Carrierland

[Jennifer]

If you build two carriers with the Germans in SZ 5 then you are saying that the Allies need to throw themselves upon the German fleet in SZ 5 to win.  Otherwise, why would you advocate spending nearly an entire turn’s income on Aircraft Carriers and tying up 67% of your fighters in SZ 5?

As for the 8 vs 12 unit threat.  I really don’t see 12 units being a viable threat from England.  They can only build 8.  That means to get 12 they have to plunder their stacks somewhere else which means less forces there for a minor addition somewhere else.  Honestly, since Germany’s already planning for an English followed by American assault, the change is very minor to include the addition of 4 more British infantry.  What, you need an extra 1 or 2 infantry of your own in W. Europe?  Not exactly a game breaking diversion of forces in my mind.  But that’s my opinion of it.

Meanwhile, you’ve spent 16 IPC on transports.  You’re also probably out of Africa because you were buying transports, not ground forces to liberate it, which means you have less then 25 IPC a round income, maybe worse, but you might be reclaiming some of Africa but down Australia, New Zealand, Madagascar, Persia, T-J, Egypt and India.  So let’s just say 25 IPC.

That means to fill 4 transports you are making 7 Infantry, 1 Artillery.  No tanks.  To fill 6 Transports you’d have to take infantry/artillery from somewhere else and spread yourself very thin.

And if you had all your lands and more, then why would you need the 16 IPC in transports when you could put an IC in E. Europe or Norway cheaper and almost as efficiently?

[trihero]

It’s not merely the threat of 12 units + airforce + bb shot in one territory, but 3 key territories. That causes the Germans to spend a significant amount of total forces defending because the attack could come from anywhere. Left your capital with just 10 inf you bought? You’re a goner. Left W. Europe with 6 inf 5 fig? I got most of your fighters. A stack of 7 inf 5 tank in E. Europe? Goodbye! Having to upload 3 more inf into each territory in addition to spending 3 inf per Russian trading zone is stressful on the Germans. It also means if you finally broke through the Baltic, you can use your extra tran to bring units from Norway to E. Europe or wherever it is you’re dropping.

Meanwhile, you’ve spent 16 IPC on transports.

Meanwhile, you’ve spend 20+ IPCs on aircraft? Aircraft is nice, but extra transports is also nice. There’s nothing like having a force of 6 tps of equip + airforce + bb shot ready to invade W. Europe on UK3; the Germans don’t want to see that. They’d rather you have your 2 tps waiting for the other 2 to arrive on UK4, meaning minimal defense on W. Europe.

[axis_roll]

If Russia is less than agressive and Germany does well in africa and takes that cake early and holds it for a while, in addition to having all 6 planes (WRU, Belo R1 attacks), then an a/c (or two) in sz5 can be a decent strategy.

I do agree that the allies can usually just wait on killing the SZ5 fleet when they have enough units/time to deal with it.  Summarizing, if the germans have the cash/units to afford to keep the sz5 fleet around, it can be a workable strategy.

[trihero]

If you build two carriers with the Germans in SZ 5 then you are saying that the Allies need to throw themselves upon the German fleet in SZ 5 to win.  Otherwise, why would you advocate spending nearly an entire turn’s income on Aircraft Carriers and tying up 67% of your fighters in SZ 5?

It’s because it would delay them a lot. And remember, I’m not building that second carrier until it looks like I actually need it to prevent a SZ5 strike, it’s not like I’m building 2 carriers in one turn and have essentially no extra inf to reinforce. The Allies should probably work on killing the SZ5; there’s the bonus of possibly killing fighters out on the sea, and it gives them much more landing flexibility. You really don’t want to be walking troops from Norway or Archangel, because an attack on the German capital will be 3 rounds short on units each from UK and US if you have to march from Norway vs having SZ5 open.

A carrier a day keeps the Allies away?  :mrgreen:

If Russia is less than agressive and Germany does well in africa and takes that cake early and holds it for a while, in addition to having all 6 planes (WRU, Belo R1 attacks), then an a/c (or two) in sz5 can be a decent strategy.

Hmm yes, that’s why I’m beginning to like 2 inf in Ukraine now for the bid, to allow the Ukraine offense units to survive.

[Romulus]

@Bean:

If you build two carriers with the Germans in SZ 5 then you are saying that the Allies need to throw themselves upon the German fleet in SZ 5 to win.  Otherwise, why would you advocate spending nearly an entire turn’s income on Aircraft Carriers and tying up 67% of your fighters in SZ 5?

It’s because it would delay them a lot. And remember, I’m not building that second carrier until it looks like I actually need it to prevent a SZ5 strike, it’s not like I’m building 2 carriers in one turn and have essentially no extra inf to reinforce. The Allies should probably work on killing the SZ5; there’s the bonus of possibly killing fighters out on the sea, and it gives them much more landing flexibility. You really don’t want to be walking troops from Norway or Archangel, because an attack on the German capital will be 3 rounds short on units each from UK and US if you have to march from Norway vs having SZ5 open.

A carrier a day keeps the Allies away?  :mrgreen:

If Russia is less than agressive and Germany does well in africa and takes that cake early and holds it for a while, in addition to having all 6 planes (WRU, Belo R1 attacks), then an a/c (or two) in sz5 can be a decent strategy.

Hmm yes, that’s why I’m beginning to like 2 inf in Ukraine now for the bid, to allow the Ukraine offense units to survive.

And this is also why when I am Russia I go for Ukraina.  :-D (other than WR naturally)

Returning on the German ACs,  I think that the important point raised by Bean is that a German fleet in the Baltic is advantageous for the defense of GER and EE.
With 2 ACs it is possible to have 4 FIG in sz5. Without baltic fleet Germany must defend two territories and must do a choice: defending with 4 FIG in only one territory or splitting the 4 FIG in the two territories?

In my personal experience one of the most dangerous move for Germany is the British double attack in EE: from Karelia and from Baltic.
With a Baltic fleet alive the Allied have to sunk the German ships before landing in EE, this will gain more time to German.
If allied try to go in EE “by foot” then their may be countered by German turning KArelia in a killing zone.

However, as Azis_roll said, it is not a strategy for all the games… But having the possibility of different strategies is always an advantage!  :-)

[newpaintbrush]

@Bean:

I was thinking with the Germans, start by adding a carrier to the Baltic, then slowly crank out two more as they are needed to keep the Baltic alive?

. . .

But the UK/US had to buy much more than 16 IPCs per carrier to counter the 16 IPCs of carrier that Germany put down.

What do you guys think?

3 carriers = 48 IPC = 16 infantry.  When you take 16 infantry away from the Russian front, you WILL pay for it.

Placing fighters in the Baltic does not create a problem insofar as using the fighters to attack ground targets is concerned.  It does cause a problem insofar as the defense of West Europe is concerned.  Of course, you are using the German carriers in the Baltic to threaten an Allied invasion of West Europe - but carriers are not very powerful on the attack.  So if you stay in the Baltic to threaten the waters off Western Europe, the Allies can continue the shuck from E. Canada to Algeria.  If you move the Baltic fleet off Western Europe, you have to survive two rounds of attack from the US and UK combined naval and air forces.  That is not promising.

As far as the Allies having to buy more - that is true.  However, if the Allies want to kill the German navy, they should invest heavily in fighters, so when the Allies DO wipe out the German navy, those extra fighters can be used to fortify Moscow.

All in all - IMHO German carrier in Baltic is one max.  Three is far too many.

[Jennifer]

If you absolutely MUST build carriers and throw your money out the window, why not put them in SZ 14 where you at least have a Battleship to help defend AND you force the British and Americans away from their stacks to come kill you?

[Romulus]

I think primary task of AC in Baltic is defensive one and to fulfioll the fleet in being principle.
Fighters on Baltic Carrier are subtracted from EE and GER but staying in sz5 still are able to defend. Moreover from the sz5 they may participate in the combats in Russia.

AC in Mediterranean Sea are well protected by the BB and draw away Allied ships from their stacks. However when they enter in Mediterranean they may assault SE. Moreover the fig for the AC in Mediterranean are themselves forced avay from the stacks in GER and EE, and so subtracted totally by the defense of GER and EE.

[Jennifer]

I view the fighters on carriers in SZ 5 as lost anyway.  They defend for nothing because they are not attacked until the battle is ridiculously skewed in favor of the allied attackers.  You are building something that is designed to earn no income and lose more then twice it’s value in the long term.

[cyan]

@Cmdr:

I view the fighters on carriers in SZ 5 as lost anyway.  They defend for nothing because they are not attacked until the battle is ridiculously skewed in favor of the allied attackers.  You are building something that is designed to earn no income and lose more then twice it’s value in the long term.

where do you get that figure?

[newpaintbrush]

@cyan:

@Cmdr:

I view the fighters on carriers in SZ 5 as lost anyway.  They defend for nothing because they are not attacked until the battle is ridiculously skewed in favor of the allied attackers.  You are building something that is designed to earn no income and lose more then twice it’s value in the long term.

where do you get that figure?

Diet and exercise.

[cyan]

@newpaintbrush:

@cyan:

@Cmdr:

I view the fighters on carriers in SZ 5 as lost anyway.  They defend for nothing because they are not attacked until the battle is ridiculously skewed in favor of the allied attackers.  You are building something that is designed to earn no income and lose more then twice it’s value in the long term.

where do you get that figure?

Diet and exercise.

lol

[Sproit]

I think Germany should stay fighting Russians until Japan has enough ships to come to the Atlantic,  then they should invest in their navy and build up together very strongly,

Until then they should just try to hide their fleet a bit, so the investment is not that big when Japan comes by.

Btw, if Germany owns the Suez, can Japan use it? I would say yes, but is it a no?

[cyan]

@Sproit:

I think Germany should stay fighting Russians until Japan has enough ships to come to the Atlantic,  then they should invest in their navy and build up together very strongly,

Until then they should just try to hide their fleet a bit, so the investment is not that big when Japan comes by.

Btw, if Germany owns the Suez, can Japan use it? I would say yes, but is it a no?

yeah they can. have to have Egypt and ISrael for it to work. its okay if germany owns egypt and japan Israel.

[Sproit]

Ok thanks for that answer! Will take that for truth. ;)

[trihero]

3 carriers = 48 IPC = 16 infantry.  When you take 16 infantry away from the Russian front, you WILL pay for it.

My friend, as you quoted so obviously, I said add carriers slowly as needed, not as soon as you possibly can. And as I originally said, I know you will pay, but there is a large benefit.

I view the fighters on carriers in SZ 5 as lost anyway.  They defend for nothing because they are not attacked until the battle is ridiculously skewed in favor of the allied attackers.  You are building something that is designed to earn no income and lose more then twice it’s value in the long term.

It is precisely the long term I am looking at. Let’s say for whatever reason I did have to add 3 carriers over 10 turns. That 16 infantry I paid does this: the UK and US are each three turns behind on troops available to attack the capital, and also no bb shots. That’s amazing. That’s 48 units I prevented from attacking my capital that turn. That’s how I’m looking at this.

Let’s stop trying to say there’s no benefit to this, and instead look at this logically: how do we compare the benefit of the massive delay of the UK/US to having fewer infantry?

The trading against Russia might be paler on the short term, but do you really need 10+ infantry every turn to trade with Russia? 8+ should be enough, and 1 carrier + 8 inf isn’t terribly shorthanded. Of course you need to add more defense to W. Europe which is where the shortage comes into play, but you got tanks to make up for defense. Sure, Russia will probably occupy Ukraine a turn earlier than normal, but Russia alone doesn’t win this game. A 2 turn delay to E. Europe and a 3 turn delay to the capital is absurd in my opinion. Maybe the best Allied response is simply to overbuild fighters for a turn or 2 to dislodge the navy.

[Jennifer]

@cyan:

@Cmdr:

I view the fighters on carriers in SZ 5 as lost anyway.  They defend for nothing because they are not attacked until the battle is ridiculously skewed in favor of the allied attackers.  You are building something that is designed to earn no income and lose more then twice it’s value in the long term.

where do you get that figure?

Aircraft Carrier -16
2 Fighters -20

Total: -36

36 > the cost of 2 Aircraft Carriers by an amount of 4 IPC.

It’s simple arithmetic.  Building the carrier has the very realistic potential to cost Germany twice the cost of the carrier in under sea condominiums and possibly, with high probability, not cost the allies much at all.  Damage a battleship, sink a couple submarines, end of story, dead German fleet.

---

Best allied offense against a crazy Kraut is to consolidate fleets then hit them with the Ameircan fleet when ready.  Of course, I build more fighters then I need anyway.  It’s no strange sight to see my Germany with 9+ fighters or my Russia with 4 or my England with 7 or my America with 7.  Though, once I did have 18 fighters, 3 bombers with America…I think that was probably WAY over kill, but it was fun!  “I attack your picket infantry with 2 infantry, 6 fighters and a bomber!  DIE BITCH!”

[Romulus]

Fighter in sz5 are not lost: they are concurring to the defense of GER and EE, instead of staying in the territories they stay in the sea zone.

Are they lost when the Allies have gathered an overwhelming force? For sure they are lost… if they stay in the sea zone. As Bean said when the Allied forces are overwhelming then the fighter may be retreated on the mainland, before the attack.
Meanwhile the AC+figs have accomplished three objectives:

• indirectly defended the German coastline;
• delayed the Allied attack to EE and GER;
• participated in the trading battles on the eastern front.

On the point of discussion about number of Allied aircraft I would like to say my opinion.
Units are the most important asset in A&A, more important than IPC and more important than  territories. But the game have also an objective to be pursued: winning the war by conquering VCs and capitals. And for that scope every unit may be useful if used in the right way and in a coordinate strategy.
Baltic fleet may delay invasion from Baltic sea. With 1 AC may delay more.
Buying more than one AC may be too much but not because the AC+fig are useless. The reason is that German will lack infantries.
Usually I do not buy any AC in the Baltic with Germany, but sometimes it is useful to try to surprise the opponent making an unexpected move.

[Jennifer]

In my mind, any fighter floating in SZ 5 is lost.  Any round you keep them is a gift.  But that’s just MY mind on the matter.  And only because I see the SZ 5 fleet go down hard on numerous occasions.

[Romulus]

@Cmdr:

In my mind, any fighter floating in SZ 5 is lost.  Any round you keep them is a gift.  But that’s just MY mind on the matter.  And only because I see the SZ 5 fleet go down hard on numerous occasions.

Yes, and it is the final destiny for the Baltic Fleet: going to the bottom of the Baltic Sea. Moreover the AC cost in term of less infantry available for the mainland fronts.
This is the reason for which it may be considered a risky move.
But also German Infantry is doomed to die. So what? We should not buy infantry because it will be destroyed on the Russian front?
Is not the final destiny of a unit that is important is the usefulness of the unit during is service that is important.

There is an observation I would do.
To make strategic reasoning it is necessary to abstract from the specific situation of the games, whitout considering single situation or games.
In this case German trade infantry on the mainland for a more longer life of the Baltic fleet. Is it worhty? It may be useful if played accordingly. It may give Germany more time to attack Russia, delaying Allied action. Or may give to Germany more time to wait for Japan coming to outskirt of Moscow.

Now, which is the point of Bean? Iterating the purchasing of AC during the games, may be useful? That is: adding another AC to the Baltic Fleet will continue to delay Allies?
Maybe no. Maybe Allies are already too much powerful for the second AC to be scary.
Maybe it is too costly, in term of lacking land units, so German will pay for sure this lacking of infantry at Russian hands!

But the efficency of the fleet is for sure increased and fighter in sz5 defends Germany as well as they was in Berlin… maybe even better.