@andrewaagamer said in Land aircraft in neutral allied territory:
Only LAND units may take control of the now uncontrolled Neutral.
Precisely we are not talking about an uncontrolled Neutral, but about an uncontrolled allied territory.
Are bombers broken? : Axis bombers lead to allied dismay.
-
/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?
-
@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.
-
AA guns discussed in length (then in length again) here http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=28725.0
My thought: AA guns are OK within their roles, are are worth more than their worth in IPCs only when knowing that you’ll be attacked by 3x or more planes per AA gun you own.
-
/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.
My Saturday group is going to try this and see how it works out. We have a guy who claims Allies cannot lose at all no matter the strategy, so I’m going to try it on him.
-
Play the Axis AK_grown and rock and roll! Just stay focused on your goal.
-
/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.
My Saturday group is going to try this and see how it works out. We have a guy who claims Allies cannot lose at all no matter the strategy, so I’m going to try it on him.
If you want my advice, I fell in love with a discovery Allweneedislove forced on me during our test game: Just sacrifice Italy’s Africa front.
If you survive with 1 transport bring the tank and infantry from AFrica to Yugoslavia…if 2 transports bring the mech and another infantry there.
Then produce a tank and mech turn 1. A bomber turn 2. (they need to roll a six with the UK bomber to prevent the placement of the bomber in s. Italy)
Move all the N.Italy force to Yugo turn 1 and Albania there 2 as in my test game.
Forget S. France as Germany likes the money and the factory in the Med for options.
That is enough to give you plenty of men to prevent the Russian counterattacks turn 4.
Italy turn 1 should have 4 armor: 1 in N.Italy, 1 in Yugo, 2 in Slovakia; 7-8 infantry and 2aaguns and 2artillery in Yugo(if two transports live); 1-2 mech (1 N.italy, 1 Yugo if 2 transports alive); 2ftr; 1 bomber
Turn 2: build the bomber, if able DOW Russia, move to EPL or baltic states, move other fast movers up, land 2 fighters withing range of your tanks next turn’s targets.Path ideally will be: EPL;BEL;BRY or SMO; Moscow or south… have fun. From Belarus, with 4tanks,2mech,2ftr,2bombers good luck Russia, leaving blockers in both SMO and BRY to guard your capital from Germany. Wait until the 2aaguns,8troops,and 2 artillery arrive from Yugo (turn 5or6 if needed)…lol
-
Not sure about abandoning Africa. Some of my opponents have done that recently and they have ended with 5-6 subs + more ships parked in SZ97 just convoying Italy to death. Easy after that to capture Italy/Greece/anything you fancy, and reinforce Russia from the middle-east. Putting SOME pressure in Africa and at least trying in the Med is essential for Axis IMO.
-
Not sure about abandoning Africa. Some of my opponents have done that recently and they have ended with 5-6 subs + more ships parked in SZ97 just convoying Italy to death. Easy after that to capture Italy/Greece/anything you fancy, and reinforce Russia from the middle-east. Putting SOME pressure in Africa and at least trying in the Med is essential for Axis IMO.
It normally is, I agree, but with this bomber strategy Italy’s support is vital to success and Italy can use Russian IPCs if they convoy them ;) Besides Italy doesn’t matter after they help take Moscow. That tank and mech are a world of difference in Russia turn 5. If they don’t sink the 2 transports/fleet, you can go back to Africa later turns.
-
Ok I see it. So if using the bomber strategyit’s better to just kamikaze the Tobruk stack in Egypt or perhaps gain some time by going West to Morocco?
-
What about making a house rule of putting a cap on the maximum number of bombers each country can have at any one time? Say 8 or 10 bombers. You can replace losses, but only up to the cap.
-
Again this is a houserule to defeat a strategy that was designed to use the current ruleset. It’s a new strategy, give it some time I’m sure there’s a counter.
-
Again this is a houserule to defeat a strategy that was designed to use the current ruleset. It’s a new strategy, give it some time I’m sure there’s a counter.
garantua says that the strat was used in aa50. so it is just a rehash, although, I would love to know the counter for it for that game. playin the cards close to the chest on that one. heh, leads me to believe that a counter really exists, I am just noobin it.
-
AA guns discussed in length (then in length again) here http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=28725.0
My thought: AA guns are OK within their roles, are are worth more than their worth in IPCs only when knowing that you’ll be attacked by 3x or more planes per AA gun you own.
Pretty epic thread. So many fantastic ideas concerning the AA gun. It does need some tweaking, too many arguments not too. For now thought I am fixated on tryin to find a counter within the current ruleset.
-
I kind of like the new style of AA guns. I like that they have a limit of only 3 shots or number of planes if that is less. I didn’t like the idea that a single AA gun could fire at all your planes no matter how many you sent over. Also, I disagree that it is pointless to stack up AA guns, especially because of this limit and the growing stack of bombers that one will use in this new strategy.
Say London only has 1 AA gun and Germany sends over 15 bombers. UK only gets to shoot at 3 of those bombers leaving 12 unworried. However, if UK stacks up 5 AA guns and Germany attacks with 15 bombers, all of those bombers will get a shot at them.
Interesting ideas with the Italian units in Russia. I have heard of strategies with the Italians can opening in Russia for the Germans, but never understood just how they could do that with so little available. I guess if you send everything that Italy has and just leave whatever troops are left in Africa to suffer the mercy of the British, then maybe you could do some good in Russia. One thing that probably leads to my confusion is when we play, usually whomever plays Russia tends to stack pretty heavy along the border. While Germany can usually defeat the Russian defenses when they decide to attack, Italy usually doesn’t have enough men and equipment available to even take on one of Russia’s border territories, much less drive toward Moscow.
You mentioned earlier about a stack of German bombers deployed in Asia to help the Japanese. Do you consider, as Germany, those bombers to be pretty much sacrificed? For example, say Japan has a few tanks and mechs in Yunnan. India is lightly defended but they have a stack of 10 infantry in Burma. Now suppose Germany has sent over 8 or 9 bombers. On Germany’s turn, those bombers could blast that stack of men in Burma and totally clear it. Then on Japan’s turn, their tanks and mechs simply blitz through Burma and take India.
That would be a great help to Japan obviously. However, in attacking those 10 infantry with 8 or 9 bombers, if the UK gets some lucky rolls, you could lose as many as 6 or 7 of those bombers. Would that be a good sacrifice for Germany? -
Your not going to build up AAA against a good player without paying for it severely
AAA needs lower cost or more shots or go back to classic
Right now it’s plain dumb to build AAA over other units -
I kind of like the new style of AA guns. I like that they have a limit of only 3 shots or number of planes if that is less. I didn’t like the idea that a single AA gun could fire at all your planes no matter how many you sent over. Also, I disagree that it is pointless to stack up AA guns, especially because of this limit and the growing stack of bombers that one will use in this new strategy.
Say London only has 1 AA gun and Germany sends over 15 bombers. UK only gets to shoot at 3 of those bombers leaving 12 unworried. However, if UK stacks up 5 AA guns and Germany attacks with 15 bombers, all of those bombers will get a shot at them.
Interesting ideas with the Italian units in Russia. I have heard of strategies with the Italians can opening in Russia for the Germans, but never understood just how they could do that with so little available. I guess if you send everything that Italy has and just leave whatever troops are left in Africa to suffer the mercy of the British, then maybe you could do some good in Russia. One thing that probably leads to my confusion is when we play, usually whomever plays Russia tends to stack pretty heavy along the border. While Germany can usually defeat the Russian defenses when they decide to attack, Italy usually doesn’t have enough men and equipment available to even take on one of Russia’s border territories, much less drive toward Moscow.
You mentioned earlier about a stack of German bombers deployed in Asia to help the Japanese. Do you consider, as Germany, those bombers to be pretty much sacrificed? For example, say Japan has a few tanks and mechs in Yunnan. India is lightly defended but they have a stack of 10 infantry in Burma. Now suppose Germany has sent over 8 or 9 bombers. On Germany’s turn, those bombers could blast that stack of men in Burma and totally clear it. Then on Japan’s turn, their tanks and mechs simply blitz through Burma and take India.
That would be a great help to Japan obviously. However, in attacking those 10 infantry with 8 or 9 bombers, if the UK gets some lucky rolls, you could lose as many as 6 or 7 of those bombers. Would that be a good sacrifice for Germany?They are not sacrificed as they can still hit Russia when needed, but they also provide a headache for the allies in the Pacific.
In my test game, I sent 3 bombers (I knew I could spare them as Moscow was falling Italy turn 4 or Germany turn 5) over to Asia, the reason: How many destroyers do the allies need to “block” Japan’s navy, if you have 3 “4’s” rolling against them?
4 Destroyers? or 5? I think 3 destroyers would not be a “good” block as they will hit 1 bomber round 1, the bombers will hit 2 of them, then second round they are “cleared”. If you use 4 and the destroyers only hit once, as long as the 3 bombers hit twice, it is 2 bombers vs 2 destroyers and mutual annihilation “clears” the sea zone for Japan. So 5 would be needed and even then if the bombers got “lucky” and hit 3 times round 1, you had better hit twice with those 5 destroyers….that’s a lot of destroyers to throw away “blocking”. What do they do if they must block 2 or 3 zones? I argue, They can’t!
This is helpful for 2 reasons:
- it can be used to attack India with Japan or the allied fleet after Germany clears the “blockers”
- If the allies leave 4-5 destroyers, you simply don’t attack with Germany, instead use Japanese air and navy to “1 shot” those 4-5 destroyers at a cost of 1 or 2 subs/dds. This forces trades against the allies favor and the bombers remain as “threat”…never used, but remain there to keep the allies “honest”
Note: for land battles, infantry and destroyers hit the same, so this holds true on land as well, to “block” japan’s blitzers, India or China need 4-5 infantry against 3 bombers to keep Japan at bay. (Since Russia goes between both axis players, they can still get by with 1 unit, but they seldom have navy in the pacific to block with so the devastation is still true in the sea).
-
By the way, on my first test game, we just concluded round 5 (with the axis), that game will end turn 9 when the axis gather their 8th city on turn 8. After Anzac and France go, turn 5 will be over and I will post the solution. This was just the first test game, and others will behave differently so this game is not conclusive, but how many games end in a Europe VC win on turn 9?
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=31303.new#new
Please wait until the allies have finished round 5 before posting what you think I am going to do.
-
I replied on the game thread, but realized you may not get it.
How can you say that so far in advance? Don’t you need Cairo and Stalingrad? Are you going Sealion? London be tough with the allied fleet there. Stalingrad may be a tough battle, but then again if its in danger he can just retreat the Russian stack to Cairo. How do you get to 8 VCs in three turns?
It looks as though Russia messed up early by stacking the Ukraine. You cannot hold the Ukraine, so stacking in Belarus and Western Ukraine is better early, with a fallback to Bryansk. Then at least the bulk of your army is in Moscow. You cannot hold Leningrad- you should retreat from there to preserve your army for later. Russia also did not go for Iraq… why not? This is not representative of strong Russian play.
Japan does not look very strong, not having any of the money islands, but I suppose you are just trying to win in Europe?
-
I sent you a private message outlining the next 3 turns, let me know if you agree.
-
Thanks.
Suggested Topics
