Carriers and experience

[CJW]

One of the advantages of carriers is their tough defensive ability against aircraft and other ships. However this is only true when they are fairly experienced (2 bars plus) and until then they are very vulnerable to aircraft.

With the brits you get 3 carriers but nowhere have I found a good place for them to get experience. If you do try your luck on a port and it is defended by aircraft your carriers get really thumped. Problem is you cannot really afford to repair them.

Just wondering if there are any good carrier tactics out there that will enable them to gain the vital experience (apart from the obvious Ireland attack). I know Bergen is a potential target but even then a good axis player will move the defending corps in land.

All suggestions much appreciated!

[Dragonheart]

Well the only secure poss to gain experience for carriers is the DOW on Irland...and sub hunting in the atlantik....all other possibilities are dangerous.

The only possibilty is if you rule the channel then you can pound Brest or Bruessels maybe even paris or some units in this area.

Genereally you should attack with your AF´s first..when there is no intercept anymore you can train your carriers savely.

The problem will be that many expierenced axis players will prevent the training of carriers as everybody knows that they will be deadly weapons if they gain Ex.

[CJW]

Yup, all fair points which begs the next obvious question. If the axis player is good what use really are your brit carriers? After all, a ship that looks pretty and never engages through fear of being damaged is not ever going to make a difference. Sure, one can argue that it is a deterrent for invading the UK but that is 2000 plus points doing a lot of nothing.

[Terif]

Experience is not the only thing .

More important for carriers are Jet technologies (+ some LongRange). Carriers are very vulnerable when they have no jets (so it is not a good idea to use them during the first french campaign). But with lv 2+ (better 3+) they become dangerous for enemy air - even if they have no experience. Carriers are mobile and can be used to move close enough to the enemy air to destroy them, where the own AFs are out of range.

To destroy or to drive away the enemy air is the first and most important task of the carriers, after this goal is accomplished, they can train and collect experience for the anti-ground combat.

Naturally it is usually deadly to fight against the whole german Luftwaffe, so between France and Barbarossa they can only do some fast raids when there is not much resistance in an area. But when Axis attacks Russia, the time of the carriers is coming...

Then Axis have to decide where to use their AFs.

- They can leave them in France (i.e. Allies should stay defensive in the West), but then they can´t conquer Russia and Russia will get stronger and stronger until it will kill Axis from the east.

- or they move their air to Russia, then Allies can start invasion without much enemy threat and it is the usual race who is faster in the east: Axis in Caucasus/Ural or Allies in Rom/Berlin.

BTW: if Axis operates its air from one front to the other in the middle of the war, it is usually the beginning of the end since then they will loose them very fast against a good opponent and end up in the defensive at both fronts .

- or they split their air between east and west, then the allied air in the west should be much stronger than the axis one and will make short process with them. Usually 5 UK/US AFs, + 3 carriers, each carrier is worth 2 AFs - i.e. the equivalent of 11 allied AFs against perhaps 5-6 german AFs - if there is more axis air, then Allies can build up and wait with the attack since in Russia are not much axis forces . And when UK has Jets 2+ they can kill the axis air in France without much problems with the help of the carriers.

And that´s why it is very bad to loose the carriers early: they are needed to establish air superiority over France (or Skandinavia) after Barbarossa to enable invasion. Without carriers Allies have a problem since the better weapons (=ships/carriers) are their main advantage in the later war. Axis have enough mpps for an attrition war, so Allies need their carriers to be able to kill the enemy air instead of only exchanging mpps 1:1 .

[ November 01, 2004, 07:34 AM: Message edited by: Terif ]

[CJW]

OK, sounds good, so patience is key. I did not realise that carriers were that tough with +2/+3 jets, I assumed that if the opponent had tough air as well both just scaled up.

I will give it a try

[Terif]

Carriers are ships and AFs use their naval attack/defence value against them. So with jet technology the carriers greatly improve their combat value against AF´s, while AF´s can´t get stronger vs carriers during the course of the war .

So carriers have the positive effect in the game that Allies are weak at the beginning - so Axis can conquer a good part of Europe - but after a few years with jet/LR technology + experience Allies will grow stronger and stronger, so they have the potential to defeat Axis in the later stage of the war.

From mpps Axis are often in the advantage, so from this point of view, time is against Allies. But with increasing technology (and due to the catch-up effect both sides WILL increase their jet technology nearly for sure to lv 3+ sooner or later), Allies get very powerful units compared to Axis, so here time is in favour of Allies and they have the chance to liberate Europe if they make right use of them .

[jon_j_rambo]

footnote: see R.A.C.K.

I've also come out with "RACK-lite"

[Liam]

Indeed, Carriers are powerful, but you can destroy them. Either that or threaten them sufficiently enough to keep the enemy away from your Forces.

If you give The Allies free range on your corps your foolish.. Research AA Tech and keep your corps away from those Carriers. Sneak a few Fighters in despite what Terif says... A few well placed Italians/German Naval Fleets with some subs<plus 2-3> can smash a Carrier to hell. Unlike Fighters lose strength towards Navys, Subs and Ships do NOT

[Terif]

Yes, carriers are not undestructable and there are counterstrategies - which one is good or bad depends on how Allies use their carriers and ships .

If you leave a few fighters in southern France/Germany so Allies can´t destroy them doesn´t really help. It only gives Allies the opportunity to drain Axis ressources by constant air losses too - additonally to the ground losses. Only if Axis places a lot of air there it can delay/stop the allied invasion. But then there is the old problem that Axis is not strong enough for Russia any more and so they will sooner or later be killed from the east .

In SC you have to concentrate your forces on the important targets - if you split up your forces, then the enemy can beat/kill them one after the other. Logically this depends on the enemy...if he makes similar mistakes or uses a strategy where this splitting up is the counter to, then it can - despite the above mentioned - be a good strategy .

[MG TOW]

The initial Carriers are instrumental in the British invasion of Denmark.

While the Germans are messing around in Poland, and France is Holding the maginot send the brit BBs and AC to Denmark. Surround it with your boats and pound the lone Danish Corps. Then with your carriers just hanging back strike. You need two brit or canadian amphibious units landed next to Copenhagen. These two units will invade and easily defend the skinny peninsula with the help of the CVA cap. Eventually they will have to retreat. But this will save France and delay the invasion of the low countries.

[Edwin P.]

Hmm, I never tried invading Denmark as the Allies early in the war. But how can they retreat? There is no port and thus these two invading units are sacrificed.

[Liam]

Ed,

bad idea to invade Denmark, allies try it but it to soak more MPPs out of the Axis. Same with Norway, another bad idea unless you've total Naval-Aerial Domination of the region when you perform the operation. I have managed to thwart and win games just off this 1 move.. I've only lost games due to Norway invasion because I'd already lost in France.

Carriers, are valuable with tech. There is an alternative possibility in defeating them. The UK grabs the Fritz CoatTails in order to get Tech early, Delay if you're Fritz till late. Plus splitting your forces isn't so costly as one thinks if you manage to "Hammer" the enemy when you do. If you just stalemate him it is bad bad.. Operate the Germans over to West France when you've got a AA-JET-LR bonus.. with a Good experienced HQ.. kill off the US UK then go back if the Reds are getting frisky.. The Reds don't have anywhere to go if you hammered them to begin with.<not for awhile at least> MPP advantage is yours and so is game/set/match despite operating 2-3 ways

[MG TOW]

Ed P. The units could easily hold copenhagen until the ruskis enter the war. Well worth the sacrifice. The german player usually deverts armour from his france campaign. This causes Paris to still be Held by the allies when the Russians enter the war. The Axis is finished. France has enough units to hold, and a Brit Army and a Corps isnt going to contribute much in france. Plus the mpps come in handy.

[Liam]

gundolf,

try that against 6 axis air trained on Copenhagen. along with an amphib hit or two, a corps would survive a turn if they're SUPER lucky

and now you just gave away a freebie to the Axis. I would hit your carriers to hit for this... if they didn't sink, I'd have them at strength 1-4

[Terif]

Tja, invading and holding Denmark as the Allies is possible - against the AI . As I saw in the other thread Gundolf is only playing the AI at the moment and against the AI it can be done .

Liam talks about multiplayer and playing against human opponents - and there invading Denmark is not a good idea or even simply impossible since Axis will attack it in turn 1 and can protect it afterwards. Most threads are about multiplayer if there is nothing else said - AI and human opponents are 2 totally different things .

BTW: Liam, you can operate your german air 2-3 ways and still win - but only if you play against the ´right´ opponents (or if you have already won the game, so even a bad strategy can not bring your victory into danger any more) . It is like with every strategy, if the enemy knows how to counter...

At least against me it is a bad idea and when my opponents start defending France with air, the end of the Axis is near (against UK air/carriers with jets 2+ they have no chance and operating is expensive too...). Strangely most players make this mistake despite loosing every game a few turns after operating their air .

Perhaps this is because the axis side is not used to be in the defensive at one front and always want to be superior everywhere and is not willing to give up some of their conquered territories in order to avoid defeat...or perhaps because this strategy works against other allied players - but it works only as long as the allied side doesn´t react appropriate .

[Liam]

Terif just handed Rambo a defeat tonight with the very opposite of the strategy your discussing. Operating the opposite direction of your Main Line Offensive..and then making offensive from the defensive side

Fact is a small operation may be useless. How much land can you give though the West before you lose anyways? I had I tech so the operating wasn't a killer nor was the the fact that I had a AA 3 it smooshed their carriers, fighters and then launched clear D-Day<succeeded killing 3 enemy armies at the cost of 1 corps, so was it worth the Operation just for that 750 MPPs?>and soon after Sea Lion was performed forcing Rambo to land his amphib fleet at the very least sacrificed a few Italians, won the game. Reds were comming but the Greys had England..

Fact is ultimately I could've gone back to the Reds, the Italian and German fleet owned the Atlantic.. I could've beaten either side.. it was merely a choice at this point. if you have no Fleet I suggest Immense Airpower and Subs to quell UK/US or kill Reds but its much easier to take England than Russia.

[Terif]

As every strategy, it depends on the opponent .

Against Rambo and some others it is surely a good strategy, against others it is not .

Rambo himself said at several occasions that he is a comparable weak allied player - he always plays very aggressive without much caring about how much enemies are standing in his way. As Axis this is not bad, but as Allies it is deadly if the enemy operates enough units to the current battle - so against him, operating the air has a good chance to work .

[jon_j_rambo]

My play in general has sucked for the last 2-weeks, I think I won about 3-games, lost about 8-games? Very sickening. This is a mixture of opponents & sides.

Against, DragonClone --- First game against the Clone I rolled as Axis. Then he joined the league & beat me twice. I tried a new "pyscho West" early strategy on the ground...it failed big time. Clone was waiting, countered me to death. We played another game, Germans NEVER get Jet technology & I slowed played Russian/USA involvement, gee, that was fun, no technology with Germans in the air. I was chowed quickly, save me the sermon about luck balancing.

Against, Yoda --- Mirrored lost cause. Terif did a simple cookie cutter as Axis, I tried a slowplay no VF/Spain...Russians snuffed upfront, I bogged.

Against Zapp --- Dude, played so slow, I didn't even care. Lost.

Against Cosmin --- New player did Allied LC-gambit on turn #1, & pulled it off!!! Germans proceded to get Italy into the war for help, but it was too late, I too mega damage as the Axis.

Against Everybody Loves Liam --- I got headcracked against Liam's new air campaign. He went thru the Western Allies forces like butter. Russians sat on their ass, couldn't help, as they were always -2 in Jet technology. Liam had +1 advantage against RAF & used AA-tech to call out & trash the Allies. I played the Russians stupid, should have tried an offensive while UK was getting mauled.

[jon_j_rambo]

Note: I did win a few games & in the middle of a several (Avatar using Spanish Gambit), but say what you want, I've never had such crap luck in SC. 2-failed LC with heavy troops & 3-LF??? I couldn't even take Denmark one game, with 2-LF, 1-ground, 2-ships going after it for 3-turns? You kidding me? I can't even count how many turns I had with minimum damage every roll. Say what you want, but bad luck early as The Fritz is not good.

[Dragonheart]

Bad luck is one side but IMO the bids for the axis reached a point where only a minor mistake at the beginning will kill you. With 250 Bid the westeren allies can sacrify alot of MPP in delaying axis, they are more then compensated when usa will come with 1250 MPP and russia even with 5000 additional points.

When bids rushing to high i m happy with playing the allies.

[Avatar]

Hey! I haven't lost that game by a long shot. You forgot to mention that it was a successful Spanish Gambit, and altho western allies have suffered some damage, so have you. Its 1 turn into Barbarossa, and you only have 6 AFs, no Rumania, and Jet 0. US is at Jet2, UK Jet1, and USSR jet1. You'll have a really tough time cracking west or east. Consider this game lost as well

Ed: Misunderstood Rambo. Ok, were in the middle of it, and it could still go either way. Exciting game actually, because I've had some unexpected losses, and so has he. Plus, I've never even attempted a spanish gambit against a top player, and im somewhat thrilled that it worked (well too).

Terif, is a successful Spanish Gambit a big or slight advantage to the Allies overall?

[ November 09, 2004, 04:07 AM: Message edited by: Avatar ]

[jon_j_rambo]

@Avatar --- I didn't even mention anything about our game. If I did, I would mention the fact I screwed in the LC as usual, with 3-LF, panzer, & army attacking it with no success

[Liam]

Heh Rambo, Well, to claim a great victory after a Failed LC is almost a joke.. It happens to all of us. I had it happen in several of our games, lost all of them.. Same with DH.. It failed 5-6 times with 3 fighters Tank and Army<even corps hit> all HQed

If the Axis lose that, there is a 90% likelyhood against a good Allied player they'll lose the game.

[Dragonheart]

Yep my worst game in this respect was once ag Avatar.

Beside no polish breakthrough, i think they surrendered somewhat on turn 6 or even 7 i had a failed LC with the usual strategy (pz+ar+3AF). The corps in Bruessels survived even with str 4!!!

....and dont think that there were 3 interceptions!!! i think there was even none...

Since that date i changed my poland campagne.

[Avatar]

Yep, DH definitely had the worst worst luck in any game i've ever seen. Minimum damage on all attacks for at least the first 3 turns. I think even Terif would have lost in that case. I've always wished that Terif would have 1 incredibly unlucky game against me just to see if he could still pull a victory. But I doubt it