German bomber strategy - How to play and How to counter

[amanntai]

@Stalingradski:

Variance - thank you  :-)

Amanntai - perhaps I oversold the point, or didn’t communicate my point sufficiently.

I would never advocate for a simple reenactment. I’m just as interested in novel ideas and new methods as anyone. I’ve been playing one version or another of A&A since the 1984 Milton Bradley version - thirty + years. As a disclaimer, I love new strategies - it’s why I play against other people and try to read threads on new strats. However!

There’s a point at which it becomes something else entirely, and (to me!) loses the spirit of the game. There are thousands of ‘chance’ games available for people to choose. Since I don’t have the time in my life to delve into serious WWII simulations, I fall back on this particular A&A system - a strategy game with dice. I’m not interested in counters and chits with historically accurate divisions, logistics, terrain issues, etc… speaking for most working class individuals with a family and a stressful job, I don’t have time. A&A is the (close to) perfect amalgam of history and chance and also has the my-wife-can-deal-with-me-playing-it-now-and-then factor. But… I’m interested in history. Not the pure domination of others. Not pure mathematics. History. And I like to recreate history, with chance involved, and add my own particular twist.

I tried to state in my post (if you go back and read) as often as possible, the disclaimer that this was my particular preference. But I know that I speak for some others as well… picking one particular unit for mathematical assurance violates a basic code for me… as Omar in The Wire (and later The Hound in GoT) noted - “A man’s gotta have a code.” My code is that I want to reenact WW II, and put my own twist on WII warfare in A&A, and not to find a mathematical break in the game and exploit it… does that make sense?

Another, more concrete way to say it - if I were to learn that the US could buy all battleships in the Pacific, and that by turn six I would win every game, would I do it? No way. I would have to say that I’d stubbornly still buy some aircraft, and try to get boots on the ground and take some islands, because I’m playing for more than just victory… I’m playing for an elegant victory, and for fun. I’d rather lose and play by my code than win by exploiting mathematics. To some, that makes no sense! To others, it makes perfect sense. Ahh… the wonder of diversity.

I simply offered a response to the original question about how to deal with the issue of German Bomber Strategy… and I chose to say “Don’t engage at all”. I think it was fair to add my voice to the discussion.

The great thing about A&A is there are so many variables that there is no way you can “do X and win by turn X every time”. There are millions of possible moves and strategies, and any one of the dozens of dice rolls made at each turn can be disastrous and foil your whole plan. It isn’t like Tic Tac Toe, where a skill player can always ensure either a win or a draw, or even like Chess, where an advanced computer can predict every move and develop a winning strategy every time.

Even then, Dark Skies is different than “US buys only battleships in the pacific and wins every time”. Dark Skies isn’t “all bombers and Axis victory”. It’s “buy a lot of bombers early, with some other units, and then build whatever you want after you have ‘enough’ bombers, and then you might win”. I see no reason people shouldn’t be allowed to play a valid strategy that isn’t a guaranteed win.

[Stalingradski]

Fair enough Amanntai, and a good counter point.

If people can win against this strat, then it isn’t necessarily a break in the game. I’d vigorously defend anyone’s ability to try any new strat, as wild and out of the box as it is.

When it gets to a certain point, it just won’t be me  :-)

[majikforce]

A&A is the (close to) perfect amalgam of history and chance and also has the _my-wife-can-deal-with-me-playing-it-now-and-then factor.

Amen Brother!_

[gamerman01]

@Gargantua:

After several tests - it is my opinion that although annoying, the bomber strategy is not overpowered or unbeatable.  In fact it’s slightly sub optimal, and much higher risk.

The allies just need to throw their navies out in such a way that only bombers or mostly bombers can reach.  Allied fleet configurations that are slightly sub par (60-70% for the bombers to kill) are preferred.  This entices the Axis attack.

The Axis will either bite, and end up losing the edge they need in Russia, or ignore, and the allied fleets will make gains.

If you can find a way to take out 3 or 4 bombers, that seems to be just enough.

I agree with this post, although I admit I haven’t been involved in many games with the bomber strat - but am playing it vs bmnielsen who has honed it.
But just going on hundreds of games of A&A experience and a couple against the bomber strat, I agree with this post - well said

I’m sure Germany is better served buying ground units and maybe a few cheap boats in the early rounds.  Bombers aren’t needed until the Allied fleets start coming (and then maybe not even then) - dominating Russia I think is the #1 most effective strat, and every bomber you buy early decreases your domination of Russia slightly

[barney]

@ freh Here’s a link that discusses some house rules for bombers.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35415.60

[Stalingradski]

@majikforce:

A&A is the (close to) perfect amalgam of history and chance and also has the my-wife-can-deal-with-me-playing-it-now-and-then factor.

Amen Brother!

:-D

[aequitas-et-veritas]

I can only hope it works Gamerman01.
I’m currently in a situation like this.
Me being Allies facing almost 20 bmbrs.

I will let you guys know jow it went.

AeV

[csaw]

Late to the convo but wouldn’t a good strategy against this be a late game neutral crush. � � This is assuming the Italians have been all neutered. The timing of the attack would have to be such that the US hits Spain and then UK hit Turkey in the same turn to prevent the free units for the AXIS. � This is assuming some sort of med bid, an early UK factory in Persia and an adequate defense of Moscow. � �

The advantages of this strategy would be that the bombers only sea target would be what ever sizable force the allies plant off of the coast of gib (Assuming an air field is purchased there). � Hence if they decide to attack the fleet the bombers are no longer a threat to Russia. � Also it allows a shuck to be created with no real threat if Germany decides to not attack the fleet. �

If Moscow is still alive and well defended this opens up a three front war against Germany which is very difficult to protect. �

Let me know what you guys think

[Putzky]

@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).

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 think the more likely scenario is that you have been facing Allied players that don’t know how to slow Japan’s quick expansion? Japan cannot be stopped from expanding in Asia and the SW Pacific for many turns, even with a J1 DoW that brings a mighty US into the fray immediately. However, Japan’s expansion can be and should be slowed at all costs.

It’s neither a flaw in the game nor a fluke that there are 4 Allied powers in the Pacific, none of which individually can compete with Japan. If you can find significant battles where the odds are in your favor early vs Japan, then Japan is playing poorly. What the Allied powers have to do is protect their large early income lead (which is made even larger by an early DoW by Japan) by taking bad battles and suiciding where necessary to slow the Japanese income gains, while buying time for the Allied income disparity to translate into units and tactical advantages.

Japan starts the game with only 3 transports, which means only if they are uncontested should they be able to take the money islands on J2. Even if it means Anzac and Britain - India sacrificing 30 IPCs on their T1 to stop Japan from getting the money islands on J2, it is worth it. At the start of J1 the Allies have a 50-60 IPC income advantage depending on G1. If Japan does a J1 DoW, that gap widens and it becomes in the neighbourhood of a 75 IPC income disparity in favor of the Allies. Lose lots of units in bad battles for the sole purpose of preventing the Japanese the chance of quickly closing that income gap, and give the Allies time to get those 75 additional IPCs into action and Japan will never get the momentum they need for an economic takeover.

[ItIsILeClerc]

Regarding the Pacific in this German Bomber Strategy, I like to stress out once again that the allies can stomach Japan taking India, China, large parts of Russia and all of the DEI, even uncontested.
In my humble experience, this is unavoidable if the USA focuses on the Atlantic first -but no more than approximately 2,5 turns (I’ll spare you the details for now). Requirement is that the Allies (USA!) can make economic gains in Europe, so their income reaches ~80IPCs/turn.

Even if the USA is making only 72IPCs per turn Japan will need to spend >>the combined USA + ANZAC income to be of any threat to Hawaii or Sydney (which would mean axis victory after Calcutta has fallen). So, Japanese investments into the Pacific ocean will need to be >>87IPCs per turn if ANZAC can manage to stay on 15/turn, >>82 if not.
With economic gains in Europe, these requirements increase by the amount of US gains in Europe.

In other words: Even after taking everything BUT Hawaii and Australia (Sydney), Japan can only hope to be a threat to Hawaii/Sydney if it spends nothing (at all) on Mainland Asia anymore. If they do so, they seriously risk loosing Calcutta again and this focus on the USA/ANZAC is no guarantee to take Hawaii/ Sydney if Japan cannot make much much more IPCs per turn than the combined USA+ANZAC income.

Having said all this, and correct me if you think I’m wrong, I think Japan cannot be stopped from taking everything except Hawaii and Sydney if the USA puts a focus on the Atlantic during the first 2, max 3 turns. If the USA puts their focus into the Pacific however, Japan is in very big trouble.
Thruth is, I now think that the USA is forced to go Atlantic first (to a limit) if they so much as suspect Germany will go for a bomberstrategy. Reason is that I think it becomes unreasonably hard for the allies to stop Germany once its Bomberstack has reached ‘critical mass’ and Russia has been reduced to a non-factor (which will happen if the USA puts their initial focus into the Pacific). Much harder anyway than it would be for them to stop a Japanese victory in the Pacific.

And if the only thing the allies can achieve by doing this, is to prevent Germany from building up their bomberstack to a critiacal mass, then so be it! Achieving this is still better than loosing the game because the Luftwaffe has become an unstoppable force.
If all the Axis are played right (and I am not saying I do that ;-), I am still learning every game I play and never cease to), there will always be an axis side (Euro or Pacific) that becomes an economic monster. Nothing the allies can do to stop that.
So in the end the Axis should always be able to make ~160IPCs per turn around turn 10.
1 -Allied KJF: GE(100+), IT(20+), JA(30+) versus USA(85+), UK(35+), RU(0), ANZ(15+), 150+vs135+;
2 -Allied GF: GE(60+), IT(10+), JA(90+) versus USA(75+), UK(35+), RU(15+), ANZ(10+), 160+vs135+.

It may be a personal preference, but I much rather have a monstrous Japan than a monstrous Germany (even though this is potentially better for the axis’ economies) -especially if the Germans also have been allowed to build up a bomberstack of ~30STR, due to the superior center position of Germany. It is too easy for Germany to kill London or Cairo from this position (depending on where the allies are not), while ignoring to assault Moscow, which has been made a non-factor already…

[JDOW]

@Gargantua:

The allies just need to throw their navies out in such a way that only bombers or mostly bombers can reach.  Allied fleet configurations that are slightly sub par (60-70% for the bombers to kill) are preferred.  This entices the Axis attack

I think 60-70% is way too conservative. Allies can easily offer up to a 100% if decent amoun tof bombers go down for sure. Furthermore it of course depends if Allies have a follow up once the fleet is sunk

Thruth is, I now think that the USA is forced to go Atlantic first (to a limit) if they so much as suspect Germany will go for a bomberstrategy.

I think you confuse “bomber strat” with “threats by the power of Germany” here.

It doesn’t matter if Germans play bombers or Barbarossa. With US going KJF Germans will mess around at Europe.
Thus a reasonable Atlantic investment by USA is advisable in any case. This is at least the way I play the Allies. I prefer this over the strategy which focusses on getting Japan down, losing Moscow and win the game by stopping lone Germans  to get the 8th VC victory.

The only move which forces US to put “abnormal” investments in the Pacific is if Germans go sea lion.
Here you decide the game early by forcing the Germans to dig their own grave by seeking after London. You need to neglect Japan during the early turns in order to “close” the demise of Germany and threaten to liberate London which you need to do earlier or later. After few rounds US can fully focus on Japan as Russians will almost deal alone with the Germans then :)

[JDOW]

put “abnormal” investments in the Pacific

Should mean: Atlantic

[ItIsILeClerc]

Aber nein, mein herr JDOW, I am not confused :-D.
I agree with you for a very big part, ofc. But I still do think that Germany is more dangerous with the bomberstrategy unchecked (because the USA goes JF), than it is with a ‘land units only’ barbarossa strategy unchecked.
The ‘unchecked’ part is very important as far as I’m concerned. Hence my remark about the bigger need for the USA to put stuff into the Atlantic (not necessarily an abnormal amount of stuff)!

[JDOW]

I am btw sorry I have said “confused”.

I guess we just have different opinions here.
I am very certain that the threat on Russia with a Barbarossa way higher thatn against bombers. This is a mathematical thing. With Arty G1 and tank/Mech only G2/G3 and Tank/Mech or Air G4 Germans have without any doubt more hitpoints and firepower against Moscow compared to bombers.

[gamerman01]

But with the bombers, Germany can pound on the Moscow IC…

It does seem like buying bombers on G1, G2, and maybe even G3 is suboptimal.  After that they’re great

[ItIsILeClerc]

I wholeheartedly agree, Gamer.
It indeed seems like buying bombers early is suboptimal, untill you play Germany against a USA that ignores you during the early 3-4 rounds. Try it out yourself with the condition that the USA ignores you. It is a good laugh :lol:. Ofc, if the USA does not ignore you it is a whole different story…

Some things in this game are just very conditional, being anything between very good or very bad depending on what the oppostion is doing against you.

[gamerman01]

? Why would you want extra bombers really early when the USA is ignoring you?  As opposed to getting cheap ground units started towards Russia

[ItIsILeClerc]

Hmhmmm, if going for Moscow first and as fast as possible, land units are much better.
If Germany wants to reduce Moscow to an economic non-factor, but is not interested in taking it as fast as possible but rather expand their economy first, the bomberstrategy offers great flexibility!
With it, Germany can take the Middle East, threaten all of London, Cairo, Moscow, Calcutta, the allied fleet in the Atlantic and any landing sites mostly at the same time during the mid- to late game. Very clever positioning of the bombers may even result in threatening all these targets all at once. Something I don’t think Germany can do if going for Moscow first (more land units) asap.

But, I think you have a point in that it doesn’t really matter in what order Germany builds its units anyway, if largely ignored (first bombers or first land units). The effects are probably really the same.

[gamerman01]

I would have said this earlier - this morning - but I was rushing out the door to get to a 4th of July parade -

You are making some very good points

I think the bigger question isn’t the bomber strategy but the Allied strategy.  You basically just said, and I agree, that Germany has loads of options and is very hard to stop without really good luck.  (Germany is often stopped cold on G1, especially by over-aggressive strategies, like not taking every land unit at France, or not replacing land units with aircraft if cheating a few away for something else)

I mean, pretty much everyone agrees you can put Germany or Japan in check if you focus on them, but of course the question is can you stop victory in the other theater.  According to hundreds of games played in the league this year, it looks like you have to be lucky and good to win as the Allies, or, of course, have the opponent over-matched in skill and/or experience.

You are right.  Germany doesn’t need to get Moscow fast, all Germany needs to do is stuff Russia so that Russia is not a threat, and merely go South, going for India if Japan is threatening to win, or for Egypt.  Since Larry added the complex in Ukraine that wasn’t there before, it is pretty easy for Germany to build 6 to 9 units a turn in Russia for cheap, which is more than Russia can build.  So it’s up to the Allies to make big things happen elsewhere before Russia folds.  If the Axis player knows what he’s doing and doesn’t take unnecessary chances, I think other quality players like Zhukov and JDOW have already said so I will merely echo - it is dang tough to win with the Allies.

[ItIsILeClerc]

I’m not an American but I believe people then say “happy 4th of july!”.
A little belated but hey, I live thousands of miles away ;-)

@Gamerman01:

(…)
Zhukov and JDOW have already said so I will merely echo - it is dang tough to win with the Allies.

It makes me so sad, but Amen to that. I’ll sadly join the echo.

The axis are so much harder to defeat if they stop seeing time as their enemy and instead use it to first (try to) get their total economy overpowering the allied one.