Operation Dark Skies JamesAleman(axis) vs Allweneedislove

[JamesAleman]

@allweneedislove:

@JamesAleman:

If you scramble, the bomber shot down by aa would die first, second take off naval, third take off last factory roll

i would have intercepted. i do not really understand your instructions. are you saying that i should roll the intercept battle on the forum, but you want to keep the damage you already rolled?

I’m saying if you want to intercept, the dice are rolled, so it is a simple matter of ignoring the last dice rolled if you hit any bombers, I’ll roll the intercept battle for you and edit the map. Just trying to save time.

3 USA fighters
Rolls: 3@1; Total Hits: 13@1: (1, 2, 5)

4 German Bombers
Rolls: 4@1; Total Hits: 14@1: (5, 2, 2, 1)

[JamesAleman]

We both hit 1 air unit, So I’ll remove a German bomber and USA fighter. Intercept occurs before aagun rolls, since there are 3 bombers for raiding, and the dice rolled for the first 3 bombers were misses, nothing else is changed. This just saves time, if there is any advantage, it is for you since you get to see what I rolled for damage. I don’t mind and it speeds up game play, but if you prefer I wait, I shall from now on.

[JamesAleman]

TripleA Move Summary for game: World War II Global 1940 2nd Edition, version: 3.6

Game History

Round: 11

Purchase Units - Japanese
            Japanese repair 4 damage on 4 harbours; Remaining resources: 6 SuicideAttackTokens; 28 PUs;
            Japanese buy 3 infantry; Remaining resources: 6 SuicideAttackTokens; 19 PUs;

Combat Move - Japanese
            2 submarines moved from 6 Sea Zone to 26 Sea Zone
            4 bombers moved from Japan to 26 Sea Zone
            1 bomber moved from Japan to British Columbia
            1 submarine moved from 37 Sea Zone to 35 Sea Zone
            1 destroyer moved from 20 Sea Zone to 35 Sea Zone
                  Japanese take 20 Sea Zone from Americans
            4 carriers moved from 20 Sea Zone to 35 Sea Zone
            1 infantry moved from Kwangtung to 20 Sea Zone
            1 infantry and 1 transport moved from 20 Sea Zone to 34 Sea Zone
            1 infantry moved from Paulau Island to 34 Sea Zone
            2 infantry and 1 transport moved from 34 Sea Zone to 35 Sea Zone
            2 infantry moved from 35 Sea Zone to Philippines
            2 fighters and 2 tactical_bombers moved from 20 Sea Zone to 35 Sea Zone
            2 fighters and 2 tactical_bombers moved from 35 Sea Zone to Philippines
            1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from 20 Sea Zone to 35 Sea Zone
            2 fighters moved from 20 Sea Zone to Philippines
            1 infantry moved from Kwangtung to 20 Sea Zone
            4 infantry moved from Kwangtung to 20 Sea Zone
            1 infantry moved from Formosa to 20 Sea Zone
            2 infantry and 1 transport moved from 20 Sea Zone to 41 Sea Zone
            1 infantry moved from 41 Sea Zone to Sumatra
            2 infantry and 1 transport moved from 20 Sea Zone to 42 Sea Zone
            1 infantry moved from 42 Sea Zone to Java
            2 infantry and 1 transport moved from 20 Sea Zone to 44 Sea Zone
            2 infantry moved from 44 Sea Zone to Celebes
            1 infantry moved from 42 Sea Zone to Java
            1 infantry moved from 41 Sea Zone to Sumatra
            1 infantry moved from Soviet Far East to Siberia
                  Japanese take Siberia from Russians
            1 infantry moved from Timguska to Evenkiyskiy

[JamesAleman]

TripleA Turn Summary for game: World War II Global 1940 2nd Edition, version: 3.6

Game History

Round: 11

Purchase Units - Japanese
            Japanese repair 4 damage on 4 harbours; Remaining resources: 6 SuicideAttackTokens; 28 PUs;
            Japanese buy 3 infantry; Remaining resources: 6 SuicideAttackTokens; 19 PUs;

Combat Move - Japanese
            2 submarines moved from 6 Sea Zone to 26 Sea Zone
            4 bombers moved from Japan to 26 Sea Zone
            1 bomber moved from Japan to British Columbia
            1 submarine moved from 37 Sea Zone to 35 Sea Zone
            1 destroyer moved from 20 Sea Zone to 35 Sea Zone
                  Japanese take 20 Sea Zone from Americans
            4 carriers moved from 20 Sea Zone to 35 Sea Zone
            1 infantry moved from Kwangtung to 20 Sea Zone
            1 infantry and 1 transport moved from 20 Sea Zone to 34 Sea Zone
            1 infantry moved from Paulau Island to 34 Sea Zone
            2 infantry and 1 transport moved from 34 Sea Zone to 35 Sea Zone
            2 infantry moved from 35 Sea Zone to Philippines
            2 fighters and 2 tactical_bombers moved from 20 Sea Zone to 35 Sea Zone
            2 fighters and 2 tactical_bombers moved from 35 Sea Zone to Philippines
            1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from 20 Sea Zone to 35 Sea Zone
            2 fighters moved from 20 Sea Zone to Philippines
            1 infantry moved from Kwangtung to 20 Sea Zone
            4 infantry moved from Kwangtung to 20 Sea Zone
            1 infantry moved from Formosa to 20 Sea Zone
            2 infantry and 1 transport moved from 20 Sea Zone to 41 Sea Zone
            1 infantry moved from 41 Sea Zone to Sumatra
            2 infantry and 1 transport moved from 20 Sea Zone to 42 Sea Zone
            1 infantry moved from 42 Sea Zone to Java
            2 infantry and 1 transport moved from 20 Sea Zone to 44 Sea Zone
            2 infantry moved from 44 Sea Zone to Celebes
            1 infantry moved from 42 Sea Zone to Java
            1 infantry moved from 41 Sea Zone to Sumatra
            1 infantry moved from Soviet Far East to Siberia
                  Japanese take Siberia from Russians
            1 infantry moved from Timguska to Evenkiyskiy

Combat - Japanese
            Battle in Java
            Battle in Celebes
            Battle in Sumatra
            Battle in British Columbia
                Japanese attack with 1 bomber
                Americans defend with 1 mech_infantry
                British win, taking Java from ANZAC, taking Celebes from UK_Pacific, taking Sumatra from UK_Pacific with no units remaining. Battle score for attacker is -8
                Casualties for Japanese: 1 bomber
                Casualties for Americans: 1 mech_infantry
            Battle in 35 Sea Zone
                Japanese attack with 4 carriers, 1 destroyer, 1 fighter, 1 submarine, 1 tactical_bomber and 1 transport
                Americans defend with 1 submarine
                Japanese win, taking 35 Sea Zone from Americans with 4 carriers, 1 destroyer, 1 fighter, 1 submarine, 1 tactical_bomber and 1 transport remaining. Battle score for attacker is 6
                Casualties for Americans: 1 submarine
            Battle in Philippines
                Japanese attack with 4 fighters, 2 infantry and 2 tactical_bombers
                Americans defend with 1 airfield, 1 harbour and 2 infantry
                Japanese win, taking Philippines from Americans with 4 fighters, 1 infantry and 2 tactical_bombers remaining. Battle score for attacker is 3
                Casualties for Japanese: 1 infantry
                Casualties for Americans: 2 infantry
            Battle in 26 Sea Zone
                Japanese attack with 4 bombers and 2 submarines
                ANZAC defend with 1 transport; Americans defend with 5 destroyers and 1 submarine
                1 submarine owned by the Americans Submerged
                Japanese win with 3 bombers remaining. Battle score for attacker is 23
                Casualties for Japanese: 1 bomber and 2 submarines
                Casualties for ANZAC: 1 transport
                Casualties for Americans: 5 destroyers

Non Combat Move - Japanese
            3 bombers moved from 26 Sea Zone to Marshall Islands
            4 fighters moved from Philippines to 35 Sea Zone
            2 tactical_bombers moved from Philippines to 35 Sea Zone
            1 aaGun and 4 infantry moved from Manchuria to Korea

Place Units - Japanese
            3 infantry placed in Korea

Turn Complete - Japanese
            Total Cost from Convoy Blockades: 7
                Rolling for Convoy Blockade Damage in 19 Sea Zone. Rolls: 2,2
                Rolling for Convoy Blockade Damage in 6 Sea Zone. Rolls: 2,4,2,4
            Japanese collect 30 PUs (7 lost to blockades); end with 49 PUs total

[JamesAleman]

I didn’t submerge your USA sub in Hawaii’s sea zone to save time and give you the best outcome. If you would have submerged, just ignore your sub’s first shot hit, and add a Japanese bomber on the island stack. As it turned out, my subs never hit, so it didn’t matter. Your sub is still alive.

[JamesAleman]

OOL if you hit Philippines sea zone with USA and follow up with Anzac:
USA should be wiped out after first round(5 fighters =2, 3 tacs=1, 6 ships=2 rounding the sub up since ftrs and tacticals were rounded down), if they hit twice with 4 subs and hit once with a bomber, apply sub hit to my sub, second hit to my carrier, third hit to another carrier. If you only hit once, damage a carrier. If you hit twice damage 2 carriers, as I will use the sub against Anzac’s units. If you hit 4 or 5 times, oh well; Remove up to 2 damaged carriers.

If it takes me 6 combat rounds to kill USA units, keep removing planes until I am left with 4, then start sinking damaged carriers, then remove another carrier (2 hits), then 2 more planes, then another carrier, then destroyer and last 2 planes and I will surrender  :-D

OOL against Anzac: Scramble 3 air units assuming 2 carriers were damaged. (1 ftr, 2 tacticals).( Scramble 2 air units if only 1 carrier is damaged). That should leave me with 5 fighters, 2-3 tacs, 2 carriers, 2 damaged carriers, and a dd vs Anzac forces of 5 Destroyers and potentially 2 fighters. If that is not the case, consult me.

Anzac should hit 3 times, so damage two carriers, remove 1 tactical bomber(or sub if alive), Japan should hit 5-6 times. So assuming 5 hits the 2 anzac fighters can hit me one more time, so remove 1 tactical bomber. Basically, damage my two carriers, then remove sub, then air units (tacticals first) until Anzac cries “uncle”.

[JamesAleman]

Also, target each anzac destroyer with a Kamikaze please, That should get one if not 2 of them to help out.

[JDOW]

Hey there,

I followed the entire game as well as the bomber thread. I cannot pride myself of being super experienced but I hope I gathered quite an understanding of that game.

there are a lot of things I do not understand on both sides:

Axis: First of all, I agree that bombers are very strong and that their threats force US/UK to invest a lot in destroyers/Carries to save the fleet. Furthermore the range is really sick, however

@Axis: I really have the feeling that your overall gameplan has major flaws.
General strategy: To be A&A is an eco game. The asymmetry is that axis starts with an abundance of units and allies with an abundance of income. It is the take of Axis to turn the advantage in troops as good as possible to at least equalize the income. The degree how well Axis manages this decides the game.

Your gameplan does not work because it neglects the idea of overpowering the allies in income. You give up Italy for free and keeping them alive with income which Germany should have: Means: You must take the income from UK/FR NOT from Germany.
Your game is strategically lost since already 5 turns as you did not manage to equalize the income.
How do you want to win? You do not increase the pressure in NE Persia signifcantly, you are behind in income. Allies already have more units in the map, the balance will move more and more towards the Allies the longer the game takes.

Bomber strategy: I think there is no need to build bomber in Ger1/2, the simple reason is: You plan to take Moscow R5 –> Mechinf and Tanks you build Ger1/2 will be there in time and are way more cost efficient.
You switch to bombers R3 for two reasons: Hit Moscow R5 and threaten any british idea of a fleet R4. R4 bombers have the one and only reason that it is the only chance to hit Moscow R5 with an R4 build --> You maximize that attack power on Moscow

Your micro management: I guess you will argue of playing sloppily because you think it does not matter. But there are tons of simple moves where you just waste IPCs. Ger1 on sub could have attacked DD and TT in Canada and moved to SZ 124 instead –> You could have killed 15 IPs + potential convoy raid instead you go to the slaughterhouse vs one DD in defend mode.

• You could have easily sent the entire UK fleet in Ger1 to the ground of the ocean (except DD and TT SZ 109), in many case you BS even survives
• You should have sent the UK med fleet to the ground with German and not allowing the FR fleet to escape. You were even blessed with the miracle that IT that DD and TT survived both in SZ96 (2% chance)
• You waste IT inf in northern Africa by sending them next to the Egypt stack allowing to be snipered by 1 Inf + Air twice
• I cannot believe you allowed UK to take greece and even Romania and co. Greece is supposed to be taken by IT (reserving Bulgaria R1 for IT and taking it IT2) --> You could have easily managed to meet the NO worth 5 IPC (Greece, southern France, gib)
  and and and…

Japan:

• I cannot believe you did not even take Phillipines and money islands in J3, you just gave US 7 IPs times 8 = 56 IPCs total by allowing US to keep Phillipines from Turn 3-10
• You allowed the RU stack to destroy 11 or so ground units in a +IPC battle for RU. Units you desperately need to maintain pressure on the land.

The thing is: Playing Japan like that allows UK pacific to relax and send Inf towards Egypt. You even allow Anzac to support around the globe.

There is also a lot of things I do not understand about the Allies gameplan
@Allyouneed: I believe you are a great player, I hope you can answer my questions:

1. What was the idea behind the RU play to already abandon Moscow R4? Of course the situation is special by IT/Ger using “double moves” but: Couldn’t you have kept Moscow in R5 by simply doing the following:

• give of Leningrad early to allow units to hit Moscow RU4?
• Build less Art and more inf/mechinf
• Retreat earlier back to Bryansk to allow ALL units to retreat to Moscow? –> I am quite sure you would have held Moscow in R5 allowing you to produce 8-10 extra inf and delaying the extra income for Germany?

2. What is your idea behind you US strategy? How are you going to win? I understand that bombers create threads and that time plays in your favour, but why not establishing a flow of ground units to Europe? Why not taking e.g. Spain (accepting Turkey and Sweden to be additional income and troops for Ger) and move ground to Spain every turn? From there you also threaten Italy.

• Why did you sacrifice both US and Anzac fleet?
• Why did you allow JP to take all the money islands?
• What is your plan with the Bombers?

I have to say I never had a game like that and I know you have tons of experience. I am sure I am missing something but so far I do not get it:)

So far in general I miss your winning plan. But as I said before, maybe you just need to keep the balance between your fleet and the German Luftwaffe, time will do the rest for you:)

I am excited to see how the game ends, but I cannot see anything other but a victory of Allies - while I have to say the chance were even higher before wasting the fleet (but maybe it was not a waste and I just lack imagination^^)

Cheers!

[JDOW]

p.s.: A big thanks at both players to post your game here and discuss your strategy. Great entertainment and Education!

[allweneedislove]

would you like to scramble in sz95?
would you like to intercept in west germany?

[allweneedislove]

@JapanDOWRound1Fan:

…
1. What was the idea behind the RU play to already abandon Moscow R4? Of course the situation is special by IT/Ger using “double moves” but: Couldn’t you have kept Moscow in R5 by simply doing the following:

• give of Leningrad early to allow units to hit Moscow RU4?
• Build less Art and more inf/mechinf
• Retreat earlier back to Bryansk to allow ALL units to retreat to Moscow? --> I am quite sure you would have held Moscow in R5 allowing you to produce 8-10 extra inf and delaying the extra income for Germany?

2. What is your idea behind you US strategy? How are you going to win? I understand that bombers create threads and that time plays in your favour, but why not establishing a flow of ground units to Europe? Why not taking e.g. Spain (accepting Turkey and Sweden to be additional income and troops for Ger) and move ground to Spain every turn? From there you also threaten Italy.

• Why did you sacrifice both US and Anzac fleet?
• Why did you allow JP to take all the money islands?
• What is your plan with the Bombers?
  …

thanks for the kind words dowj1fan.
1. it was a mistake and poor play on my part. i missed the ital2 can opener on in belorussia. this left units to die on ussr2, it was not a part of a grand strategy.
buying artillery is a good purchase.

2. i hate sinking money into a tranport and ground force for usa. it is a huge waste economically unless you can reload your transports which takes about 6 rounds. i did not know if the game was going to even last that long.
i took risky shot at sinking the j fleet but needed the usa to get median or better results to have the anzac wipe it out. if the fleet was sunk then allies could go all out against europe.
i did not allow japan to take the money islands james force-ably took them.
the plan with all the bombers is to smash anything and everything. james is doing a great job defending and not dangling stacks for the usa to destroy.

[JamesAleman]

I am playing a sloppy game, yes. The point will be proven later I believe. If I fail to win, that’s on me. I mainly wanted to demonstrate each concept discussed in one game, that calls for a very erratic game. I did keep Japan down, to show the German situation. Yes, IPC for IPC axis are being outproduced in dollars, but not in “effective” units. Each German air unit built…forces the allies to defend more than one location…meaning to win, the allies must “double” the axis placement. If I am wrong with this “advanced” concept, it will bear out. Germany is now outproducing USA for a few turns, that should present opportunity, I believe.

On Germany round 1, I believe, it is foolish to make a combat move that relies on luck for success when I have other uses for that piece that does not require me to roll a die(if I dont roll dice, I can’t roll poorly), and will likely move my opponent’s pieces where I want him to. This is a strategy game. I much prefer to move the sub towards z124 because as you saw in this game, it “forced” my opponent to move pieces out of position. This “advanced” concept is called “flooding” your opponent with “soft” targets, tempting him into spreading himself out. Permitting me to attack with air force at my leisure.

Now Imagine this game when I don’t gimp Japan, when I don’t throw Italy away…tell me how the allies build enough to stop this…I am playing the worst game yet, and I argue this game isn’t over. If I am right, I will have proved my point in the worst possible way, so that under ideal conditions, it will be deemed unstoppable. Give me 12 games to prove the concept, if I lose a game, I will concede bombers are no better…If I don’t, will you?

I will be starting a forth game Monday, I will post the results of these 4 games when I am finished. I will happily play others publicly as soon as some of these games finish.

[JamesAleman]

@JamesAleman:

I am playing a sloppy game, yes. The point will be proven later I believe. If I fail to win, that’s on me. I mainly wanted to demonstrate each concept discussed in one game, that calls for a very erratic game. I did keep Japan down, to show the German situation. Yes, IPC for IPC axis are being outproduced in dollars, but not in “effective” units. Each German air unit built…forces the allies to defend more than one location…meaning to win, the allies must “double” the axis placement. If I am wrong with this “advanced” concept, it will bear out. Germany is now outproducing USA for a few turns, that should present opportunity, I believe.

On Germany round 1, I believe, it is foolish to make a combat move that relies on luck for success when I have other uses for that piece that does not require me to roll a die(if I dont roll dice, I can’t roll poorly), and will likely move my opponent’s pieces where I want him to. This is a strategy game. I much prefer to move the sub towards z124 because as you saw in this game, it “forced” my opponent to move pieces out of position. This “advanced” concept is called “flooding” your opponent with “soft” targets, tempting him into spreading himself out. Permitting me to attack with air force at my leisure.

Now Imagine this game when I don’t gimp Japan, when I don’t throw Italy away…tell me how the allies build enough to stop this…I am playing the worst game yet, and I argue this game isn’t over. If I am right, I will have proved my point in the worst possible way, so that under ideal conditions, it will be deemed unstoppable. Give me 12 games to prove the concept, if I lose a game, I will concede bombers are no better…If I don’t, will you?

I will be starting a forth game Monday, I will post the results of these 4 games when I am finished. I will happily play others publicly as soon as some of these games finish.

This post was an answer to JapanDOW’s comments. Allweneedislove is playing well, he also had an idea of what I was going to do, and I am playing Germany tight and conservative to demonstrate that I believe I have all the time in the world…I believe it was worth it to expose the German navy to UK, he allowed me to sink the UK units without the American’s present at a low cost in planes…that required me to have a juicy enough “bait”, we’ll see if that concept works or blows up in my face.

Hat’s off to allweneedislove, he was willing to let me test this crazy concept. He is backing up his beliefs with games played, I will back up as well against any willing opponents, I just ask that you let me do so publicly to reenforce my points. I will not play Japan this badly in future games, so that you can see the full potential of a strong Japan and Germany…in a typical game, you have Japan “contained” by now (turn 10) how big is your navy going to need to be, if the navy currently there was in the Pacific crushing a strong Japan…how do you hold both Egypt and London, without the resources that are currently there…I will attempt to prove in future games that you can’t…not conventionally at least.

[JamesAleman]

Remember in this game I was “forced” to build fighters and tacticals instead of bombers to defend West Germany……if you mop up Japan by turn 8 or 9 and I have only bombers…good game.

[JamesAleman]

Look at the bonusbent game, Andy was concerned about UK, Russia is trying to hold, it simply can’t. Just ignore UK to a degree, take Russia, then take UK fleet out of the Med….they have 1 factory in Egypt, London is Germany’s any turn Germany wants it (after they take Russia) and the Italian can openers make “blocking” too expensive so that it will not be done. The same concept holds true when you land 3 German bombers in Asia, Australia cannot afford to block against that, and the bombers never fire a shot…implied threat prevents blocking. When you do test us, and we pull the trigger…if you didn’t block the navy or capital falls…These advanced concepts turn the economic game on its head…you can be outproduced and still have your way with proper piece positioning and maneuver. As you can see, I am demonstrating the “potential” energy of Japan’s pieces on the board, a Japan that was collecting 13 IPCs redeployed to collect over 30 in two turns…When I uncoil the German airforce and “release” that potential energy that is still winding, in “2” turns you can see a similar effect. This is as advanced and foreshadowing a concept as I can convey and it is hard to explain, it must be shown…If I win this game that all “conventional” thinkers say is lost, how will they explain it under conventional theory… They won’t, it will beg for a new theory…the piece position and potential theory…IPCS are irrelevant if they are not the right pieces on the board in the right places. This game is won with victory cities, not IPCs.

What stops Berlin, (when they are ready) from moving all air force to Caucasus, building 20 land units in Europe and then swinging the German "IPCs’ upwards by 10 for the mid east and its NO’s. Is India, alone going to outproduce Berlin? I don’t even have to do it that way. Another concept I am eager to show is this: Drop land units in Scotland, throw away a transport…strafe London three turns in a row of all pieces…land 2 units in Scotland on the second strafe, land the air force on the Scotland troops, and on the third turn, strafe I capture London without sinking the fleet…This concept requires Berlin to build 8 fighters a turn…an easy feat, in fact I could make two of them tactical bombers…I would have to ignore Caucasus to do so, its too soon…That is what I almost started this turn, but I don’t rely on dice, and the time is not right…patience is a virtue in a strategy game.

[JDOW]

Thanks for your answers guys, again great fun to follow this thread and your game!

@JamesAleman: Don’t get me wrong, I am convinced that one key element of successful German play is to build up a large bomber stack for the obvious reasons:

• You can hit any allied fleet on almost any relevant and threatening seazone
• You can hit Moscow
• Later you could even hit egypt

However so far I am convinced that a German “bomber only” strat is worse than building ground (Ger1 Carrier, destroyer/transport is also viable) at least 1-2 rounds is simply superior to hit Moscow most effectively (4 tanks 3 mechinf e.g. cost the same as 3 bombers but are way way way more effective for the Moscow hit and even after capturing Moscow you need them anyway to march towards egypt)
I am quite sure you would have run into trouble in at the gates of moscow if allyouneed would not have made this mistake he stated he did.

So in the end we all know that Axis seems to be slightly favored and that Allies need to be extremely good to outplay the axis.

This leaves me with the opinion so far that in games you won you are not successful because of your bombers only strat but despite of it :-)

@AllYouNeed: But in case you do not buy ground units what is the winning plan? If your opponent would play till eternity you one day need to capture any of the capitals which only works with ground? So you are just patient and let your income edge grow until you maybe have 40+ bombers?

Do you have any experience in taking Spain? I tried it once successfully for the obvious advantages:

• You can transport ground in one move from US to Europe –> 10 transport could bring 10 ground every round
• Spain airbase covers so many seazones
• Spain factory allows you to even produce ground in Europe --> Less transports
  I think this can outweight the disavantages of giving Turkey and Sweden (later Afganistan) for free for Germany. Ecowise you do not even need to lose too much as you grab Portugal and Saudi-Arabia as well and the later the game the less the extra inf play a role.

So far my experience in Europe (especially in Europe only) is that usually IT and UK are the decisive factors
Strong UK allows to secure US fleet with fighters and even to secure US landings with fighters and to outperform Axis eco wise
Strong IT prevents this making any invasion not working and equalizing Eco.

Cheers!

[JamesAleman]

@allweneedislove:

would you like to scramble in sz95?
would you like to intercept in west germany?

Sorry for the sidetrack, no intercept or scramble this time, I would have to rely on good rolls, that’s not how I “roll” ;)

[JamesAleman]

@JapanDOWRound1Fan:

Thanks for your answers guys, again great fun to follow this thread and your game!

@JamesAleman: Don’t get me wrong, I am convinced that one key element of successful German play is to build up a large bomber stack for the obvious reasons:

• You can hit any allied fleet on almost any relevant and threatening seazone
• You can hit Moscow
• Later you could even hit egypt

However so far I am convinced that a German “bomber only” strat is worse than building ground (Ger1 Carrier, destroyer/transport is also viable) at least 1-2 rounds is simply superior to hit Moscow most effectively (4 tanks 3 mechinf e.g. cost the same as 3 bombers but are way way way more effective for the Moscow hit and even after capturing Moscow you need them anyway to march towards egypt)
I am quite sure you would have run into trouble in at the gates of moscow if allyouneed would not have made this mistake he stated he did.

So in the end we all know that Axis seems to be slightly favored and that Allies need to be extremely good to outplay the axis.

This leaves me with the opinion so far that in games you won you are not successful because of your bombers only strat but despite of it :-)

@AllYouNeed: But in case you do not buy ground units what is the winning plan? If your opponent would play till eternity you one day need to capture any of the capitals which only works with ground? So you are just patient and let your income edge grow until you maybe have 40+ bombers?

Do you have any experience in taking Spain? I tried it once successfully for the obvious advantages:

• You can transport ground in one move from US to Europe –> 10 transport could bring 10 ground every round
• Spain airbase covers so many seazones
• Spain factory allows you to even produce ground in Europe --> Less transports
  I think this can outweight the disavantages of giving Turkey and Sweden (later Afganistan) for free for Germany. Ecowise you do not even need to lose too much as you grab Portugal and Saudi-Arabia as well and the later the game the less the extra inf play a role.

So far my experience in Europe (especially in Europe only) is that usually IT and UK are the decisive factors
Strong UK allows to secure US fleet with fighters and even to secure US landings with fighters and to outperform Axis eco wise
Strong IT prevents this making any invasion not working and equalizing Eco.

Cheers!

Thanks for your comments, and they are welcome indeed. I didn’t not mean to convey rudeness or irritability, I must work on my tact.

Here is why I hope to demonstrate the superior side of bombers….land units built in Europe are stuck in Europe, when consumed they are slow to redeploy. I can place bombers in Asia to prevent Japans eventual fall in a normal game, chew on that for a bit ;)

With enough fodder to assure you don’t lose the air force, bombers redeploy far faster than ground troops can. As this stack grows, if it is conserved and nurtured it will be strong enough to address your next target. This is a serial concept and does not do well when you do not focus on one target at a time. Once Russia was gone, and if you try to build land and retreat into Moscow (as I and my groups have done) the outcome is the same, only delayed by at best 3 turns. You see, the bombers are a spring board, they give you the jump, and you can build conventional forces from forward deployed factories, and redeploy the bombers as needed while you wait for the fodder…the implied threat prevents UK from doing more than one task at a time…build all navy…see this game, build all land, or build all sea…they must pick and stay and without land and sea, there is no threat to Europe. If you land with USA and UK, Germany has plenty of air and land units at this point to retake anything in Europe.

[JDOW]

@JamesAleman:

Yes, IPC for IPC axis are being outproduced in dollars, but not in “effective” units. Each German air unit built…forces the allies to defend more than one location…meaning to win, the allies must “double” the axis placement. If I am wrong with this “advanced” concept, it will bear out. Germany is now outproducing USA for a few turns, that should present opportunity, I believe.

You absolutely agree that there is a difference to realize IPCs for US and Germany. While Germany can almost always use IPCs in effective fighting power US needs to invest in transports securing them etc, tons if IPCs not fighting to win ground and IPCs. However I would not say that Allies must double. Once you have a fleet if transports you don’t need to buy excessive amounts, especially if you manage to capture factories or build some

On Germany round 1, I believe, it is foolish to make a combat move that relies on luck for success when I have other uses for that piece that does not require me to roll a die(if I dont roll dice, I can’t roll poorly), and will likely move my opponent’s pieces where I want him to. This is a strategy game.

You can still sink the entire UK fleet (except SZ109) round 1 safely –> Each attack is >90% and the worst thing that can happen is that you lose some air. In many cases even Subs survive (assuming UK does not a -EV scramble in SZ110 which often leaves UK with severe convoy damage in rounds 1-3

I much prefer to move the sub towards z124 because as you saw in this game, it “forced” my opponent to move pieces out of position. This “advanced” concept is called “flooding” your opponent with “soft” targets, tempting him into spreading himself out. Permitting me to attack with air force at my leisure.

Here I simply disagree - not with the general principle that tempting targets can make sense to weaken a formation but in this particular case. You can hit DD and TT which is +4 TUV plus potential convoy raids plus the damage you could do as a defender
In your case you offer yourself as target for DD and air.
the UK fleet is doomed anyway the only thing you cannot effectively hit is Canada except that Sub^^

Now Imagine this game when I don’t gimp Japan, when I don’t throw Italy away….tell me how the allies build enough to stop this…I am playing the worst game yet, and I argue this game isn’t over. If I am right, I will have proved my point in the worst possible way, so that under ideal conditions, it will be deemed unstoppable. Give me 12 games to prove the concept, if I lose a game, I will concede bombers are no better…If I don’t, will you?

I will be starting a forth game Monday, I will post the results of these 4 games when I am finished. I will happily play others publicly as soon as some of these games finish.

As I said I am convinced bombers are super strong and important. I just think the way you use them is not optimal while I think the optimum is build ground with Germany next to bombers. Still, a large bomber stack should be build in any case.

Cheers:)

[JDOW]

Sorry for the quotation mess. I wish I could edit my posts but I guess I can’t?