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
-
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.
-
I have lost finland/norway to Russia with Germany, I ignored them and took Russia G5. It was funny. I got to admit.
-
You get more mileage out of bombers than boats and oceans. Think about it, you get 4 transport 8 inf, then you have to protect it so what do you do? Say Germany is light on air and is sending it East anyway. 3 dd carrier 2 fighter. now time for some math.
28 + 18 +16 + 20 = 84. 84 ipc = 7 bombers. Hmm, suddenly 7 bombers seems pretty awesome. This is the reason you seldom see G1 navy buys anymore, because it just gets blasted.
-
Speaking about G1 Navy builds, I have seen Adam play very successful League matches with a fleet being created on his first round. He usually moves it down to Gibraltar on G2 and then over to the Med on G3. He has mastered the strategy, allowing him to deliver key attacks into the Middle East or Africa. It also discourages the Allies from building a minimally-defended fleet and getting it into the Med. I can’t repeat it with his level of execution, of course, but I wouldn’t say that G1 Navy is a crazy idea.
-
So he DOWs J3? or Normandy to pass through gibraltar?
-
@Cow:
So he DOWs J3? or Normandy to pass through gibraltar?
Hmm, must be a strong enough fleet to defend against the USN. Can’t build in Normandy G1.
Interesting idea.
-
I think it’s about building fleet in G1 and taking Normandy G1. In G2 you can position at SZ110 or SZ105 and, because of the naval base at Normandy, travel in G3 passing Gibraltar to SZ92. So there seems to be the possibility of DOW G2 i.e. without the need to stay under fire at SZ91 - of course under the condition that Italy takes and hold Gibraltar.
-
I hope ABH explains more how the German Navy steams into the Med to create havoc.
But hecatomb I think the German Navy needs to go right to SZ91 on G2 and take it (if Italy didn’t). Sitting in SZ110 risks a blockade by the US Navy. Of course if the US is not in the war than either or doesn’t matter. I personally would not want to J3 attack with Japan just to let the German Navy slip into the Med.
If Germany does not get Cairo for the 2+5 NO (and the chance to grow from there), the cost of the Navy isn’t worth it. ABH describes games with Adam where it does pay off which is why I hope to hear more. If Italy gets Cairo, that’s second best. Germany getting Cairo would really make Germany great again!
-
Thanks guys for all the feedback, one week left until the game. So far the consensus is that USA bomber fleet is good idea, however too many bombers are not. I can see why, therefore I will build bombers the first 3 turns, that is 12 bombers, more when earlier at war. Those bombers have 1 mission, kill the baltic fleet and hurt Germany afterwards.
Secondly it is agreed Germany is simply too strong to contain so early, they need to expand / thin their lines. Also on this I agree. However to Leningrad it is 2 steps, while to Stalingrad / Caucasus it is 4 steps. South is more interesting for Germany, while it gives the USRR more time to level its land troops mass with that of Germany. So now this leaves me with the question, how can I lure / influence Germany going south.
Currently I think this can be done by getting all troops to the North so Belarus / Leningrad while having minimal resistance in the South. This will hopefully lure Germany in south to a quick Moscow rush / south harvest. Because it is slower, it is easier to get enough mass to prevent a quick moscow rush. A strafe on Bryansk can reinforce moscow from Belarus. In order to play these tactical games I will not mass Infantry, but Mech. Infantry, which allows me to be very mobile with my Russian ‘mass’ from north to south or any counter-attack.
So buys will be 6 mech, 3 artillery etc.
This allows you to for example stack Leningrad, but still be in Moscow on time when they go south by either strafing Bryansk or force him to go by Tambov and you have enough time to move into Russia.
This puts Germany on pressure, much more than full infantry buys.
What do you think?
-
The first part is pretty sound; don’t forget however that placement in Scotland or Iceland is probably stronger than London, because you can fly direct.
I personally prefer going the other direction, to Buryatia? Best option is 1 further move to Moscow. Moscow guys can protect the bombers, wherever they land.
You do have some ambitious plans, against my buddy Maphead, with Russia, all I can do is protect Moscow. He attacks on G2 and by G4 the can-opener means I cant stack anywhere. I consider it a success if he is dissuaded from taking Leningrad until G3, then I run like heck. The only clear conservative play is to buy primarily infantry, and have the other allies provide the rest. You cant lure a charging rhino hes coming right at you and every other direction at the same time. G5-G6 its time for dice or die.
Suggested Topics
