USA all air buys?

[Squash]

What is the validity of the US doing nothing but air buys? It would depends of course on the individual turns and how well Russia and the UK do in Europe, but every round the US purchases two bombers and a fighter as part of a KGF strategy.

Have you ever seen this in action? What are your thoughts, or experiences?

[Hobbes]

Planes can’t take Germany. Infantry, artillery and armor can.  :mrgreen:

[Squash]

For me it’s usually England that takes Germany 0_0

[Hobbes]

@Squash:

For me it’s usually England that takes Germany 0_0

My question is this: what happens if the UK is unable to take Germany? The Russians step in?

The problem with an all planes buy is that it gives the US limited options for their use:

• Sinking Axis ships (but usually there isn’t much of them…)
• Strafing lone Axis ground units (at the risk of losing a 10 IPC unit for a 3 IPC one)
• Defending Russia or any other important territory
• Strategic bombing campaign

If the UK offensive fails then the Allies simply doesn’t have any other alternatives to take territories and eventually kill Germany. Plus one of the main advantages that the Allies have is the ability to coordinate moves: the UK blasts a hole in German defenses, the US moves troops to secure the landing or through the territory to attack elsewhere. By buying only planes to the US you are forfeiting that advantage.

[Squash]

So you don’t think a strategic bombing campaign could be more effective than great troops?

[Hobbes]

@Squash:

So you don’t think a strategic bombing campaign could be more effective than great troops?

My problem with strategic bombing campaigns is dice/odds and how their effect on such a campaign.

Statistically, for every 6th bombing roll one of the bombers will be shot and each successful bomber will roll 3.5 IPC of damage. Plus the US will only be able to take away 16 IPC per round from Germany (10 for bombing Germany, 6 from Southern Europe).

If the US sends 6 bombers, 4 to Germany, 2 to S. Europe then theoretically they should be able to deal the 16 IPC worth of damage while losing only 1 bomber, costing them 15 IPC. So the net result would benefit the Allies since G would only have 24 or less IPCs to spend while the overall cost/loss ration would slightly favor the Allies.

The problem is, dice have no memory of past rolls. If you send 6 bombers all results are possible for the AA, including 0 hits or all 6 being shot down by the AA. When you send the initial US bomber it can be shot down right away.

And when that starts to happen then the whole strat bombing campaign model mentioned above can easily become invalidated. Losses to AA may become a lot greater than the damage inflicted on Germany, having no effect what so ever on its ability to defend against UK landings.

Botttom line: if the dice gods favor you, then a strat campaign bombing will be effective. But if you are using a strat that relies on constant favorable rolls then you’re throwing your strategy to chance. And if the AAs keep rolling those 1s then you get defeated not just by the dice but by your choice of following such a strategy that gives you so few options.

[Squash]

That’s true, but my frustration with typical US kill KGF action is it costs 8IPCs to transport every 8IPCs worth of materiel (1 inf + 1 tank), more with escorts (though I tend to just send the east coast destroyer in round 1, panama destroyer in round 2, and pacific battleship in round 3 if you follow me). It seems so inefficient, whereas bombers come with the benefit of being their own transit.

I don’t suppose anyone would like a Triple A game to allow me to test this.

[Zhukov44]

I think it’s a pretty good strategy if you are playing with tech….particularly if you are playing with old-school (pre lhtr) heavies.  In that case, you could buy 2 bmb and 2 tech rolls a turn until you get heavy bombers, and then you use them to smash the Axis.  Then it comes down to when USA hits heavies…if they get em in the 1st 3 turns Allied victory is highly likely.

This tactic basically breaks the game when it works, and is probably why LHTR limitations on heavy bombers were introduced.  Personally I think both heavies and rockets are broken in the OOB Revised tech rules, which is why I avoid tech games.

Without tech, bombers are too expensive, and there are only so many targets for masses fighters.  If you aren’t going for tech and an SBR victory, then you’ll need to supplement the air with some transports and inf/arm, so you can use the inf/arm as fodder in land attacks and not lose so many planes.

[Squash]

I’m really thinking strategic bombing and naval targets exclusively.

[a44bigdog]

I did have an air heavy strategy involving the US I was working on right at the end of my Revised days.

It centers on that the US normally draws 38 IPCs. The US sends the fleet from the Pacific to the Atlantic and adds a carrier. The goal is to set it up where the US is purchasing and sending 6 infantry a turn to Europe or Africa while purchasing 2 fighters along with the 6 infantry each turn. The fighters can help defend Russia and can quickly accumulate to quite an offensive punch.

[Pherman1215]

I am ranked adv. in A&A revised online and i have an allied strategy that crushes people that involves USA buying mostly air units.  Stack 10 Russian INF in Byrutia and fly USA planes there.  It is one movement from W-USA to Byrutia if you fly through W-Canada.  you will quite easily get a stack of planes ranging from 8-15 planes there.  Bring you entire starting fleet to the Pac and begin transporting guys from W-canada to Byrutia.  If Japan brings its fleet up to stop this, merely crush it with your fleet/10+ planes.  If they do not bring there fleet up you have a threat of roughly 20 units that can invade Japan, or push into Manchuria.  I have worked this against some of the best players in the world.  It doesn’t always work of course, but i find it highly effective.

P.S. If you do this Britain’s focus needs to be on containing Germany’s push into Russia.  Africa is a sacrifice you will have to make when using this strategy.

[Lord Cohliani]

I once played a game where the US got long range aircraft and then bought only fighters. There was a point where they had 20 or 30 fighters on the board and they just flew around the globe ravaging German tanks and Japanese ships.

In the end the Allies lost but it was a devastating tactic. The drawback being it was an expensive one.

[Deaths Head 420]

the only time i do complete air buys with the USA is when i intend on lend leasing them to russia

[Gargantua]

Put a complex in Brazil, and just keep on sending allied units at the Axis.  THey won’t reach economic parity with you with Africa lost, and you’ll win every single time.

[The Admirable Admiral]

I have tried this and it has worked. Bought all fighters turn one. Then all bombers turn two by turn three england landed in France and the US had like 6 fighters, 2 bombers, 2inf a tank and art in france after england had secured it the previous round. US took italy next turn and game ended shortly after. It was a few years ago so i cant recall anymore specifics. The key is pooling all available aircraft and witholding from Op. Torch. Also England needs naval dominance which sometimes doesnt happen with a G1 carrier build