Personally i think the value of the german navy is two fold.
It provides something else for UK to think about. I think it makes it much less likely for you to see UK IC’s popping up UK1 or 2 if germany has demonstrated a clear intent to pursue a strong baltic navy.
Secondally it provides a shortening of the supply lines to the eastern front. I would consider a carrier + transport G1 buy. Possibly followed up with a second carrier buy G2, with steady destroyer purchases G3 and on.
My vote is that the VC is the most distinguished medal. Very difficult to obtain, long history, not very tarnished by political considerations. its still made from the metals taken from cannons used in the crimean war.
One of the criteria for awarding the VC is that the action in which it is earned must have a 90% or greater chance of resulting in death.
This is a VERY open-ended question, as it would ultimately come down to a couple of Major factors:
1. Only if Hitler does not get involved in strategic decisions.
2. Only if Hitler does not get involved in production
Unlikely as it was Hitlers -job- to be involved in strategic and production planning decisions.
The problem I see is more that Hilter got invloved in operational level decisions, which is what he should have kept his dirty political mitts off of.
I agree with most of your points Chris.
If germany has decided to build/maintain a baltic fleet they must build surface warships. And I also agree Sea Lion is unlikely but it does become something the UK must protect themselves against - potentially diverting attention away from the UKs preferred strategy (whatever that may be). Germanys income will grow dramatically while the UKs shrinks dramatically over the course of the game if Germany spends 10-15 income a turn to maintaining parity (focusing on defense) with British atlantic assets, they can still maintain an economic advantage over the USSR, while the UK must adjust to the possibility that a sea lion -might- occur.
A determined British player might still be able to wipe out the fleet but it will be at significant cost - costs that by mid game the UK may have difficulty absorbing. now if the US are determined to build an atlantic fleet then the equation changes somewhat…
The virtue of an atlantic baltic fleet as I see it is the ability to transfer 2 units per transporter much closer to the -russian-front each turn, while adding a strategic threat that the UK has to concern themselves with.
to be frank this is theorycraft I havent seen how it work in play, but I think its something I’d like to try one day. (ideally not against people who I have told in advance I was gonna try it 
The enemy won’t want to trade fighters and bombers for subs and therefore won’t attack your fleet to begin with. Subs can’t attack planes thats the problem! you can;t let subs take hits from planes… if they could that would be great!
No but they can attack the floating landing field the planes land on…everyone talks about how subs can’t hit planes like its a weakness -its a strength- being able to force my enemy to take hits on ships instead of realitively cheap fighters is a plus!
NoI didnt say it was going to -win- the pacific but it can stalemate it.
I agree that it will be difficult to make an attack with a sub only stack, but equally difficult for an enemy to approach that stack.
If the stack -splits- however it makes attacking possible - albeit difficult - you can only pre-emptively attack a number of stacks equal to your destroyers, in this case the sub commander will trade some subs for a new improved position on the map.
Too much theory crafting based on combat odds generators going on if people can’t see how Subs can help a player deal with a naval imbalance.
I think Jenn’s point was the US will have to buy 12 subs while Japan starts with a massive Navy. It is not like both powers start building fleets from scratch. Subs are nice but too many people are looking for them to be way more than they are. They do not block ships, they hit on a two or less, they cannot be taken as casualties from aircraft, and they are horrible on defense.
Okay fair enough - but I see some of the things you mention about subs as being virtues namely - they cannot be taken as casualties from aircraft - if you are dealing with an opponent who has local naval and air superiority this is a -good- thing. Further you miss one further virtue - all hits made by a sub -must- be taken against a ship - again if you are dealing with an opponent with local naval and air superiority this is a virtue.
I still see the value in a big sub stack, interestingly I think its stronger defensively than offensively - its difficult to move the stack into attacking position (not impposible - see below) but there is a 2 space bubble around the subs that your opponent must be wary of crossing into.
To use it offensively you actually need to break the stack up so that it can collapse onto an enemy position - if your opponent only has a few destroyers they can only effectively attack one stack and then the other subs ‘collapse’ onto the enemy position. Much trivkier to pull off.
If Germany builds a navy to invade UK, then UK has achieved its purpose: to take pressure off of Russia. Then all those bombers, fighters and remaining UK navy can destroy the German fleet and Russia is in even better shape.
A baltic navy serves to shorten supply lines to russia so i am not sure you actually have relieved pressure. Also you may have succeeded -too- well if England actually falls to the Sea Lion it would pretty much be game over even if Russia is doing well.
@Cmdr:
Darth:
I believe a rather intelligent player wouldn’t get into that situation unless it was completely unavoidable. Odds are if you have 6 submarines, your opponent will probably have 3 destroyers, 2 Cruisers, Aircraft Carrier, 2 Fighters and 2 IPC left over. (Just taking the same cash money for a more realistically balanced navy.)
Notice how the submarines are pretty much useless attacking this fleet and how they can be easily crushed by the fleet if they have to go on the defense.
Thing is, guys, submarines are so easily pushed aside and negated they really serve no purpose anymore. Perhaps if we gave them the ability to block naval movement back they’d have at least the function of cheap fodder to slow the enemy.
Huh??
3xDestroyer = 24 IPC, 2xCruiser = 24 IPC, 1xAC =14, 2xFighter =20 total = 82 IPC
6xSub = 36 IPC.
No suprise that the sub fleet is ineffective against a force twice as big….
Im not sure what your point was here.
now if it was 12 subs (72IPC) on the attack against the same fleet I would like those odds as the sub commander.
Back of a ciggy packet calculations indicate:
Round 1 - sub commander inflicts 4 ship only hits, defender inflicts 3-4 hits (lets say 4)
I am going to assume the defender loses 2xdestroyer 2xCruiser
Round 2 - sub gets 2.66 hits defender gets approx 2 hits
Both remaining defendign naval vessels are sunk, and the defending planes either spash into the sea or land on a friendly island.
attacker has lost 36 IPC defender 62…
A big stack of subs creates a 2 space bubble around itself that opposing navy better be careful of entering…
maybe I am missing your point.
I think there are quite a few powerful techs in the game - HB is probably still the king but the gap between some of these techs is smaller now - the industrial tech (name escapes me) that adds +2 builds and halves the effects of SBR has some serious strategic implications, double strength AA is scary too if your opponent has gone airforce heavy. Theres more but I feel tech is better balanced now.