Brit Strategy

[HortenFlyingWing]

On 2002-04-28 18:40, TM Moses VII wrote:
1st turn, build all bombers and/or fighters. That seems to be a strategy that always works.

trans and AC…always :grin:

[Guest]

As an alternative UK tactic, how about
BUILD-
1 AC, 1 TRN, and 1 INF.
ATTACKS-
1)Use the RAF to clear the UK SZ. Land remaining BMR & FTRS in Karelia(with massed Soviet forces).
2)Other attacks are up to you.
NONCOMBAT MOVEMENT-
1)Load E. Can. ARM on TRN in E. Can. SZ, move TRN/ARM to UK SZ and unload ARM to UK.
2)Other moves are up to you.
PLACE-
1)AC & TRN in UK SZ with Brit. TRN moved from E. CAN. SZ and (hopefully) 1 SS & 1 TRN(both Soviet).
2)INF in UK to join 3 INF & 2 ARM(one moved from E. Can. and 1 AA.
This is in preparation for the US to
1)fly both FTRs in NONCOMBAT MOVEMENT to land on the Brit. AC in the UK SZ, and
2) load 2 INF on the TRN in the E. US SZ, move the TRN/2INF to the UK SZ and unload the 2 INF to the UK.
Prior to the German turn this leaves the UK with -
-2 US INF,
-4 UK INF,
-1 UK ARM, and
-1 UK AA.
At the same time it also leaves these items in the UK SZ-
-1 SS (Soviet)
-1 TRN (Soviet)
-1 AC (UK)
-2 TRN (UK)
-1 TRN (US)
-2 FTRs(US on the UK AC).
Even if Germany hit this fleet with 1 BMR & 5 FTRs he would lose a lot. Next turn UK might only build 1 AC and have 2 FTRs and 1 TRN (US, built T1 and moved T2)in the UK SZ for the next battle. After this Germany would not have a Luftwaffe…unless he did not attack the fleet which would be sending 2 FTRs to Karelia or Russia each turn and sending forces to Norway and/or Africa.
WHat say you?

“Th-th-th-th-th-that’s All Folks!”-You-know-who you-know-where.

[Xi]

Wazzup wif dat? I typed it in as me-“Xi”

[Guest]

Xi as either side if you have heavy bombers (and a medium amount of ipcs) the game should easily be yours. However it is very costly and difficult to get ANY advance let alone a 1 in 6 chance AFTER that to get heavy bombers….therefore if someone is willing to spend all that money (or gets that lucky) they probably deserve to win…personally i never go for the advances :smile:

[Guest]

Someone getting “that lucky” by getting heavy bombers does NOT deserve to win. No one should ever win in a strategy game by getting “that lucky” I’m not saying we should take the luck out of A&A, but luck should be an inconvenience or a small factor in the outcome of a game. Luck should never(okay, at least 80% of the time) trump skill. In a strategy game, the more skilled player should win. If you’re opponent has good luck but low skill then you should just have a harder time winning. And likewise, if the better player has good luck then it just speeds up the inevitable. I think the present tech system gives luck too much power in a strategy game.(there’s another thread about new tech) And don’t tell me to go play chess, because I’m not looking for a strat. game with no chance involved.

-Mike

Wow, this wasn’t a british strategy at all. Does anyone have a counter to Xi’s UK AC post. It looks pretty solid to me.

[Guest]

Maybe I’m not reading it right, but it looks like what Xi is talking about is illegal. You can’t place and AC and then move fighters onto it!! Did I read that wrong?

Ansbach

[Guest]

doh! - I missed the “This is in preperation for the US to…”

My group usually doesn’t play with CiC - makes it too easy for the allies to get an Atlantic fleet going…

Ansbach

[TM Moses VII]

I think that heavy bombers are acceptable if you follow one general rule, which is strategic bombing can never inflict more damage then the existing IPC value of the country. How is it possible to have a negative in production hours and capacity?

Also, if you’re sick and tired of bombers and fighters, rolling for technologies in the first two turns serves as a good substitute. It adds an interesting mix with long-term benefits. You’re guaranteed to receive at least one, maybe two technologies if you buy the maximum number of die. The existing tech system could use a face lift, more in the form of progressive technologies.

[Ansbach]

I usually buy 2 Bombers on the first turn with the UK. Keep all 3 based out of Moscow.

The UK troops are spread all over the place, and the range and power of the bombers give the UK alot of flexibility eary: they can be used to support land troops in Africa or Asia, they can hit German and sometimes Japanese navy, and they can be used to strategic bomb Japanese factories or Germany.

[TM Moses VII]

If you’re looking for more versatility, try going with fighters. They can’t strategic bomb, but their added defensive bonus is a must. Bombing Africa is usually a bad idea since bombers can only reach North Africa before returning to British airfields. However, with fighters, you can land in Africa afterwards without the threat of German counterattacks due to their defensive ability. 2 fighters will also serve as valuable carrier defense and play a huge psychological difference when grouped with Russian forces in Eastern Europe.

[Ansbach]

That’s a sound strategy as well TM Moses, but I usually give up India and have 1 fighter in Africa and 2 protecting the Russians anyway.

I still prefer 3 UK bombers in Russia for several reasons:

1.) Strategic bombing from 3 bombers is more effective - a lucky run and you can wipe out 15 IPCs. Losing a large amount of IPCs in one turn is more of a disadvantage than losing a little bit over 3 turns,

2.) The Bombers threaten both German and Japanese transports,

3.) They slow down Japan - players that build factories are forced to bring over or build AA guns, and if they aren’t paying attention they get pounded by 3 bombers without an AA (only happens once :smile:!) They also give alot of teeth to UK infantry in Russia.

I do build fighters instead of bombers when I build a factory in India.

[TM Moses VII]

The point about protecting your factories is a must. Whenever I set up my factory in India with Great Britain, I get hit around the clock from Japan. Without any threat of retaliation (even with a defense of 1), factories are extremely valunerable to bombing runs.

[Xi]

Anony(& everybudy)

My group usually doesn’t play with CiC - makes it too easy for the allies to get an Atlantic fleet going…

Ansbach

A CIC(Commander-in-Chief) is NOT required as the US FTRs on the UK AC are not attacking with the UK forces. However, they will defend against any attack in the UK SZ(just as UK & US FTRs defend against any attack in Karelia.
–-------------------------------------------------------------
“Where’s the beef?”-
Little Old Lady in the
Great Wendy’s Commercial

[Xi]

AGAIN I ASK–
What about limiting the heavy BMR to one specific BMR to balance the tech advantage and giving the opponent a specific target to shoot for if you spread them out(not attacking with other BMRs)?

[Ansbach]

I thought that was part of CiC, but I could be wrong. If that’s the case then it is a house rule of ours - one country’s fighters can’t land on another’s aircraft carrier. Helps the Axis a little, and they need every thing they can get!

[TG Moses VI]

“Without any threat of retaliation (even with a defense of 1), factories are extremely vulnerable to bombing runs.” - TM Moses VII

I would have to agree on this. Now with Axis and Allies: CD version, AA guns are a murderous deathtrap for any plane. If you’ve known me at all at these forums, I had my share of memories regarding the disastrous effects of my bombers going up against AA guns. High on this list was my Battle at Schweinfurt. In this SBR, I managed to lose both my UK and USA bomber both on the second turn! Regardless, now whenever I see a newly set up factory, it’s just an invitation to be hit by my bombers.

[Usul513]

About tech rolls, I have found that someone who “never buys tech rolls” is limiting their options. Heavy Bombers IS NOT THE ONLY GOOD TECH. Industrial tech is always good(infantry at 2, tanks at 4), super subs is usually good(remember that subs have a 1st shot attack, can flee, and only cost :cool:, Jet power basically guarantees one hit per fighter when defending, LR aircraft gives so many more options(fighters from US to Moscow!), and rockets are really a free SBR per turn that cannot get shot down.

[Usul513]

sorry about the smilie above, I meant to say that subs only cost 8

[Guest]

It’s true that the other techs can be useful(IT for Russia and Germany, LRA for US), but the power of Heavy BMB trumps them all. A bombing run with 3 BMB will take, on average, 31 IPC away. That means Russia, Germany, UK and maybe even Japan would have 0 to spend, and you could slowly crush them after a one time investment of 45. And the run has the potential to take anywhere from 9-54 IPC, but I’d argue that even 15 IPC a turn is enough. What other tech would allow you to wipe out 5 INF, or 3 ARM, or 2 cheap boats, or a fighter, or a BMB every sibgle turn? (And that’s a BAD roll)None. And I haven’t even mentioned a heavy BMB in battle which statistically hits twice every round. Anyway, the point is that with heavy BMB in the official rules you can utterly destroy the enemie’s offensive and defensive capabilities AND damage their ground forces. Try playing a game where you have no income and see how long you last.

[TG Moses VI]

Now doubt that heavy bombers are nigh unstoppable –more so with a healthy economy to ‘bout :smile:

With that said, I don’t see very many games where players purposely roll for Heavies. Maybe in the late game when one side as the decisive edge but even then you run the risk of no replacement causalities (each row cost 5, equal to one tank) and a very lower percentage of actually unlocking heavy bombers. So if I have heavy bombers, it’s like having a Straight Flush. You have all but one card of the same suit in ascending order. The question is, do you replace only one card or replace more to increase your chances of receiving a pair. For those who choose to draw only one card and do get that Lucky Card, It may seem unfair to the other player, but you’re not going to ban Straight Flushes are you?