Page 1 of 2
Is Atlantic trade worth it for the CPs?
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:50 pm
by BootyJoe
Is trying to trade in the Atlantic worth the bother for the Cental Powers? You have to buy more transports to be able to trade there plus you will face stiff Entente resistance (=sunken ships). Is there much to gain by tradng in the Atlantic? Food perhaps? That would make trading in the Atlantic very tempting in a drawn out campaign since the CPs are short on food. Thoughts? Facts? Comments?
RE: Is Atlantic trade worth it for the CPs?
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:22 pm
by SMK-at-work
No it isn't - unless yuor TE opponent is being lazy. Your transports will get almost certainly be destroyed without bringing back any food at all - there is a small chance 1 may survive, but it hapens very rarely if there is any significant TE naval presence in eth North Atlantic.
And when you lose a couple of transports there, and het UK sub gets a few hits on transports in the Baltic as well then you won't even get the RM's from there without spending up on more.
IMO naval expenditure for the CP is a luxury - if you can afford to buy more transports then chances are you've won the war already!!
RE: Is Atlantic trade worth it for the CPs?
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:04 pm
by wargamer123
rarely yes, trading in the Atlantic is a luxury. The only factor to consider here is if you believe the ET is too busy to bother... Which is doubtful
Transports cost 8 Naval points, 1 food back is nice but rebuying a transport will cost you
if the CP goes a naval route things there can be a rare opportunity, but once the Italian-US Navy gets involved that should be pretty rare.
Oh and I noticed something, as the war progresses you get more historical ships...
something to know and to be aware of
RE: Is Atlantic trade worth it for the CPs?
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:51 am
by BootyJoe
Point taken. Thanks for replying[:)]
Clarification: do you get one food for each surviving transport doing trade in the Atlantic?
RE: Is Atlantic trade worth it for the CPs?
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:10 pm
by hjaco
A clarification: 1 transport cost 12 naval assets and you get 8 naval assets for 1 Industrial point.
You get 2 raw materials per transport in trade so each transport actually only has to trade successful once. Therefore I wouldn't be that rejective in turning down this opportunity but consistent trading is definitely out of the question.
IME CP trading can be conducted successfully for a couple of turns when your sortie with HSF to the Atlantic and the North Sea is more or less cleared. For this to work you basically have to build surplus transports right from the start and forget construction of SUBS and await the right moment.
You will probably sortie with the fleet anyway at that given moment and it will receive the damage given in any case. But you need to watch your opponents handling of his fleet carefully for this to work.
RE: Is Atlantic trade worth it for the CPs?
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 4:30 pm
by wargamer123
oops 12 points per naval transport...
I wish the HSF had a few more ships!!!
Seems a bit shortchanged
RE: Is Atlantic trade worth it for the CPs?
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:44 pm
by SMK-at-work
IIRC the once of twice I've succeeded in trading inthe NA with Germany it gets you 3 or 4 food per ship - no RMs?
3 or 4 food is a lot....but at most you'll get it once, and most often you won't get it at all.
RE: Is Atlantic trade worth it for the CPs?
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:29 pm
by hjaco
Then we did get different results [;)]
RE: Is Atlantic trade worth it for the CPs?
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:13 pm
by ulver
Does shipping always provide resourses in the new version irrespective of sea zone control? Used to work that way in the original but I noticed by the transports in the Atlantic brought home a lot less bacon when the HSF went home after controlling/contesting the Atlantic for 2 turns.
Personally I think that it is definitely a valid option to go for Germans transports rather then subs.
RE: Is Atlantic trade worth it for the CPs?
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 4:03 pm
by hjaco
Yes. Sea zone control is irrelevant.
Enemy presence (presumably measured in control points based on ship class) interferes with this - the heavier presence the less you will probably get out of your sortie.
Optimum result is 2 food and 2 RM per transport.
RE: Is Atlantic trade worth it for the CPs?
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 4:18 pm
by hjaco
ORIGINAL: ulver
Personally I think that it is definitely a valid option to go for Germans transports rather then subs.
IMO basically you have the choice between going all in with SUBS trying to force Britain out of the war accepting early American entry or build transports trying to make occasional trading in the North Atlantic.
When America enters Britain will have food problems no more.
So i usually prefer to build 4 transports at setup and to buy some naval assets after turn one. I try to time my sortie with a convenient time to interdict enemy amphibious activities in the North Atlantic like when the massive British reinforcements arrive in early 15' or when you go to war with Italy.
And there is a bonus with building those transports. They come in most handy against Russia opening up a new front between Riga and Petersburg.
RE: Is Atlantic trade worth it for the CPs?
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 5:47 pm
by Lascar
ORIGINAL: hjaco
Yes. Sea zone control is irrelevant.
Enemy presence (presumably measured in control points based on ship class) interferes with this - the heavier presence the less you will probably get out of your sortie.
Optimum result is 2 food and 2 RM per transport.
I believe you are mistaken about sea zone control being irrelevant. I have seen in several games with 1.23 that if the enemy controls the sea zone transports on shipping will no longer be bringing in resources/food and if contested transport on amphibious mission will not be able to amphibious move through that zone.
RE: Is Atlantic trade worth it for the CPs?
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 6:01 pm
by hjaco
Control is certainly necessary in order to use amphibious movement but that was not the issue here.
In earlier correspondence with Frank about benefits from shipping and presence of enemy ships that was his statement but to be fair that was some time ago so it may have changed.
RE: Is Atlantic trade worth it for the CPs?
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 6:15 pm
by Lascar
ORIGINAL: hjaco
Control is certainly necessary in order to use amphibious movement but that was not the issue here.
In earlier correspondence with Frank about benefits from shipping and presence of enemy ships that was his statement but to be fair that was some time ago so it may have changed.
There are actually three levels of "control." Friendly control, contested and enemy control. It is important to realize those distinctions and the effects they have on various sea missions.
With friendly control, there is no impact on any of your missions, when contested shipping missions will continue but amphibious is not possible, with enemy control both shipping and amphibious is inhibited.
Looking up some previous posts by Frank regarding this he does state that control per say has no effect on shipping. But that was stated before 1.23. If I recall correctly from some recent games as the TE, using 1.23, I have seen British shipping through the N. Atlantic being interdicted without all transports being sunk.
RE: Is Atlantic trade worth it for the CPs?
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 6:45 am
by ulver
Is anyone clear on the effects of a sea zone being completely uncontested? That is; if neither side has any warships in the sea zone at all but they do have shipping/Amph?
Is it possible to Amph move?
Any effect on shipping?
Can one lend-lease resources to allies across uncontested sea zones?
In my current game on both occasions where the HSF and transports have tried slipping into the Atlantic the German warships (DN, PD) ships on patrol has been hammered by the North Sea blockade but ships on “raiding” mission and transports have slipped though.
If that is the norm count on me to keep trying even after all my DN’s are gone. It doesn’t take that many turns with 14 Atlantic food to make the CP impervious to starvation. I’m seriously considering a “conserve forces and dig in” strategy to see if he can take a well-fed CP the hard way: One machine gun nest at a time
RE: Is Atlantic trade worth it for the CPs?
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 12:48 pm
by Lascar
ORIGINAL: ulver
Is anyone clear on the effects of a sea zone being completely uncontested? That is; if neither side has any warships in the sea zone at all but they do have shipping/Amph?
Is it possible to Amph move?
Any effect on shipping?
Can one lend-lease resources to allies across uncontested sea zones?
In my current game on both occasions where the HSF and transports have tried slipping into the Atlantic the German warships (DN, PD) ships on patrol has been hammered by the North Sea blockade but ships on “raiding” mission and transports have slipped though.
If that is the norm count on me to keep trying even after all my DN’s are gone. It doesn’t take that many turns with 14 Atlantic food to make the CP impervious to starvation. I’m seriously considering a “conserve forces and dig in” strategy to see if he can take a well-fed CP the hard way: One machine gun nest at a time
Uncontested sea zones should have no effect on shipping missions. Only contested and enemy controlled status will have negative effects on amphibious or shipping. Still some question about shipping though.
The problem is that sea missions have not been well documented from the beginning and with several updates there isn't a definitive definition of these rules. Previous comments by Frank seem to suggest certain things about the rules and yet player experience suggest something else is going on.
RE: Is Atlantic trade worth it for the CPs?
Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 1:50 am
by Snowbart1943
ORIGINAL: ulver
but ships on “raiding” mission and transports have slipped though.
Ive spent a lot of time reading this forum, and no one is talking about any naval missions except Raiding, unless it concerns Subs or Transports. Does anyone use the other missions such as 'Patrol'?
RE: Is Atlantic trade worth it for the CPs?
Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 12:47 pm
by Lascar
ORIGINAL: Snowbart1943
ORIGINAL: ulver
but ships on “raiding” mission and transports have slipped though.
Ive spent a lot of time reading this forum, and no one is talking about any naval missions except Raiding, unless it concerns Subs or Transports. Does anyone use the other missions such as 'Patrol'?
Patrol is frequently used because it is the only mission that DNs and PDs can use that allows them to engage in combat. Only BCs and CAs can use raider missions.
RE: Is Atlantic trade worth it for the CPs?
Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 5:14 pm
by ulver
In case anyone is interested my AAR has a blow-by-blow replay of the naval action. I’m astonished at the amount of RM Germany can obtain from her shipping. In that game it has more then doubled my production as Germany.
And of course it has also solved my food problems as well. It almost seems to easy, it is not as if the Royal Navy is neglecting to blockade the North Sea
tm.asp?m=1875360
RE: Is Atlantic trade worth it for the CPs?
Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 4:29 pm
by FrankHunter
Is anyone clear on the effects of a sea zone being completely uncontested? That is; if neither side has any warships in the sea zone at all but they do have shipping/Amph?
An uncontested sea zone allows both shipping and amphibious operations with no interference.