I’ve been playing A&A for quite awhile now. Has anyone else tried the strategy (while playing the Allies) of having Britian and America buy nothing but bombers, and sending them all to Germany (I’m not talking about heavy bombers, but just plain old bombers). I have tried this numerous times, and by the end of the 3rd round, Germany usually can’t buy anything. Even when Russia falls to Germany, and Japan gets really strong, if UK and US keep buying bombers, Germany and ultimately Japan simply can’t make enough money to buy anything. AA guns have proven to my satisfaction that they are not able to combat this strategy. I am very interested to know if anyone else has tried this.
Haven´t tried this, but statistically the money Germany loses on SBRs will equal the amount of money spent on replacing bombers shot down by AA. Of course, if BOTH UK and US do this, Germany will be left with no money and should fall to Russia before Japan gets to Russia, simply because G can´t buy inf to protect itself.
IMO, UK can afford this because it isn´t threatened by a G attack. US can afford it because it will take J too long to launch an amphibious assault on the US.
An interesting strategy that should shock the opponent!
First let me say I have done this and it has worked wonderfully, but that was when we first started and didn’t even play RR.
The benefits of strategic bombing has deen discussed to death on this site. Here is a quick summary of the economics.
Chance of Getting Through AA * Average Roll = Loss For Germans
5/6 * 3.5 = 2.92
Chance of Getting Hit by AA * Cost of Bomber = Loss for Allies
1/6 * 15 = 2.5
2.92-2.5 = 0.42
So on average a strategic bombing raid is worth about 0.42 IPC’s, which is not nearly as much as if it was infantry support.
You are right that by the fourth round or so you can be bankrupting Germany. Brits and Americans have no problems replacing bombers, but without a navy the allies cannot actually hurt Germany. Germany can just stack Eastern Europe and wait for Japan, which will steam roll Russia.
If you are going to do it, my adive is after a you have around 12 bombers start building a navy to spread the German forces thin.
This is one flaw in the game. Of course, there are others such as inf shooting down bmrs.
You could balance the game more by putting a 1 bmr/1 BB/1 AC limit(no more than one of each or any one… NO 2 or more bmrs/BBs/ACs.)
Another idea would be to say after T1 all countries must build 1 inf per turn. Armies always need replacements!!!
What is the flaw you are talking about? Strategic bombing? It doesn’t work very well in the game and it didn’t work at all in real life. Germany was producing more at the end of the war than they were at the beginning. Like real war, planes are better used to support ground units than bomb industrial locations.
Germany can just stack Eastern Europe and wait for Japan, which will steam roll Russia.
C_F
My point is that G CAN`T stack against Russia because it runs out of money to buy inf with. Its only hope is that J will take R before R gets strong enough to run over the troops that G had at the beginning of the game and the few it has bought since.
But you´re absolutely right in that the allies won´t win the game just by SBRs. They will have to buy a navy. The posted strategy requires that R takes G, or that UK and US biuld a navy after knocking the tar out of G.
Basically this strategy supposes an underlying war of attrition. While this bombing is occurring Germany is suffering losses in Africa as well as FIN and UKR. The allies then get to the equilibrium point (i.e. they are bombing Germany’s income away and replacing lost bombers) in such a way that they have extra cash to build up a navy. So in theory the US and UK each have 5 bmb’s bombing away 3.5 ipcs, each replacing one/turn. Supposing the US has 30 ipcs worth of territory it may purchase a trn and 2 inf/turn on top of its lost bomber, the UK may be able to purchase a trn and an arm on top of its lost bomber. Russia may hold of the Japanese to some extent, but this is a very fine line/tightrope. Then it becomes a question of “can Russia punish GER enough to be hurting for an invasion by other allied forces and yet have defense on hand for Japan”.
my thoughts anyway.
I am sure this doesn’t work
Some one mentioned that you will be taking all the money from Germany. This is possible. But Japan is safe! Also, it takes a while for germany to not have money. You are saying that Russia can invade Germany. The problem here is that germany has superior forces. Say that by turn 4 Germany get’s no money. In that time, It has earned enough to build 30-40 infantry. Say that it only get’s 30. Well It will still have 35 infantry 8 tanks 5 fighters on germany in a worst case scenario It would probably have 45 infantry. Not to mention Jap fighters It will take Russia until Turn 6 at the absolute least just to take out germany. With jap fighters could take 8 or more turns. This is assuming Germany only has it’s 35 infantry. And didn’t ship the africa korps back. It doesn’t work!! Japan will win. Of course this doesn’t factor in that the allies can build transports once the usa bb comes around, but I don’t see this working unless the Allies are lucky. I’m assuming rr here with non-rr no bid, the allies can do a lot of things.
Sorry… I’m just a newbie here…
I don’t understand some of the “jargons” you guys used…
Could anyone tell me what “rr” is?
Thanks. :oops:
rr is russia restricted, meaning russia cannot attack first round
@El:
This is one flaw in the game. Of course, there are others such as inf shooting down bmrs.
It’s UNREALISTIC!
That’s why I gave the suggestion. Sorry, I was unclear.
But Japan is safe!
But Japan is always safe! Russia doesn´t threaten Japan. The US diverts its forces to Europe and doesn´t threaten Japan either. Don´t even get me started on UK!!! ;-)
G and R end up stacking a lot of inf on each side of their borders, without doing much attacking because it will be every costly. If Germanys money is slowly drained away, the Russians will get the upper hand. I´m not saying that that will happen faster than when UK + US ship inf to Norway, but it´s a new way of playing the battle. In either case, the deciding factor is when Japan can attack Moscow.
how about jp Strat bombing?
But Japan is safe!
But Japan is always safe!
In either case, the deciding factor is when Japan can attack Moscow.
That is Y Japan is more the aggressor (than Germany) in the Axis.
GENTLEMEN, If USSR builds inf while UK/US build and move to USSR a minimum of (depending on G & J builds/moves)…
(off the top of my head (or off my rocker)
UK1 - 1 bmr & 1 ftr & save remainder or 1 inf,
US1 - 2 bmr unless Japan invaded Hawaii, then 1 bmr,
UK2 - 1 bmr & 1 ftr(or if G1 had bad rolls maybe 2 bmr with remainder from UK1,
US2 - 1 bmr & 1 ftr & save remainder,
UK3 - 1 bmr (& maybe 1 ftr),
US3 - 1 bmr & 1 ftr or 2 bmr…
UK4 - 1 bmr(say Germany had a good round in Africa),
US4 - 1 bmr & 1 ftr…
…so counting the 2 bmr & 4 ftr UK/US started with by T6(for movement to UK or USSR) the Allies have a minimum of 11 bmrs(some shot down, of course) and 9 ftr V Germany!!!
And there you have an early Clinton V Yugoslavia/Serbia.
It takes the fun out of the game!
Thanks for the input guys. I certainly never meant to imply that the only thing B & A do is buy bombers forever, but rather that they buy bombers until they have a sufficient force to keep Ger. down, then build other things to finish Ger. and later combat Japan. When it doens’t have to worry about Ger. on its front line, Russia is more than capable of holding off Japan for MANY rounds, giving A & B enough time to crush Germany. I have tried this strategy on the board approximately 40 times, and have also run it on the computer playing against friends of mine. Only twice was the Axis able to win ultimately, and that resulted from some REALLY lopsided rolls. I understand what it looks like on paper when you figure out rolling percentages, but I can’t argue with success, and I have to say that I think it is a REALLY effective strategy.
I just thought of something. I always play for world domination, and have never done the IPC victory or capture 2 capitals rule. This may have something to do with it, I don’t know. Anyway, thanks for the insights.
@MacArthurFan:
I’ve been playing A&A for quite awhile now. Has anyone else tried the strategy (while playing the Allies) of having Britian and America buy nothing but bombers, and sending them all to Germany (I’m not talking about heavy bombers, but just plain old bombers). I have tried this numerous times, and by the end of the 3rd round, Germany usually can’t buy anything. Even when Russia falls to Germany, and Japan gets really strong, if UK and US keep buying bombers, Germany and ultimately Japan simply can’t make enough money to buy anything. AA guns have proven to my satisfaction that they are not able to combat this strategy. I am very interested to know if anyone else has tried this.
amen to that brother but its stupid
