G1 fleet unification, how does UK respond?

@Kreuzfeld:

CVs are good. However, the reason DDs are bad, isn’t that it is a “bad” combatship if you plan on attacking. It is just that the TTs really are good combatships in the game. You will  usually have enough heavy ships surviving the first turn. Those ships combined with TTs will be enough to stop the luftwaffe. The TTs really are great combatships in this game. (seriously)

I understand that TTs are the best ship economy-wise, but I believe that a CV may be an extremely cost-efficient buy for the first turn only (because you have the two FTRs in UK that can land on the carrier no problem).  Later in the game the CV would become extremely cost-inefficient, of course (you’re paying 16 for a 1 HP 3 DEF when you could be spending that same 16 IPC for 2 HP of 1 DEF that can also transport units).

@Kreuzfeld:

I usually land in africa until my pacific fleet makes it to the atlantic. then I split and send uk into norway and start landing in the americans in europe the round after that.

Do you advocate sending the Indian Fleet south?  What do you do about the TT in SZ59?  When I used to play Revised/42/42SE I always remember going out of my way to eliminate it (as forcing Japan to buy more TTs is a good way to buy the allies precious time).

@macphearsome:

wrong forum; meant to post this in revised

We played our weekly saturday axis and allies game today and it had some interesting results.  It was a game with a lot of experimental moves, some of which worked much better than others.

I know that people on this forum do not exactly agree about the G1 AC purchase, but I tried it out for fun.  My friends tried to persuade me to buy 1AC & 1BB but I declined.  My japanese ally tried placing an IC in borneo and threatening the indian ocean etc (Australia, India, Africa), but the US and UK forces managed to distract him from doing anything effective with it.  Not a strategy that we will repeat.

However, I have to say that I was impressed by the usefulness of the G1 AC purchase.   An aircraft carrier on its own isn’t fantastic, but the fact that you can place two fighters on the AC helps a lot.  I bombed Britain on the first turn with my bomber, just to slow Britain down a bit more, then focussed on Russia as much as possible.  However, I had also wasted money on a bomber on G1 (1AC, 1 Bom, 3 inf) so Russia made some very fast progress on the Eastern front.

Next game, I will not buy a bomber on G1, but I will buy an AC and maybe a transport.  I love it.  The fighters are excellent defenders, and they can also threaten the UK if they try to invade norway or karelia / archangel.

i personally like this move but many players on the forum will disagree.
against an expert player you can buy Baltic AC but u need to know how to play with that navy

and kudos for you
just keep trying new solutions and enjoying the game
thats whats game all about

cheers

@syntaxerror111:

@Col.Stauffenberg:

I move the two subs down to sea zone 7, the rest of the med navy and other sub attack the battle ship (with figs). My opponent attacked the remaing baltic with his air force. He leaves the subs alone because he can only attack it with  his navy, which would put it in range of mine + all my planes in round 2. He has to choose what his air force attacks because it’s to risky to split them up. Sure this tactic delays me in Africa but it helps secure the Med and with a round 1 purchase of all men + 1 art, I can afford the delay. The us bomber has a crack at the subs but at the least I’ll keep one. Two or three subs, BB + tran is a good thing to have in the Med in round 2.

If I were your opponent in this situation I would have attacked the two lone subs with air on UK1 and the rest of the baltic fleet on UK2. You would most likely lose the Baltic fleet and both subs- if one sub survives the US Bmb gets a shot at as well.

@Zhukov44:

Fine with me. Those boats are expendable. If I get to keep the destroyer and Trans for another round, that’s just a bonus. I can get more infantry to a front, I can block, I can use to attack, uk has to make sure they build enough land forces to resist an invasion, which limits their options, like if they build boats or an Indian IC and drop their troops in Norway or Africa and leave their capitol insufficiently guarded. GER goes before uk anyway so they can build an AC round 2 if they really want to protect the fleet, but that’s something I’d never do anyway. Germany CANNOT afford any delays against Russia.

Trying to save those subs is a gamble, I’ll give you that, but the benefits of them surviving outweigh any negative I’ve encountered.

Correct.

It’s nice to have, don’t get me wrong, but I’m not investing valuable IPC in maintaining it.  (I’ll use it as fodder if I attack the allied navies though, if the allies are silly enough to let it live that long.)

They’re all like that.  This is just a typo that was corrected in the FAQ.

Strat 1:  2-3 transports in Baltic and move Mediterranean fleet west.  Usually only feasible if Germany received bid units in Africa, and/or USSR did not take Ukraine (the extra German fighter’s needed on the attack).  Threatens invasion of London.  Should not be used if Russian fighters landed in Moscow (Allied response:  UK 3 fighters and transport E.Can tank, US transport 2 inf 1 art 1 tank (sacrificing US transports) Russia fighters to London resulting in strong UK defense and immediate threat to Baltic fleet.)

Baltic transports can be used to transport German infantry to Karelia as well as threaten London and reclaim Norway.  If a united Allied fleet gets close, the Germans can counter with German air plus fodder German transports.  However, this strat is not effective against quick Allied air.

Strat 2:  Carrier in Baltic.  To prevent UK 2 fighter 1 bomber destroying German fleet straightaway.  Carrier gives German fighters added range, allowing German threat to London, as well as allowing German fighters stationed at West Europe and on the carrier to rotate duty when attacking Karelia, West Russia, or other points east.

Carrier protects Baltic fleet until the Baltic fleet suicides against the Allied Atlantic fleet.  Carrier is much less inherently useful as attacker or defender; its use to effective extend fighter range is of limited use.  A carrier is stronger against Allied air, but continued Allied buildup force the Germans to use more IPCs on navy, or lose their existing navy.

Strat 3:  Carrier and transport in Baltic.  Threatens London and extendes fighter range.  As above, but with so many IPCs in the water, Germany’s attack on Russia is stalled.

Strat 4:  Nothing in Baltic.  The UK has a lot of targets on UK1:  retake of Anglo-Egypt, the Baltic fleet, etc.  If Germany builds NOTHING in the Baltic, the UK may either attack Anglo-Egypt with less (good for Germany), or the UK may lose lots of air on a risky attack against the Baltic fleet.  Either way, the strategy here is to build infantry and tanks, to press on Russia early; if the UK lets its fighters die, that’s just less force the UK can hit the German ground with later.

@Dr.:

@ncscswitch:

The thing is, you can pretty much take out the US with a lesser landing than that…
Japan lands in Alaska and WCan from SZ63
Japan lands in Mexico from Hawaii
Germany lands in Panama, Cuba, and ECan.
USA (the 48 states) has not been TOUCHED , but they are effectiely out of it, at least for many, many turns (unless the UK can get the German ships, or Russia can kick Japan out of Asia in the same turn)

How are you going to pull of a landing like that? Germany shouldn’t have a chance of landing t three different territories

It’s assumed that Japan has 5 inf 5 tank in W. Canada, while Germany lands 4 inf 4 tank or so with a Baltic transport buy on G1 followed by move to W. Europe followed by transport to E. Canada.  Following turn allows landing in Panama and Cuba as US is on defense.

HOW COULD U MISS DAT?  LOLZ!

(I’m kidding . . . anyone could miss that.  Hell, I still don’t get it, really.)

@jsp4563:

My personal preference is for the UK to buy 1AC, 1DD placed in sz6 along with the fighters, the BB & Tp from sz2, and the russian sub. Land the Canadian tank in UK.  Follow that up with US reinforcements (2inf, 1art, 1tnk, 1fgt, 1bmb).  If Germany has his BB & TP in sz13 move the US DD to sz12. In order for germany to carry out “Operation Sea Lion” he has to destroy the sz6 fleet.  To fight through that fleet he will have to divert air units he was going to use during the landing and will probably loose some of the transports.  If he does still attack UK he will be opposed by the combined UK/US ground & air forces.  Doubtful he will prevail.

It’s not just a question of preventing Sea Lion, it’s a question of preventing Sea Lion while maintaining a good position, yes?

Given those moves, the Germans can then attack using Baltic navy and air to wipe out the UK fleet without losing most of its air force in the process.  If the Germans can neutralize the Allies in the Atlantic until they take Moscow, Sea Lion is not so important.  And if the Germans keep most of their air while killing the Allied Atlantic fleet early, the Germans can build even more fighters to threaten the Atlantic.  The Allies have to build new escorts and new transports, which all takes time.  Plus, if the Germans kill a couple of UK fighters, that is going to make a difference in the Indian and Norway fronts.

I assume that the Germans built navy (transports or carrier) and that the UK did not attack, as 1) a carrier build supposes fighters, 2) the battle outcome is not favorable for the UK if Germany builds 3 transports.  Even 2 transports, maybe, 3) this thread is about Sea Lion anyways.

Transport, 2 sub, destroyer, carrier, 5 fighter, 1 bomber, attack 27, count 11.  Or perhaps more, depending on what Germany built; perhaps it built no carrier, but built two-three transports.  I think 5 German transports is a very BAD move, but given those moves you listed, it could actually turn out quite well for Germany given the naval battle.  Even this assumes that the Germans lost a fighter by the end of the turn, which is by NO MEANS CERTAIN without very risky play by Russia or lucky play by Russia.  The attack force is much more powerful with

3-4 transport, 2 sub, destroyer, 6 fighter, 1 bomber, attack 29, count 13-14

vs

1 transport, 1 sub, 1 destroyer, 1 carrier, 1 battleship, 2 fighters, defense 21, count 8.

The German Mediterranean fleet retreats to support shot against Caucasus and/or Africa, and the US DD can only unite with a new UK build.