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?
Now I’m no fan of saying DS is a special, overpowered strategy, but I too can vouch for Germany being able to push Russia back into Moscow.
Maybe Nippon retreats the Siberians into Moscow and starts to push back RU7/RU8? Siberians are always a tough one to decide a strategy for. At least for me. If Russia cannot hold Moscow after RU8 then retreating the Siberians could be seriously considered. They will prolong the hold on moscow by at least 2 more turns, at the cost of more Japanese income… The lesser Russian income doesn’t really matter in this decision, because they can never produce 2AAA + 24INF (Siberians + Mongols) with the income from their eastern territories before turn 12 anyway. And the Siberians arrive in Moscow RU6-7 already. A lot sooner than RU12.
On top of that, if Russia has no income left anymore, Germany won’t recieve as much of a bonus after taking Moscow.
The way I see it, the German initial land force combined with Italian can openers AND the german FTR/TAC couples are enough to defend against Russian counterattacks till RU8. With Siberians in Moscow, approaching becomes more perilous. Also, the German offensive power of those land units coupled with the massive airstack is able to push Russia back into Moscow RU6; with a little help from the RAF, Russia can hold Bryansk but will have to retreat into Moscow once GE6 steps into Rostov. I haven’t yet calculated if it is wise for Russia to leave 6 to 7 INF in Rostov to prevent Italian can-openings, but I don’t think so because at that time Moscow will be raided and won’t produce >3INF per turn from RU4 or RU5 and Germany will produce 6MECH per turn.
So yes, I can see Moscow holding out for 2-3 turns longer with the help of the Siberians and another 2-3 turns if the UK is serious about sending FTR+TAC into Moscow, but counterattack? No. Only if Germany steps adjacent to Moscow too early (and without airsupport). But if Moscow can survive into turn ~12, that is also worth a whole lot. I think Germany won’t be able to seriously start pushing into the middle east as long as Moscow remains alive and kicking.
Then again, I might have gotten it all wrong, but always happy to learn new strategies…
3 full carriers = 108
4 destroyers = 32
airbase = 15
3 fighters = 30
Total: 185 ipcs, 40 defense strength, 19 hit points
Germans attack with 18 bombers and 8 other planes, losing ~10 planes = 110 ipcs
If you could have a couple of subs, this ratio of 1.7:1 can get a bit better. If you are also sinking the Allied transports, the math gets even better. You can probably get closer to a 2:1 trade. The Axis certainly can afford that sort of economic trades.
If the Allies put even more ships off of Gibraltar, ignore them and counterattack wherever they land. In the game that I am playing, the Allies have a big carrier fleet off of Gibraltar and a massive stack of ground units of Spain. Germany can counter with 40 ground units + 25 planes if I ever step into Normandy. He is laughing at the money that I had to waste building up my six carrier Navy.
@Arthur:
3 full carriers = 108
4 destroyers = 32
airbase = 15
3 fighters = 30
Total: 185 ipcs, 40 defense strength, 19 hit pointsGermans attack with 18 bombers and 8 other planes, losing ~10 planes = 110 ipcs
If you could have a couple of subs, this ratio of 1.7:1 can get a bit better. If you are also sinking the Allied transports, the math gets even better. You can probably get closer to a 2:1 trade. The Axis certainly can afford that sort of economic trades.
If the Allies put even more ships off of Gibraltar, ignore them and counterattack wherever they land. In the game that I am playing, the Allies have a big carrier fleet off of Gibraltar and a massive stack of ground units of Spain. Germany can counter with 40 ground units + 25 planes if I ever step into Normandy. He is laughing at the money that I had to waste building up my six carrier Navy.
Wondering where you got those 18 bombers from, depending on then the US is in the war this can be done turn 2 with some efford turn 3 with ease.
Now your planes cannot attack as they cannot land anywhere afterwards so your left with just bombers So 10 bombers vs 3 full carriers + a cruiser and 2 destroyers.
Ill put some trannies there just to take gibraltar and moroco so you cant land your planes.Even if you got mutual annihilation with the fleet and maby even trade favorable 1 vs 1.2 i dont care you have lost 3 turns of german buys, russia did buy 3 turns so have a huge stack and there are US forces in afrika. And with no bombers to threathen me again i can buy fleet with UK or US without much protection and drop even more boots in europe or afrika what are you going to do about it, rebuild your bomber forces? How long will it last before russia starts knocking on your eastern door because you dont have enough troops to stop them.
So then in that case, Germany simply doesn’t attack your fleet. Why should they? Turn 2-3, US has no invasion force capable of threatening Germany. You just wasted your first few turns buying a useless navy, and now Japan is probably taking over the Pacific with your lack of Pacific buys.
Exactly, Amanntai. I have had several opponents try building up a big US atlantic fleet on turns 2-3. I ignored him and laughed my way to Japanese victory. Japan will be out earning the combined US + India + ANZAC by turn 5. At that point, victory is virtually assured. Meanwhile Germany is slowly pushing its way into Russia, leaving behind a few troops to deal with possible amphibious invaders.
Gargantua, definitely down for a game sometime. Perhaps this weekend?
Variance, Germany keeps their ground units together. The issue is they cannot compete with Russia on that front, as the Russians are buying 10 ground units a turn. Let’s look at it this way: Germany’s first three turns under this plan nets them 10 bombers with enough left to buy 5-8 ground units (please correct me if my math is wrong on this). Russia should be able to buy 30 units easily (I like 7 artillery and 3 infantry in the first few rounds). Germany cannot effectively beat that back AND use that air force to keep US and UK at bay.
I’ve mentioned my Allied strategy in other threads but I’ll do a quick recap: US turn 1 I buy a CV, DD and 4 transports in EUS. If I saw Germany doing the bomber strategy I’d probably grab another carrier turn 2. I’d have the UK move any surviving ships from round 1 over toward Canada and buy out of there (at least 1 carrier no doubt). The allies could easily have an impressive fleet hanging out at Gibraltar or London by turn 3 or 4. Germany is not beating back that fleet AND marching on Russia. I respect the opinion of everyone on this board, but I don’t buy it guys.
Clerc, I don’t march back the Siberian troops. What I like to do with them: Buryatia turn 1, Amur turn 2. I make Japan react by A) attacking it or B) stacking Manchuria. If they go with B, depending how the board looks, I’ll take Korea turn 3. It’s a giant pain for Japan and slows them down a bit.
It seems a lot of the dark skies strategy relies on a premise I’ve never agreed with: if the Allies go KGF then Japan will win the game every time.
Yeah I don’t see it either guys. I’m sure Nippon and I will keep working on it but we just don’t see how you deal with the massive Russian stack without adequate ground purchases. Germany can only make it so far before they are forced back. If all their fighters/tacs are sitting in Russia trying to protect the weak stack from a counter attack, they’re not threatening the Atlantic or Med.
Dark Skies is not intended as a strategy for KGF! If the United States spends all of their money on the first two rounds in the Atlantic, start building ground units as Germany and enjoy the victory in the Pacific. Japan can by earning 45 PUs on J1, 57ish on J2, and around 70 on J3. On J4, they can conquer India leading to ~80 PUs. There is little or nothing that the Allies can do for these first four rounds except pray for lucky dice rolls. Don’t tell me you have some secret play to use the measly forces of India, China, and ANZAC to prevent this scripted attack (read Cow’s guide for J1 attack on Asia and the Philippines).
If the US has spent little in the Pacific for the first 2 rounds, they won’t be able to field a significant threat to Japan until turn 7! By that time, Japan should be approaching an income of 90. Not only will they be outproducing the US and ANZAC, but they have shorter supply lines and simpler attack coordination. Perhaps you have been facing bad Japanese players who don’t know how to properly expand.
@IKE:
Yeah I don’t see it either guys. I’m sure Nippon and I will keep working on it but we just don’t see how you deal with the massive Russian stack without adequate ground purchases. Germany can only make it so far before they are forced back. If all their fighters/tacs are sitting in Russia trying to protect the weak stack from a counter attack, they’re not threatening the Atlantic or Med.
The units Germany starts with is more than enough to hold Russia at bay for turns 2-3. After that, Dark Skies calls for only 1-2 Bombers a turn, with the rest going to ground buys. It isn’t like Dark Skies is 100% Bombers.
Even if Germany buys 1 Bomber per turn, they can still out buy Russia on ground units. How can Russia hold them back? Especially since the bombers purchased in Germany’s first 3 turns prevent the Western Allies from coming to Russia’s aid?
Shadow, I’m with you 100% US and UK can have a very respectable fleet put together by round 3. If Germany sends its air force it’s probably a mutual annhilation, which almost always favors the Allies.
@Arthur:
Dark Skies is not intended as a strategy for KGF! If the United States spends all of their money on the first two rounds in the Atlantic, start building ground units as Germany and enjoy the victory in the Pacific. Japan can by earning 45 PUs on J1, 57ish on J2, and around 70 on J3. On J4, they can conquer India leading to ~80 PUs. There is little or nothing that the Allies can do for these first four rounds except pray for lucky dice rolls. Don’t tell me you have some secret play to use the measly forces of India, China, and ANZAC to prevent this scripted attack (read Cow’s guide for J1 attack on Asia and the Philippines).Â
If the US has spent little in the Pacific for the first 2 rounds, they won’t be able to field a significant threat to Japan until turn 7! By that time, Japan should be approaching an income of 90. Not only will they be outproducing the US and ANZAC, but they have shorter supply lines and simpler attack coordination. Perhaps you have been facing bad Japanese players who don’t know how to properly expand.
I don’t want to squirrel the topic, but I’m not a believer in the J1 attack. I’ve seen it in action six times and the record is 1-4-1 (and this was following Cow’s guide step by step by step).
I say all of this in good fun and the spirit of debate:
It’s amazing to me that nobody can come to any conclusion other than “Everyone you play the game with must not know how to play country X.”
Between Ike living up the street, my Jersey and Westchester groups, we’re about 12 players deep with well over one thousand live games played between all of us. We study the boards, utilize strategies posted, play test games (sometimes a couple of us will play three rounds of a strategy, start over, play three again with slight tweaks and then compare differences), have entire war-game weekends (heading to PA next Thurs-Sun where 7-9 of us will have two boards going) and can set the board up from memory. We’re not amateurs.
Maybe you guys don’t play against strong Allied players. It’s at least as likely as my group not knowing how to play the Axis, isn’t it?
You can get away with 2-3 rounds of bombers which gives you around 10 bombers.
US can easy counter this with 2 carriers and 2 destroyers build round 1-2 with 1 airbase on gibraltar and 3 fighters or a UK carrier you will not destroy his fleet. And 10 bombers will not be enough to overcome the 15+ unit advantage russia has. Mutual annihilation is in favor for the russians as they produce closer to the front and they need to survive where germany needs to make ground.
How many times must it be said? If Germany cannot kill the fleet, they ignore it and the US wasted their IPCs. The Germans have no reason to attack a US turn 3 fleet.
Furthermore, after turn 3, Germany is putting most of it’s IPCs toward ground troops in Russia. Germany can outspend Russia easily and push Russia back. How can Russia win?
