German navy

[newpaintbrush]

The point of debate seems to be that people are thinking that the Caspian Sub paper simply recommends buying three transports.

That IS NOT actually what the Caspian sub paper recommends.  What is recommended is a CONDITIONAL purchase of 2-3 transports.  If certain factors apply, then it is NOT recommended that transports be purchased.

In other words, Caspian Sub is saying “Water is good to drink”, and people are pouring water into their cars gas tanks.  No no!  That’s not what’s supposed to happen!

–

For EXAMPLE, the Casp Sub paper says “If Russian fighters in range of London, that should be considered as a factor against a transport purchase”.  Not in words per se, but there’s a list of conditions.

Anyways - if UK builds 3 fighters and transports tanks from E. Canada, and UK and US unite fleets off southwest of London (depending), and Russia flies 2 fighters to London from Moscow on R2, then what you have is:

London:  2 bomber, 4 inf, 2 art, 3 tank, 8 fighter, AA gun

which is pretty decent against even 4 inf 4 tank 6 fighter 1 bomber, which is the most Germany can bring, assuming USSR blocks the German Mediterranean fleet on R2.  (This does not prevent German fleet unification; Germany can send a fighter to sink or submerge the sub, and Germany unites on G2 anyways)

And UK can follow with 5 fighter 1 bomber vs 2 sub 4 trns 1 destr on the next turn (if the German Baltic navy does not move out), or 2 trns 5 fighter 1 bomber 1 btl vs 3 sub 5 trns 1 dstr 1 btl on UK, and US followup of 2 trns 1 destr 1 fig 1 bom (minimum), which DOES spell the end of the German navy, even if the Allies have to completely rebuild on their turn (which may not be necessary if UK retreated their battleship and left US to finish the job).  I do not see that this position offers the Axis any sort of substantive advantage.

So does that mean that 3 Baltic transports is wrong if Russian fighters are in Moscow at the end of R1?  I think the answer to that is yes.  But notice that the Caspian Sub paper DOES pretty much say the same.

[U-505]

@CrazyStraw:

Actually I’d do the same thing short or long term.  The game I play is FTF domination; tournaments do happen from time to time, but the majority of the time I play as close to box rules domination as possible (meaning bid and a couple of minor fixes).

The reason the German buy is the same for short and long term is the cost/benefit analysis of a Baltic purchase.  If you buy nothing, then UK should sink Germany on the cheap, build transports in Z02, and be landing signficant troops in Europe R2.  If you build even a single transport in the Baltic the UK strategy changes quite significantly.

Good posts from Darth, Frood and others.  Couple more notes:

Darth, in the long term the Unified German fleet DOES die.  But if you don’t at least threaten the move, the Allies go into ground-production mode immediately.  By spending a few IPCs in the water you force a significant upgrade of Allied boats/planes, and you delay the landing of ground troops.

Again, I will try to take my own advice.  :-D

I was speaking, in particular, about the argument between you guys of buying a fleet worth combining in sz7 on G2. I don’t dispute that Germany should buy some sort of navy on G1 in most cases( a really bad R1 or a heavy Russian push toward Japan being the main exceptions).

I’m just still skeptical about combining the German navies in a long term game. As I haven’t seen it or done it very often, I can’t say exactly what I would do but I get the feeling I would probably be willing to take the IPC hit by attacking it with the US/UK on round 2 at least to knock out the TP’s if anything. I place a pretty high value on taking early African IPC’s when I’m Germany(possibly more than most) so taking steps to eliminate Germany’s ability to do it would be a high priority for me as the Allies.

I might even just let it go. I would obviously build to prevent it from sinking the combined Allied fleet, advancing into the Atlantic, or invading UK(situational depending on the composition of the fleet) so it would eventually retreat to either the Baltic or the Med. In that case, I would probably try to work around it in the area it operates in and take advantage of it’s absence in the other.

It’s hard for me to get into specifics since the fleet compositions are nearly endless, but an exclusive TP build would probably draw an attack while a CV would mean trying to work around it. Until I could challenge it in force, at my leisure if possible.

[squirecam]

Just one point on this XX to YY IPC loss.

The German fleet, without any purchase, will likely die UK1 to 2 fighters and a Bomber. Even if you kill a fighter, or even 2, you LOSE 36 IPC worth of units at a cost of 20.

With a fleet buy, those units, which were WASTED, now do MORE damage to Allied IPC/units than they suffer. Even if this were the ONLY benefit (although there are more), it is worth it.

Edit out flame: Imperious

Squirecam

[Imperious Leader]

The point of debate seems to be that people are thinking that the Caspian Sub paper simply recommends buying three transports.

Nobody cares about somebodys “paper” … This debate is about fleet unification and the very idea of the direct threat for Sealion and a direct confrontation with UK. Were looking at all the possibilities for the game with any system that uses this idea.C- Sub is just one idea and many posters have their own ideas and modifications to this plan. Some of the proponents of this plan dont even follow it and have made modifications on the idea. Again this idea is an old one “tried” by a few, and  the approach is not the same. However, the refutation is based only at this point on the “big” solution of this issue based on the buy of 1 carrier and 3 transports. Of course you can go “small” and try the idea with 3 subs or whatever. However, if the math works less well for the big solution than how much better can it work for a partial solution? The plan assumes unification on G2… any additional wait will only get worse for germany.

[Imperious Leader]

The German fleet, without any purchase, will likely die UK1 to 2 fighters and a Bomber. Even if you kill a fighter, or even 2, you LOSE 36 IPC worth of units at a cost of 20.

regardless by the math the net difference is less than 10 IPC worth gain for axis. Its still hardly worth the effort. If the dice are not average it can go much worse for germany and ruin her game. Why take the chance?

[squirecam]

No.

Without a fleet, Germany loses 36 to UK’s 10 or 20. That is, Germany is -26 or -16.

With a fleet, using your #'s. Germany ends up  +9.

That is a TOTAL gain, from -26 to +9, of 35 IPC.

Squirecam

[newpaintbrush]

@squirecam:

Some people will never learn/listen/debate without getting petty. So it is useless to continue this…

ya i kno!  guys just don’t like to listen!  they just want to put they hands all over u!

–

Mmm.  I want to get “pet-ty” with Marisa Miller.  Rawr.

–@Imperious:

The point of debate seems to be that people are thinking that the Caspian Sub paper simply recommends buying three transports.

Nobody gives a (insert mad lib here!) about somebodys “paper” … This debate is about fleet unification and the very idea of the direct threat for Sealion and a direct confrontation with UK. Were looking at all the possibilities for the game with any system that uses this idea.C- Sub is just one idea and many posters have their own ideas and modifications to this plan. Some of the proponents of this plan dont even follow it and have made modifications on the idea. Again this idea is an old one “tried” by a few, and the approach is not the same. However, the refutation is based only at this point on the “big” solution of this issue based on the buy of 1 carrier and 3 transports. Of course you can go “small” and try the idea with 3 subs or whatever. However, if the math works less well for the big solution than how much better can it work for a partial solution? The plan assumes unification on G2… any additional wait will only get worse for germany.

Mm.  I’ll give u a (insert mad lib here!).  Yummeh.

You’re saying the refutation at this point is based on a solution of 1 carrier vs 3 transports.  But how can you justly criticize the 3 transport build idea when you do not know the critical conditions under which the 3 transport build is recommended?

"OK, when the red light goes on, press the “Nuclear Control Rod regulator”.

“OK, I pressed it!”

“No, when the red light goes on.”

“OK, I pressed it!”

“No, when THAT red light goes on.”

“OK, I pressed it!”

–

The question is, is it supposed to be a DISCUSSION, an ARGUMENT, or a COMEDY?

[squirecam]

Just for the record, I said nothing inflamatory.

I see IL is now editing posts, so I thought I would just make that clear.

Squirecam

[General_D.Fox]

I tell ya, this has to be the most contentious issue on these boards bar none…well, maybe aside from whatever’s going on in the “general discussion” thread.  But here, it probably has to be this: a) what/should Germany buy navy? b) should it attempt a unification c) my written paper is better than your paper.

[Imperious Leader]

Just for the record, I said nothing inflammatory.

Squire: We done need any more of your posts where you say " this is a total waste of discussion because of X and Y and THEN post repeatedly"

You need to get off the stove if your hot… Its simple to either post something that adds to the discussion or to not post because you feel any contribution to it is a “waste” You denigrate other posters who ARE trying to be happy about posting here and share their ideas. If you don’t like them i don’t want to see you bringing down things for your own purpose.

You allready made 2 posts with the same tirade. Either be or not to be. You cant have both.

And for the record Im not going to let the same people every time turn a discussion into a war. I will edit out anything that refers to another poster in a negative light because that is not fair.

so watch yourself.

[Imperious Leader]

a) what/should Germany buy navy? b) should it attempt a unification

I think they should buy a carrier for baltic while doing item B is probably not a good idea.

Also buying a battleship has a some merit if you plan on using it for its support shot more than a few times.

I think something should be done to protect the baltic fleet rather than to throw it in the trash can and leave a hole in the baltic.

[U-505]

@General_D.Fox:

I tell ya, this has to be the most contentious issue on these boards bar none…well, maybe aside from whatever’s going on in the “general discussion” thread. But here, it probably has to be this: a) what/should Germany buy navy? b) should it attempt a unification c) my written paper is better than your paper.

Well that’s because MY paper is better than yours. What were you thinking, Fox?  :evil:

It’s mainly because everybody goes with what works for them and since they are more familiar with their opening they will argue more adamantly for it’s defense. The options for Germany’s opening build’s are endless and the Allied responses to those openings are endless squared. I say try every one you see and if a few win for you, try them again. And if a few lose for you, try them again anyway. What the hell, it’s only a game. Except when you play ME. Then it’s the ultimate battle of wits which will end up in me proving my clear superiority to whoever I’m playing. Even if I lose.  :-P :mrgreen:

[Imperious Leader]

Without a fleet, Germany loses 36 to UK’s 10 or 20. That is, Germany is -26 or -16.

With a fleet, using your #'s. Germany ends up  +9.

That is a TOTAL gain, from -26 to +9, of 35 IPC.

Can you show me the numbers? Just to make sure we are on the same page?

You may have to refer to the other thread if thats not too much trouble.

Help find the solution- maybe your correct and maybe your not.

[Jennifer]

@Imperious:

We even had a guy open a game  offering anybody who wants to attempt/ prove this strategy was a silly and play a game. That challenge was declined as well. Figures…

That’s a problem.  You know what to expect and thus know exactly how to counter, not a realistic test.  I’ve oft thought of challenging anyone to stop a KJF game, but if you know, ahead of time, that a KJF is comming, it is very easy to stop it.  Pull the Japanese fleet back to SZ 60, augment it fully and then dedicated a few IPC a round to keep it supplied and no way you can lose it.  But who does that on J1 w/o knowing a head of time that the allies are going ballbusters against Japan first?

[goldenbearflyer]

@Imperious:

a) what/should Germany buy navy? b) should it attempt a unification

I think they should buy a carrier for baltic while doing item B is probably not a good idea.

Also buying a battleship has a some merit if you plan on using it for its support shot more than a few times.

I think something should be done to protect the baltic fleet rather than to throw it in the trash can and leave a hole in the baltic.

Wait, that sounds like a consensus; squire basically said the same thing (I mean the part in bold).  That’s the whole point of why I have been trying out these various ideas.  (Problem is, I have done it without a bid, which is a different story.)

[Imperious Leader]

It’s mainly because everybody goes with what works for them and since they are more familiar with their opening they will argue more adamantly for it’s defense.

Thank god somebody made this point…. sometimes i feel that people just wont accept any ideas that run different. Its so dogmatic and largely results in failure on so many levels.

Its fine if you prefer your ideas… but Math is objective so if the truth can be seen for what it is then this ‘defense’ will become more flexible.

Papers are fine but it looks silly if your not willing to look at the situation on the board and be flexible.

[Imperious Leader]

Wait, that sounds like a consensus; squire basically said the same thing (I mean the part in bold).  That’s the whole point of why I have been trying out these various ideas.  (Problem is, I have done it without a bid, which is a different story.)

Yes Squire and others have said this. It becomes even more credible if your bid is zero so you cant afford to try gambits.

[newpaintbrush]

@General_D.Fox:

I tell ya, this has to be the most contentious issue on these boards bar none…well, maybe aside from whatever’s going on in the “general discussion” thread.  But here, it probably has to be this: a) what/should Germany buy navy? b) should it attempt a unification c) my written paper is better than your paper.

A.  Germany should buy a BIG navy.  So it can send troops to Brazil.  So we can have German/Brazilian supermodels.  Uberhawt.

B.  Mmmm.  Unification.   Sounds smexy.  (But more on this in a bit)

C.  I don’t even have a paper.  I’m waiting to write a paper until there is one official sanctioned ruleset.  Then, teh paper shall be written, and owls around the world shall rejoice.

–

Here are my three approaches to the Baltic, all of which I use.

1.  Buy NOTHING.  The philosophy behind this is - the Allies can blow up the Baltic fleet on UK1?  Let them!  That’s fewer fighters they have, and Allied fighters are a pain to deal with.  So I’ll lose some navy I wasn’t going to use anyways.  No big deal.

Genghis Khan used this to beat me.  I lose maybe one out of 10 or 15 games as the Allies.  So I have to say, there is probably something to this.

2.  Buy carrier.  The philosophy behind this is - I have a Baltic navy which costs a lot of IPC; I’m going to protect it and force the Allies to deal with it.

I’ve used this successfully on occasion, and unsuccessfully on quite a few occasions.  I think my play as the Axis is not necessarily completely sound, as I do not win consistently with them.  At any rate, I think that a carrier MAY not be sound.

3.  Buy 2-3 transports.  The philosophy behind this is - I have a Baltic navy which costs a lot of IPC, I’m going to protect it AND force the Allies to defend London AND threaten the Allied Atlantic fleet.  Remember this only really works with 2 bid units in Africa!!!

This is really a CONDITIONAL buy, and two things are important to note.  First, I feel that a 2-3 transport buy is ENTIRELY pointless if Russian fighters are in Moscow.  Second, I feel that a 2-3 transport buy is POSSIBLY very good depending on Russia’s moves, although I have not yet done a complete analysis.

Cursory look - well, if you build 3 transports, that’s a real threat on London.  If Russian fighters are not in range of London, and Germany builds 3 transports, Germany threatens 4 inf 4 tank 5 fighter 1 bomber (say best case for German) vs 2 bomber 4 inf 2 art 3 tank 3 fighter PLUS possibly 5 inf 3 tank, or 3 fighters.  So you can say - what’s the point?  The point is, first, if US DOES send its units to London, then the Allied fleet in the Atlantic is open to attack.  Maybe you can force the Allies to eat two transports (if the US sent the transports in unescorted, Luftwaffe can kill them all).  If the Allies united their fleet southwest of UK, maybe you can force the Allies to eat their whole fleet, if you attack that fleet with the Med navy and the German fighters in W. Europe.  At the very least, Germany should be able to eat the Russian sub that blocks the Mediterranean navy from attacking London (because battleship support shot and additional inf/tank is a little much for London to handle, especially if London went with 3 fighters, not 5 inf 3 tank).  If the Allies DO add fighters in London, Germany can still respond with a Baltic carrier (although QUITE expensive at this point, Germany may as well go for it) . . . and if the Allies do NOT respond with fighters, the Baltic navy can be used as a significant threat; I would much rather have 2 transports than 1 carrier on an attack supported by other naval/air units, because 2 transports can take 2 hits; 1 carrier can just take 1.

[ajgundam5]

I go to school and come back and the thread is 3 pages longer than i last saw … that realy discourages me from catching up  :-(

[Imperious Leader]

newpaintbrush your a funny guy.

You should write a “paper” and claim invincibility of your idea  :lol: :lol: :lol:

If you have a paper to back you up you cannot lose even a single game.