What about an American Battleship strategy?

[frood]

I think I misspoke myself. If US starts buying a big pac navy, I buy subs with Japan. Lots and lots of subs. Whether US is building their fleet the smart way (subs, ACs, Ftrs) or some crazy way (all BBs), I’ll still stick with the smart way. The ultimate goal is to preserve cash for the land way, so I go with the most cost-effective naval unit, the sub.

[Jennifer]

Subs have their own flaws.  They can be hit by fighters without cost.

And I’m not saying go ALL OUT battleships.  However, I have found that +3 Battleships +2 Carriers +5 Fighters seems to be pretty good at keeping Japan at bay, especially if they build up submarines.  Hit you with Fighters if your subs are solo, bring in the fleet to absorb hits if you have fleet there.  (2 Carriers can support 8 fighters in a naval engagement.  4 Fighters flying 4 spaces in, 4 fighters flying in 1, and out 3.)

I don’t even NEED to build submarines.

(Units listed above are in addition to surviving starting forces and assume SZ 52 was cleared on J1.  if SZ 52 was not cleared, reduce by units left alive in SZ 52.)

[frood]

For the same price as your US fleet, Japan can build 19 subs. What do you think happens to your BB/AC/Ftr fleet when they are hit by 19 subs? They score six hits in opening fire (avg.), sending 3 of your capital ships to the ocean floor, leaving only two to to even fight back. Those plus the 4 Ftrs that were on the ACs take out maybe three subs.

The remaining 16 subs make short work of the remaining navy, and your fighters splash or land on some god-forsaken pacific island after taking out two more subs.

Japan loses 5 subs, US loses 3 BB 2 AC, and possibly 4 fighters if there was not an adjacent allied-controlled landing spot.

It would work with fewer than 19 subs, I imagine - this is a bit of overkill, but its the same commitment in terms of IPCs, only much more effective. And this is excluding the US and Jap starting navies, of which Japan’s is bigger.

And please, for 2 ACs to support 8 ftrs in an attack, you need a very specific arrangement. Japan is not going to leave its fleet in any sea-zone where you can pull off this stunt.

[Jennifer]

Well, part of the problem is that Japan cannot BUILD 18 submarines that fast without giving up entirely in Asia.  IN which case, I don’t HAVE to advance my fleet, I can retreat it to the Atlantic and be MILES ahead. (Your submarines are now completely worthless, meanwhile my carriers can still be floating air bases and my battleships can still shell the shores in Europe.)

The other part of the problem is that Japan has to run away in order to avoid the 8 fighter/bomber/transport/4 battleships/destroyer/2 carrier attack.  Otherwise, they’ll get boxed in.

[frood]

The point is, for a naval slug-fest, subs are a better buy than BBs. Just run subs against BBs in AACalc at a 3:1 ratio (since you can afford 3 subs for 1 BB) and see what wins.

Yes, a BB can absorb a hit, and they attack at 4. Whoohoo.

3 Subs attack at 6, in opening fire. If they take a hit, they then have a punch of 4, same as the battleship, but still in OFS.

After a 2nd hit, the BB is dead.

The 3 sub force after 2 hits still has one surviving unit.

A further benefit is that the subs can submerge if they want. BB can absorb a hit, but has to stand and fight.

[Jennifer]

But the problem with your analogy is you are assuming SUBMARINES vs BATTLESHIPS.

The real battle is fleets vs fleets.  And the real strength of the battleships is their ability to strafe enemy fleets, which is what I am attempting to tell you.

Sure, 18 Submarines vs 6 Battleships run to the end results in submarines winning.

However, do 2 Battleships, 2 Carriers, 4 Fighters, Destroyer, 18 Submarines beat 5 Battleships, 3 Carriers, 2 Destroyers, 10 Fighters, Bomber, 8 Submarines?

That’s what each navy COULD look like after 7 rounds of play.

That’s with America earning an average of 40 IPC a round and Japan spending 20 IPC a round on fleet.  Presumably you would want to build at least SOME ground forces against Russia, so I deducted a portion for that.

The sims have the Americans surviving that with all battleships in tact.  Granted, America would have won with submarines instead of battleships, but then America would be denied shore bombardments and would have lost equipment (at least another 40 IPC worth of material they did NOT lose because the battleships absorbed that damage.)

This is NOT a care of ONLY submarines vs ONLY battleships.  It’s a case of which makes the navy stronger in the Pacific?  And hands down, the answer is Battleships added to the fleet as well as carriers and fighters, not ONLY submarines added to a fleet already containingbattleships and carriers and fighters.

[frood]

It’s a case of Battleships being a silly thing to buy in bulk. Japan CAN deal with it, and in the meantime Germany has overrun Russia.

Nuff said.

[Jennifer]

Germany, without Japan’s undivided attention, couldn’t over run a wilted head of lettuce, let alone Russia.

Meanwhile, I, personally, think that any KJF tactic almost requires America to add 2 battleships to their fleet.  And any good KGF couldn’t be hurt with the addition of one or two battleships to the fleet either. (What Kraut is going to attack 4 transports, 3 battleships with 6 fighters and a bomber?)

[frood]

The allies can achieve atlantic fleet protection with much less investment than 2-3 extra battleships.

I’m not saying that BBs aren’t a kick-ass unit. It’s just that for $24, you can get even more ass-kicking done in other ways.

Well, try it in your next game, see how it works out.

[Jennifer]

Honestly, in almost every game I play as the allies now, I buy a battleship for America.  Needed or not, in comes in handy.

England can even get away with buying a replacement for the HMS Hood.  I don’t recommend it, but I’ve seen it work.

[Bashir]

THERE ARE NO DESTROYERS IN CLASSIC!!!

[Jennifer]

@Bashir:

THERE ARE NO DESTROYERS IN CLASSIC!!!

Congratulations, dear.  You are about a full page behind on the discussion, since we switched the topic to battleships in revised after we ironed out the rough patches in battleships in classic.

[Bashir]

Then get the discussion in the revised section ‘dear’!

[Jennifer]

@Ender:

It’s a case of Battleships being a silly thing to buy in bulk. Japan CAN deal with it, and in the meantime Germany has overrun Russia.

Nuff said.

Note, units that are stared are built that round

---

End US 1 (42 IPC):
SZ 55: *Carrier, Battleship, 2 Fighters, Destroyer, *3 Submarines, Transport
SZ 20: Destroyer, 2 Transports
W. USA: Fighter, Bomber

End US 2 (40 IPC + 2 Saved):
SZ 62: Carrier, Battleship, 2 Fighters, Destroyer, 3 Submarines, Transport
SZ 55: *Carrier, Destroyer, Fighter, *submarine, 2 transports
Alaska: 6 Infantry, Armor, AA Gun, *Industrial Complex

End US 3 (38 IPC + 1 Saved):
SZ 62: 2 Carriers, Battleship, 3 Fighters, 2 Destroyers, 4 Submarines, 3 Transports, *Battleship (#2), *Fighter (#4)

End US 4 (38 IPC + 5 Saved)
SZ 62: 2 Carriers, 2 Battleships, 4 Fighters, 2 Destroyers, 4 Submarines, 3 Transports, *Battleships

End US 5 (38 IPC + 19 Saved)
SZ 62: 2 Carriers, 3 Battleships, 4 Fighters, 2 Destroyers, 4 Submarines, 3 Transports, * 2 Battleships

End US 6 (38 IPC + 9 Saved)
SZ 62: 2 Carriers, 5 Battleships, 4 Fighters, 2 Destroyers, 4 Submarines, 3 Transports, *Battleship

End US 7 (38 + 23 Saved)
SZ 62: 2 Carriers, 6 Battleships, 4 Fighters, 2 Destroyers, 4 Submarines, 3 Transports, 2 Battleships

By this point, Japan better have done SOMETHING because they are facing a SERIOUS threat.  From here on, basically, America can focus on filling those three transports every round and pummeling Japan. (8 Shore bombardments at the loss of 1 infantry at the very least can almost negate any builds Japan puts on the mainland.)

Of course, that’s just taking the Battleship strategy for America to a silly extreme. (Using Revised income for America assuming the fleet was lost in SZ 52 on J1 and that Japan takes China on J1 and Sinkiang on J2 but does not get Hawaii after that for fear of dieing a horrible death to American naval supremacy.)

Honestly, at this point, it’s more a matter of stacking Buryatia and the building up fighters.  See, the point is not to over load yourself on single use equipment.  Submarines are ONLY good for naval battles.  Battleships and Fighters are good for amphibious assaults as well as naval battles.

[frood]

Great analysis, except for - what’s missing - hmm… oh yeah you don’t account for Japan doing anything for 7 ROUNDS!!!

Guess what - I could checkmate Garry Kasparov in 7 moves if I can work with the assumption that he doesn’t make any moves to counter mine.

[Jennifer]

Japan Round 4: 2 Submarines
Japan Round 5: 6 Submarines
Japan Round 6: 11 Submarines
Japan Round 7: 16 Submainres

So from Round 4, Japan has to basically STOP feeding units into Russia and build submarines just to counter America, meaning the Allies win that engagement. (Russia can lightly press back and recover land if it needs too, however, honestly, it only needs to liberate Novo and Kazakh.)

So yes, I did look at what Japan can do.  (BTW, I am also assuming Japan bought a carrier and has all 6 of their fighters there to defend.)

I did not assume Japan did nothing.  But let’s look at it this way:

To Counter America, Japan has to spend 144 IPC which is 144 IPC that is NOT attacking Russia anymore.  On top of that, Japan has to have their navy centralized, probably in SZ 60 and all their fighters at sea (meaning they cannot help trading anything further in then Yakut or China (China assumes fleet in SZ 61, not 60))

Also, Japan’s almost definitely buying 3 Transports (to get them up to 4) if not more.  So tack on another 24-40 IPC for transports to the total amount of money NOT being sent into Russia.

Every round after this, Japan must buy 3-6 submarines to negate the 1 or 2 battleships America builds to stop America from strafing their fleet.

Not saying it’s a perfect strategy, just pointing out that I did, in fact, look at Japan when I worked on this.

[frood]

Okay, so it bleeds off Japan’s efforts against Russia.

But you have also completely bled off US efforts against Germany.

So how much breathing room will Russia have from Germany to expend against Japan.

Whoopee.

Fundamentals: BB’s cost $24 each. That means you can’t afford a lot of them. That means your enemies will have way more units, and on land where it counts more, even if they have to expend some on navy to counteract your top-heavy BB fleet.

[Mr Ghoul]

@Ender:

Great analysis, except for - what’s missing - hmm… oh yeah you don’t account for Japan doing anything for 7 ROUNDS!!!

Guess what - I could checkmate Garry Kasparov in 7 moves if I can work with the assumption that he doesn’t make any moves to counter mine.

LOL

[Jennifer]

Try it out once before you condemn it.

It doesn’t sound like much, but your Japanese fleet is checkmated.  That means America has free run in the Pacific so I’ll be bleeding off a lot more then just some units from Russia, I’ll be depriving Japan of resources from the Pacific AND bleeding units from the Russian campaign.

That means it’s Russia and England vs Germany.  54 IPC vs 40.  That’s a lead for the Allies.  Is America helping?  No.  Does America really help in KJF before round 7?  No.  (They help a little, but honestly, the trickle of one or two units while cowering behind England’s skirts isn’t very significant until about round 7 when you FINALLY have enough there to actually attack something.)

Meanwhile, you COULD run the battleship strategy. (There’s a submarine one, a carrier one, a fighter one, and a conglomerate one as well.  I’m not a one trick pony.  But the title of the thread is “What about an American Battleship strategy” so I listed a battleship strategy.)

I notice you enjoy just declaring by fiat that something won’t work but, like a political candidate, you refuse to post a plan on how you will stop it.

[frood]

I think Russia should try an All-Battleship strategy. How could it go wrong? I mean what with all the bombarding and repairing that battleships can do, it’s fool-proof!

Russia and England won’t be totalling 54 anymore if all America has been doing is building a navy of battleships.

Without US help, Japan and Germany will take away most of the UK’s land base pretty damn fast, long before the US is in a position to really threaten Japan. That tips the income balance in the Axis’ favour, and then Germany and Japan can focus their joint might against Russia, taking Caucasus early on.