Posts made by dondoolee

I never tried a KJF in AA50 yet.  But my gut reaction to doing would be to do something along the lines of “Team Britain: World Police”.  With Russia having to focus all on Germany and Italy, and America all on Japan being the most obvious choices, this leaves Britain as the key to making the strat work.
If Britain’s wishful, idealic, thinking in this would be:

1. Build at least a token invasion force to maybe funnel troops through FIN/NOR or nab countries like poland to slow the Germans down, or at least keep SOME German/Ita troops occupied with defending the west

2)A token force to keep the Italians busy in Africa

3)Somehow have a presence in the pacific

4)have airplanes to ship to re enforce fronts in need (Most likley mocow)

How much of that can be accomplished I don’t know.  If you want to make Italy Impotant immediatly, that can be done by T2 with a 3 bomber build giving you 4 bombers and maybe 1 fighter to take out it’s fleet.  Survivng bombers can be used to keep Italy down with SBR’s, After that focus on threatining Europe, and send fig builds to send all over the world.

Another good Idea may be to build a SAF IC T1 and hold on to the rest of your money.  On T2 build a fleet in Europe, this opens up somewhat of a threat on germany and Italy.  America should use Australia as a “Home Base” and on T3 or 4 the UK may have the option to build another factory in Aus, this could be used more to build inf/tran to hit Islands, maybe the occasional sub/ dest.

While this may sound unrealistic as the UK may be too poor: with the US giving the UK the NO’s from the Caroline Islands, the UK contesting Africa, and maybe even able to snag FIN/NOR the UK could have a decent amt of cash.  It may even get to run a suicide tranny from Aus to snag a 4 IPC Island/India and hold that for a turn or two.

Sounds like a little stretch (2 IC’s sounds a little decadent, maybe you couldd forego the SAF IC) but I think any KJF policy kind of is anyway.

I certainly would like to play it out, unfortunatly this week I don’t have the luxury, so if you take rain checks

If the Allied fleet is protected for a round it can always withdraw towards America.  They can do that plus add a couple plans to defend the Aussies, if australia can survive.  How much equipment though can you freely move around if you have 7 inf in bry to deal with, a fortified China, and a somewhat sizeable allied fleet.  At that point, you are not there to actually threaten Japan just make it respond, tighten up its game play, and hopefully slow it down for a turn or 2, all at no IPC’s spent.  I think it is a good thing for the Allies to force Japans movement as early as possable.  And if you are going Pacific heavy with the Americans it can be re enforced  fairly quickly, or maybe you could send boats up the north pacific, or dump trannies off in Russia.

The 7 inf Bury stack, placed maybe for just 1 rnd is not a game breaking, slam dunk winning move for Russia, but I think it helps, especially if you have an allied fleet on the bottom. And RUS inf in china.  Japan has to have enough equip now both north and south to deal with a 7 inf bury stack and an allied stack.  And in both cases the Allied forces in the area can immediatly withdraw to saftey if they want on the next turn, all at no cost of IPC’s and forcing Japan to react.

@bongaroo:

Wow, pretty upset about this to go and use censored curse words at us.  I think you are simplifying the problem too much.

Heck yeah I’m upset, my best friend was killed by poor Italian judgment.  So I tend to get a little emotional when I see it.

Interesting thought with the SAF IC to help w/ Jap pressure.  I was basically just pointing out how I could see the viabilaty of an Aussie IC (which I used to think would be insane), and to show some flexiblity with the strat.

At a quick thought they both have different benefits and costs (and don’t forgot the no IC option, which I still think may be the best).

For example:
-If Germany captured EGY you probably couldn’t build the IC in SAF
-It would be harder to link up the US pacific/ aus fleet with whatever is going on in SAF
-It is further away from all those Islands/ pacific NO’s japan is collecting on
-I think you may have to build it T1, if you did this you would probably have to sit on the rest of your cash and build your fleet on UK2 (that is not particulary a bad thing, you may have to run off a suicide tranny though).
-The SAF kind of hits Jap now on yet another front/can fight Italy/or re-enforce the Caucaus.
-The SAF means the UK is in a way defending and involved in all of it’s starting territories, that is a good thing (as long as it is still able to adequetly keep pressure on Germany)
-It may be tougher to hold than an AUS IC
-A benifit of both the AUS and SAF IC’s is they are both of marginal use to the Axis

If you can put that SAF factory in, keep Japan occupied, pressure Germany, keep Italy a minor power, and not lose Russia that is a hell of an idea.  It potentially means the UK is now able to keep all of its lands (even those 4 IPC islands) contested for a (hopefully) reasonably low cost.  I don’t know if that can be done though.

This may be impossible to answer in a vacuum, but could you give a guesstimate as to what odds in an attack you would always feel comfortable carrying out? Something you don’t consider too dicey or if you lost mild mannerd you may turn into the Hulk.

Time is not on the Axis’ side, and you are buying a very expensive (for Italian standards) piece of equipment that can not project aggression, take land, or pressure Russia.

You HAVE TO assume that the UK player (and a good chance, even the US) #1 priority is to make sure any sea zone it finds valuable is secured.  You have to assume he is paying attention to every ship and airplane and seeing if his fleet can potentially be overtaken.  He HAS to do that, it is his job, that is what the UK does.  He has to know how many turns it would take for the oppents to get all the pieces together and attack him, and he has to know how much time he has to prepare and what to and not worry about it.

You also have to assume that if he values the Med sea zone most, you are dead.  The fact is though, the Allies don’t place a high value on having strong ships in the Med.  If it was worth it, they would be there.  They can land troops in Africa while largly ignoring the Italian fleet (they will either suicide transport, or bring a fleet down there that is simply to big to be sunk).  And if they wanted they could build an IC T1 in SAF if they valued Africa that highly, so that would give them 2 places on a continent to stage attacks, while you are sorely lacking meaningful units because you built an expensive, defensive fleet.  On top of that they may be bombing your capital (Italy is a juicy target anyway), if they bomb well enough they may even prevent you from buying your carrier T2, that would really screw you.

On T1 and T2 Italy has bought nothing aggressive and still has the amount of ground units it started with, and even with it’s impressive fleet (which is most likely just moveing back and forth in 3 remote, out of the way sea zones) can only ship 2 guys at a time to any given front.

And for those advocating buying a Tranny, a Fig, AND a carrier that is insane. 31 IPC’s later, you have no ground units  but you do have a totally sweet fleet!  Not that I advocate this, but for 34 IPC’s you could build 2 bombers and a fig.  This immediatly makes Italy more aggressive, coupled with German planes and bombers on France (this will give you 2 fig, 2 bomb) you are threating the allied fleet even more (maybe forcing them to waste more money on ships) you can support attacks easier with ground troops, AND you can bomb Britain.  You are doing all this while still protecting your fleet.  This is much more useful than 1 carrier 1 fig 1tranny (I still wouldn’t recomend it). And still if you need a carrier your buddy Japan has got one for free.

Another fun thing I may be half tempted to try (just for sh!ts) if I were America and I saw Italy sit on their cash the 1st turn, is buy 5 subs and send them your way (it may be better to wait T2, but still).  You have nothing in your fleet to stop them AND your planes become useless.  Are you now going to build a plane, a tranny, a carrier, AND a destroyer?  If I could pull that sub stunt off and sink your navy, which i would have the cheaper navy and higher odds on (man,would that be a crowning moment of awsome)  all I have to do is camp 2 subs in your sea zone and you’ll never be able to build a navy again.  Either that or I could send them to screw around with the Japs a bit.  This would open Africa wide up, and in the mean time I keep bombing Italy, to kick while it is down, and to remind it of what a naughty boy it has been.

The world is going to war, people are being killed by the millions, ideological lines are being drawn, brave sacrifices are being made, every side is locked in an epic struggle of life and death/ good and evil on a scale that has never been seen before: except Italy, all Italy is doing is fiddle fuXXing around with some boats.

Going after that stack is going to stall you out even more, that was why I started putting the stack there, as bait.  You are going to be really really stalled on your opening moves for a chunk of 1 IPC land, China will hemorage, and if you are bombarding the allied navy coming south is going to have more freedom to move around.  On top of that you may not even be able to threaten india by turn 3.

The most dispensible things you can send out is 4 inf (3 MAN 1 JAP), an art or armour (1 JAP), and 2 fig (1 JAP 1 MAN).  If you do this, it is quite dicey, a 55% chance of success with only 1.5 units remaing which means you lose a plane that is 26 or 27 IPC’s worth of material you are averaged to lose, so you still probably won’t get the 1 IPC land if you win.  These are all units you are probably used to sending elsewhere on more critical land.

Taking the land is not a problem for Japan, it can throw the kitchen sink at BURY if it wanted to, it is just not worth it though.  If I made the opening move I suggested and you attacked that stack and won, I would consider it a bonus (maybe even barring awful awful luck). You have less units now in more critical places, and have probably taken over less critical land.  It gives the Allies a bigger playground to trip Japan up for yet another extra turn or two.  Hell, I may even consider a KJF or a T1 IC build in AUS if you made that attack (doubtful, but still this is where it would happen).

But the real beauty is, if the bait is not taken (which I don’t expect it to be) it causes Japan to play more tight and conservative.

It is a trade off, but so far it seems doable.  If Germany is still a threat, Britain and America could just do 100% Euro builds, the beauty is everything that is being used is already on the board at no cost, and everything you are using is on the pacific side anyway.  So if you don’t want to focus anymore on re-enforcing Asia you don’t have to, you just made Japan play a lot more conservative at no direct IPC cost to you. Russia is probably going to have to be buying mass infantry but the Allies could help by throwing 2-4 fig to defend Russia if need be.

Perhaps in a way, it could really help the Allies focus MORE on Europe by tying the Japs up and letting America focus almost exclusicly on Euro builds.  Or you could invade Fin and pump troops through there.  You may loose 5 NO’s for Russia, but you could very well be getting the 10 Russian NO plus you could finally be having the UK get some NO’s.  It is a pretty flexible opening move, that is what makes it nice.  I only played it twice with NO’s and once w/o, it has worked well so far.

@falconrider:

I agree on this too, you must threaten India to stop the UK player from even thinking about putting an IC there.

Funny I almost feel the opposite, It is not so much that I worry about the Brits putting a factory in India, it’s that I want a Factory for Japan in India ASAP.

@Emperor:

A no NO game really favors the Allies, probably not a true test of the strategy.  Try it in a game with NO’s and see how it works.

Just played 1 NO game, and it worked quit well.
To pile seven inf in Bury (if at least just for 1 turn, then you can pull them back), 4 Rus inf in China, and then make the Aussie fleet in an out of the way area, strengthend, and able to make Japan worry about protecting valuable Islands as well does hold the Japs back a little.

They can’t really attack Bury (they can but it isn’t worth it), this forces the Tran at Japan to unload in Man if they want to defend it.  They may even not benefit too much from attacking Bury on T2 and still have the threat of 7 inf there and 4 inf on china (which may be one space over now, so there could concievably be a chance of the 2 groups linking up).  Doing an all INF build russia T1 makes up for the INF not comming in and by T2 ,if you want, you could build mass art for offensive punch.

The Japanese navy has to play very tight and conservative and almost defensive.  And if the US player is still building capital ships (and maybe the occasional tranny) this forces the Jap player to build ships in response, once again slowing Japan down.  I don’t know if it is worth it, but an aussie IC is defiantly very viable (though probably not a T1 IC), while the US protects with the navy maby it could build INF trannies and maybe light navy to take over Japanese Islands/mainland/africa/india (once again I don’t know if that would be worth it).

And china while it will still eventually be taken over, it is going to take a few more turns (especially if you pump a Rus inf  in every so often). and you may even have the opportunity to attack with actual chinese forces on occasion.  On top of which if Japan isn’t careful or under commits it could turn into a real hemmorage for Japan.  And in South Asia I think there may be a chance for the Brits to hold India or at least make a counter attack on India on T2 (if you pull out and meet up with the Jordan forces and hopefully the EGY airplane) preventing Japan from securing India for one full turn more, and probably 1 turn more a factory doesn’t get placed there by the Japs.

It looks like there are a lot of things you could do by using this set up, depending on how much you want to commit to Japan. The NO potential is decent too, you could potentialy deprive japan of 10 NO’s for a little bit, while giving the UK 5 or 10 (If you use the fleet to hit EGY you could net 5 for the Brits and deprive 5 to Italy), and the US could be getting as many as 15 NO’s.  Even if not, it feels good to at least have the potential to take away japanese NO’s It could be very little, and you still would I think at least give them a bigger speed bump then they are used to.

I can think of very few reasons why one should ever gun directly for Italy with a navel assault, if you do something like that it has to be a game breaker or an act of desperation.  Even in a no NO game France is by far the more attractive target. If Germany (and maybe even Ita) really have Russia in a pickle I would probably rather want the Allies to take and hold Italy, then take and hold France, as Italy isn’t directly next to the German border, which may give the Germans enough breathing room to knock out Russia.  You at least have a better chance of not getting shellacked by the allies for 1 more turn than with france which is directly next to you plus you would have to deal with all the transported troops from the UK.  This is assuming Germany is making more than Italy and the game isn’t that flukey.

@axis_roll:

Assuming you are playing with NOs.

If you want to skip the phillipines for the first round (you’ll get it round 2)

this option is not on your list.
Then I have seen:
1 to EI
1 to Bor
1 to Kwa
2 to Burma

This really threatens India/australia/persia/ & africa.

The UK units in India can only run to persia (with TransJordan units), and be pressured by the remaining Burma Japanese invasion force (2 inf, art?), and 2 inf from east indies, and 2 ftrs on sz37 a/c.  Russia may need to help.

Taking Philipines presents a chance for the UK DD to block and stop 2 of 4 transports from going after Australia (sz48).  Philipines are a money grab though, and stop USA from getting some money as well.

This is what I tend to favour, for much of the same reasons.  Taking Phil t1 doesn’t seem as strong a move.  Plus if things go badly for the brits in Egy (no armour/fig to re enforce the indian/ jordan troops), and he tries to pull his forces out of India to consolodate with the Jor troops you can still blow them up in Persia.  While this is what I like, usually we have a Russian player who has a 7 inf stack in Bury for exactly 1 turn, which kind of forces a land in MAN.  This means you can still take and hold india with strong force on T2, you just can’t blow up the Brits if they consolodate.

@bongaroo:

Italy is only a 10IPC nation when you haven’t exerted control on North Africa and the Med.

Just to clarify quickly, are you playing with NOs or not?  With NOs you should have Italy into the low 20s in a couple of turns.

A good reason for a CV for the Italian fleet besides the great defensive value of it with 2 fighters is that it really helps you keep your fighters mobile.  If you are having to land your fighters in Italy or North Africa, your limiting your mobility.  From a CV in any of the sea zones you’ll be able to reach all territories within Italy’s theatre of war.

Usually w/o NO’s.  But that still doesn’t change the fact that if the Allies find the Italian navy that valuable it will not survive past T2.  If they are not kiling it, then clearly they have other priorities, and you are building an expensive, purley defensive unit from a country that should be offensive minded, on top of which it is your poorest country as well.  It still doesn’t change the fact that the unit that you wish for can be supplied for “free” by a much richer country.  And if the Italian fighters for whatever reason are important to you to be on a carrier, you can just send the Jap fighters elsewhere and land Italian fighters on the Jap carrier.

It also doesn’t change that it makes it easier for the allies to ignore the Med fleet completly when you buy a purley defensive unit.  If you just bought planes instead of a carrier, you would be: buying a cheaper unit, buying a much more flexible unit, adding to defense, and simultaneously threating the allied fleet. Also, if the allies really wanted to gun for Africa and didn’t feel like dealing w/ the med fleet they could probably pull that off.  For example, the UK could have a SAF IC while the US does suicide trannies to ALG, all while ignoring your fleet and keeping their fleet in the Atlantic fully intact and able to invade Europe.  Would you spend yet another 7 ipc’s on navy to make another transport to keep up with allied shipping and factory builds?  If you did you just spent 10 on an airplane, 14 on a cv, and 7 on a tran all by turn 3?  I think that may be leading the Italian to spending their way out of relevance.

Now later on in the game (maybe even starting at turn 3) there may be a point to be building a navy (assuming Italy has gained a bit in IPC’s).  But still, for no cost to Italy you can have 2 fig, 1 car, and maybe as much as 3 subs staying in the Med all by turn 3.  And if the allies valued your navy that much you wouldn’t evn get a chance to build a carrier by T3. Why waste money on a carrier in the med?

If you can think of a way it is even remotly plausable I would love to hear it.

@ogrebait:

Each game will evolve differently, but I consider keeping the Italian fleet alive and a potential threat to the Allies as a major Axis objective. If the Italian Navy is destroyed, Italy is generally relegated to a very minor roll, and the Allies potientially have an uncontested 1-2 punch with the combined UK and US moves.

How much, and by what means, the Italian Fleet should be reinforced depends almost completely on what the Allies are doing. I’ve done minor naval builds when the Allies were not pressing in on the Med. On the other hand, in one game I kept building  boats until Italy had both the US and UK out-gunned in the Atlantic.

Regardless, Italy cannot execute its military options in a vacuum. Until such time that Italy builds a large enough economic base to stand on its own (which may never happen), Italy will need assistance from Germany in the early rounds, and then Germany or Japan in the later rounds.

Very true, but in Rnds 1 and 2, I am guessing Italy is going to be wasting time and money building a navy 90%ish of the time.  But still, it can be re-enforced for free by the japs (turn 3) and even the germans (with surviving subs and an airforce build threatining the allies).  Not only that if for some reason the allies see an Italian navy as the #1 priority in their strat it can be killed off before it even gets a chance to do anything.  It just shouldn’t be seen as a “go to” or optimal strategy for Italy to be pushing for navel builds in the early rounds of the game.  Now the later rounds, there is no telling what is going to happen.

It looks good on paper, but the 3 times I tried it (all w/o NO’s) I got spanked.  That being said they were when I 1st started playing so it still may be legit.  When you look at it though there are some pretty tempting other builds.  If Germany goes light on the armour, Russia can buy all armour and match germany’s production.  You could buy an airplane which does wonders for offensive attacks by sacrificing less valuable material, but I still deep down have that philosophy that infantry is the best bang for buck if you can use it effectivly.

I can’t really say I would support a german navy, but I could see buying a sub or 2 to be OK as you could use that in conjunction with an airforce to threaten/hold at bay the Allied navy.  Subs are cheap and hard to kill in a way, now I don’t know if you have the time to waste on building them but that is the only viable way I could see building any navel units for germany.

@dondoolee:

@U-505:

The problem with sending a Japanese CV to cover the Italian fleet is that the Allies move in between Japan and Italy(UK after Japan and the US after Italy). If you need to move the fleet to a different sea zone for any reason, either the US or UK will be able to hit one of the isolated fleets while they are in transition.

I’m not saying that you shouldn’t send the Japanese CV because of that, I’m just saying that’s what you should be concerned with.

I agree 101% the main problem is keeping the navy together, however there should be enough of a tipoff to when you can and can not move the navies due it taking a couple of turns for the allies to reach the Med.

Now look at what happens if Italy builds a carrier.

What does the carrier do, it costs 14 IPC’s to build from a 10 IPC country.  That’s 1 full turn of unproductivity, on top of that what does the carrier do?  It doesn’t attack, it can establish no zone of control,how much is this going to help?  If I’m the axis I want to blow s*it up!  Leave the pure defensive stuff for those sissy allies.  I just spent 14 dollars from a 10 dollar country that doesnt help me attack, I can still only send 2 units to Africa, and now I am short ground units.  On top of which a carrier in the Med doesn’t do much to extend any useful range for the Italian fighter.  If you use Jap or Ger fighters this makes a carrier with 2 planes that just sits there.  If the allies ignore it you just wasted 14 dollars something that does nothing.  Essentialy you are in danger of buying something more expensive than a destroyer and less useful due to no attack power.  Why is the Japanese carrier better than this?  Because it is free and the airplanes on that carrier can be useful if Japan decides to pick a little bit on Africa. And for those who want to buy a carrier and an airplane, congrats you just spent 24 IPC’s on units that can’t take or hold land from a 10 IPC country and you can still only funnel 2 troops at a time to Africa/ Russia assuming you have any ground troops after going hog wild on a defensive navy.

Cruisers are almost just as useless, but at least they can attack (and you can still attack w/the Ita plane too).  Battleships are just too pricy to be usefull, and submarines are gimmicky and would probably warrent their own topic of when and when not to use subs (though they are cheap cannon fodder in the right situation).  If you insist on an Italian capital ship the destroyer may be the best option, but I still don’t see the use of it with Italy’s ltd funds.

Look at the Transport ship though, this is the only ship I could see being profitable.  It activates another ship bombartment, and it gives you increases threat an flexability, plus you may save a little money by not purchasing tanks to rush to the Eastern Front by just using transports to shuttle inf/art.  This is the only real viable navel option I see, a boat that is cheap and poses a real threat, that’s what the Axis have to look,at especially cash straped Italy.

You also have to figure, if Germany can build a few extra planes (and maybe even a bomber) this in a way is providing a defense to your ships, this is helped even more if you have a Jap carrier their (If you feel protecting the Italian fleet is that important and that much in peril).

Another important thing to look at, is that time is not on the Axis’ side.  Time spent building purley defensive units is slowing you down.  The allies essentially HAVE to build unproductive units.  Everytime the US sends a tranny with 2 units on it it wastes 7IPC’s.  They also have to spend money on destroyers, carriers, etc in the first few turns.  All things that can’t attack or take land, this is to good an opportunity to be as aggresive as possible in the most cost effective way possible.

Finally, and most importantly how important is the Italian fleet to the Allied army?  If it was their top priority, it would be sunk by turn 2 without you even getting to use it.  Britain could simply build 3 bombers on T1 (bringing the total to 4) and has a good chance of having an extra fighter from Egy the most Italy can have in defense is 1 Bat, 2 cru, 1 Des.  This could then be followed by 2 more bombers for clean up by the US just in case.  Perhaps America would build the convoy fleet the first turn.  If the Italian navy really is that important, it will not get a chance to survive.

@bongaroo:

@dondoolee:

And fleets are not better on defense than Infantry.  1 Infantry unit costs 3 ans defends at 2, 1 destroyer costs 8 and defends at 2.

I was referring to naval combat.  Not to the best unit for defense.

CVs are better on the defensive and so are any planes riding on them.  Also, in Italy’s case specifically, on defense you’ll be facing either the US, or the UK one at a time.  On the attack your facing them combined in SZ12 more than likely.

Italy needs a fleet and money spent on dropping more boats in the water to keep boots moving into Africa is a sound plan in my book.

Still if you want to defend Italy, 3 inf and 1 tank is better than spending 14 IPC’s for a carrier defending.  You get more bang for your buck using ground units to defend, plus you can use them to take land if they survive.  But you can get “free” defense from Japan, a German airforce to help you out, PLUS there is a decent chance you can get 1-3 surviving German subs to combine with your navy all at no cost to Italy.

@U-505:

The problem with sending a Japanese CV to cover the Italian fleet is that the Allies move in between Japan and Italy(UK after Japan and the US after Italy). If you need to move the fleet to a different sea zone for any reason, either the US or UK will be able to hit one of the isolated fleets while they are in transition.

I’m not saying that you shouldn’t send the Japanese CV because of that, I’m just saying that’s what you should be concerned with.

I agree 101% the main problem is keeping the navy together, however there should be enough of a tipoff to when you can and can not move the navies due it taking a couple of turns for the allies to reach the Med.

Now look at what happens if Italy builds a carrier.

What does the carrier do, it costs 14 IPC’s to build from a 10 IPC country.  That’s 1 full turn of unproductivity, on top of that what does the carrier do?  It doesn’t attack, it can establish no zone of control,how much is this going to help?  If I’m the axis I want to blow s*it up!  Leave the pure defensive stuff for those sissy allies.  I just spent 14 dollars from a 10 dollar country that doesnt help me attack, I can still only send 2 units to Africa, and now I am short ground units.  On top of which a carrier in the Med doesn’t do much to extend any useful range for the Italian fighter.  If you use Jap or Ger fighters this makes a carrier with 2 planes that just sits there.  If the allies ignore it you just wasted 14 dollars something that does nothing.  Essentialy you are in danger of buying something more expensive than a destroyer and less useful due to no attack power.  Why is the Japanese carrier better than this?  Because it is free and the airplanes on that carrier can be useful if Japan decides to pick a little bit on Africa. And for those who want to buy a carrier and an airplane, congrats you just spent 24 IPC’s on units that can’t take or hold land from a 10 IPC country and you can still only funnel 2 troops at a time to Africa/ Russia assuming you have any ground troops after going hog wild on a defensive navy.

Cruisers are almost just as useless, but at least they can attack (and you can still attack w/the Ita plane too).  Battleships are just too pricy to be usefull, and submarines are gimmicky and would probably warrent their own topic of when and when not to use subs (though they are cheap cannon fodder in the right situation).  If you insist on an Italian capital ship the destroyer may be the best option, but I still don’t see the use of it with Italy’s ltd funds.

Look at the Transport ship though, this is the only ship I could see being profitable.  It activates another ship bombartment, and it gives you increases threat an flexability, plus you may save a little money by not purchasing tanks to rush to the Eastern Front by just using transports to shuttle inf/art.  This is the only real viable navel option I see, a boat that is cheap and poses a real threat, that’s what the Axis have to look,at especially cash straped Italy.

You also have to figure, if Germany can build a few extra planes (and maybe even a bomber) this in a way is providing a defense to your ships, this is helped even more if you have a Jap carrier their (If you feel protecting the Italian fleet is that important and that much in peril).

Another important thing to look at, is that time is not on the Axis’ side.  Time spent building purley defensive units is slowing you down.  The allies essentially HAVE to build unproductive units.  Everytime the US sends a tranny with 2 units on it it wastes 7IPC’s.  They also have to spend money on destroyers, carriers, etc in the first few turns.  All things that can’t attack or take land, this is to good an opportunity to be as aggresive as possible in the most cost effective way possible.

Finally, and most importantly how important is the Italian fleet to the Allied army?  If it was their top priority, it would be sunk by turn 2 without you even getting to use it.  Britain could simply build 3 bombers on T1 (bringing the total to 4) and has a good chance of having an extra fighter from Egy the most Italy can have in defense is 1 Bat, 2 cru, 1 Des.  Perhaps America would build the convoy fleet the first turn.  If the Italian navy really is that important, it will not get a chance to survive.

@bongaroo:

@dondoolee:

And fleets are not better on defense than Infantry.  1 Infantry unit costs 3 ans defends at 2, 1 destroyer costs 8 and defends at 2.

I was referring to naval combat.  Not to the best unit for defense.

CVs are better on the defensive and so are any planes riding on them.  Also, in Italy’s case specifically, on defense you’ll be facing either the US, or the UK one at a time.  On the attack your facing them combined in SZ12 more than likely.

Italy needs a fleet and money spent on dropping more boats in the water to keep boots moving into Africa is a sound plan in my book.

Still if you want to defend Italy, 3 inf and 1 tank is better than spending 14 IPC’s for a carrier defending.  You get more bang for your buck using ground units to defend, plus you can use them to take land if they survive.  But you can get “free” defense from Japan, a German airforce to help you out, PLUS there is a decent chance you can get 1-3 surviving German subs to combine with your navy all at no cost to Italy.