I don’t buy it. It doesn’t excuse USSR to be this weak. The only conclusion I can come up with is ether they didn’t test Germany vs USSR enough OR they wanted USSR to be this weak.
The Bright Skies
-
China gets enough time to remain annoying for Japan by playing cat and mouse in the North
I don’t understand your obsession with keeping China alive “a few extra turns.” What will this accomplish? How can China alone put any sort of pressure on Japan that Japan cannot handle even if it is occupied with Russia/India. If Japan is operating effectively in Indo-China, then chances are the silk road is closed and China has no offensive punch whatsoever. Effectively if one wished, they could win the game by ignoring China completely and letting them survive the length of the game. As long as there is infantry on the coast and the swinging Japanese airforce, as well as the coastal bombards, China is pond scum. Prolonging China has no bearing on keeping Japan at bay. One can make nearly the same amount of extra income by taking Russia’s Eastern territories as one can by taking out China.
As for the bombers, I have one thing to say to this: Bombers cannot take territory. Even if the USA has enough bombers to eliminate any stack on the board, it is all for not if the axis can double or triple team Russia. Once the two front war for Germany is gone the game is virtually over, since the USA has now invested everything into bombers and has nothing coming behind and it is now too late to start building.
-
I think the truth of the matter lies somewhere between the two sides you all have presented here.
The Russian stack is important and it works well when combined with the Chinese, but it won’t matter much in the end unless there is a strong American presence in the Pacific. All they will do is stall the Japanese for a couple of turns.
American bombers are powerful but the realities of the board need to be confronted and they won’t win the game all by themselves.
-
I do this often as the allies… Holding Russia from a G6 all in is the hard part.
-
If you do this strategy… I recommend not doing Africa. Russia giving Japan problems and a kjf is awesome on its own especially if UK pacific is left in tact, that is your second Russia, you pretty much have 6 rounds to choke Japans income.
You can bring lots of USA bombers in to hold Russia. It is actually really good. You can go bomber crazy and attack ground troops with USA bombers left and right. It is a fun strategy, most Japan players don’t know what to do.
-
So basically this kjf your fleet you start standard kjf buy 2 carrier and a transport . Then after that 1 dd a round, sub or two rest bombers. So you go land Siberia with bombers from there you attack Japan ground like a madman. USA fleet is primarily an attack fleet so from Queensland you take islands Japan has to take it back… See Japan problem here is getting more land units to take territories, if he builds units on an a minor ic… You attack it with bombers.
Then Russia goes and blitzes through. Yeah you lose Russia round 6 in all likelihood,but you pretty much have Japan down for the count.
Japans solution to this is an all in on UK pacific. Hold Shan state and blam all Japan air can hit UK pacific. Drop everything. Bombards on top. Usually j3 or j4 all in. I mean it is pretty obvious what is coming and if the allies don’t have UK pacific… Japan can be healthy enough to keep cash islands and pressure a VC win so he can’t back out of the strategy to save Russia.
Japan fails to take UK pacific… Well you know 21 ipc UK pac is reinforcing the middle East with 7 INF round… Sucks for Germany to get Egypt vc win.
-
Actually it is KGF, so USA, UK and USSR will play extremely aggressive against Germany focusing to take Scandinavia as soon as possible.
In the pacific the Allies make sure they don’t lose by giving Japan headaches annoying and counter-attacking everywhere it does not expand to. Yes I will lose some places but it will not be enough for Japan to win the game on time.
Scandinavia is balancing point between Germany and Russia. As soon Russia gets it (because massive USA bombers + UK aid and combine this with Iraq and Africa profits they well be able take on Germany.
Main point is not to see Russia as the big victim but as the big potential that can get USA like incomes without even taking German countries (besides Scandinavia). Of all places, Scandinavia is most difficult to defend for Germany, especially whem USA bombers take out the baltic fleet.
-
Actually it is KGF, so USA, UK and USSR will play extremely aggressive against Germany focusing to take Scandinavia as soon as possible.
In the pacific the Allies make sure they don’t lose by giving Japan headaches annoying and counter-attacking everywhere it does not expand to. Yes I will lose some places but it will not be enough for Japan to win the game on time.
Scandinavia is balancing point between Germany and Russia. As soon Russia gets it (because massive USA bombers + UK aid and combine this with Iraq and Africa profits they well be able take on Germany.
Main point is not to see Russia as the big victim but as the big potential that can get USA like incomes without even taking German countries (besides Scandinavia). Of all places, Scandinavia is most difficult to defend for Germany, especially whem USA bombers take out the baltic fleet.
Every action has a reaction. In your plan you have not mentioned Italy. The reaction, or consequence, of a massive allied effort in Scandinavia, which is a long shot in my opinion, is a more powerful than usual Italy who will take the Med+Africa+ME virtually unopposed since Britain has sunk its production into the European theatre. America having produced bombers exclusively will not be able to pressure Italy nor will Britain. Once Italy has taken the ME, eliminating the extra income you claim will equal the Russian odds with Germany, it will be making a lot of money, money which does not need to be spent on naval units since US built only bombers, and the Southern flank is now extremely vulnerable. Do you leave your units in Scandinavia? Or do you pull back to Moscow? If you pull back to Moscow, then your plan was a waste because you are no further ahead and very exposed with no one coming to your aide any time soon. If Britain looses ME/Africa, it is not capable of conducting relevant warfare and the US bombers can only do so much without land units.
As the old saying goes never put all your eggs in one basket. I’m not saying that individual powers should not go all in against a select opponent, I’m simply saying that each power needs to be checked by an opposing power. Italy, contrary to popular belief, is a power. Especially if you let it become one.
-
Actually it is a KIF strategy, as Italy will be taken out first. I fully agree with your statememt that Italy can become a strong power. However it is also the easiest to take out, sorry for not highlighting this earlier.
Ofcourse UK will play an important part in this, and the UK focus remains the Med, but gaining control of the med is not too difficult, especially because I will send the pacific fleet of the USA to the med. Against Japan that fleet is nothing, against Italy/Germany it a largish fleet that will dominate the med, it can be at Gibraltar the moment the Axis declare war. Ofcourse several blockers remain against Japan and 1 transport that will keep reinforcing Hawaii.
Also those USA bombers can help out when somehow the Axis has maintained a fleet in the med, as I experienced that there is not much more effective as destroying smallish Axis fleets as bombers.
The USA fleet in the med will ofcourse first destroy enemy fleets. Then it will convoy Italy to death, when possible (they have 2-3 transports) even take Rome as they will be supported by 15-20 bombers. Don’t forgot UK will also having an income of 35 IPC.
A nice mission of the USA transports is to pick a Russian tank + mech that just captured somaliland and libya in R5 and bring them to Sardinia + Sicily in R7
By starving Italy so decisive this leaves Germany with 3 choices
1. Try to help Italy, which helps Russia
2. Ignore the situation and go for Russia only, Rome will soon fall and Paris liberated
3. Try to do both, more likely making mistakes and spreading its powerSo this is what it will like turn 4-6
Med: USA and UK fleet infested
Scandinavia: Russian land troops, several British fighters
London: 15-20 USA bombersAbout Russia becoming equal of Germany
37 starting IPC, assuming DOW2
Iraq = 5 IPC - R3
NO = 5 IPC - R2
Scandinavia = 11 IPC - R3
Somaliland + Libya = 7 IPC - R5
Sicily + Sardinia = 6 IPC - R758 IPC at R3.
Ofcourse Germany will have taken several countries, my plan is to lure him to the South (by underdeploying) as that is where the money is for him, while I will be able to hold Leningrad. However the Southen route is also the slowest for Germany that buys me some time and with the big income can build a counter-force from Moscow which will defeat or stall him before getting to Caucasus.
Germany without Scandinavia is only 44 IPC (+ balkans), maybe + 10 from Russian territories in G3 but I doubt it. Then USA bombers start pouring in bombing industrial complexes lowering Germany income another 10.
Big Russia, big Russia, healthy UK against 30-40 Germany. It will be too much for him. Russia will start to overproduce Germany and counter-attack. This is the point USA shift focus to Japan.
-
Russian attack force Finkand R2 will be:
1 tactical
2 fighters
3 tanks
1 artillery
11 infantryYes Germany can counter reinforcing Finland with airforce, but my experience is Germany luftwaffe is active around the med in G2.
The other option is a R3 attack of finland, building 3 art in R1. Then its
16 infantry, 1 mech, 4 artillery, 4 tanks, 2 fighters, 1 tacticalActually R3 is wiser I think, do you agree?
-
Usually when I read bright skies I think USA bombers… Maybe that is green skies lol
-
Russian attack force Finkand R2 will be:
1 tactical
2 fighters
3 tanks
1 artillery
11 infantryYes Germany can counter reinforcing Finland with airforce, but my experience is Germany luftwaffe is active around the med in G2.
The other option is a R3 attack of finland, building 3 art in R1. Then its
16 infantry, 1 mech, 4 artillery, 4 tanks, 2 fighters, 1 tacticalActually R3 is wiser I think, do you agree?
I am short on time and will come back to this more in-depth later. By the way I am not trying to be a DB, I simply love playing devil’s advocate.
You state in your original strategy that it will most likely be a GDOW on Russia T2. You have just stated that you plan to eliminate Italy first. How do you intend to do this while still blocking a potential Sea Lion, while also building fast movers in South Africa to dominate Africa, and while also defending Scandinavia with fighters?
You have just shown that Britain is spread way too thin. Also, Axis can simply bomb the harbour of Gibraltar and you are now unable to operate deep in the Med like you stated above for another turn. So it is more likely that the US Pacific fleet will not be a threat until at least T3/T4 by which time you have either been Sea Lioned, Egypt has fallen, or Scandinavia has been slaughtered and Russia is wide open. In the event that You were Sea Lioned, Scandinavia is lost as well no question and, therefore, so is Russia. In the event that Egypt has fallen, Italy is now able to breath while Germany kills Scandinavia because Britain is now hurting for cash. In the event that Scandinavia falls before any of the above Russia is essentially lost, and the Axis can now meet the US landing head on.
All the while Japan has not even been scratched.
You just cannot choke Germany fast enough for this strategy to work.
-
Fastest I have won with Japan is turn 6. Round 8 is typical if USA ignores the Pacific.
-
@Cow:
Fastest I have won with Japan is turn 6. Round 8 is typical if USA ignores the Pacific.
So the only way to win as Allies is KJF is what you say?
-
@MEANWHILE:
Russian attack force Finkand R2 will be:
1 tactical
2 fighters
3 tanks
1 artillery
11 infantryYes Germany can counter reinforcing Finland with airforce, but my experience is Germany luftwaffe is active around the med in G2.
The other option is a R3 attack of finland, building 3 art in R1. Then its
16 infantry, 1 mech, 4 artillery, 4 tanks, 2 fighters, 1 tacticalActually R3 is wiser I think, do you agree?
I am short on time and will come back to this more in-depth later. By the way I am not trying to be a DB, I simply love playing devil’s advocate.
You state in your original strategy that it will most likely be a GDOW on Russia T2. You have just stated that you plan to eliminate Italy first. How do you intend to do this while still blocking a potential Sea Lion, while also building fast movers in South Africa to dominate Africa, and while also defending Scandinavia with fighters?
You have just shown that Britain is spread way too thin. Also, Axis can simply bomb the harbour of Gibraltar and you are now unable to operate deep in the Med like you stated above for another turn. So it is more likely that the US Pacific fleet will not be a threat until at least T3/T4 by which time you have either been Sea Lioned, Egypt has fallen, or Scandinavia has been slaughtered and Russia is wide open. In the event that You were Sea Lioned, Scandinavia is lost as well no question and, therefore, so is Russia. In the event that Egypt has fallen, Italy is now able to breath while Germany kills Scandinavia because Britain is now hurting for cash. In the event that Scandinavia falls before any of the above Russia is essentially lost, and the Axis can now meet the US landing head on.
All the while Japan has not even been scratched.
You just cannot choke Germany fast enough for this strategy to work.
UK can be flexible regarding protecting London and providing some fighters to a crucial Scandinavian battle. UK on its own is also able to contain Italy, USA getting there a turn later will not be so crucial. However getting those USA bombers to London asap is, as that is what decides if the Russians will be able to take over. As long as the baltic fleet lives, Germany controls what happens in Scandinavia. I agree about choking Germany so fast, it will not be able without USA help. Ofcourse it depends a lot on what Germany will do, however this is nice, as USSR can react to this.
Getting Scandinavia will be impossible and a bad choice when Germany buys fleet and does a Sea Lion feign, as he can easily overpower Russia in leningrad. In this case I should retreat as Russia and mass up to hopefully get a counter-attack. As soon as the USA bombers arrive in numbers I should be able to take out the Baltic Fleet and thus make it possible for Russia to attack towards Scandinavia, this is around T4.
-
Here is the problem with Europe first strategies.
Transports.
Transports don’t attack or defend. In order for you take territories you need ground troops. So that is 7 for a transport and 6-7 ipc to fill that boat. Now in the pacific, you take an island and lose a boat, japan is likely having to do the same thing to respond. So you get a fair trade. Now in Europe once you drop, you got to reload it. ON top of that, your boats have nothing to attack, the best option is to convoy italy out of the game after you make your drops.
So to sum, you basically have to waste tons of money to get barely anything, oooo you get finland and norway oooo look ma 5 ipc. Complete useless. The pacific has right out the gate 15 ipc in just cash island. 2 for phil with 5 no, boom shakalaka the payouts are faster.
-
There is a reason balanced both sides of the board strategies usually call for spain invade and something to hold russia / take out turkey. It is the crocodile method, back, belly, and mouth.
-
Why would UK land on Norway? USA can do it better and UK have too many other things to do.
-
^ yeah like getting air into Russia. You can get USA into russia from scotland with bombers. It is a solid method.
-
As a friend of mine has rather painfully demonstrated at my expense, Russia getting into Scandinavia can be devastating for Germany, and in principle I think it’s fine to build up the American bomber force to as many as 8 bombers, and then send it to kill the German Baltic fleet and/or the Italian Med fleet. Certainly it’s easier for Russia to grab Scandinavia if the Baltic fleet is sunk.
But this whole idea of building nothing but bombers with the USA for 5+ turns strikes me as way overblown, for some of the reasons Afrikakorps has been pointing out. If Britain focuses on Italy while the USA sends bombers to Europe, then Japan is free to annihilate China and capture India. A stack of bombers is not going to be enough to contain a Japan that has already taken out China and India – the USA just doesn’t earn enough to trade bombers against Japanese mechanized infantry.
On the other hand, if Britain builds a Persia factory and uses it to send troops east, builds ships in South Africa, sends fighters to India, etc., then Italy is free to take north Africa, clear the Med, and use the resulting cash to send mechs and tanks east to Stalingrad and the Caucasus. At that point, Italy is pulling in 32+ IPCs per turn, and so even if Germany is only collecting 40 IPCs and losing 10 of those to strategic bombing, then the Euroaxis are still substantially out-earning Russia even if Russia is holding Scandinavia. Russia’s not strong enough to hold out against the Euroaxis in that situation, and will be slowly pushed back – and, meanwhile, Japan’s probably not doing so badly. Sure, the pressure on land from UK Pacific, Russia, and China is formidable and will help to keep Japan in check, but without the need to spend heavily in the water to counter a growing US Pacific fleet, Japan can afford to fight all of the eastern Allied powers at once.
My point is that it’s probably a good idea to build a US bomber fleet in many games – perhaps a much better idea than this forum has traditionally believed – but even a really good US tactic is not the same thing as a “silver bullet” that can knock the Axis out of the game. All three Axis powers still have to be contained. A bomber fleet can contain Germany if it’s sent to kill the Baltic fleet, or it can contain Italy if it’s sent to kill the Med fleet, but you can’t kill both fleets fast enough to contain both Euroaxis, and that means at least one Axis power will be left unchecked unless America follows up on the initial bombing rush with an actual naval buildup.
-
Taking Scandinavia with Russia is very effective against novice opponents; against more seasoned players any attempt to do that will just result in stranded Russian ground units who get easily crushed by the Germans with minimal losses. Any units that are lost with little gained in return will lead to a huge swing in the Moscow calculations for turns 6-8. I am smiling from ear to ear when I see the Allies throwing away units in Europe during the first four turns.
Suggested Topics
