@shadowhawk I never though about that , that is really smart. I will make sure to do that.
German bomber strategy - How to play and How to counter
-
That’s more of a pure Dark Skies strat. I was doing one that involved a slower ramp-up of Bombers. Buying 3 or so per turn starting turn 3.
-
I think more bombers would actually have been easier to fight off to the extent the Russian’s could get aggressive and build art and tanks to kill the small German land forces.
As it was with Shin, the German armies were too strong for the Russians to kill so they just had to withdraw, making the bombers the final hammer that would kill Russia once the land forces got to Moscow…. very distressing strategy.
-
again well said ABH. my biggest beef (and rgp44 earlier in this thread had the same beef) is when people who have not yet played against this strat try to minimize just how hard it is to play against by focusing on one aspect of it or another (e.g., saying SBR isn’t part of the strat or talking about bomber vs. carrier trades)…please understand, the real problem is not this one thing or that, but ALL the options the mass bombers have, taken together…that they can reach many critical targets at once (threat projection), that they can “get bored” and decide to bomb the crap out of london or moscow, that they can wipe out any invasion, that they can obliterate even a very sizable fleet, that they can turn on a sea lion (SL) at any point in the game if allies are busy elsewhere, that they can park in FIC (with an airbase) to unblock in the pac while STILL threatening moscow, and so on. again, from my experience, SBR does become a problem if you decide to go KJF and thereby give the bombers fewer targets, i.e., they become “bored” and decide to make good use of themselves. regardless if Dizz or other DS players don’t consider SBR as a critical part of their strat, it is NONETHELESS a major threat. the threat is always there, and it’s very significant, just like the threat of SL is always there as well, regardless of whether it’s considered a primary part of their strat. put another way, if you aren’t careful and neglect certain things, the DS player can pull out one of those options (SBR campaign or SL, e.g.) in an instant and completely change the course of the game.
@Arthur:
Amanntai,
Please try out a game playing the Allies against a good German Dark Skies player.� If you don’t build up a huge navy, he will destroy your invasion fleet with minimal bomber losses.� If you do build up a huge navy, he will ignore it and wait till your troops are ashore.� Germany has the choice of when and where to attack.� The massive flexibility of the bombers allows it many more options than you normally have in a game.� That makes up for the lack of damage/PU compared to other units.� I truly wish that I had other valid options besides spending heavily on a massive Atlantic fleet since that is severely delaying my ability to assist Russia.
-
A-D I agree with everything you say.
I think the key for me was threatening Germany in a place they couldn’t/didn’t want to lose like Norway.
He had to kill the fleet otherwise 3 us ftrs would start popping out of my Mmic there every turn…. and hey, I’d lose 3ftrs even if they only killed 2 bombers each round… Germany is not that inexhaustible…
-
The only problem that I see with that is, are you able to knock Japan out of the Pacific and still send those troops over? And, will Egypt be weakened too much from the standard German push?
Sorry to answer a question with a question, but that would be what you have to consider there. :)
Also, remember this. If you defend the UK with 30 land units, and Germany has 45 bombers, the bombers can clear you off (not counting aa guns) in one turn.
If you start trying to stack the UK, Germany may just take an opportune moment to clear the UK even without sending in land units, and then send in the land units the next turn, depending on the numbers. So, none of the ideas you are suggesting seem bad, but things may be more complex than they first appear with regard to defending both the UK and Egypt.
The key point is that the bombers can hit everything in one turn, whereas you can’t even move a friendly unit between the UK and Egypt in one turn. That split is what gives the bombers their potential advantage.
As a rough rule of thumb, you can say that a battle with similar number of StBombers against Infantry units and just enough AAA units will results, on average, to a destruction of at least half number of Strategic bombers fleet and a total annihilation of defender’s units.
45 Bombers vs 30 Infantry and 15 AAA units:
Overall %*: A. survives: 99.3% D. survives: 0.7% No one survives: 0%
Avg result: 7.24% surviving: 20 Bom. loss: 25 Bom. : (300 IPCs)
http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&AA=on&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=45&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=15&dSub=&dDes=30&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Tra-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=30 Bombers vs 20 Infantry and 10 AAA units:
Overall %*: A. survives: 97.8% D. survives: 2.1% No one survives: 0.1%
Avg result: 8.27% surviving: 13 Bom. loss: 17 Bom. : (204 IPCs)15 Bombers vs 10 Infantry and 5 AAA units:
Overall %*: A. survives: 92% D. survives: 7.4% No one survives: 0.5%
Avg result: 11.08% surviving: 6 Bom. loss: 9 Bom. : (108 IPCs)To get odds higher than simply even chance of mutual destruction, you need around the same number of Infantry units compared to StBs and enough AAA units to cover for all StBs.
So 45 StBs required 45 Infantry and 15 AAAs. -
or you could do something with unescorted bombers attacking at lower values which would be much more realistic, I cringe every time I send a stack of unescorted bombers against a factory because in reality any fighter cover would make mincemeat of unescorted bombers (unless its a night raid).
Done there:
Re: Rethinking Strategic Bomber and Tactical Bomber Roles
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35415.msg1391137#msg1391137And the first stone (maybe inspired by your early post on this topic):
Re: Rethinking Strategic Bomber and Tactical Bomber Roles
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35415.msg1382356#msg1382356 -
@Arthur:
Amanntai,
Please try out a game playing the Allies against a good German Dark Skies player. If you don’t build up a huge navy, he will destroy your invasion fleet with minimal bomber losses. If you do build up a huge navy, he will ignore it and wait till your troops are ashore. Germany has the choice of when and where to attack. The massive flexibility of the bombers allows it many more options than you normally have in a game. That makes up for the lack of damage/PU compared to other units. I truly wish that I had other valid options besides spending heavily on a massive Atlantic fleet since that is severely delaying my ability to assist Russia.
Well… AACalc is a little unhelpful because it doesn’t do two-hit carriers, but from estimation using 1-hit carriers and subbing 2 destroyers for carriers leaves me with this result: The Allies would have to spend at least 1 IPC for every bomber to have a fleet with a decent chance of survival and a measly invasion force that wouldn’t survive a Bomber counterattack.
Of course, I haven’t played a game to see if the bomber losses (which usually amounted to at least 12/24 even if the Allies spent much less) would cripple Germany, but that relies on Germany actually attacking the fleet, and they would only do that if the Allied landing force was more than enough to resist a bomber counterattack, in which case the fleet would likely be weak enough that the Bombers could destroy it with few losses.
Basically, a single allied fleet is either f***ed, or useless.
I’ll have to look into alternative strategies.
PS: The solution is still Classic transports.
-
Well… AACalc is a little unhelpful because it doesn’t do two-hit carriers, but from estimation using 1-hit carriers and subbing 2 destroyers for carriers leaves me with this result: The Allies would have to spend at least 1 IPC for every bomber to have a fleet with a decent chance of survival and a measly invasion force that wouldn’t survive a Bomber counterattack.
It is easy to simulate a two-hits Carrier with AACalc:
On offense, you used 2 Transports as they worth 2 hits but have no attack value, you only need to change the order of casualty and place transports before any combat unit as you see fit your combat simulations.
On defense, you used 1 Carrier (for defense value @2) and 1 transport, which you also place as the first casualty in the order of loss.That way, you get a pretty good accurate statistical results. :wink:
Follow the link to see an example of 30 StratBombers against 9 2 hits-Carrier with 18 Fighters
Overall %*: A. survives: 39.1% D. survives: 59.3% No one survives: 1.6%Follow the link to see an example of 30 StratBombers against 8 2 hits-Carrier with 16 Fighters
Overall %*: A. survives: 88.5% D. survives: 10.6% No one survives: 0.9%
http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&techs=on&aInf=&aArt=&aAArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aJFig=&aBom=30&aHBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aSSub=&aDes=&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dAArt=&dArm=&dFig=16&dJFig=&dBom=&dHBom=&dTra=8&dSub=&dSSub=&dDes=&dCru=&dCar=8&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Tra-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA50&territory=&round=1&pbem=This showed that when you built 3 Full 2-hits Carriers (108 IPCs) against 10 Strategic Bomber (120 IPCs), the US player will get the better odds on his part.
While a little more than 10 StBs against 3 Full Carrier or less, the German player will have the odds on his side.
31 StBs against 9 2-hits Full Carriers
Overall %*: A. survives: 56.7% D. survives: 41.4% No one survives: 1.8% -
@Arthur:
Amanntai,
Please try out a game playing the Allies against a good German Dark Skies player. If you don’t build up a huge navy, he will destroy your invasion fleet with minimal bomber losses. If you do build up a huge navy, he will ignore it and wait till your troops are ashore. Germany has the choice of when and where to attack. The massive flexibility of the bombers allows it many more options than you normally have in a game. That makes up for the lack of damage/PU compared to other units. I truly wish that I had other valid options besides spending heavily on a massive Atlantic fleet since that is severely delaying my ability to assist Russia.
Well… AACalc is a little unhelpful because it doesn’t do two-hit carriers, but from estimation using 1-hit carriers and subbing 2 destroyers for carriers leaves me with this result: The Allies would have to spend at least 1 IPC for every bomber to have a fleet with a decent chance of survival and a measly invasion force that wouldn’t survive a Bomber counterattack.
Of course, I haven’t played a game to see if the bomber losses (which usually amounted to at least 12/24 even if the Allies spent much less) would cripple Germany, but that relies on Germany actually attacking the fleet, and they would only do that if the Allied landing force was more than enough to resist a bomber counterattack, in which case the fleet would likely be weak enough that the Bombers could destroy it with few losses.
Basically, a single allied fleet is either f***ed, or useless.
I’ll have to look into alternative strategies.
PS: The solution is still Classic transports.
Classic transports are a bad idea because they just make sure you build loads of transports and only a few warships. Transports are not ment to defend the warships but the other way around.
Why are we even calculating 30 bombers vs 30 inf, it would be 30 bombers vs 120 inf.
Germany can only use the bombers at 1 location, sure that location gets hammered and then most of the strength will be spend.
Every combat that involves bombers only is a verry bad trade for the player with the bombers, even if they win they will lose a lot more money wise then the defender and most of the time the left over bombers are exposed to counter attack (and they are not brilliant defenders )In regards to transports:
This isn’t the thread for that discussion, but as I pointed out in the Defenseless Transport thread, transports wouldn’t defend warships. If you choose the transports as casualties, you lose your invasion force. And then the Germans win because you spent hundreds of IPCs on useless warships and lost your whole invasion force anyways.
Unless the transports are empty, in which case they are worse than destroyers, and therefore a really bad defense.As for Bombers versus infantry, it isn’t 30 Bombers versus 120 infantry. How are you going to get those infantry anywhere? You need 60 transports to use them against Germany. And then you need a fleet to defend those 60 transports, and by then Germany has way more than 30 Bombers and probably already stomped Russia. Think inside the game.
Same problem arises with Baron’s calcs… 108 IPCs in carriers for every 10 Bombers doesn’t give the US enough for an invasion force. 12 IPCs for every 10 Bombers? That leaves 1 Transport and only 5 IPCs for a land unit. Against 10 Bombers. At that point, Germany completely ignores the fleet and simply kills the 4 Land units that landed in Normandy.
The problem is that the Allies have to build two separate forces capable of defeating the Bombers, which is just not economically viable.
-
In my current game of Dark Skies, Moscow fell on G8 with the defending Russians forced to retreat without a fight. If I had stayed, Germany would have been able to drive his forces down to Egypt without worrying about his rear. Because of the retreat, the UK can hold on to Egypt for a fair number of turns. Japan has been contained but not crushed so the US has to keep spending a bit of money in the Pacific to keep him from expanding beyond China.
The trouble now lies in a strategy for the Allies to invade Europe while keeping Egypt. The only territory that I could invade was Spain so I did a Neutrals Crush on turn 8. Unfortunately, I am still bottled up in Spain. If I step out, his 20+ planes can be joined by his mechanized infantry and slaughter a large number of soldiers. If I head up to Sweden, his 20+ planes and infantry can be joined by a small force of solders and slaughter me. I don’t have a good option on pursuing a strong invasion of Europe.
Meanwhile his planes can project power into the Middle East and I expect severe trouble in that sector over the next few rounds. Anyone have thoughts of possible ways for the Allies to win at this point?
Don’t think of Dark Skies as 20 bombers attacking 30 infantry. Please consider it as 20 bombers supporting 10 infantry in three different sectors, bottling up 90 infantry of the Allies plus scaring a fleet of 4 loaded aircraft carriers. Cost wise, that is 240+30+30+30 = 330 PUs for the Germans compared with 270+144 =414 PUs. It compensates for the economic bonus that the Allies have over the Axis to start the game.
-
How about USA spend less (but definately not zero) IPCs in Europe now. The large (and growing) allied fleet @ Gibraltar looks enough to scare Germany to not think about ‘going for London’. Furthermore, once the net closes around Cairo, it can quickly relocate to reinforce Egypt. The USN can stage inside the Med (off Gibraltar) to cost Italy economically and to tighten the rope around its neck. Of course, then you also have to be creative about finding a way to reinforce this position. Reinforcements either stage off the coast of both the Guyana’s first, or simply rely on the presumption that German bombers do not wish to land in Southern France/Normandy/Belgium and stage west off Gibraltar anyway. Consider building an IC in Egypt. You’ll need every man woman and tea spoon you can lay your hands on to defend Cairo with.
Meanwhile, with the bulk of US investments going into the Pacific once more, Japan will collapse soon. After that, Cairo (and Europe subsequently) can also be reinforced from the Pacific. Germany against the world doesn’t sound as a very fair game to me ;-). UK can spend most (but maybe not all) its IPCs into Africa/med at the same time. Tip for once IJN is in an inferior position in the Pacific: convoy each and every coastal area Japan owns to further reduce their income. This is what should happen immediately after Japan takes Calcutta (IJN out of position), or at a later point if they do not (this game, and the very reason why I didn’t go for India I might add). At this point, the USA/ANZAC need more submarines for it, but ultimately it can very quickly result in another -30IPCs per turn on the Japanese income. If you can’t own the coast, raid it.
Alternatively the allies can keep spending heavily in the Atlantic, but that doesn’t look likely to achieve anything better than the current status quo in Western Europe, plus building up in advance for the defense of Cairo.
So basically I guess the two options for the USA are offensive (spending much more in the Pacific) or defensive (Europe spending), both ultimately ending in a struggle for Cairo and both with its own pros and cons.On a personal note, I don’t think DS is too strong but I do think the balance of the game is too heavily centered in the Pacific. If the allies do NOT deal with Japan first (one way or the other), I don’t think they stand a chance. Likewise, there isn’t much Japan can do if the USA spends their income of the first 3/4 turns into the Pacific entirely. Maybe if they give up either the land or naval war for the long term and focus on the other from the start, but I would need to try that. Either way Japan will be hurting very badly in the area not chosen but maybe the achievements in the chosen area will balance it somehow. In our current playtest, I am obviously trying to keep Japan’s head above the water in both area’s, resulting in less hurting but also in less Japanese achievements.
-
Definitely many of the ideas that I have been planning. It is getting to be a game of economics. If the allies go up a bit more in income, they should be able to eventually win. Egypt will hold for many, many more turns. The combination of plane reinforcements plus transported troops should block the German advance.
You should judge DS after you see how powerful it is when we are using it…
-
@Arthur:
(…) It is getting to be a game of economics. If the allies go up a bit more in income, they should be able to eventually win. Egypt will hold for many, many more turns. The combination of plane reinforcements plus transported troops should block the German advance.
For now, we should continue for a while and see. And remember, in this case I am not interested in ‘who’ wins, but if the DS is an overpowered strategy or not.
@Arthur:
You should judge DS after you see how powerful it is when we are using it…Â
Maybe the only difference in our opinions is that you credit the monstrous German achievements much more to DS where I say this is, well, just Germany in combination with the in this game mandatory allied JF. If Germany 'd go ‘land units only’, for example, they would not achieve anything less than with DS. Imagine Germany in our game without 19STR but with ~30 additional land units in the west and another additional 40 land units in Russia/ME and a 12-plane Luftwaffe that is positioned creatively. The allies would have about 2-3 less carriers but an additional 10-14 land units. Also a strong german position.
Frankly speaking, for me our current playtest has already served its goal.
It has made clear to me that DS is a very strong strategy (admittedly stronger than I initially thought), but nothing out of the usual. It has an allied counter just as all the other German strategies, even apart from any or all the alleged mistakes you and I have made in this game. I just see enough allied options to hurt Germany’s chance to win. The reason I am still playing our playtestgame, is because I am having fun with it!There is only one thing that I am still undecided about, that may tip the scale into the ‘DS=overpowered’, and that is the agressive British opening in Africa. In our game it worked great because there was no danger for SL at all. In a real game however, the UK often plays it a little more careful in the opening. There are some good players on the forum here who have an opinion about launching a surprise SL if London is left with less than a certain amount of units. So, on a less aggressive UK, DS may work a lot better indeed!
Maybe we should soon start another game with the UK playing a less aggressive opening just to cover this. But like I said before, I can play this game too much in a short time so I don’t know how long my interest will last this time… -
The best solution I have found is to dogpile as many locations as possible at the same time, and at sub-par odds forcing the axis bombers out.
This leads to tangible losses for the allies, particularly in fleets. But you can still make strategic gains, and have to accept that you start the game with a slight income edge.
Trade your British and American units for German ones, and hope you get lucky.
Remember the motto
“Forcing Germany to Use bombers is Forcing Germany to Lose bombers”Option #2, the allies - particularily USA can also use a heavy air builds with good effect. WUS is an excellent locations to threaten SZ6, and the Gibraltar Seazones on the same turn.
Bombers are still a game breaker, and maybe there should be a house rule that you can only build 1 or 2 bombers a turn. But until then, that’s my thoughts on the subject.
-
Gentlemen, I’m just not seeing it. I’ve now taken part in two games utilizing this strategy, as written, and the result has been the same: Russia is beastly.
I’m reading through the chain (admittedly I skimmed a chunk of it, it’s a long thread) and the math isn’t adding up. Let’s say Germany buys two bombers round 1, six bombers round 2 and two bombers a round after that (feel like that’s what I was seeing).
So now it’s the end of round five and Germany has 16 bombers and a few extra ground units. Impressive air force, no doubt, but how exactly are you beating back the 50-60 units Russia has purchased since turn 1 (not to mention what they start with)?
In a recent game with Ike I followed the dark skies plan to the letter and what I have to show for it is Russia moving into Europe. In a game with my girl she ran DS and I rolled over her with Russia. You’re not beating back a good allied player if you’re spending all of Germany’s money on bombers.
-
I consider myself a good Russian player and I got totally demolished trying to prevent the German invasion. I was able to slow him down a bit, but never could counterattack. I calculated the odds every round, but there was no way that I could approach him without getting hit. Perhaps you haven’t mastered the arts of the Italian can-openers, allowing your German planes to protect your infantry stacks? Perhaps your just a very inexperienced player?
-
I play over 50 live games a year, easily, and against a wide variety of opponents. Inexperience is not an issue (I’m sure better players exist, but I can set up the board from memory at this point; I play a lot).
The bombers are not enough to hold back a massive Russian push as far as I’ve seen
-
I still fail to see how it can be done… lot’s of Russian tanks and mechs during the first few turns? I’ve never had a problem pushing into Moscow with Dark Skies. It seems to fall around G7 or so, slightly later if the allies fly a bunch of planes to reinforce it. Once the Russian economy is in shambles due to bombing, it is just a matter of time.
-
Nippon,
I like what you’re saying, but I’d have to see you in action to validate.
Care for a game?
-
Nippon, in your games does Germany keep all their ground forces in one tight fist going toward smolensk, or does Germany spread itself out across a wide front from Leningrad to Ukraine?
Suggested Topics
