Are bombers broken? : Axis bombers lead to allied dismay.

[JamesAleman]

@knp7765:

…s for the real punch. By the end of the game – Round 8 when Germany captured Washington – Germany had a fleet of 20 bombers.
The best way to do it, especially in the large battles, is to try and have as many infantry as the enemy you are attacking. Odds are, their infantry won’t get that many hits so they never get to your bombers. Meanwhile, your bomber stack tears them up.
Looking forward to trying this out in our next G40 game.

You let the cat out of the bag for me here…with my strategy Washington and Ontario are viable victory city targets if allies go all in on Moscow, London, and Egypt. There are two locations on the map, that when properly coordinated with each of the 3 axis players permits a rapid late game conquest of America. I am being cryptic because I wanted to use it against a forum player before releasing it to the public but now I feel rushed: Erie is the most underused territory for going after America.

Lets just say in one round after Italy captures one of two key locations (Erie or Scottland), I can get my German bombers to a Japanese landing strip (Alaska) in North America by first moving to this location (Erie) that is out of range, but made to be in range with a follow up Italian air base (z119,z123,z122,z121,Alberta,British Columbia,Alaska). This means the USA has 1 turn warning, when the German bombers land (if they predict the airbase) and no warning since only Anzac and France go between Italy and Germany if they don’t catch the significance of these two sites. (Hint: The weaker of the two choices is Scotland but it has an airbase which could warn USA since they see Japans conquest).

Note: Japan’s throw away transport is not threatening to USA if they take Alaska for instance and USA follows before Italy makes its move, so their build is locked in.

Now from Alaska (Japan builds an air base after Germany lands) you can strafe all USA territories using surplus bombers to apply damage to each factory if Japan’s main force follows up with a larger landing in British Columbia (from z6-Japan) this is easy and it secures the landing of EUSA bombers.  Alternative, a second Italian transport takes West Indies, after Germany lands in Alaska to provide range for the EUSA bombing/strafing.

If you wipe all USA units off of the Land in North America with German and Japanese bombers, the Japanese tank landed in Alaska moves to Alberta, you strafe the land again, and it blitzes Ontario( a victory city ) to Washington (another victory city and probably number 8 or 9 in axis hands)….Two turns after landing in Alaska with Germany, I have plundered Washington with one throw away Japanese transport, an infantry (which takes WUSA two turns later if walking, the next turn if the transport lives.), an armor, and 2 air bases.

Imagine a bomber strategy, that requires 2 airbases, 1 transport, and 1 armor to plunder Washington in 2 turns, sacrificing German and Japanese air units (that land on top of the German bombers to defend them from USA strafes) to clear the 30 units USA could build in its 3 factories. Once Japan’s tank takes Alberta, you land your slow German and Japanese air units to protect it from a US carrier strafe.

The only counter is for America to have a strafe of Alaska ready when Japan lands the tank. This sub-strategy can happen at any time during the game…good job bombers.

Are there easier ways to get German bombers to USA, yes…Iceland, West India, you name it, but Erie is the most “eerie” because it might go completely unnoticed unless your opponent reads my posts. Unless forwarned or extremely paranoid I challenge any veteran that sees Germany landing its bombers in Erie as a threat to Washington the following turn. All they will have seen was the Japanese Alaska take…Italy goes after their turn. So when Germany lands USA now has one turn to fly its air back to USA and build all land units or they are doomed…if the axis draw the USA navy to Australia, or South Pacific, only thier previous naval build will be in range to try to help…A single Japanese transport kept/produced in z6 keeps this threat real at all times. An Italian transport kept at Gibraltar (East side) (or an Italian troop loaded onto a German z112/z113 transport) should now open everyone’s eyes. You have been warned.

Don’t like beating around the bush, are the allies going Europe first…Ok Japan stage a large invasion of Alaska, I’ll sacrifice my German capital and send my bombers to Alaska, together we will use brute force to curb stomp Washington the turn after USA enters the Mediterranean. I don’t need Erie as West German bombers can land in Japanese occupied Alberta/Panama/ in a pinch. You see, Operation: Hollywood is not dead, just reborn in the sky…Operation: Dark Skies  :evil:

[bongaroo]

Just throwing an idea out, but what if the Allies are heavily bombing Germany and Italy?  Would it slow the production of German bombers down?  Haven’t really looked at this too closely, just wondering.

[JamesAleman]

@bongaroo:

Just throwing an idea out, but what if the Allies are heavily bombing Germany and Italy?  Would it slow the production of German bombers down?  Haven’t really looked at this too closely, just wondering.

From London, you can reach France, W. Germany, and Normandy, South France, Northern Italy (if they land in Malta).
From Malta or North Africa you can hit Southern Europe and land.

You cannot reach Berlin, so a good German will produce out of there and Russia.

In a pinch, it is cheaper to erect minor factories than it is to repair major.

Basically, I don’t think it will work for bombing, but strafing land or landed units does create a few possibilities.

[bongaroo]

They can bomb the captured russian factories as well from moscow.

[JamesAleman]

@bongaroo:

They can bomb the captured russian factories as well from moscow.

True, that means it will cost 6 extra IPCs to produce out of them. If you do not have enough units stacked on them, the produced units will get strafed as well.

[Auswanderersland]

@bongaroo:

Just throwing an idea out, but what if the Allies are heavily bombing Germany and Italy?  Would it slow the production of German bombers down?  Haven’t really looked at this too closely, just wondering.

I have been toying with it against JJ, and I can tell you that while the bombers are very effective…the allies still have to buy the starting pieces that make German bombers so nasty.  It takes time, but America can really put the hurt on.  Search for Alsch91’s game against Auswanderersland…I think we had 21 American bombers against a conventional game where he went Russia first.  It was close…as in, we weren’t sure we were going to win - I think he got bored when a lucky bomber AA roll sank his fleet, but it was dicey to the last.

While this gives me hope for a proper bomber counter, it takes time and so, I believe that it will be a combination of conventional and bombers for the allies.  Regardless of the strat…ultimately, saving Russia should be the focus imo.  I greatly appreciate the feedback and thoughtful comments, I play JJ this Saturday.  Its on like Donkey Kong.

[Auswanderersland]

It appears that ghr2 is on the fritz, so I shall advertise for an opponent if any are available.

[Auswanderersland]

PBF game I mean.

[Derek]

@Auswanderersland:

It appears that ghr2 is on the fritz, so I shall advertise for an opponent if any are available.

Kruezfeild was being pretty vocal about how he would crush this crazy bomber thing

Maybe he is all talk and no show  :-D

On a side note, does an American bomber build work on spring42?
I play on GTO whenever I have time and would love to try it

[Auswanderersland]

I already sent a request for a game with him.  But frankly, if anyone has read this thread this far and wants to play the Axis and use the bomber strat.  I am game to play the allies zero bid.  The reason for this is that “bidding” a fix does not make.  If the game is hosed, its hosed.  Playing the allies sucks if the Axis utilize this strat.  I don’t mind seeing if I can give Russia life till about turn 7…then I still die about turn 9 or worse I neglected other nations to the point they fall.  IDK, I hope its a combination of delaying/retreating with Russia…but every unit, not leaving anything if you don’t have to.  And lotsa planes.  /sigh, I just don’t know.

[Auswanderersland]

not sure about 1942, I don’t have that game.

[allweneedislove]

@Auswanderersland:

…I am game to play the allies zero bid.  The reason for this is that “bidding” a fix does not make.  If the game is hosed, its hosed…

actually bidding is the fix to balancing this game. it also helps to determine which side you will play and adds a small amount of variety as different bids will allow for different openings and strategy.

@Auswanderersland:

Playing the allies sucks if the Axis utilize this strat…

playing the allies sucks against any strategy if there is no bid.

[Auswanderersland]

hehe, i guess conventional, my experience has been a little better.  But I agree it is weighted slightly toward the axis.  Regardless, I am not sure that a bid is necessary to fix the game.  To make the game fun and with variety?  Sure, but that as an entirely different process.  I still feel that moving units on the board, turn order, AA back to normal, etc, etc…could provide a far closer solution towards “balance.”

[Auswanderersland]

or how about letting transport act as casualties?  that would definitely destroy the bomber strat…

[atease]

Well now you’re talking about changing a big element of the game to balance a strategy that was developed. I think we should work a strategy that works with the current ruleset.

[Auswanderersland]

/agree.  I am hoping someone helps me with this.  IDK, JJ is currently having his way with allweneedislove.  Allweneedislove is doing better than I the first time I played against this strat, but then he has the advantage of knowing what is coming.  IDK, I advertised for a player to play a game so hopefully someone will pipe up.

[Derek]

Please don’t talk about wrecking naval combat by changing transports back  :-P

Just fix broken AA guns

[Elrood]

@Uncrustable:

Please don’t talk about wrecking naval combat by changing transports back  :-P

Just fix broken AA guns

Broken how? Too good, too bad?  :?

[JamesAleman]

@Auswanderersland:

/agree.  I am hoping someone helps me with this.  IDK, JJ is currently having his way with allweneedislove.  Allweneedislove is doing better than I the first time I played against this strat, but then he has the advantage of knowing what is coming.  IDK, I advertised for a player to play a game so hopefully someone will pipe up.

Well, I don’t know about having my way. Europe sure looks good, Italy could have had Moscow turn 4, something I have never seen. But it is important for Germany to take it (which they did turn 5). This strategy requires extreme discipline as you have few land units to “waste”. So I am slowly building momentum. Germany’s production exploded this turn and will only rise. Italy was sacrificed  for the common good, but they now stand to profit from an empty Russia. Japan ceded territory to Russia, which is why Germany was able to plunder 30 IPCs, but now Japan will push back into an unreinforced Russia. India may hold for a few more turns, but Japan is trying to keep with Bomber builds when able and this results in a slow growth in land power (with a retraction in IPCs). I will be poised to gather some “burst” IPC’s depending on allied moves. My calculations show major victories if I am able to engage the combined allied fleet in Japan or Caroline over the next two turns, but beyond that we’ll have to see. Keep an eye on India, the allied fleet, and Australia as Japan can shift radically and the German bombers deployed in Asia can open “many” doors.

The biggest struggle with this strategy (if rapid dismantling of Russia is bad) is that you must be selective with targets. The bombers strength is its concentrated firepower and range. If presented with many targets, some must be ignored (as you were probably wondering why I walked past Novgorad and chose not to take it until I plundered Moscow). If you can schedule your “raids” by pacing them out to 1 major destruction of allied units per turn, you should be ok. For example, if the Allies in the Pacific present both a fleet, a Chinese stack, and an Indian stack as bait, turn 6 Japan will have to make a difficult choice. Clearing the India stack assures them the capital, but leaves their fleet exposed to near certain destruction. If discipline fails, you will trade at greater losses. This game has shown, with the bombers, most battles fail to surpass a single round of combat. That means that my opponent is assured of missing with 30 percent of his force any given battle and thus the axis conserve an additional 30 percent of their units to keep their starting stack stable.

Note: This is just one sample game, Andy’s opponent is AWOL (must be waiting to see my game finish), and my opponent chose to focus on the factories which kept Germany’s IPCs low, but surrendered Moscow (this may occur the first time your opponent experiences the bomber strategy). However, if he had built all units in Moscow and retreated, I would have sacked the factories on turn 3 and produced 2 turns before Russia could hope to move out of its capital. Germany’s IPCs would have been about 10 IPCs higher and those 2-3 mech a turn would be on the board moving towards Moscow from Berlin.

Because this sample is so small, I am looking for 1 more game as I can handle 2 games at once. Anyone interested in starting another game to test this strategy publicly?

[JamesAleman]

@Elrood:

@Uncrustable:

Please don’t talk about wrecking naval combat by changing transports back  :-P

Just fix broken AA guns

Broken how? Too good, too bad?  :?

In my opinion, broken bad. If 1 aagun could fire at all air units as originally intended, this bomber strategy would get very expensive as their would be a reason to produce 1 or 2 aaguns a turn and place them at every junction along my march. Currently a single aagun can shoot at only 3 bombers in a mass of 12 or more, that means at best 50 percent of the time Berlin will lose a bomber. Since that aagun can be removed as a casaulty, that aagun won’t fire in any more battles, meaning if Moscow liberated the territory taken, the aagun is already gone. Before the aagun could be captured back and the German’s would again risk more air units taking it back. Since aaguns are also capped at only firing at the total number of air units present, stacking aaguns is pointless. If aaguns could fire without a top cap, then even at 3 per gun, suddenly 10 aaguns rolling 30 dice even against 12 planes would increase the 50 percent chance of losing 1 bomber to a typical loss of 5 bombers and again, you might build 1 aagun a turn or more to defend against this as these lost bombers are taken off before combat and represent 3 hits per round.

As it stands, 10 aaguns are capped at for example 15 rolls if 15 bombers are sent (the typical amount of bombers sent to remove 10 land units from the board)….they will get at best 2.5 bomber hits then they will be removed.
10 aaguns cost 50 IPCs. Instead, 10 troops should be bought, they will get 3.3 hits and save you 20 ipcs. This makes them “broken” as the cheaper infantry is better at killing air units than aaguns which only shoot when land units are attacked as structures have their own “built in”, “original” aaguns that fire at each raiding bomber.

Solutions: Either return to original aaguns which were unlimited fire and not casualties, or remove the cap on firing so that 2 aaguns would get 6 rolls at 1 fighter, making them worth building in an air war. It makes sense that concentrated aaguns would hit more air units then regions without a large density of them. Suddenly 1 troop escorted by 3 aaguns would be a harder target for a couple of planes and a troop.