The Bright Skies above Russian Counter-Atttack/Chinese Guerrilla

[Caesar-Seriona]

The reason for the “out of date” strategic deployment of USSR is because Germany has 100% win over USSR.

[Afrikakorps]

@Caesar-Seriona said in The Bright Skies above Russian Counter-Atttack/Chinese Guerrilla:

The reason for the “out of date” strategic deployment of USSR is because Germany has 100% win over USSR.

Although I agree Germany against allied players focused on landings in Europe while the baltic fleet is still alive, with a stable and active can opening Italy, can 100% win over USSR.

I do not agree that when:

• Italy is the target of both USA initial troops + UK in the first turns (especially with JDOW1)
• USA uses its first rounds to buy bombers that kill the baltic fleet + start bombing Europe,
• Combined with amphibious assaults of an aggressive London with maximum IPC income (+5 bonus and Africa/ME in firm control),
• Russia has been building artillery followed by mechanized infantry + tanks

Germany can win over USSR without being overwhelmed in Europe. I think the all-changing crucial element to make this happen is the USA approach: Kill Italy First + bombers asap for the German fleet effectively making Scandinavia and it’s 10 IPC undefendable.

The other belief is that the allies can slow down Japan long enough without a lot of USA support when focused on China (with Russia as the main game maker instead of USA).

I short, it was NOT the United States of America, but Russia that was the Protagonist in the WWII. I believe the game is balanced to materialize this historical result. The Allies were supposed to be favoured for victory, not the Axis.

The most important thing the allies should achieve, is to let Germany spend less on Russia than it normally does, while Russia should be focused on gaining as much IPC as possible. When this is achieved, the Russian can hold, and then push back Germany.

Remember the greatest fear of German strategists: German’s central location between strong enemies, it can not win a two-sided war. I have a new battle this saturday, I will try to make pictures and write a battle report.

[Caesar-Seriona]

USSR is the Anti-Hero.

But with the game at hand, USSR is forced into defensive infantry is because of how the Axis is placed. UK must sink as many Italian transports as it can because in terms of location, Italy has the easiest NO’s with all of them only being at most five territories away from Rome. The Japanese navy must face an equal enemy because it’s incredibly easy for it to contain its army on the water. China ins’t a death trap for Japan because Japan could in theory just place defense with Chinese cities and it wouldn’t hurt them in long term. China cannot stop Japan from invading India though I wish Chinese forces could go past Burma. Another issue too is that the reason why US forces target Italy first because it’s the easiest Axis nation to attack for it, it’s only two turns away or if Italy is doing great, US can hit it right out of the gates. Literally US can break an Italian NO in one move. Just begin Operation Torch.

The biggest problem with Bright Skies I have is that you are playing UK too loose with the Middle East. My experience has shown me that Middle Earth is almost always a must.

[Afrikakorps]

@Caesar-Seriona said in The Bright Skies above Russian Counter-Atttack/Chinese Guerrilla:

USSR is the Anti-Hero.

But with the game at hand, USSR is forced into defensive infantry is because of how the Axis is placed. UK must sink as many Italian transports as it can because in terms of location, Italy has the easiest NO’s with all of them only being at most five territories away from Rome. The Japanese navy must face an equal enemy because it’s incredibly easy for it to contain its army on the water. China ins’t a death trap for Japan because Japan could in theory just place defense with Chinese cities and it wouldn’t hurt them in long term. China cannot stop Japan from invading India though I wish Chinese forces could go past Burma. Another issue too is that the reason why US forces target Italy first because it’s the easiest Axis nation to attack for it, it’s only two turns away or if Italy is doing great, US can hit it right out of the gates. Literally US can break an Italian NO in one move. Just begin Operation Torch.

The biggest problem with Bright Skies I have is that you are playing UK too loose with the Middle East. My experience has shown me that Middle Earth is almost always a must.

I agree with almost anything you say. You are likely right about the ME for UK, especially since Germany usually waits with it’s DOW. Next battle I will not want Iraq for Russia, just Somaliland + the Italian islands. This enables UK to play it’s strongest game.

Don’t you agree that when India defense is build optimally (mass so infantry), with maximum fighter inflow of Russia, ANZAC and USA, India can be stopped from Japan amphibious assault?

I do not think Japan can hold their cities when China is given all that IPC and space, as they become a monster very quickly.

Indeed, Operation Torch is gold. Destroy Italy and win the Europe game. A dead Italy means Europe falling down east, north and south for the Germans. Rich and powerful UK that can focus solely on hurting Germany (+ only a few USA transports to open up Denmark). This forces Germany to try help Italy, which is less resources on Russia = Russian victory.

[Caesar-Seriona]

I’ve been trying to find offensive strategic moves against Axis Europe that wouldn’t hurt Moscow in short term. The only solution I can come up with is the hopes that Germany and Italy spread themselves too thin too soon. In other words, I hope the players have no idea what they are doing.

The problem with Bright and Dark skies shows one simple weakness, you don’t have an army and bombers can’t take land.

[Afrikakorps]

@Caesar-Seriona said in The Bright Skies above Russian Counter-Atttack/Chinese Guerrilla:

I’ve been trying to find offensive strategic moves against Axis Europe that wouldn’t hurt Moscow in short term. The only solution I can come up with is the hopes that Germany and Italy spread themselves too thin too soon. In other words, I hope the players have no idea what they are doing.

The problem with Bright and Dark skies shows one simple weakness, you don’t have an army and bombers can’t take land.

Why do you want USA/ANZAC to have either an army or take Axis land? What do the Allies overall benefit from them having an army/taking lands?

My whole philosophy is: play towards your strength, not your weaknesses.

Russia, China and UK excell in building land troops due to their location. Leave the land troop building to these powers.

Russia: use the geography to play torched earth strategy, you have the space and factories to produce a lot of cheap land troops. Don’t waste IPC on fleet, factories and lots of expensive stuff such as planes/tanks.

UK: you are one of the most interesting players in the whole game, as compared to everyone else, you can be anywhere, at any time. You can play with land troops, RAF and Royal Fleet. Capitals can be well defended while close to the action.

China: build lots of cheap infantry, a trade of 1 chinese for 1 japanese is a good deal. As you as you are not wiped out, you will survive and annoy Japan as long as possible.

ANZAC and USA are not based in Eurasia, therefore, it takes a lot of effort and IPC to get their land troops to the coast, and even more difficult to capture/hold mainland factories. Why try to do something Russia, China and UK do much better?

What Russia, China and UK are unable to do, is providing overwhelming airpower that hunt fleets, negate any safe landing spots for German / Japanese aircraft (bombers) and bomb factories. It is the purpose of both USA and ANZAC to lower the Axis income and logistics, so it becomes an equal match for the other allies.

In summary: the purpose of USA/ANZAC is not to fight the Axis, it is their purpose to damage and hamper the Axis to such extent, that it becomes an (un)equal fight for Russia, China and UK. For every IPC that the Axis lose due to actions of USA/ANZAC, is a big plus, and it is enough to secure victory. I’m not sure if I am able to bring this message accros, maybe I should say it this way.

Without USA/ANZAC hampering Axis, the Axis overpower the Eurasian Allies.
With USA/ANZAC leverage, the Axis become overpowered by the Eurasian Allies.

If you start realizing this, the Allies will experience the same enlightenment as the Axis once did.

[Caesar-Seriona]

ANZAC needs to build a defense for otherwise Australia will be taken at some point, and US needs an army because you want France back in the game as soon as possible. France building an army helps Moscow.

[taamvan]

@Afrikakorps @Caesar-Seriona The Germans have so much money and air power, moscow is screwed–in plenty of versions you’ll need fighters to stop that from happening. Russia starts with nothing–the Axis start with over 30 planes. Your plan of crossing the atlantic and forcing the Germans/Italians to get ready to stop that is great, but America isn’t calling that part of the plan, Japan is.

Its a great game, a great setup, and a great map. What is missing is that the Axis get a bit too much power/money so that they have .5-1.5 turn more time than the Allies can afford. The Global map and plane plies give them too many advantages for the Allies to overcome that in any situation or time frame. Taking away 1 combat air pair would be game changing. Giving russia a bit more air/armor or Germany less money would be game changing. Any other approach fails to recognize that the Axis are too flexible for any 1 attack approach to work and that why the game feels so chesslike.

In preparation for Gencon 2021, Dave and I have returned to playing G42 and that version is even faster, more chesslike, and emphasizes these factors even more but the Axis have to attain a very specific set of territory goals (all original territory, all china, all spice, all the 2+3+4 value territories to attain economic victory after 7 hours and 7 turns of regulation play). That game is very closed to being balanced and its up to great play, luck and endurance.

[Caesar-Seriona]

@taamvan I personally think that 1940 simply wasn’t play tested correctly or not play tested enough. It really bugs the crap out of me that Germany has a 100% win over USSR thus forcing USSR to get help from the Allies or hope that Germany plays dumb. Point being is that the bid allows some flex ability for USSR. It helps even more when the bid is directly put into USSR which I’ve done in my last two games as the Allies. Only then can USSR flex some muscle.

[taamvan]

@Caesar-Seriona Most of the AxA games have balance/geometry issues. Most wargames do. As a community, we’ve playtested the map+setup for 100000s of hours. That can’t possibly be expected of the designers/original playtesters. The core Global map is a masterpiece–you can make custom games and setups for any era from 1936-2020. HBG has gone even further and made a more complex map and setup. I’ve also laid out my tweak, there’s G42, BM, Sired’s setup. I’m not a huge fan of events, new units, and other house rules in general but there is a myriad of choices out there–as some have pointed out these variations would all need to be vetted and playtested to death to know if they are balanced.

I really like the G42 setup and the 7 hour/7 turn environment, and hope to repeat in 2021. Same Siredblood–I don’t think that ruleset is well playtested yet but its well thought out and its a good new environment to try.

[Caesar-Seriona]

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.