Carrierland

[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.

[trihero]

Bean,

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

Well, fighters are my most logical counter as well. Didn’t I say earlier I thought it might be best for the UK to overbuild fighters?

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.)

Well, that would ruin my day if I thought that buying carriers would give me a shot at killing navy. But I don’t buy the carriers in order to threaten Allied shipping, I don’t think about it even a bit. So it’s very strawman to say that I can’t attack the Allied fleet. The whole point is, how are they going to deal with it? They are not going to be very happy without their favorite shipping zones disabled. And if you simply do your North Africa dominance remember that Germany will not have to make a second carrier until round 5 when the Allies are actually able to attack SZ5 with enough force to scare them, meaning plenty of troops to push Russia around and defend W. Europe with.

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.

Well, it’s impossible to count on getting far in Africa with solely Germany early on, so I’m not exactly frightened that you’re overlanding large quantities of men that are going to take 2 IPCs away from me and threaten Japan 5 turns later.

And the German fleet is anything but negated. It’s still there waiting to block entry into Berlin, E. Europe, and Karelia. If anything it’s more stable since Germany has the time to build land troops before having to build that second carrier.

How are you actually thinking about containing Germany with all those troops in Africa, and the best landing zones locked out since you don’t have SZ5? All I see is that you’re saying that I can’t kill your Allied navy and Germany doesn’t have Africa - both of which are the most minimal requirements that the Allies have to meet within the first few rounds. Where’s the pressure? S. Europe will disrupt the shuck, and you aren’t going into Norway until round 4 or 5, and you are forced to walk bottleneck from Norway instead of being able to combine forces quickly through SZ5.

[Jennifer]

Think of it this way, Bean.  With a large Allied contingent in Egypt they are 2 turns from Caucasus/India which means you HAVE to send forces down there to stop them.

[trihero]

If you land inf in Algeria on Round 2, it will be Round 7 before they can attack India or reinforce Caucasus. It will be round 8 before your second wave of inf can arrive. That seems to me a lot of rounds for little gain, just the 2 IPCs taken from Germany. Once you arrive to threaten India, Japan should be able to field enough troops for minimal defense; remember they have 6 fighters with not much else to do.

And also back to the main topic, maybe Germany doesn’t even have to build a carrier to start with. It seems popular not to even strafe the Baltic fleet when nothing is added to it; people seem to wait for extra UK/US fighters. Build the carrier on G2 or later and you’ll have less troop worries in the short run.

[Enskive]

the best respons to a german ac built in the baltic is uk fighters.

uk purcase round1 and 2 3 fighters

then round 3 u can atack whith 9 fighters and 1 bomber, against 2 sub 1 tranny 1 dest and 1 ac 2 fighters. The calc says 99% chance whith 6 unit left.

and if germany purcase 1 ac in round 3, it has 4 fighters 2 subs 1 tranny 1 dest and 2 ac. Against 9 fighters and 1 bomber it gives uk a chance of 55% chance whih 1.78 units left. That is ok for the UK, uk fighters for germans, il trade any day. So in the 3 first rounds u need to invest 32 icp on navy, more if u want to be sure in cant be sunk.

In the mean time US is going trough the med treaten we, se, balkans, ukarine. The only area u dont trade is norway. The other problem is that germany can hold kardelia.
No presure from germany against russia eraly on will mean that japan will have a hard time.

u spent at least 32 icp the 3 first rounds and u only take a treat against norway away(usal u cant take EE anyway the 3 first rounds, what u can do if you stack kar.

[trihero]

That’s what I was thinking too, Enskive. Force the Germans to either abandon their navy or invest more into it early!

and if germany purcase 1 ac in round 3, it has 4 fighters 2 subs 1 tranny 1 dest and 2 ac. Against 9 fighters and 1 bomber it gives uk a chance of 55% chance whih 1.78 units left. That is ok for the UK, uk fighters for germans, il trade any day. So in the 3 first rounds u need to invest 32 icp on navy, more if u want to be sure in cant be sunk.

I’m not sure I would attack with the UK in that situation. That’s 8-9 fighters for 4 German fighters? With those kinds of chances the battle can go horribly wrong quite often, but the point was you made the Germans invest more into navy early.

[Enskive]

It is not 8-9 fighers for 4 fighters.

Germany have put 72 icp in the fleet. U have purcase 6 fighters to take it out. So it is a god trade for UK. u are using and ekstre 30 ICP from fighters u have on the bord, but germany also have units for 36 ICP. That is 108 ICP for germany 90 for the UK. 105 if u count whith the bomber. That trade i will make any day.

But ofcourse if u have the time waith 1 more round and have some ekstre fighters whith u. you can alwayes decide when u see the bord.

let me say althings are easyer in theroy. There are alwayes counters, that can counters, that can counters.

But i have never lost to a german ac purcase round 1. So to me it dosent work. But what do i now :)

[Jennifer]

Just a thought, but if you’ve cost the Germans 72 IPC out of how many rounds and bought 60 IPC in fighters and other equipment to sink it, what are you buying to help Russia???  Did you leave Germany uncontested in Africa resulting in them earning 50+ a round while you are earning less then 20 a round?

Straight cost analysis is great, but what’s the ratio to income?  If Germany loses 2 infantry to Russia and only kills 1 Russian, while cost analysis says the Russians are ahead, I think the Germans are really ahead in that exchange.  A) Germany makes more then Russia.  B) Russia has two enemies to contend with.

If England purchased 6 additional fighters to sink 2 carriers, 2 submarines, transport, destroyer and 4 fighters but lost Africa who is really ahead?

[Enskive]

afrika is alwayes contested.

Uk sends 2 tanks and 2 inf there first round, and Us goes there all game. Anglo is retaken.
if germany purcase 2 ac in the first 3 rounds, russia will have it easy so UK dosen need to send help the first couple of rounds. US is going trough the med taking we, se and balkans, so there is alot of help.
The best help russia can get is germany purcase and ac. the problem is also that germany using alot of icp to controld on sea zone, that gives the control of 1 area norway, it helps germany in EE but there is normal a good stack so u cant take that anyway.

As i said thing dont alwayes go on the borad as it dose on the forum. But i have never seen this strat work agains a top player.

have any of u beaten a top player whith this strat?.

We can debate this alot but it is the games that speach the truth.