with Russia invested in China (IC in Szechwan and raised territory value to 3) and getting the IPCs, pluss the turn order allowing to consolidate, made a KJF more viable. My friend tried it one game but made a couple mistakes with positioning
Germany must ALWAYS build IC to win game in Anniversary?
-
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.
-
One of the big questions is “How Easy is it to Hold France”?
Suggested Topics
