What if the US bought nothing but bomber themselves?
I would say that the United States has to spend entirely in the Pacific for the first 3 turns so that they have sufficient forces to force the Japanese out of the money islands. They need ~5 loaded aircraft carriers plus supporting fleet or else the combined Japanese Navy + Air force can crush them without worries. An airbase in French IndoChina for Japan is truly a dangerous thing. The planes can be used in Asia, or fly out to the ocean to support the Japanese fleet in such a huge number of sea zones. They can even make it back to Japan in a single round. For a well-played Japan player (not the one in the much-discussed tournament), the US cannot come within 4 sea zones of Asia unless they did KJF. With the combined money from India, China, and the money islands, Japan is too out of control. I concur with Cow’s conclusion that KJF is the only viable Allied strategy. Note that KJF does not mean complete destruction of Japan. To me, it means that Japan must vacate some or all of the money islands.
In regards to bombers for the US, my skilled opponent last match tried that strategy. Japan did not build any additional navy, focusing on 3 mech/round in FIC plus bombers. The US could not bring his fleet any closer than the Caroline Islands. If they kept it any closer, the combined wave of bombers + navy would obliterate his forces. He could periodically send out suicide runs to retake a few money islands, but could not hold any of them for more than a couple of rounds. Japan was earning more than 70 each round, Germany was over 80 with the oilfields, and there was no credible way for the Allies to regain economic advantage. There just isn’t enough ground forces or Navy for the US to pull off a all-bomber strategy themselves. He might try it on me again, but I’m skeptical since it was not nearly as scary as a huge stack of loaded aircraft carriers.
Curious, which of the allied players is the strong one, as I don’t know any of them? I agree that this one is looking interesting, and I did post it earlier in this thread (maybe you missed it due to all the postings).
As for this other strategy that has been enjoying a lot of success, can you point me to a game or two so I can check it out as well?
I appreciate all your input.
Hehheh yes I must have missed it. Or, not missed it but not looked at it at that time.
I kow that MagicQ is a very decent axis player (not seen his allies yet), but I don’t know his teammate in this tournament.
I discussed the axis strategy I have a problem with here: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35071.0. I included one of my savegames against this axis one in the OP. I think I am near the allied solution to this problem, but I need a few final playthroughs. It more or less comes down to ‘KJF’ with a twist, or just ‘KJF’. Since the axis do J4, the USA can produce a lot in Europe. Germany turtles up in this strategy and so the allies cannot land in Europe. I think to sail the Atlantic fleet through the Suez Canal (castrating Italy in the process) into the Pacific again, liberating India and/or take the DEI. Note that this solution is not displayed in the savegame I posted in that thread. IIRC I tried to find an opening in Europe in that save, which never came…
I agree with Arthur Bomber Harris’ last post, although I am a bit less strong about ‘KJF’ being the only viable allied strategy. If Japan is played according to Cow, then yes, the USA must attend to the Pacific immediately and cannot spend >125IPCs (roughly) on the Eurofront during the first 3 turns and cannot spend a single IPC in Europe after that.
If the USA can pull off what ABHarris suggested, it can most likely spend ~190IPCs in Europe during turns 4-9. So the USA can then spend more in Europe, but the units will arrive much later. Probably just too late…
Truth be told, I don’t see any reason for Japan not to be played Cow-style, other than a ‘J4 Russia crush’, and both Japanese strategies require a ‘KJF’ more or less. However, the more people spend in Mainland Asia with Japan, the more viable KGF becomes. Not that I would advice to play Japan like that, but a lot of people do ;-)…
Anyway, with anything in between 125 and 190 IPCs the USA can build a darn dangerous threat in Europe. My guess is that your ‘dark skies’ problem could be solved with ‘KJF’ along the lines ABHarris described if Japan is played ‘Cow-style’, still spending about 190IPCs in the Atlantic just not during the first 3 turns. If Japan is not played Cow-style (is not building a LOT of units aimed at USA), the USA can spend a lot more in Europe, and a lot sooner at that too.
I haven’t read every post in here, but I should say that my dad has been making big bomber buys for Germany for years and I always gave him a hard time for it. Seems the old man may know some things after all!
Any Japan strategy that doesn’t force USA to spend heavily in the Pacific is almost by definition a horrible plan. I follow Cow’s typically J1 plan, and then use his recommend J2 strat of grabbing a few more islands, setting up a factory+airbase in FIC, and advancing my economy. It is almost scripted for those two turns with very little chance of major variation unless Russia makes a critical blunder of partially stacking Amur. After that I decide whether to aggressively pursue India, ANZAC, or USA next. Lots of good options, even if the US has spent three solid turns building in the Pacific.
Keep in mind that 210 IPCs in the Atlantic during turns 4-6 corresponds to three loaded aircraft carriers, six loaded transports, plus a few other minor buys. That fleet could be sunk easily by the German airforce, forcing the UK to chip in on another loaded aircraft carrier. Furthermore, the attack force wouldn’t be ready to attack W. Europe until turn 8. By that time, Germany should be solidly in the Middle East, captured most of the bonus territories in Russia, and racked up a massive amount of money. They might also be in position to launch a surprise Sea Lion attack, or keep driving into Egypt. Italy might also have recovered from early turn loses and produced a useable navy in the Med. I am not saying that these Axis forces are impossible to overcome, but it would take quite a bit of skill to find an effective attack strategy.
210IPCs for the Atlantic = a fully loaded 3CV + 10TRS and 5DD. Or, if you like that better, a fully loaded 4CV + 7TRS and 5DD. If you keep some of the starting units in Europe.
You missed the troops for the TRS. The US has a fair number of land troops to begin with, but hardly enough to fill 10 transports. Subtract one of the loaded CV’s to pay for the troops and now the defense force is down to my estimates. Germany could crush it if he decides to lose most of his bomber force.
But… that’s exactly what I was calculating! The US has 4INF to begin with, 3INF to pick up from Brazil, 4MECH, 2ART, 1ARM and 4AAGUNS. Fill 10TRS with all the non-INF units you can and then you’ll need to produce 3 more INF (9IPCs).
Producing:
3CV + 5FTR (USA starts with 1) + 9TRS (USA starts with 1) and 5DD + 3INF = 210IPCs.
Makes a fleet of: 3CV[6FTR] + 10TRS[10INF, 4MECH, 2ART, 1ARM, 3AAA] + 5DD + 1CA (also a starting unit).
Alternative (using the same starting units):
4CV[8FTR] + 7TRS[7INF, 4MECH, 2ART, 1ARM] + 1CA + 4DD (or 2DD + 3SS) = 208 (210)IPCs.
A bit harder to crush for Germany but even if the Germans do so, and loose most of its bomberforce, where does this leave Russia (also assuming the allies dropped their load in Normandy)? If Germany produces 16STR in 6 rounds (totalling 18 assuming they also produced a few other units), loosing all or almost all of them against the allied fleet, this means Germany basically produced 0 units against Russia for at least 6 turns. I think Stalin will just start a drive westwards.
And that’s with only the US production. UK will surely throw in 1CV[+air] and 1 or 2 DD and a few transports… I admit that this is just a theory yet and it may well turn out to be a paper tiger so I’d say it needs to be included in some strategy testing (which I will certainly do when I’m ready).
Well, let’s settle this the old fashion way: a triple A game with low luck. I will be the Axis and you take the Allies. I will accept any terms and conditions that you want to place. This is our first time using triple A so we would like to keep it friendly with redos for any obvious mistake. I want to test the strategy, not major tactical blunders/misunderstanding of the software.
Are you willing to stand behind your theories?
@Arthur:
Well, let’s settle this the old fashion way: a triple A game with low luck. I will be the Axis and you take the Allies. I will accept any terms and conditions that you want to place. This is our first time using triple A so we would like to keep it friendly with redos for any obvious mistake. I want to test the strategy, not major tactical blunders/misunderstanding of the software.
Are you willing to stand behind your theories?
oh yah, now we’re talking. Let’s see these theories in action!
In a recent game as UK/India (that was a bit of a free-for-all with the true neutrals being attacked by the Axis and Japan taking on Russia) I turtled in India while removing Italy from Africa and built up a nice income from the neutrals in S. America, Africa and the Middle East. I then left Germany and Italy for Russia and the USA to deal with, started building strategic bombers every turn and sent them to India where they gradually destroyed the Japanese navy (even though I didn’t have a fleet) and every smaller stack of Japanese planes that I could target. Japan’s position collapsed and the massed SB’s were even able to eliminate the Japanese defence force in Japan. So, it seems that all you have to do to be a ‘genius’ at this game is to build loads of super bombers and there’s no question that they are over-powered in their current form. On a side note, in reality Germany didn’t have any 4-engine heavy bombers until 1943 and Japan didn’t have any at all. Could that be why they lost the war? I feel there is enough material here for another Hitler Plays A&A sketch.
@Arthur:
Well, let’s settle this the old fashion way: a triple A game with low luck. I will be the Axis and you take the Allies. I will accept any terms and conditions that you want to place. This is our first time using triple A so we would like to keep it friendly with redos for any obvious mistake. I want to test the strategy, not major tactical blunders/misunderstanding of the software.
Are you willing to stand behind your theories?
Hmmm, tempting.
As I said to axis-dominion already, I’m currently already playtesting another axis strategy with the time I want to give A&A.
If I’d accept I would need to put that other playtest in the freezer and I also feel axis-dominion has ‘first rights’ when it comes to strategy testing anything against this particular axis thing. I wouldn’t consider it fair (from me) to have turned down his request and then a few days later start a strategy test with some1 else ;-). Furthermore, I don’t think my theories (or yours) need proof. I know my theories about this axis strategy for what they are: theories, still. Come to life as a result of doing the math and though the math is correct, the theory may still be a paper tiger, as I already said.
Let’s say I put my other test in the freezer…
I am willing to try and find a working allied strategy against this ‘axis monster’, as a team-effort. As opposed to trying to prove a point. I am more willing to play strategy testing games like this for reasons of finding an answer together than for proving or disproving any point. I don’t like, nor believe in playing games for the latter.
So how about we bundle forces to try out some allied strategies against this set axis strategy?
ABHarris, axis-dominion and me. In A&A I still have hope, that there’s an allied answer to every axis ‘question’ (however frustrated I am becoming about how frequently ‘KJF’ turns out to be that answer). I’m not sure as to how to do this effectively with tripleA, though. Playing around the table makes this very easy: making moves as you discuss them over the maps. But that’s a little harder when playing online (and in different time-zones at that).
At this point I am not yet certain about how exactly the USA should divide its resources. Should it go put ~125IPCs into Europe, first 3 turns, with a mostly defensive stance against Japan, should it adapt a more offensive stance against Japan first, letting Europe go for a while first but then produce a bit more in Europe later, OR should it go very offensive in the Pacific for a prolonged time, only switching back to Europe after Japan is in the pocket…
Axis dominion: if ABHarris doesn’t like this we can still do it together if you like. Now that I’m ‘turned’ I shall do it or die trying ;-).
Math is too difficult in this case with too many options ten turns later. If the answer is no, I understand.
Well, the answer is not exactly no.
I was just clarifying why I am not interested in playing a game to prove a point, but do like to play a game with the goal to find the proper answer against this. As a team effort, so not really playing against each other but more like cooperating (for as much as that is possible, of course), also including axis-dominion if he 'd like that.
Because axis-dominion asked for some strategy try outs before.
But if you don’t like a bit of cooperation in a game, that’ll be off and we could play a normal game at some other time, after I finished playtesting against that other axis strategy to my satisfaction. When that happens you’ll know it. I’ll most likely post my findings somewhere then ;-).
I would be down to play a test game more in a cooperative spirit to try to find an answer. I think it’s a good idea. You two could play it out and I’d follow along and make comments or observations in the topic. Since each turn is posted, if things start to look really bad for the allies at some point due to a bad strategic decision made earlier in the game (ie false start), you guys could restart at whatever saved point and then explore a different option (without having to actually start a new game, which would hopefully save time).
Well, the answer is not exactly no.
I was just clarifying why I am not interested in playing a game to prove a point, but do like to play a game with the goal to find the proper answer against this. As a team effort, so not really playing against each other but more like cooperating (for as much as that is possible, of course), also including axis-dominion if he 'd like that.
Because axis-dominion asked for some strategy try outs before.But if you don’t like a bit of cooperation in a game, that’ll be off and we could play a normal game at some other time, after I finished playtesting against that other axis strategy to my satisfaction. When that happens you’ll know it. I’ll most likely post my findings somewhere then ;-).
Fair enough then, if ABH likes to play a cooperative game :-).
I have only played tripleA by mail so far, so I’m not 100% sure how to do it by forum.
From what I’ve seen I take it you need to enter threadname + your login information in TripleA. Are e-mail adresses also required?
We can discuss all other relevant settings (like what can be considered a fair bid) in the thread for it, if we are actually starting this.
Yah let’s first see if ABH is intersted. The forum play is very similar to PBEM and I can help you get that going so no worries there.
We could play a game where a player can take back a move, or revert to an earlier save point. We can also point out blunders/mistakes that the other player is doing. It should work where we start a thread and play semi-cooperatively.
In terms of a bid, I have played before with 16 IPC’s for the allies (limit of 1 unit per territory, placing it in areas where there are existing units). Let me know if this is reasonable? I have used the carrier 96 previously… an opponent was more successful with an art in Alexandria, a sub in 96, and a sub in 91. He was able to wipe out Italy for the first 4 rounds, bringing good bang for his buck.
ok ABH and IIILC, please PM me your email addresses (that are registered with the MARTI server), and i’ll go ahead and set up a pbf (play by forum) game with a 20 bid for the allies (that’s what i’ve had against bmnielsen), and then i’ll paste the link to the topic so you guys can get started.
ABH you’ll be axis and will employ this aggressive all-bomber strat, right?
IIILC what do you want to buy with the 20 bid for the allies and where do you want the units?
@Arthur:
We could play a game where a player can take back a move, or revert to an earlier save point. We can also point out blunders/mistakes that the other player is doing. It should work where we start a thread and play semi-cooperatively.
In terms of a bid, I have played before with 16 IPC’s for the allies (limit of 1 unit per territory, placing it in areas where there are existing units). Let me know if this is reasonable? I have used the carrier 96 previously… an opponent was more successful with an art in Alexandria, a sub in 96, and a sub in 91. He was able to wipe out Italy for the first 4 rounds, bringing good bang for his buck.
PM sent. 20 sounds reasonable. Low luck, or standard rolls?
