@thinrich83 Yes.
German bomber strategy - How to play and How to counter
-
@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.
-
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…
-
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 :) -
put “abnormal” investments in the Pacific
Should mean: Atlantic
-
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)! -
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. -
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
-
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.
-
? Why would you want extra bombers really early when the USA is ignoring you? As opposed to getting cheap ground units started towards Russia
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ;-)(…)
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.
-
Ok, so so after reading much of this thread Dark Sky’s should make Germany the focus of the allies because it is a tough nut to crack. So allies (USA) should go heavy Europe to get the Luftwaffe to engage them basically to reduce the German air superiority. As allies you want to entice the bmr wing of the Luftwaffe into battles they should win, but at a cost. Probably want to do this as early as possible before they are at 10+ bmrs (critical mass at what 15+).
Ok, so before an effective allied strat was KJF to cripple the Japanese navy/econ as fast as possible making them irrelevant (but this takes time), then switch gears to Europe. Now I’m hearing that with Dark Sky’s neutering Japan first will allow Germany to become impregnable because of the dominance of the air force.
Now when the game starts you may not know what the Germans are going to do (well you shouldn’t anyway), but you can assume they will go one of 3 ways.
- Barbarossa
- Dark Sky’s (heavy bmr strat)
- Sea Lion
Sometimes Germany will tip its hand w/G1 purchases. If they buy a couple bmrs, it could be Dark Sky’s, or maybe a Sea Lion (want to SBR UK before the invasion). If they buy mostly inf/art it could be Barbarossa, unless they also bought a couple transports …… If they buy a carrier they might be thinking Sea Lion depending on how UK reacts and so on…or they may save the bulk (or all) of their IPCs to hide their intentions.
So in light of this I’m hearing the allies need to focus on Europe early, and defend the 4th map (Hawaii/Sidney) from Japan. It is expected that the Japanese will become Godzilla and dominate the Pac side generating to what 90+ IPCs? But at some point the US will need to deal with them as well.
So the USA (with a few UK ships) is the power that needs to push the Germans and over load them. They need to delay/stop a Russian onslaught by forcing the Germans to refocus the Luftwaffe to the west as early as possible (thinking that with heavy bmr buys the Germans won’t have the land units to push to the heart of Moscow w/o the air power. Maybe creating a naval situation that favors the axis air, but will be costly if the Germans engage, and maybe attempt some landings to boot.
Assuming there is no J1 attack, what should the US do from the get go?
A) Buy ships for the Atlantic US1, and start moving part of the Pac fleet (sz110 start-up) through the canal.
B) Start moving everything you got towards the Atlantic side (including the Pearl ships), and drop a couple capital ships off DC .
C) Build at San Fran adding to the sz110 fleet with intentions of moving through the canal us2 . Leave Pearl Harbor ships on the Pac side that can be added to a couple turns later to delay/defend the Japanese (keeps you a bit more flexible).
A & B defiantly lets the Germans know you mean business (but Japan is licking its chops), not sure if it would change effect the German strat though?
Even if you move/build Atlantic, the Japanese could delay attacks and you don’t get to use your pretty new Atlantic fleet until turn 4. The idea is to get the Germans to engage as early as possible so the Luftwaffe takes a hit, but it is up to the axis as to when the US comes into the war, and if/when they want to hit the Western Fleet.
-
My understanding of how Dark Skies works is that it’s always paired with a J1 DOW on the Allies. Why wouldn’t it be? With a J1 DOW and the Germans working to stack those bombers, the USA is forced to deal with two things at once, which is good for the Axis.
Hard for me to say, though. I’m an awful Axis player. But when I do win with Axis, it’s often with a Dark Skies strategy. I think that’s the main effect of the Dark Skies strat - it takes those who would normally be bad and makes them win anyway. I mean, we aren’t seeing a lot of heavy bomber builds in the Tier 1/E levels, are we?
-
Excellent posts, gentlemen, I enjoyed those very much and I think you know what you’re talking about - summarizing the thread pretty well.
A thought or two for you
There isn’t really such thing as critical mass for German bombers. I don’t care if Germany has 100 bombers, the worst they can do is sink you in 1 round. So you get one round of defense. You most often can use an airbase or two to help with defense. If your defense is mainly destroyers, carriers, and fighters (hopefully mostly fighters, obviously the most effective), then the Germans should lose significant #s of bombers no matter how many they have.
You are right that Germany may be tipping their hand with G1 purchases but it doesn’t have to be that way. G1 is 30, G2 is 66-70, so Germany can change directions pretty quickly and effectively on G2.
The Allies can’t be afraid to take negative TUV trades with the German airforce, and this definitely includes UK1 with the scramble decision. It’s pretty simple - German air has the optimal position on the board and has UK, USA, and Russian enemies on all different fronts, so German air is the most valuable in the game. A German fighter costs 10 to build and so does a UK fighter, but the German fighter is significantly more valuable. I would be happy to trade 3 UK fighters for 2 German fighters in most instances, because now the German force is weaker against all enemies.
I know it’s simple, but I see over and over again that players think that 10 = 10, but it doesn’t. Oh, and UK fighters are generally much more valuable than USA fighters because the UK fighters can immediately bolster USA takes. And, of course, London has a smaller economy.
-
@Shin:
My understanding of how Dark Skies works is that it’s always paired with a J1 DOW on the Allies. Why wouldn’t it be? With a J1 DOW and the Germans working to stack those bombers, the USA is forced to deal with two things at once, which is good for the Axis.
I personally do not do a J1 DOW, in fact I usually will play for a J4 (J3 sometimes). No reason to get the U.S. into the game that early. Japan’s purpose is to play positionally, and if Allied forces do not reinforce in sufficient numbers, then Japan is ready to perform a slow crush win in the Pacific.
@Shin:
But when I do win with Axis, it’s often with a Dark Skies strategy. I think that’s the main effect of the Dark Skies strat - it takes those who would normally be bad and makes them win anyway. I mean, we aren’t seeing a lot of heavy bomber builds in the Tier 1/E levels, are we?
Well, bmnielsen seems to be an adequate player, and he’s the one who played it against me and gave me the inspiration (it’s not a new concept, it was just new to me). As far as making those who would normally be bad win, well, there it depends. If you are playing an average Allied player, I can agree with that. If you are playing a good Allied player, however, I very much disagree. It is MUCH more difficult to calculate out which battles you should take on against an Allied player who keeps giving you “sucker plays” for those bombers – buying 175 infantry per turn and pushing them East just isn’t as tactically challenging. But, I will say this. I think the bomber strat is the best chance that a good Axis player has against a good Allied player – this is just my opinion.
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.
LeClerc, the more I stop and think about that statement (I know you’ve made it before), the more I realize that it may just be the most profound one in the entire thread. You see, since the early days of playing first and second (and third) edition, time has always worked against the Axis. Even when using tech strategies, there was only a small window for Japan to roll (in an even game), whereas it seemed like the U.S. had forever to roll and hit. Is this (Global 40) the first iteration of the A&A series where time works in favor of the Axis over the Allies? If so, that is strange both from a gaming standpoint and a historical one….
-
Is this (Global 40) the first iteration of the A&A series where time works in favor of the Axis over the Allies? If so, that is strange both from a gaming standpoint and a historical one….
Very strange, yes.
It is my personal experience that an axis rush is much easier to defeat with the allies. I was even beginning to think the allies were unbeatable because all I ever saw was axis rush strategies (which I found rather easy to defeat). So yes, imo the axis will be much stronger if they take their time with taking VCs, provided they do work on progressing their combined economy. -
Time is still the enemy of the Axis for the first four or five turns, for sure.
Germany:
You must be in a position to begin enacting the neutered Russia tactic, hopefully having at least two of their mICs and in range to SBR Moscow. This requires that you get your units into position as quickly as is possible. Every turn you’re not SBRing or you leave Russia’s economy above 20/turn is no bueno. If you’re lucky, or the Russian player is not so great, or you focused on it and don’t mind the big risk, killing russia is even an option on or before turn 8 (though I haven’t seen this in any game since the first half of 2014).Italy:
You must either have already taken Egypt and be making 24+/turn or be full-swing into the Russian can-opener. Some early shenanigans with Gibraltar could cause exceptions.Japan:
Whether it’s J1 DoW or waiting all the way to J4, you must either be prepped to blast out and cause massive casualties when the time comes, or have a strong positioning of your fleet to where it is clear there is literally nothing the allies can do to stop you, ore even slow you down, for several, several rounds to come.After the first 4-5 turns? Then yes, you’re right. Time is no longer a necessarily bad thing for the axis, then, but you still must get your shit done early on. That being said, the earlier simple idea of “if you don’t win by turn [9 +/- 2], then you never will” for the axis is indeed no longer something I follow.
-
With all these Bomber buys with Germany. Where are the Ground troops to build its economy and push into USSR? SBR on Russia IC’s is fair enough but surely the Germans are going to lose bombers to AA and Soviet and Allied fighters intercept. Am i missing something?
-
With all these Bomber buys with Germany. Where are the Ground troops to build its economy and push into USSR? SBR on Russia IC’s is fair enough but surely the Germans are going to lose bombers to AA and Soviet and Allied fighters intercept. Am i missing something?
Yes, I think a lot of people are missing two basic points here. One, remember that in global each AA only fires at three planes each in a ground war. Two, you need a lot less ground troops to take Russia with 20+ bombers than without. And, mech infantry are fast for one extra IPC. So, if you can buy 3 bombers per turn at 36 and you are earning 68 (just pulling a number out), that’s 8 mech infantry. You don’t really need artillery at that point (for the same cost) since your strike force is from the air (and artillery are slow – perhaps purchasing them from the Ukraine IC is OK). Any other German ground that you need is already on the board at the start of the game.
Do the math. Bombers only cost 12 IPC’s and can hit Moscow THE NEXT TURN (key emphasis). This is much more efficient than purchasing ground forces only.
Please note that my original posts do not subscribe to all of the other noise in the thread (but I think I was the inspiration for the post lol). I purchase about 3-4 bombers per turn, and put the rest into fast ground units. It’s this balance that is difficult to stop, not bombers only. This balance threatens all theaters, and can be in Egypt as well as Moscow (or both) along with threatening Allied shipping.
If the Allies are doing nothing but stacking boats in Gibraltar, that’s not much support to Russia, imho.
Suggested Topics
