Carrierland

[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.

[Jennifer]

A german infantry that dies has the potential to kill a Russian, that’s a gain in my book.  Also, the loss of a German infantry is only 3 IPC, not 36 IPC like losing two precious fighters and a worthless carrier.

[trihero]

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.

Romulus is a genius! By the way, the grammatically correct way to say it is “This is an observation that I would make.”

Anyways Jen, I respect your opinion and also Gamer’s. Perhaps the short term cost against Russia is too daunting. I simply believe that starting with a carrier then gradually adding them is not only surprising to the Allies (very annoying for the US to build 1-2 subs when they see the first carrier, then all of a sudden a second carrier comes into play and now they have to build more subs or fighters because their production zone is so far away), but it is also critically delaying to their shuck. The Allies do not want to be shucking and walking from Norway or Archangel, because it takes 3 turns longer to reach the capital and 2 turns longer to reach E. Europe. I think that long of a delay is worth some short term worries on the Russian front, if at all - because Germany may not have to build the second carrier for a few turns, and in between that time you can binge on the necessary infantry. I think the 32-48 IPCs in the long run that you lose in infantry is worth it to either “force” the Allies to build lots of planes early or massively delay their assault on your capital.

Maybe the counter is very simple, just overbuild planes with the Allies for one turn then strike it with both UK and US; the UK will lose a lot of planes but should have removed all the fodder units then the US cleans up with a big airforce. But overbuilt planes means a delay in getting necessary transports and men to Africa/Europe, which may help both Japan and Germany. And most people don’t really respond to one carrier by overbuying planes, they maybe buy a couple extra but then that second carrier pops up in your face and you have to adjust.

[Romulus]

Bean, thanks for the help with my grammar.

Summarizing the concept in discussion is: a trade off between infantry with AC.
Pros: delaying the UK/US, particularly the assault in EE from the Baltic. Indirect defense from the sz5 of GER and EE.
Cons: lack of infantry means more difficult in stacking Europe and less efficiency in trading Eastern territories with Germany.

As I said usually I do not buy any AC with Germany. But sometime, to have a variation in my opening, I have did it.
Maybe if the position on the board is favourable and the possible evolution are carefully assessed even a second AC may be bought.

[axis_roll]

Another Pro I would add is the possible taking of Norway by Germany.

Without a baltic fleet, unless Germany has established a karelia presence (a very key territory), once Norway falls, she’s allied forever.

[Romulus]

Right Axis_roll, I agree.
Baltic fleet presence may allow for reclaming the Norway, adding another delay factor to UK/US operations.

[mateooo]

i have won several games with 2 AC. I actually really like it… at times.
I find it very advantageous, for all the reasons you mention, to keep the fleet just a little too strong for the UK to take out well. I time the AC purchases carefully, only when I need them.
For those who argue that those fighters are needed elsewhere for protection… I say this
Sure they are needed for protection… when you have to protect WEU, GER AND EEU, but when you only have to protect WEU, you are set.
Also, those planes in the baltic have much better access to the Eastern front then fighters staged in WEU or GER.

You spent up to 32 dollars on fleet… and laugh when UK starts buying subs and AC to protect against your fleet, and then loses more than 32 dollars clearing the baltic, and many times retreating so that your fighters can land in Germany after the boats get killed. and when you have ACs in the baltic, your fighters can have deceptively long range…

Sure the allied together can have a huge fleet and outproduce Germany, but they allies cant attack together, so you can quickly build up 2 SS 1-2 TRN DD 2 AC 4 FTR, which is more than UK or US can deal with alone for a long time.

Granted, there are different ways to play, and not building fleets works too. Its all a balance, and you have to see how the game leads you.
, and what opportunities your opponents leave you.

[cyan]

I really like that post mateooo. +1 karma for u. I personally like building in sz 14 vs. sz 5 because it can keep u in Africia longer. but if ur not having trouble in africa, then unify the fleet and build in sz 5.

[Guest]

I have had some very good results with Germany doing a “Ship a turn” builds.  But to be honest, I do not think that i have tried it against players of sufficient caliber to give it a viable test.

[trihero]

i have won several games with 2 AC. I actually really like it… at times.
I find it very advantageous, for all the reasons you mention, to keep the fleet just a little too strong for the UK to take out well. I time the AC purchases carefully, only when I need them.
For those who argue that those fighters are needed elsewhere for protection… I say this
Sure they are needed for protection… when you have to protect WEU, GER AND EEU, but when you only have to protect WEU, you are set.
Also, those planes in the baltic have much better access to the Eastern front then fighters staged in WEU or GER.

You spent up to 32 dollars on fleet… and laugh when UK starts buying subs and AC to protect against your fleet, and then loses more than 32 dollars clearing the baltic, and many times retreating so that your fighters can land in Germany after the boats get killed. and when you have ACs in the baltic, your fighters can have deceptively long range…

\

Yes, I laugh too  :lol:

It’s very inconvenient to have to deal with Germany when they’re buying two 4’s and a 3 on naval defense for 16 IPCs - and they can do it 3 times, and if you’re feeling silly up to 6 times if the Japanese want to land their fighters there. It’s not going to work well if Russia hit hard on R1, but perhaps your bid should accomodate for this and guard Ukraine for lots of tasty defensive pieces.

[Jennifer]

Bean,

I have to admit, my response to carriers is to build fighters.  Why?

Yes, submarines are cheaper, slightly.  However, their specialty is destroyed with a single destroyer so their cost effectiveness is somewhat limited.

Yes, planes are more expensive, slightly.  However, after I sink your navy, I can use the planes to attack your land holdings and defend my infantry stacks.  Submarines cannot do that.  Thus, when your fleet is destroyed, what do my submarines get to do???

However, if Germany builds a carrier or two, I will most likely have to build a carrier with America (assuming the one at pearl was sunk, a good assumption I think.)  That means I’ll have two, 1 UK, 1 US should be enough firepower with the 2 battleships, 3 destroyers, submarine and 8 transports to withstand a German attack. (Think unification of LA Fleet and Pacific/Indian Ocean Fleets around turn 3.)

Meanwhile, as I’ve been lambasted for stating before, during that time I have negated the German fleet by retaking Africa.  I can get it faster then Japan can come to help Germany, meaning England’s not too far in the hole, especially if they end up with Norway to make up for India.