The most effective allied strategy is to KGF. For this main reason, Germany should fatten up and not lose the war by ensuring many infantry as part of their buys. Japan will be unstoppable by round 5 (at the latest) since There is no good way to slow Japan enough that really makes a difference. Japan can even fly a ftr or two to Europe to help keep the allies off Fortress Europe.
Germany must ALWAYS build IC to win game in Anniversary?
-
To find the average, you add the lowest value to the highest value, and divide by 2.
-
I’m wondering if Germany builds an IC out west, if the UK should just funnel troops through Russia. That may be able to take off enough IPC’s from the Eastern front to negate the 16 unit builds, it also means that Germany is really going to have trouble moving her troops up to the Eastern theatre. It would also help for defense against Japan, and may come in use for taking Egy.
If the UK did that the question would be, what should the US do? It could focus on Japan. Build bombers, secure Africa/cripple Italy, use remaining bombers on an SBR campaign, then focus on Japan. It could double up with the Brits and funnel troops through Russia, the whole time threatening France and Germany. It could destroy the Italian fleet and funnel men through the Caucaus/Baltic region. Or maybe find a way for it to nab Norway to build an IC, and it could do some type of balancing act.
If the US is funneling troops through the Russian front, it is stalling Japan out, if it is going straight to the Pacific it is fighting Japan directly. Point being, I don’t think a heavy SBR campaign is the only way to counter a French IC.
-
I’m wondering if Germany builds an IC out west, if the UK should just funnel troops through Russia. That may be able to take off enough IPC’s from the Eastern front to negate the 16 unit builds, it also means that Germany is really going to have trouble moving her troops up to the Eastern theatre. It would also help for defense against Japan, and may come in use for taking Egy.
If the UK did that the question would be, what should the US do? It could focus on Japan. Build bombers, secure Africa/cripple Italy, use remaining bombers on an SBR campaign, then focus on Japan. It could double up with the Brits and funnel troops through Russia, the whole time threatening France and Germany. It could destroy the Italian fleet and funnel men through the Caucaus/Baltic region. Or maybe find a way for it to nab Norway to build an IC, and it could do some type of balancing act.
If the US is funneling troops through the Russian front, it is stalling Japan out, if it is going straight to the Pacific it is fighting Japan directly. Point being, I don’t think a heavy SBR campaign is the only way to counter a French IC.
Absolutely there are other allied counters to a French IC. That was Jenn’s method. Is it better? I don’t know. Depends on alot of other things going on in the game.
Your point leads to other discussions about how the USA should be played when Germany doesn’t threaten Russia as hard and as fast as possible. Work around Germany, nibbling away at her edges and support Russia. This is a viable strategy.
Can USA go toe-to-toe with Japan? That might be an uphill battle depending on how well Japan did J1 (china mostly killed, few/no ftrs lost, in position to push on India/Australia/Russia, etc), how much she is willing to invest long term in her navy, etc.
USA can certainly tie up SOME of Japans resources with some of her own, but it is my opinion that USA would have to invest ALL of her income to give a good Japanese player any major fits. In that case, the atlantic is a mere side thought… and then those German stacks of infantry soon began to push east, and they can become hard to kill when they get large…
Such a fine balance exists in this game (barring CRAZY dice)
FYI, this is without Tech. That wildcard changes everything.
-
I can’t wait to roll a 3.5 on my D6. :-P
If you already good to SBR all day long to trade USA ipc with Germany, I don’t see why you would only do it if there is a France IC or how the France IC cripples Germany in that context.
It does not changes anything, SBR should go logically to highest IPC value territory first which is Germany 10 ipc IC. And if you built a fleet of bombers that can reduce it down to maximum dmg, a France IC would not change anything to it.
That France IC just gives more resilience to thoses bombings and helps Italy which is also is 6ipc if you start bombing it. Remember that you choose how much and where you do repairs.
Also, a SBR campaign is simply an invitation for Japan to do the same. And they got way more ipc to devote to this, especially if USA don’t check them. From East Indies and Indochina, it’s 1 turn for a bomber to Italy. I can assure you, Russia/Britain won’t prod anything way before Germany/Italy suffers the same fate. And why not simply sink UK allied fleet R5 or so with massive japanese airforce once you are bored with SBR? 9 starting fighters + 10 bombers, any takers? OR simply land in Alaska, hold it 1 turn, land the planes and bomb the hell out of USA.
I like it, I’m pretty sure you still can achieve Japan land objectives and build up IJN airforce. Will make a strat and let you know how it goes. Catchy names: ‘‘Ground-Zero’’ or ‘‘Zero terror over Hollywood’’ ?
-
I always SBR with US vs G building atleast 1 bomber a turn. Bombers are so awesome you’d be crazy not to with US, and Japan for that matter.
-
@Corbeau:
And you assume no Bomber was shot down during the SBR.
I would dare say this for bombers:
- It’s 12 ipc a piece. If even one got shot down by AA, Germany can already rest easier.
- They do an average of 3 ipc dmg per bombing run, they’ll have to run more than four missions to have a plus value above 12 ipc.
Hell, if I knew building a France IC would get my opponent to go heavy on SBR, I’ll build it if only to see less cruisers/fighters in the sea with maybe an added bonus of seeing my AA gun take one or more of the bombers out. Snake eyes anyone? :P
5 infantry is not a big price to pay to bait an opponent in weakening it’s fleet. Plus they not bombing Italy either which would be way more effective.
Even if bombers are lost, look at the exchange:
Bombers are shot down 17% of the time (1 out of 6.) That means you should budget about 2 IPC a round for the bombers (that way every 6 rounds, you have the cost of a replacement.)
However, the bombers average 3.5 IPC in damage a round! Even if you fall right down the line on statistics (which never happens) you should be making 1.5 IPC a round with that bomber on SBR. (Which isn’t the whole story, since you are either limiting your enemy’s production and/or costing him units he can be building which puts you in a strategically superior position - or it should if you are playing well.)
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=13984.new#new
There’s a game where I am crucifying Germany and Italy with SBRs. It originated when Botider put in an Industrial Complex in France. Granted, his AA Gunners are blind as shizzit, but even if they were not….
Also, notice that the Japanese fleet has had to remain out of the Indian Ocean for the game thus far, out of fear of the Americans bombing them into the bottom of the ocean. Thus, the bombers are serving dual purposes! Wow, they are doing two things a round for 12 IPC, guess that means they really only cost 6 IPC. :P
In regards to funnelling Brits though Karelia/Arkhangelsk, I’ve already mostly shifted there anyway. With everything in the British navy sunk except for the one destroyer and transport in SZ 9 (and the ones off Australia that cannot do anything) before England can go, it’s not worth building an offensive fleet. Build enough to force Germany to Either put their fighters near Karelia or in France (thus allowing the Americans free reign or the British.)
Sure, you lose the NO for no Allied units in Russia, but let’s face facts here, 24 - 32 IPC in ground units per round into the Russian defense is a little more significant than 5 IPCs, no?
-
Ok, before you all tie yourselves in knots. This has been said before… charity mathematics for those who don’t like probabilities.
The expected return per bombing raid is about 0.9 IPC per bomber
The average hit is 3.5 (it’s called an average - 1,2,3 is just as likely as 4,5,6. What’s halfway in between…?). However you only make that hit 5 in 6 times (1 in 6 your bomber is dead first). That means the average is ~2.9 (3.5 times five, divide six). Your expected loss is 2 IPC (one in six chance of losing 12 IPC hardware).
2.9 minus 2 = 0.9 per run.
Does your bomber have something more useful to do than collect an IPC lying on the ground? Very often yes.
-
Several things.
1. To the thread topic. I rarely build an IC with Germany. Sometimes in very rare and I do mean rare circumstance it can be worthwhile for the ability of Germany to produce ships in the Med. For defense France is one space away from Germany so I see no need. Buying massive infantry stacks for defense went away with the 3/3 tank from Revised. Infantry are good fodder but need some meat to back them up. I have no problem with Germany producing 10 units and the money they make. If they are making in the upper 50s or low 60s they already have a Russian IC anyway.
2. For Axis_Roll. I meant sub-optimal. Not merely unexpected. Sub-optimal can have the benefit of making ones opponent think, “this guy is a dunce and this will be easy”. My example was probably bad as I do not think there is any one “optimal” strategy in AA50-41. We may narrow it down to 3 or 4 really good strats per side in a year or so, but I do not see any one being the be all end all.
3. With regards to SBRs. Through the math out the window. I have conducted these in numerous A&A games and one thing I have found is that the numbers and the results do not match up. Strategic Bombing is a dedicated campaign decision. Full stop. Let it sink in a minute. Strategic Bombing is a dedicated campaign decision, not a spur of the moment “oh my bomber is not doing anything” The last will leave a very bad taste in your mouth. When carrying out a strategic bombing campaign, bombers are purchased with the intent of conducting Strategic Bombing raids. This means you have accepted that there will be loses and that your bombers are bought to bomb. This does not mean they can not be used for another purpose if it arises like the example that Jen gave of striking a fleet in the game she referenced. Also in some circumstances if the loses from AA get too great it can be a good idea to shift gears to another strategy, you should still have some bombers to beef up whatever you changed to.
Now lets look at the numbers crap. Since the US is the one that generally is the one conducting the SBR campaign I am going to restrict myself to them. 1 bomber equals 12 IPCs or 4 infantry. To get those 4 infantry any where it is going to take 14 IPCs worth of transports, or another 2 bombers and some change. Those 2 transports are going to need some defense. That is more IPCs spent and these have at least as far as Germany are concerned have almost no attack value of any worth. But lets say a carrier and cruiser were purchased for defense of the transports. I am leaving out the fighters as those can be multi-role. Again we have 2 bombers and some change. So we have on one hand 5 bombers to smack Germany and Italy around with or 4 infantry and some ships. Those 4 infantry are not going to kill many German or Italian units. Lets be generous and say they traded out 1 for 1. With our 5 bombers and some change worth of units we removed 4 German or Italian infantry from the map and those 4 infantry are now also gone from the board. (I am assuming here they killed 2 somewhere taking a territory and then 2 on there way out) Now those 5 bombers should be doing 15 IPCs worth of damage and I am rounding down from 3.5. For arguments sake they suffered no losses on the first round of their use. They have already killed 1 more enemy unit than the infantry example. Next round they lose a bomber but do 12 damage. Is the picture becoming clear yet? Simply put the whole accounting argument of a piece has to kill its cost in a game to be effective is total fallacy.
-
The difference, Teleman, is that your bomber is either hitting a Complex or getting shot down by an Infantryman defending at 2.
AA Gun: 1 Shot @ 1
Infantry: 1 Shot EACH @ 2Far more dangerous to attack infantry for hte 3 IPC. Senseless to leave them sitting around doing nothing.
Also, as mentioned, the bombers are working around the clock for you.
1) If you attack the territory, you have to pound through the bombers before hitting the infantry, artillery, armor and fighters. That could significantly shift the battle out of your favor thus negating your attack. (And of course, there’s no assurance you’ll get the bombers either, your opponent could take infantry instead.)
2) They are preventing your opponent from moving their fleet in range, or at least, making them shell out cold, hard IPC for more surface ships to protect their fleet.
3) They can serve as paratrooper units, forcing you to bloody well defend anything within 1 to 5 zones from an enemy territory and thus, watering down your forces.
4) They can be upgraded with LRA forcing you to defend anything within 1 to 7 zones and/or heavy bombers forcing you to beef your defense of said territories.
5) They can be used for SBR campaigns
6) They can be used to assist in battles
7) They can prevent your enemy from even building a fleet.
And that’s just the surface of it.
As A44 said, it’s best for America. My best games so far have been with America buying nothing but Tech, Infantry and bombers. (in no tech games, just bombers and infantry. The infantry defend N. America, the bombers remove Germany and Italy from the game militarily so that England can build up in Russia and Russia can pound down Japan.)
-
Something else of interesting note: While I am not usually one to play with techs, and even if I do I hardly role for tech; Buying a factory in a tech game would virtually eliminate Germany from rolling for techs. Previously they would have had 2-5 turns for some good solid conservative rolling that would have a good chance at getting a tech. This would make the German play at least very predictable in not getting a tech, and I would imagine due to the lack of pressure it could be something that could instigate more allied roles for tech (UK may be able to roll 1 die for tech every turn and maybe 2-3 roles for UK1 and UK2, a relieved Russian front could now role for tech, and america may have nothing better to do than buy bombers and role for tech).
And as far as having the UK funnel troops through Russia, I still like the idea, but my 1 game I play tested I could not hold Japan. I had the US split forces in the pacific and med and tried to keep 3 bombers. I couldn’t sink the Italian navy (which was HEAVILY re enforced by Japan) until late in the game. I could make absolutly no gains in the Pacific (as my navy was completly contained by Japan), I had massive russian armies in India and China. Britain kept getting bombed (by 2 Jap Bombers and 1 Ger bomber). Both fleets were under stress due to the potential double/triple hit from Japan Italy Germany as Japan kept sending wave after wave of air to hold europe. The game took about 14 turns however before it became inevitable that Japan was overwhelmingly powerful.
Like I said I still like the idea, but I certainly have to revise my thoughts on how to implement it.
-
Dondoolee, you perfectly nailed it.
There is only one thing to consider about a USA dedicated SBR campaign. Japan just can do it better.
USA going that route is just an invitation for Japan to start shuffling massive airforce into Europe.
USA bombers won’t be reinforcing UK’s atlantic fleet either. At one point or another, the stack of japan bombers will simply overwhelm the allied fleet ( game over ) and that’s if it don’t break both Britain/Russia economy before Germany/Italy is down on it’s knees.
-
Something else to consider about the cost of bombers:
You have to add in the speed in which they can make an immediate effect vs when a US landing party can make an immediate effect. Being that the US may have to invest insane amounts of resources into worthless transports and other naval units that take longer to get to the destination than bombers and may have not as immediate effect on IPC value as bombers I think the bombers value can change. Also add how the bombers can add to a potential landing parties attack value, or how there range may be able to effect more pressing matters if their services are needed. Also add how they may serve another purpose of seriously hampering Italian naval/African ambitions.
Obviously this can change from game to game, but an SBR campaign may actually be of more value due to speed, IPC reults, and costs than a more marine focused campaign.
-
Obviously this can change from game to game, but an SBR campaign may actually be of more value due to speed, IPC reults, and costs than a more marine focused campaign.
All the more reason to play with the optional fighter escort rule to reduce the ability of boiling the game down to who can bomb who to pieces faster while avoiding the dreaded “1” AAA gun!
-
I have still to see a full SBR campaign in any of the games I played, even in FTF OOB Revised. Not one that works, I mean one tried. Usually SBRs are only a part of the strategy, normally a minor one. Interceptor rule is not good because it leads to the other extreme, making SBRs useless
Just play with tech as all we should. There are many techs that reduce SBRs damage, directly or indirectly. Toast USA’s rear with Japan if they are only buying bombers and nothing more. Give some freedom to India and China if Japan is buying only bombers. As Howard Duck says, there is allways a solution :-)
-
Just play with tech as all we should. There are many techs that reduce SBRs damage, directly or indirectly.
So you are saying that those ‘other’ techs are strong enough counters to Heavy Bombers?
What if you don’t play with Tech?
-
Just play with tech as all we should. There are many techs that reduce SBRs damage, directly or indirectly.
So you are saying that those ‘other’ techs are strong enough counters to Heavy Bombers?
What if you don’t play with Tech?
HBs are strong, but not a game killer. Improved Industry and Radar work well, Super Shipyards and War Bounds also. You can always develop Rockets or your own HBs
If you play without tech (a pity if you ask me, you are losing complexity), there are no HBs too. How many bombers you need for a SBR campaign? Against Germany, you need 3-4 bombers each round to average damage (11-14 IPCs) or 6 for a 21 IPCs average, 7 if you count the possible aa gun hit. All just to make Germany have to pay 20 IPCs of repairings. The point is that if you buy so many bombers with USA/UK, west axis will have enough time to consolidate Europe and earn 40-45 IPCs with Germany and 9 with Italy. You can still buy 9-10 units with west axis and Japan will be at Moscow’s (or LA’s) door if you don’t buy a Pacific fleet or a solid D-Day. Axis will have economic advantage if you don’t fight Commonwealth and Pacific IPCs, and you cannot do that while supporting a full SBR campaign
On the reverse, axis suffers the same problem. If Japan gets too obsesive with SBRs, it will lack the punch needed for retaking Africa when west allies arrive, or consolidate India and China if needed. You will lose in land that you won with SBRs
A balanced approach is always better. Cover all your fronts with the proper amount of resources. Too much spent in one theater (KGF) or strat (obsesive SBRs campaign) and the opponent can exploit obvious weakeness that will appear in other places
-
Just play with tech as all we should. There are many techs that reduce SBRs damage, directly or indirectly.
So you are saying that those ‘other’ techs are strong enough counters to Heavy Bombers?
What if you don’t play with Tech?
HBs are strong, but not a game killer. Improved Industry and Radar work well, Super Shipyards and War Bounds also. You can always develop Rockets or your own HBs
If you play without tech (a pity if you ask me, you are losing complexity), there are no HBs too. How many bombers you need for a SBR campaign? Against Germany, you need 3-4 bombers each round to average damage (11-14 IPCs) or 6 for a 21 IPCs average, 7 if you count the possible aa gun hit. All just to make Germany have to pay 20 IPCs of repairings. The point is that if you buy so many bombers with USA/UK, west axis will have enough time to consolidate Europe and earn 40-45 IPCs with Germany and 9 with Italy. You can still buy 9-10 units with west axis and Japan will be at Moscow’s (or LA’s) door if you don’t buy a Pacific fleet or a solid D-Day. Axis will have economic advantage if you don’t fight Commonwealth and Pacific IPCs, and you cannot do that while supporting a full SBR campaign
On the reverse, axis suffers the same problem. If Japan gets too obsesive with SBRs, it will lack the punch needed for retaking Africa when west allies arrive, or consolidate India and China if needed. You will lose in land that you won with SBRs
A balanced approach is always better. Cover all your fronts with the proper amount of resources. Too much spent in one theater (KGF) or strat (obsesive SBRs campaign) and the opponent can exploit obvious weakeness that will appear in other places
A balanced approach may be better sometimes/most of the time, but when the Axis do something significant it can be a trigger to call for a different way to allocate resources. Sometimes in a radical way.
For example when Italy is buying an expensive navy, Germany is buying an IC (particularly G1), Germany is buying a navy, The Axis are doing a heavy blitz to Russia, Japan is doing a heavy harrasment on America, The Axis had EVERYTHING right/wrong for them T1. These are all fairly dramatic starts/strategies that allocate a heavy and somewhat inflexible amount of resources to a specific area. This could change the whole way one would approach balance I would think.
-
i think the factory depends alot on the allied strategy.
1. IC france is a liability in KGF it’s too easily attacked and you can’t often support it as you don’t have enough $.
2. in a kjf a factory is a must it doesn’t really matter where it is but alot will depend on what italy/uk are doing.For some examples look at DY’s game in the tourneys he build a factory with germany most games and in different situations. He plays a conservative strategic germany with a slow steady buildup on russia and he is undefeated.
Personally i think the factory depends alot on what is happening. If you have karelia it’s often not required.
If they are kgf and strat bombing you then you don’t need it as you have to repair the one factory you have anyway.
Like anything in this game nothing is set in stone but i think a factory for germany is important
-
In my last game I as Germany built an IC 2 Tanks, and 2 Inf on my first turn, I place the IC in Poland and every turn there after built 2 INF and 1 ART from there every turn. I used both my transports to shuck an INF+Art on the first turn to Baltic States and Ukraine so I didn’t bother with Egypt .( Italian player took it I1, British Fighter went to India to help defend) I also sank the English navy that should be destroyed on G1 so it was a good turn and the IC under no pressure early on at all.
I really enjoyed being able to send that Inf+Art combo from Poland every turn to the front. Helped a bunch.
-
One thing that bears repeating in this discussion is a G1 IC is a BAAAD idea. It’s not just that Germany doesn’t have the money G1 and needs infantry (or a bomber) right away. It’s that you have no idea what the Allied strategy is.
And on edit….having played AA50 more I never buy a German IC anymore… I think the logic behind it is holdover Revised logic that is unsuited to an entirely different game.
Suggested Topics
