German buys turn one

[OutsideLime]

@DarthMaximus:

Am I missing any?

It’s nice to be able to jump German Inf straight from Berlin to Karelia via the Baltic transport.  Or to Norway for reinforcement there.  Fewer rounds spent marching, more spent in the face of the foe.

~Josh

[Guest]

@Imperious:

The Channel Dash study is pretty much refuted but it remains a possible plan amoung others.

If by "Channel Dash study is pretty much refuted " you mean “United Fleet is confirmed as an excellent strategy”, then I agree with you.

I’ve studied the situation, I’ve backed it up with numbers, I’ve used it against some of the best players in the game, and I have a pile of trophies that validate my theories.

The proper version of the gambit is the setup for the Land Bridge followed by the United Fleet.  It is a very good move.  It may not be the best move.  It may not be unbeatable.  But is exactly the type of move a good player would do, has done, and has used to successfully beat other good players.

It is SO obnoxious that people in this forum insist that they know “what good players do”.  The only guy I’ve seen post here that I know has a good record against other top players is Squire.

That’s about it for me.  Losing… interest… must… not… sleep… keep… head… off… keyboard…  hghbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb

[DarthMaximus]

@Baghdaddy:

@DarthMaximus:

All other scenerios in this thread aside, I’d like to know what is the point of a German Naval build in the Baltic?
…
…
I can go into greater detail on why I don’t think some things will work, but figured we can take them one at a time depending on why you buy ships.

Germany buys ships because she can not afford to simply surrender the high seas to the Allies. Keeping the Baltic and the Med free of allied transports means Germany only faces amphibious action in WEU and only faces a ground threat from the USSR and entrained Allied forces.

When/if the Baltic and Med fleets fall, all of Europe is in the landing zone and the tactical mobility that the Med and Baltice provide now goes to the enemy.  In my book, it is just a few short turns later until Berlin falls.

I think Germany can afford to surrender the Baltic Fleet provided they don’t spend anything more on it and I think there is a greater potential if you get the Med Fleet into the Indian Ocean, rather then sending it towards the Atlantic.

@OutsideLime:

@DarthMaximus:

Am I missing any?

It’s nice to be able to jump German Inf straight from Berlin to Karelia via the Baltic transport. Or to Norway for reinforcement there. Fewer rounds spent marching, more spent in the face of the foe.

~Josh

Yeah, it is nice, but I think unnessary.  I don’t think the UK or US should be worried about Kar or Nor until about rd 3-4, so I think Germany worry about retaking it is a waste.

I think Allies should combine in the Atlantic in rd 1, go to Afr in rd 2 (and 3), then start landing in Nor in Rd 3 (or 4).  And by the time the Allies land in rd 3 or 4 they can do so with about 4-6 UK troops and another 4-6 US troops.  A German counter is futile there.

My point is the Allies priorities should be Afr #1 (rds 1-3), then worry about Northern Europe.  So I’m not sure why the Germans would bother with Nor or Kar.  Let the Allies go there early while you are cleaning up in Afr and moving stacks of troops to Ukr.

[squirecam]

@Imperious:

That’s funny, since c-sub people have used a fleet build to win FTF tournaments. I would suggest you play with the c-sub build a few times before proclaiming it a total waste.

And, this goes back to my earlier point. You are trying to create a comprehensive paper for people, when you proclaim strategies are “total failures” and you have never tried it or seen it FTF.

I do mean this Respectfully IL. I dont think you should be doing this paper without getting some more experience with the strategies which you say wont ever work.

Well in the first case you should be addressing your own experences with the Channel dash rather than hide behind what results somebody else might have achieved. This actually makes you look in poor form because you don’t even have your own information to back your claim nor did you choose to debate my post of study on it. This clearly shows you dont want to do any homework.

Secondly, The project is a study of different ideas of which the Channel dash will be exposed as what i would stick in the “desperado” catagory. As i keep telling you the project will basically lay down the facts of different ideas and allow players to decide.

The Channel Dash study is pretty much refuted but it remains a possible plan amoung others.

Of course any plan can work or fail its not the execution but the dice rolling that also has some say. So if you like to gamble then the Channel Dash is for you.

I’ve laid out my fleet build in this debate which is different from C-sub, or “channel dash” or whatever you are terming it. I cannot debate you more because you are not listening.

You keep saying this channel dash theory wont work. Yet you have no actual experience with any version of it. You admitted so yourself a few pages ago. So based upon this thread, you have made an assumption (a poor assumption IMHO) that it wont work. I assure you there are versions which clearly work, C-sub among them, given its track record in tournament play.

My objection is based upon NEW PLAYERS. I DONT WANT NEW PLAYERS TO BE MISLED.

People will read your paper and assume they cannot create a successful fleet strategy. Your paper will give them the wrong impression.

This is the SAME objection I had to C-sub’s India IC paper, where I thought it was misleading. This is the SAME issue I had with the AARE (enhanced) people, who kept arguing AAR had only “one” viable strategy and so AARE was better. It misleads new people.

Your goal, unlike c-subs simple paper, is to create a comprehensive paper. But really, AND I DO MEAN THIS RESPECTFULLY AND NICELY, dont you think an author should have experience with theories before he dismisses them ???

I am not trying to make you upset. I’d like to see a great paper done. But if you are not familiar with what really works and what doesnt, how can your paper be accurate. Isnt the paper’s accuracy the most important thing???

[squirecam]

@Baghdaddy:

@DarthMaximus:

All other scenerios in this thread aside, I’d like to know what is the point of a German Naval build in the Baltic?
…
…
I can go into greater detail on why I don’t think some things will work, but figured we can take them one at a time depending on why you buy ships.

Germany buys ships because she can not afford to simply surrender the high seas to the Allies. Keeping the Baltic and the Med free of allied transports means Germany only faces amphibious action in WEU and only faces a ground threat from the USSR and entrained Allied forces.

When/if the Baltic and Med fleets fall, all of Europe is in the landing zone and the tactical mobility that the Med and Baltice provide now goes to the enemy.  In my book, it is just a few short turns later until Berlin falls.

I think you have said it well. Once the allies can land anywhere unmolested, you are forced to defend Germany, WE, EE, and try to maintain enough troops for taking Moscow. A hard road.

Instead of “stopping the allies on the beaches” you are stopping them in the water.

BTW, if you can “hold” USSR and “hold” the allies shipping (by gaining Africa income), eventually Japan, which is umolested, will force USSR back. Japan is being left alone while the allies triple team germany. It should be making progress you know…

[frood]

I think the simple fact that there is a debate shows that Germany can do well with / without naval buys or fleet unification attempts. Maybe it depends more on you and your opponent’s playing style.

My last two games I’ve done the channel dash, lost the Baltic fleet in UK1 but gone on to win both games. So ultimately it was not a losing strategy but I’d like to get more out of the Baltic fleet than I’ve done. Whether that’s uniting with the SZ8 sub in SZ 7, buying TRNs and sending only the subs out, or buying  TRNs and just staying put, or just buying nothing is the question.

My attitude toward Norway is that it’s impossible and not worth holding from a determined Allied Assault. However, Karelia can be really nice to control as Germany.

I think I am leaning toward buying 2-3 TRNs in the Baltic, and then in G2 you can choose what to do - unite in SZ 7 if that’s an option, or stay/build more in the Baltic.

As the CSub paper outlines, that at the very least keeps the fleet alive longer and I don’t think the purchase really hurts Germany on the ground. Here’s why:

• the Baltic fleet frees up units that would otherwise have to defend Berlin. So, even though you have built less land units, you get more use out of the ones you already have.
• the Transports also greatly increase your land forces’ potential because with 4 TRNs you can bring 8 Inf to Karelia plus your armor and Fighters can all get there on their own. And that’s only one step from Moscow’s border.
• You can also get units back to WE quickly if Allied landing is threatened there.
• If the Allies allow you to unite the fleet, Germany will own Africa and pretty soon Caucasus.

My philosophy is that ultimately it is only active units that count. Building the TRNS means that the units you build in Germany on G1 will be fewer in number, but more active because of all the places they can go. The Allies don’t care that much about units that can move to EE or WE. Units that can go to Norway, Karelia or London, on the other hand…

In a word, the transports provide a mobility that increases the value/usefulness of your land forces, which Germany starts with in abundance. Germany’s key to victory is to leverage its early military/tactical superiority to deny the Allies the benefit of their economic superiority while the Axis achieve economic parity. Transports help with that, whether in the Baltic or in the Med. Germany’s Inf are immediately active, rather than just starting out on a long trek to Caucasus.

So I guess I like the TRN build. As for the channel dash, I think the Med fleet, sz 8 sub and Luftwaffe are sufficient to deal with the UK BB and to deter the US from landing in Algeria with 1 DD 2 TRN (or do they have more in range?). I’ll try the dash in G2 if it seems appropriate, but I’ll be happy either way.

Of course, if I like the TRNS in the med, why not just build them there? I guess the UK DD and Russian Ftrs mean they need an escort.

[frood]

@DarthMaximus:

I don’t think the UK or US should be worried about Kar or Nor until about rd 3-4, so I think Germany worry about retaking it is a waste.

I think Allies should combine in the Atlantic in rd 1, go to Afr in rd 2 (and 3), then start landing in Nor in Rd 3 (or 4).  And by the time the Allies land in rd 3 or 4 they can do so with about 4-6 UK troops and another 4-6 US troops.  A German counter is futile there.

My point is the Allies priorities should be Afr #1 (rds 1-3), then worry about Northern Europe.  So I’m not sure why the Germans would bother with Nor or Kar.  Let the Allies go there early while you are cleaning up in Afr and moving stacks of troops to Ukr.

I wonder though, how will the Allied assault on Norway look if Germany has been reinforcing it for 3 rounds? Or, if Germany leaves Norway vacant but has a monster force in Karelia plus of course 4 TRNs to bring more from Germany? Deadzoned!

[Baghdaddy]

The TRANs build in the MED should either be after the UK DD has met an untimely demise or it should have a couple of SS built the previous turn to help the DD meet that untimely demise.  I like the picket SS to deny the Allies an easy trip up to the landing zone and it is a cheap casualty when used to support air strikes by the Luftwaffe.  With its submerge capability it is very survivable unless the Allies start building DDs to chase SSs.  Hmm.  DDs, yet another unit that can’t occupy Berlin.

[Imperious Leader]

• the Baltic fleet frees up units that would otherwise have to defend Berlin. So, even though you have built less land units, you get more use out of the ones you already have.
• the Transports also greatly increase your land forces’ potential because with 4 TRNs you can bring 8 Inf to Karelia plus your armor and Fighters can all get there on their own. And that’s only one step from Moscow’s border.
• You can also get units back to WE quickly if Allied landing is threatened there.
• If the Allies allow you to unite the fleet, Germany will own Africa and pretty soon Caucasus.

This is a good point that has not been addressed. The idea is to go ahead and build the 40 IPC fleet (1 CV + 3 AP) and use it as a nice “floating factory” and basically forgo the Channel dash concept. By the numbers the “gambit” of the german fleet going to SZ#6 or 7 and exchanging with the British fleet does not really increase the net value of destroyed allied pieces then what might be afforded by using the transports as a long term floating factory.

I can believe in this idea. But we have to address some terms first:

“Channel Dash” is a proper term to describe any linking with southern and northern german fleets because its the same name that was attributed to the episode in WW2 when those 2 battlecruisers left Breast for Germany

A “gambit” is to describe something where you gain tempo and an immediate positional advantage while you sacrifice material. The concept of Channel Dash whether its to exchange pieces, invade england,or combine fleets in the medd is not happening by the numbers if you go with a G2 attack.

1. If you exchange pieces (simplification) you are not actually gaining because the value of both loses is basically equal. Thus you do not gain by the income method.But that is why its called a gambit ( you have to sacrifice material to gain positionally in terms of tempo or positional advantage).
2. If the result is the loss of both fleets you have no positional advantage because you have lost the positional advantage on the eastern front by the incrementally small advantage from forcing UK to rebuild.
3. In terms of creating tempo you have caused the British to rebuild a fleet but it will be much more effective because you no longer have a fleet either and cannot afford to build another one.

I think a much better plan is if you go with it its basically :

1. a constant threat for invasion to england
2. a floating factory to land troops in Russia and block allied troops going to Norway.

Under this idea the concept looks pretty good.

BUT you must forget the idea of moving outside the baltic unless somehow the allies are too far away or Sealion looks good.

That’s funny, since c-sub people have used a fleet build to win FTF tournaments. I would suggest you play with the c-sub build a few times before proclaiming it a total waste.

Its not an idea that BELONGS to only the C- Sub people. Its not like they invented it. Its just an idea amoung many… its just an idea and BTW you by your own admission dont even follow it correctly… so why defend somthing you dont even fully believe in? I call it a ‘desperado’ play for germany because the outcome on many levels is not 1) obvious and 2) requires more than a few things happening for it to work.

But this is looking at it with the intention of moving out of the baltic on G2.

I suppose it can work but i would not say it was a “book move” or even a Gambit.

In terms of ideas its possible that ANY idea can win a tournament. Their is no reason why it should be the main line for german play. I would say its refutable as a primary way to win a game otherwise it would be played as such and its not.

[Imperious Leader]

i just noticed that this thread got 165 replies?

wow! its only been up for like a week.

This only really proves that their is a real need to sort out these ideas in an official manner.

We have not even gone into the attacks yet.

Does anybody have any good ideas how if germany has this 4 tranny (AKA floating factory) in the baltic how do they:

1. counter the soviets since they spend every dime on navy?

2. deal with allied landings throughout the game?

3. what do they now purchase given the fast track to moscow?

I suspect if the Channel dash is not attempted that the german attacks are as follows:

3 fighter 1 bomber 1 sub on uk BB
land in egypt 1 tank 1 inf and 2 fighters
attack uk DD with fighter, BB and tranny

correct?

[squirecam]

@Imperious:

Its not an idea that BELONGS to only the C- Sub people. Its not like they invented it. Its just an idea amoung many… its just an idea and BTW you by your own admission dont even follow it correctly… so why defend somthing you dont even fully believe in? I call it a ‘desperado’ play for germany because the outcome on many levels is not 1) obvious and 2) requires more than a few things happening for it to work.

But this is looking at it with the intention of moving out of the baltic on G2.

I suppose it can work but i would not say it was a “book move” or even a Gambit.

In terms of ideas its possible that ANY idea can win a tournament. Their is no reason why it should be the main line for german play. I would say its refutable as a primary way to win a game otherwise it would be played as such and its not.

Its true, I dont follow their build. It’s not that theirs is correct, or mine is. Its two different methods.

I am not, however, saying their build does not work. It does. I just like what I do better.

But I have seen it. I know its potential due to similarity with my strategy. You said you were unfamiliar with it. In which case I thought you should try it before dismissing it.

But I’m through arguing this. Its not worth it.

[Imperious Leader]

You said you were unfamiliar with it.

I never said this anywhere. I think thats something you made up.

I just dont believe in it. But ill stick it in the projects files so in case anybody wants to use it they can look at the numbers and make up their own mind.

Heck i may even have an invasion amerika “gambit” as well.

Even in the MCO or Chess Informat we have all sorts of ideas that may or may not work. I think ill call this thing “AAPO”  Axis and Allies player openings

[squirecam]

@Imperious:

Now how exactly does this channel dash thing work? How is it a viable option on G1 or G2?

Sealion is not possible with a bid of zero or 3. I have only seen it work with a bid of 8. If UK buys a fleet how then can G2 be a decent plan for channel dash?

I do see the merits of such a plan but i dont see how they get away with it against a decent Uk player. its certainly not w/o major risks of failure.

@Imperious:

As far as the channel dash is concerned somebody who believes in it tell us exactly how you do it.

another person can play UK/ USA and demonstrate how he counters this.

Thats way we all see the how and why.

I suspect JSP would like to participate and possible Squirecam or ncscswitch or even Crazy Straw himself?

Since you were asking how it works, it seemed that you had never seen it in action before.

[cyan]

he doesn’t belive in it.

[frood]

I think I agree that the Baltic fleet should not leave the Baltic until G2, and then only if it looks like clear sailing.

I disagree with spending all 40 IPCs in the baltic. For UK1, 4 TRN 2 Sub 1 DD are plenty to make the UK attack a waste of IPCs. The AC can be purchased in G2 if extra defence is needed.

By the way, can you really land Ftrs on a newly built carrier? TripleA seems not to allow it, but I recall earlier discussion of the rules that this was allowed. Anywho, the AC can wait until G2.

So to answer your questions:

0. Preliminary - by not building the AC in G1, you can at least build 4 Inf 1 Art, so that partly eliminates your concern about less land units. Could also build just 2 TRN, as CSub recommends as the advanced option.

1. Counter the soviets by bringing loads of stuff to Karelia quickly

2. Allied landings - With the baltic locked up, the Allies can’t land in EE or Berlin, allowing defence forces to be concentrated in Karelia (or Norway) and WE. That more than offsets the reduction in initial land production.

3. Purchases - perhaps equal parts Inf/Arm, with 40 IPCs 5 Inf 5 Arm works nicely - hmm, only 3 TRN needed to move 5 Inf each turn. The Inf go by boat, the Armor by land, and both arrive in Karelia at the same time. With 4 TRN, you could build 4 Inf 4 Art to send by water (28 IPCs) leaving a healthy amount to spend on defence.

(my approach for) German attacks: (assuming a bid of 5 and Ukr ftr lives)

attack UK BB w/ 1 Sub 1 BB 4 ftrs (should take wol) - land in WE
land 1 Inf via TRN in Gibraltar
attack Egypt w/ 1 Inf 2 Arm (1 from bid) 2 Ftr 1 Bom - land in Lib

and leave the DD the hell alone - it will be stranded and useless with the channel closed.

Based on that, if the US tries an African landing in US1, its fleet will face 1 Sub 6 Ftr 1 Bom while the BB/TRN head back to reinforce/retake egypt. So you basically dictate that UK and US both head north. I guess if UK and US BOTH go to Africa in round 1 they might survive. Checking - nope. Germany can bring everything and lose just 1 TRN 1 Sub to kill 4 TRN 1 DD 1 BB.

Germany: more options
Allies: fewer options

[Imperious Leader]

Quote from: Imperious Leader on January 26, 2007, 03:56:18 PM

Now how exactly does this channel dash thing work? How is it a viable option on G1 or G2?

Sealion is not possible with a bid of zero or 3. I have only seen it work with a bid of 8. If UK buys a fleet how then can G2 be a decent plan for channel dash?

I do see the merits of such a plan but i dont see how they get away with it against a decent Uk player. its certainly not w/o major risks of failure.

Quote from: Imperious Leader on January 26, 2007, 07:26:17 PM
As far as the channel dash is concerned somebody who believes in it tell us exactly how you do it.

another person can play UK/ USA and demonstrate how he counters this.

Thats way we all see the how and why.

I suspect JSP would like to participate and possible Squirecam or ncscswitch or even Crazy Straw himself?

Since you were asking how it works, it seemed that you had never seen it in action before.

You missed this post–- Reply #81 on: January 26, 2007, 07:23:23 PM that reads:

These ideas are not my definitive evaluation but plausible ideas each with some merit. However the context and discovery of these ideas would be ‘discovered’ under some Socratic method because i believe that the truth is something inside the individual and i have merely to ask enough questions to arrive at the truth.

Re- read those lines in terms of the following method of discourse:

All of that was merely the Socratic method in play. The basic idea is to plead ignorance and ask questions from others and elucidate the truth. The truth only needs to be filtered out by more questions. That question was my attempt to get ideas from others. If you don’t ask questions you don’t get information.

Look up the Socratic technique on the internet.

Example:

In a trial an attorney the prosecution asks alot of questions that he may have his own opinion on in order to gain insight on how others view the issue and to also help them look outside of the box.

[frood]

(Off topic) but in a trial no lawyer asks any questions they don’t know the answer to.

I’m interested in IL’s thoughts on my answer to his questions before this moves on to something else.

[Imperious Leader]

I disagree with spending all 40 IPCs in the baltic. For UK1, 4 TRN 2 Sub 1 DD are plenty to make the UK attack a waste of IPCs. The AC can be purchased in G2 if extra defence is needed.

++++ right the baltic fleet idea can be purchased incrementally over time. Id say a CV first then 1 tranny per turn. That way you maintain constant pressure against the Soviets.

By the way, can you really land Ftrs on a newly built carrier? TripleA seems not to allow it, but I recall earlier discussion of the rules that this was allowed. Anywho, the AC can wait until G2.

++++ The discussion is OTB play. I cant say anything about Triple A

So to answer your questions:

0. Preliminary - by not building the AC in G1, you can at least build 4 Inf 1 Art, so that partly eliminates your concern about less land units. Could also build just 2 TRN, as CSub recommends as the advanced option.

1. Counter the soviets by bringing loads of stuff to Karelia quickly

2. Allied landings - With the baltic locked up, the Allies can’t land in EE or Berlin, allowing defence forces to be concentrated in Karelia (or Norway) and WE. That more than offsets the reduction in initial land production.

3. Purchases - perhaps equal parts Inf/Arm, with 40 IPCs 5 Inf 5 Arm works nicely - hmm, only 3 TRN needed to move 5 Inf each turn. The Inf go by boat, the Armor by land, and both arrive in Karelia at the same time. With 4 TRN, you could build 4 Inf 4 Art to send by water (28 IPCs) leaving a healthy amount to spend on defence.

++++ yea i do like the idea of landing infantry/ artillery by boat and tanks go on the factory. They arrive at the same time.

(my approach for) German attacks: (assuming a bid of 5 and Ukr ftr lives)

attack UK BB w/ 1 Sub 1 BB 4 ftrs (should take wol) - land in WE
land 1 Inf via TRN in Gibraltar
attack Egypt w/ 1 Inf 2 Arm (1 from bid) 2 Ftr 1 Bom - land in Lib

++++ why do you favor the gibrater plan? Is this your plan to safeguard the medd fleet from aerial attacks?  also, why not also land an infantry on algeria if your gonna do that?  Last question why do you ignore the DD in eastern medd? its like 12 free IPC. The uk BB is total overkill dont you agree?

and leave the DD the hell alone - it will be stranded and useless with the channel closed.

Based on that, if the US tries an African landing in US1, its fleet will face 1 Sub 6 Ftr 1 Bom while the BB/TRN head back to reinforce/retake egypt. So you basically dictate that UK and US both head north. I guess if UK and US BOTH go to Africa in round 1 they might survive. Checking - nope. Germany can bring everything and lose just 1 TRN 1 Sub to kill 4 TRN 1 DD 1 BB.

++++ If you took out the uk BB with that i also think USA will turn north. The question is you dont have alot of fodder in egypt and you may lose tanks.

Germany: more options
Allies: fewer options

[frood]

@Imperious:

++++ why do you favor the gibrater plan? Is this your plan to safeguard the medd fleet from aerial attacks?  also, why not also land an infantry on algeria if your gonna do that?  Last question why do you ignore the DD in eastern medd? its like 12 free IPC. The uk BB is total overkill dont you agree?

++++ If you took out the uk BB with that i also think USA will turn north. The question is you dont have alot of fodder in egypt and you may lose tanks.

I’d sooner build 2 TRN than 1 CV - Ftrs need to land in WE anyway to protect Algeria. 2 TRN add 2 to count and 2 to punch, so defensively comparable to the 1/3 contribution of a CV, plus the TRNs add to your capability to move troops - which is part of what offsets the lessened production of land units.

On your two questions above:

Gibraltar - yes, this is to protect the fleet. if the UK can land there it can hit my BB, TRN and Sub with 1 DD 2 Ftrs 1 Bom which is a loser for Germany.

I want the Med fleet in SZ 13, that’s vital for preserving the fleet unification option in SZ 7 for G2.

The UK DD - there’s no reason to kill it if the channel is closed and Gibraltar is taken. While not killed, the UK still loses the use of this 12 IPC unit because it is impotent on its own without the RAF or the India fleet.

Germany can’t “do it all” in G1 so the DD is the one thing that I think is lower priority. And Egypt will likely be re-taken anyway, which I don’t mind because I can re-take again and have substantially reduced UK forces and made India an easy grab for Japan. UK fleet then has to sail around Africa or get killed by Japan. That fleet’s eventual arrival though is one good reason to get out of the baltic if you get a chance.

[Imperious Leader]

Well that egypt attack will bite into tanks somewhat depending on the bid.

OK if you head over to SZ 13 your plan is to unit the fleet on G2? And i suppose you saw the math on that which was 1 sub,1 bb,1 AP,1 CV, 1 DD, 2 fighters
against the german fleet of 4 ap, 1 CV, 5-6 fighters, 1 bomber, 2 subs.

The allied fleet will cause 7-8 hits on the german fleet before its destroyed (28 hit points and 8 hits to soak vs germany and her 26-29 hit points and 13-14 hits to soak up)

Leaving allies gone and germans losing 7-8 pieces which leaves either no fleet or losing a few planes costing more. Say you keep the carrier. On USA turn they finish off the carrier in SZ# 6 or 7 and germany has a medd fleet in the atlantic with no fleet to link with.

USA can come in with a fighter, bomber and destroyer and 2 tranny to mop up whats left in either SZ#7 or 6 and the Uk player will build in the same SZ.

I see your idea with gibrater. Its what we used to do in milton bradley days.

What do you think of the idea of building these 3 trannys and cv in the baltic and leaving them to hoist over 8 infantry per turn to Soviet Union?

You have a great threat also against britain and you dont have any hole in the baltic. You get a floating factory out of the deal and protection for germany and a counter to the chuck to finland.