Buying AC on G1

Possible blocks UK fleet seazone 6. US or UK ships to seazone 12. Again the Med fleet goes north ONLY if the Allies allow it.

You might want to read up on some more revised strategies in this forum as the UK IC in India is no longer a great idea either, unless backed up by a US IC in Sinkiang and that still is not considered all that great of an approach.

@Woodstock:

because you already have 2 figs to land there

Yeah, I only just thought of that. Thanks though  :-)
Stll have to get used to Revised rules. I dont recall from Classic that you were able to immediately put two FTR on a AC upon it´s deployment.

Excuse me, I did not realize that you have not applied the “landing of fighters on newly built carrier” rule in your reasoning.

The strong argument in favour of an AC is all due to that rule. Without available fighters the AC is equal to the DD in defense with the only difference that AC cost 4 more IPCs!

The original idea was to land two fighters giving Germany an added 11 Punch vs a destroyer that only added 3 more defensive punch.

However, some of us have given up on the idea of even attacking SZ5 anyway with England since the risk/reward is heavily skewed to the axis advantage if things go south in SZ 5 (and they can easily do so.)

Top that off with a serious investment with the axis for a capitol ship they will never actually use and it COULD effect how easily it is to take out Russia.

Honestly, I’ve been leaning, for a while now, towards a bomber purchase instead of the carrier.  Sometimes I even go insane and go Fighter/Bomber on Germany 1 (Still leaving enough cash for 5 Infantry) and moving 3 submarines, transport, destroyer in SZ 7 or SZ 6.  Gives me a good shot at sinking the British Battleship in SZ 2 if he attacks (because of the counter attack by 6 or 7 Fighters, 2 Bombers) and leaving the British virtually without a navy.

If England does not fall for the trap, well, I have two long range fighters and 6 or 7 short range fighters to use in trading territories vs Russia with only 2 fighters. (In my mind I envision Bombers as just long range fighters with piss poor defense.)

In any event, if I was to purchase naval units, it would be in SZ 14 where it can be added to my Battleship to help me hold Africa.  At least Africa’s worth 11 IPC (not including Madagascar) and a Submarine/Transport only costs 8 IPC, so it’s a net profit to me.

@a44bigdog:

You might want to read up on some more revised strategies in this forum as the UK IC in India is no longer a great idea either, unless backed up by a US IC in Sinkiang and that still is not considered all that great of an approach.

Yes, It’s a bad idea, unless you also build z55 USA fleet

The problem with an India IC on turn 1 is that you have to commit before any dice are rolled in the East, and I feel that Asian ICs (and perhaps KJFs in general) only well if Japan gets bad dice on UK1 and/or J1. Building an IC in Sinkiang won’t stop Japan from capturing India on Japan 3 as outlined in the CSub paper. But this is a bit off-topic probably blush

In fact, the IC can be placed after z59 combat. If trannie is killed, you can put it at India. If not, you must place it at Australia or South Africa (thus changing the strategy). I had that error in our last game, KGB, but it will be the last time I make that error  :wink:

IF, and that is a BIG IF, you put an Industrial Complex in India on UK1; and it is not from the National Advantage; then I believe you should have moved the infantry from Caucasus and/or Kazakh to Persia on Russia 1 that way you can have them in India on Russia 2 before Japan can stage a hail mary attack on India and thus, give the British time to build troops there.

And yes, I would suggest a complex in Sinkiang with forces coming in from North/East Russia to support it.

I either entice the British to attack it in the hopes of destroying some planes and maybe, if lucky, the bomber too OR

I make a run for the Med hoping to at least trap the British fleet OR

I build almost all navy and really make a play for the North Atlantic.

AC costs 16 ipc. The baltic fleet buys germany 2 units 1 extra space. So lets say we wanted to stack Karelia. By round 3, the surviving baltic fleet can have 4 extra inf. Or maybe 2 inf and 2 art. for a cost of ac = 16 4inf=12 or 2inf2art=14. or 28-30 ipc. With no AC buy, you can have 10 inf in kareila on r3 (mixed with any art). Clearly, for the cost, its better to buy more inf and march them east, then to buy an AC for minimal benefit.

The AC purchase to me was an idea that was meant to throw money at an issue that people tried to avoid as a “sunk” cost. The blastic fleet is a sunk cost. I sometimes bring it out to bate UK. or try a unifiication, but any benefit i get is a “nice” to have.

I view the carrier as lost IPC to Germany because it prevents England from attacking the SZ 5 fleet.  The whole idea of a SZ 5 fleet is a way to sink British planes.  IMHO

@Woodstock:

@KGB:

The problem with an India IC on turn 1 is that you have to commit before any dice are rolled in the East, and I feel that Asian ICs (and perhaps KJFs in general) only well if Japan gets bad dice on UK1 and/or J1. Building an IC in Sinkiang won’t stop Japan from capturing India on Japan 3 as outlined in the CSub paper. But this is a bit off-topic probably blush

Dont worry, I lik off-topicness. The more thoughts spread around, the better ;)

Would you mind linking me to this CSub paper you speak off? I’ve been going through quite some pages in this board (rather swiftly, agreed) but was unable to find any “complete” strategy layouts for Revised.

Then DO NOT RELY ON C-SUB.

C-Sub “papers” are a few page “cheat sheet” for a beginner. They are not complete in any sense.

Secondly, that India paper is poorly written, years old, and was incorrect when first written.

You can defend an India IC very well, by using USSR and USA to help.

And, to discuss the OT, A baltic carrier was and IS still a viable strategy.

Do not listen to the nay-sayers, but think out of the box and you will have much more fun playing.

India can be defended at great cost to Russia.  If you think you can afford it, then sure.

The Baltic Carrier is a waste of resources.  By getting one, you negate any chance you had at destroying most of the British Air Force on round 1. ( Fighter in Egypt, 2 Fighters in England and a very good shot at killing the Fighter in SZ 35 too basically leaving England with Zero Fighters on England 2.)

There is a 69% chance of reducing England to just a bomber (or too nothing at all) if they attack SZ 5 with 2 Fighters and a Bomber alone. (This assumes an order of loss of Submarine, Submarine, Transport, Destroyer and that England is A - too stupid to avoid this battle and B - too stupid to retreat once they lose something on round 1.)

However, if you put a carrier in SZ 5 (and presumably land 2 fighters on it) what have you gained?

1. Your SZ 5 fleet is not attacked by England’s air force on Round 1.  This is a GREAT loss to the Axis in my opinion.
2. You tie up the SZ 5 fleet for a full game turn (since you need them to defend this new, majestic carrier) and therefore cannot advance them to SZ 3, 6 or 7 (a move I like to make since it forces England to do something about them which means they are probably not attacking Africa from the Algerian coast line then.)
3. You are short 16 IPC worth of units that could actually be used offensively as well as defensively against the Russians

What do you get with a bomber instead?

1. Range to attack unprotected transports forcing the allies to defend them and thus, buy more warships.
2. The ability to SBR both Russian complexes each round (Average 7 IPC in damage a round)
3. The ability to provide air support far from the core territories in Europe allowing you too use your fighters as defensive anchors instead of pressing them farther out and thus needing too replace them with tank purchases

@Cmdr:

India can be defended at great cost to Russia.  If you think you can afford it, then sure.

What is this great cost? A few tanks/infantry?

When Russia is cashing in 35-40 IPC (as it should), its not much of a loss.

The Baltic Carrier is a waste of resources.

Rather than lose 36 IPC (usually at a cost of 20), buying a carrier forces the allies to spend much more IPC to take the fleet out. Its simple IPC management.

If Russia is cashing in 35-40 IPC a round, then kudos too you.  I’ve only managed that in KJF games against players who can only handle the axis if they are defending against a KGF strategy.

If you mean Geramny cashing in 35-40 IPC, I have to say that 16 IPC is a significant impact.  Russia is defending which gives them an advantage IPC for IPC.  Coupled with Germany taking on two or three allies at a time, they don’t really have cash to waste on naval units that they don’t need.

As for “losing 36 IPC” at the cost of “20” as you so aptly phrase it, perhaps you should look at the opportunity cost:

Germany is losing the ability to transport two infantry directly to Norway/Karelia from Germany.  However, how often does Germany actually do this?

England is losing their entire Air Force on top of needing to build transports and warships to attack Europe.  It’s hard enough to build the transports and warships needed to attack Europe without needing to build the fighters.

So on the one hand, Germany is giving up units they don’t need and never need to replace for units England desperately needs and almost certainly must replace.

Sounds like a good trade to me.

@squirecam:

You can defend an India IC very well, by using USSR and USA to help.

And, to discuss the OT, A baltic carrier was and IS still a viable strategy.

Do not listen to the nay-sayers, but think out of the box and you will have much more fun playing.

….  And the world is flat. Don’t listen to the heretics. Umm, what does saying something IS without any reasons to back it up accomplish? Why should the OP listen to your YAY versus our NAY? anything useful to contribute?

@Woodstock:

You can defend an India IC very well, by using USSR and USA to help.

So then you have all 3 Allies, focusing on one 3 IPC territory.
Should take the pressure off all other fronts if you ask me.

I found CSub, and I must say, they have some well thought papers.

Kind of my point, actually. :P

If Russia is diverting a few armor, and a few Infantry to India and America is retreating some infantry back from Sinkiang and bringing in units from North Africa to hold India, what are the chances Russia will survive long enough for Japan to be knocked back?