Well, sure BBs are an incredibly useful unit, but at what cost? Just using battlecalc on triplea - 2 BBs (40 IPCs) could not beat 5 DDs (40 IPCs), where 5 DDs would beat 2 BBs with about 1 DD left. So, as far as naval battles go, having 5 DDs is more useful than 2 BBs. If you want to bombard, 3 Cruisers (36 IPCs) are better because they are cheaper and give potential for 3 hits (9 offensive pips) vs. potential for 2 hits (8 offensive pips).
Even 6 Subs (36 IPCs) would destroy 2 BBs and 2 BBs would barely beat 6 Subs (50/50).
Actually I don’t remember AA50- they were two hit and automatically healed? were they 20 IPCs too? auto heal makes them a bit better, but I’d still rather have a DD or SS swarm. Not to mention you can use them in multiple SZs.
Again, the only reason to buy BBs in my mind is the intimidation factor. Every other sea unit trumps it on cost per ‘pip.’
I also did not buy bbs for revised or aa50 and don’t buy them for global either. But re. aa50, many of the best players buy them. The best argument (in aa50) for a bb buy is buying one early on for the UK, since the 1-hit-heal and the bombard are so useful for UK’s objectives.
When analyzing the cost/benefit of bbs, I wouldn’t compare them to cruisers or destroyers. I’d compare them to acs and fighters. Now that ACs are 2 hit like BBs in the global rule set, I think that might take away some of the incentive to invest in battleships. However, naval bases give naval units a new dynamism that they didn’t possess in aa50, so it might be too early to tell really.
Is it useful to use 2 american fleets in the PAC? Meaning one at Hawai (or up north), and one with Anzac.
Well, sure BBs are an incredibly useful unit, but at what cost? �Just using battlecalc on triplea - 2 BBs (40 IPCs) could not beat 5 DDs (40 IPCs), where 5 DDs would beat 2 BBs with about 1 DD left. �So, as far as naval battles go, having 5 DDs is more useful than 2 BBs. �If you want to bombard, 3 Cruisers (36 IPCs) are better because they are cheaper and give potential for 3 hits (9 offensive pips) vs. potential for 2 hits (8 offensive pips). �
Even 6 Subs (36 IPCs) would destroy 2 BBs and 2 BBs would barely beat 6 Subs (50/50).
Actually I don’t remember AA50- they were two hit and automatically healed? �were they 20 IPCs too? �auto heal makes them a bit better, but I’d still rather have a DD or SS swarm. �Not to mention you can use them in multiple SZs.
Again, the only reason to buy BBs in my mind is the intimidation factor. �Every other sea unit trumps it on cost per ‘pip.’ �
I also did not buy bbs for revised or aa50 and don’t buy them for global either. �But re. aa50, many of the best players buy them. �The best argument (in aa50) for a bb buy is buying one early on for the UK, since the 1-hit-heal and the bombard are so useful for UK’s objectives.
When analyzing the cost/benefit of bbs, I wouldn’t compare them to cruisers or destroyers. �I’d compare them to acs and fighters. �Now that ACs are 2 hit like BBs in the global rule set, I think that might take away some of the incentive to invest in battleships. �However, naval bases give naval units a new dynamism that they didn’t possess in aa50, so it might be too early to tell really.
Well, if you want to compare 2 BBs to 1 CV and 2 Fighters (or 1 fighter 1 tactical bomber)- for the record not a great comparison because they have different abilities, especially the range of aircraft- I don’t have triplea here to test it, but 2 BBs cost $40 and have 8 att/def pips whereas: 1 CV, 2 Fighters ($36) have 6 att/10 def pips and 1 CV, 1 Fighter, 1 tac ($37) has 7 att/9 def pips.
The BBs seem to compare favorably with the CV + fighters buy, BUT- the CV + fighters cost less and fighters are more versatile. If for instance, you own the Pacific as Japan or US those fighters can aid in land battles much easier than those BBs do. Fighters can attack every round whereas BBs only get one shot on amphibious assaults.
Is it useful to use 2 american fleets in the PAC? Meaning one at Hawai (or up north), and one with Anzac.
It can be- sometimes Japan will split its fleet up to compensate. If Japan doesn’t split it up then they may be able to annihilate your fleets piecemeal.
I usually keep a QRF by western USA depending on what Japan has in SZ 6. Usually consists of a Carrier loaded and an assortment of subs and dd’s. Protection to react to Hawaii or Alaska/Aleautians.
In the Pacific, I normally keep a continuous flow of destroyers, subs, and sometimes battleships or loaded carriers from Western US, Hawaii, and Australia. This keeps Japan and the DEI threatened, protects Hawaii and keeps ANZAC transports covered. Subs are very usefull here because they force Japan to keep buying destroyers. The less money Japan can put into to land units and transports the better for the allies. It’s also usually worth it to suicide your units to kill Japanese capital ships because they generally can’t afford to replace them. At least not at the rate that the US can. If you start eliminating carriers and battleships you’ll see Japan retreat from the DEI and India every time.
As far as Europe is concerned, it all depends on how the fight in Africa and Russia is going. You can land units in Africa straight from the Eastern US in order to poke Italy a little bit. I personally like to have a nice little “transport bridge” from Eastern US, Gibraltor, and SZ 110. A loaded carrier, maybe a battleship, and a couple of destroyers combined with the UK fleet should be enough to keep the German fleet at bay. With this setup you can hit Normandy every turn to harass Germany and help the Soviet Union out. Or you can go for the Med. and hit Italy pretty hard. It all depends on which axis power needs the most attention at the time.
@VZSTAL:
In the Pacific, I normally keep a continuous flow of destroyers, subs, and sometimes battleships or loaded carriers from Western US, Hawaii, and Australia. This keeps Japan and the DEI threatened, protects Hawaii and keeps ANZAC transports covered. Subs are very usefull here because they force Japan to keep buying destroyers. The less money Japan can put into to land units and transports the better for the allies. It’s also usually worth it to suicide your units to kill Japanese capital ships because they generally can’t afford to replace them. At least not at the rate that the US can. If you start eliminating carriers and battleships you’ll see Japan retreat from the DEI and India every time.
As far as Europe is concerned, it all depends on how the fight in Africa and Russia is going. You can land units in Africa straight from the Eastern US in order to poke Italy a little bit. I personally like to have a nice little “transport bridge” from Eastern US, Gibraltor, and SZ 110. A loaded carrier, maybe a battleship, and a couple of destroyers combined with the UK fleet should be enough to keep the German fleet at bay. With this setup you can hit Normandy every turn to harass Germany and help the Soviet Union out. Or you can go for the Med. and hit Italy pretty hard. It all depends on which axis power needs the most attention at the time.
Just be wary of German air attack on the Allied fleets. I routinely see 10+ German aircraft in West Germany.
Just be wary of German air attack on the Allied fleets. Â I routinely see 10+ German aircraft in West Germany.
Yes a good German player will always have a navy and air force to content will allied fleets off the coast of France. It takes some cooperation between UK and US to prevent their ships from being sunk. If the UK has three fighters to scramble and several destroyers and the US provides the capital ships, it is very difficult for the German player to prevent them from landing in Europe and to keep buying enough units to defeat the Soviet Union.
Russia:
Is it better to let the Germans take Ukraine or Novgorod and then to counter attack? This way, your stack of russian infantry don’t get hit by all the german planes.
Russia:
Is it better to let the Germans take Ukraine or Novgorod and then to counter attack? This way, your stack of russian infantry don’t get hit by all the german planes.
Yes, but often best to just strafe them rather than liberate those territories.
Why not take it back?
Russia:
Is it better to let the Germans take Ukraine or Novgorod and then to counter attack? This way, your stack of russian infantry don’t get hit by all the german planes.Yes, but often best to just strafe them rather than liberate those territories.
Obviously only strafe a territory if you have a sizable stack of tanks/fighters. Otherwise you may take more losses than you give…
You strafe a territory if you can deal more damage than you receive, thus depriving the Germans of Infantry on the front that aren’t easily replaced.
Well ok, but i don’t really see it happening for the Russians. Im going all infantry/artillery.
Be careful when you strafe, too overwhelming of a force may have you taking a territory you had no intention of liberating.
Is there anything useful that can be done with the russian planes? (other than attacking with your infantry)
Is there anything useful that can be done with the russian planes? (other than attacking with your infantry)
I’ve sunk the German Navy before (BB, Cruiser, and 2 Transports in Baltic) with the Russian starting sub, 2 fighters, 1 tac.
I’ve used the air to take Iraq with some Infantry from Caucasus/Persia.
Now for UK Pacific: All infantry? My UK fleet in the med retreated in the egypt canal (except the destroyer). Is it worth bringing it to India, or should i stay to annoy the italians?
Now for UK Pacific: All infantry? My UK fleet in the med retreated in the egypt canal (except the destroyer). Is it worth bringing it to India, or should i stay to annoy the italians?
Annoying the Italians is always worthwhile since their income expands rapidly if you let them collect their NOs.
I’m sitting on the fence as to whether Mech or Infantry is a better buy for India. With Mech it is easier to support China since you get from Calcutta to Yunnan in one move and from Yunnan you have the range to hit everything of importance in SE Asia. However, India and Moscow are the only major ICs the Allies have access to on the Eurasian landmass. In that regard it may be better to focus on Infantry with some ART tossed in so you can build up a nice stack of fodder. With making Infantry your main buy Japan may be forced to commit more production into ground units that they might have otherwise which could allow you to get the upper hand at sea.
I like having a couple Mech as India… they are incredibly useful both as a deterrent (can reinforce Yunnan if needed or attack Yunnan with air). Additionally, they can quickly move to the Mid East if Italy is getting frisky.
Infantry take to long to get to the front… All Japan has to do is move a fleet to Singapore and bam, India has to move out of Burma back into India.
Infantry take to long to get to the front… All Japan has to do is move a fleet to Singapore and bam, India has to move out of Burma back into India.
Yep. Of course, in the heavy-Mech scenario you’re moving out of Yunnan back into India for the same reason. The Infantry stack also defends Burma itself, at least. It’s a tough call for me. I like the versatility of Mech but after too many rounds of all-Mech buys I start to wish I had more units on the board, even slow ones.
