they are simply dismissed out of hand.

    in 1942, yes, a German navy is great.

    1941 it might work OK, but my point is that there are many better other choices for Germany than building a navy.


  • Well, I’m just wondering how many other folks out there are actually going for a G1 naval buy in the '41 setup?

    I have felt that it might be doable, so I decided to play a few games with a G1 naval build.  Right now I’m playing 6 different League opponents as the Axis, and in each of the games, I purchased 1 bb, 1 dd, 1 inf for G1.  (It seems that the bb/dd purchase may be better than a cv purchase, but I’m not sure.)  I’ll post my results later, but so far, it’s been a mixed bag.  I’ve got the definite advantage in a couple of the games, a definite disadvantage in a couple of the games, and for the other 2, the games are still fairly balanced.

    A G1 naval purchase in the '42 setup definitely seems a little easier to do for sure, but in '41 does it stand a chance?

    Answers from people who’ve actually played with a G1 naval purchase please.  😉

Suggested Topics

  • 7
  • 31
  • 59
  • 10
  • 4
  • 19
  • 17
  • 19
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

64
Online

16.4k
Users

38.2k
Topics

1.6m
Posts