In addition to forces above I’ll send the strategic bomber from England and fighters if their still around from the scramble for your fleet. If you send the fighters from England you have to commit your carrier. Lose those fighters 1st if you feel you might retreat. This gives you two additional fighters and a bomber.
London Calling….....
-
The best German strategy devised as of yet is bombing Britain into stupidity.
Cheaper and more versitile than the sea lion/fake sea lion, and this strategy barely requires absoloute destruction of the Royal Fleet.
Build a bomber a turn, and a fighter a turn if need be.
G2 you can hit with 2 bombers and 3 fighters.
From then on, dont stop. UK must spend at south africa or it loses Egypt, and at a certan point they just wont be able to spend at London. After the units bought at South Africa, it wont be cost effective to build expensive units at London, especialy boats.The first time I did this I bombed with 3 bombers and 3 fighters for turn after turn, and damaged the port, airbase, and factory to max.
Try it next game……
-
Interesting. England IS spread thin. If the uk has three fighters also they are due one hit a round from the interceptors and one half hit from the complex’s AA on the bombers if you use three bombers. Thats 18 ipc of german damage. Bombers do 3.5 a round….fighters 5ipc…one bomber doesnt get through… 12ipc of damage to england a round, 18ipc lost. I dunno if germany can stand that. Make it six escorting fighters on three defenders and its 17 vs 18.
-
The best way to kill the axis is killing as much Axis-planes as possible.
I will not risk my planes on bombing raids.
The RAF defends with 3 Fighters on 2 and each facility on 1. Germany can’t afford such losses.
This might be a good strategy if the UK send the Planes to the med.
-
Its a good strategy even without
You are all still playing with a revised mindset. That loss and gain of money is the only measure in this game. This game has a new currency, time. And Germany can buy a lot of time if it buys a fighter and a bomber a turn.
Losing fighters is acceptable as germany, even losing ALL your fighters is acceptable. Why?
Because this strategy totaly removes UK as a threat. It cant build transports, it cant build units to load transports, and it cant make any attacks on you. It cant even afford bombers.
Consider this:
-
If UK wants to hold egypt it builds a Transport at SA. It must. And even with this there is still a high probability that Italy takes it. UK must build a minor in egypt UK 1 also if it wants to hold there.
-
If Germany threatens a sea lion, it spent a lot of money on units with no combat value, or strategic value if sea lion is canceled, other than a shuck to Novgorod
-
Bombers retain their value because they have duel roles, they can bomb strategicly, or be strong attackers.
-
The bombing run, unlike the sea lion, can not be stoped by a naval move by UK to block in or kill the units involved, thereby the bombing run happens every turn
-
-
Bombing still gets a good rate of return for Germany, dont give me that childisih shit that a bomber does 3.5 a run, and losing a fighter escort is like losing your first born child.
-
By bombing, you put yourself in a position to kill high value UK units faster than they can be replaced, while also costing the UK dramaticly more to rebuy those untis. But thats not even the important thing. The important thing is that after a point, UK simply cant buy at London anymore. And you have for all intents and purposes removed an opponent from the game for something like 4-5 turns. At a point in the game that is CRITICAL for Germany to have more time, and to have less opponents.
Im sure I sound like a snob……but try it. Go to your board. Buy a G1: Bomber, Sub, 2 INF, Tank
From then on buy a bomber and fighter each turn untill you have 3 of each. Keep 3 of each, and bomb UK every turn. You might lose some units, do not be discouraged. The odds will come back to your favor, and UK will become more strapped for cash and will have to choose between keeping Egypt or building at London ever again. If they build at london, Egypt falls. If Egypt falls, UK has no money. Then you can stop bombing anyway.
-
-
-
I will trust that you know what you are talking about Oztea… however I question some of the application. (I have not yet played a Global game, so I am unfamiliar with any new mechanics/viability of strategies.)
First: What else does Germany buy if they buy at least 1 Fighter and 1 Bomber per turn, and where are those units headed? What is your typical income at this point?
Second: How long does this bombing campaign last?
Third: What is the effective use of bombing air and naval bases? I mean, airbases I can perhaps see, so that they can’t scramble fighters, but why potentially waste planes attacking a naval base?
-
1. Germany starts with a lot of land units that can be shifted eastward on the secontd and third turns to strike at Russia. On the second turn Germanys income looks like this:
30 Original Territory
19 French IPCs from capital capture
6 IPCs in territory taken from France
2 IPCs from Finland joining the Axis
2 IPCs from Attacking Yugoslavia
1 IPC from Bulgaria joining the Axis.
Two 5 IPC bonuses (Norway, Denmark, Neutral Sweeden/Neutral Soviet Union)So 70 IPCs on G2……the 22 Fighter bomber investment is a steep price, but affordable. And equitable.
G3 Income is more near 50 however…so G2 is where what you buy dictates the rest of the game.My Buys:
G1: 2 INF, 1 TNK, 1 Sub, Bomber
G2: Minor Factory (Romania or Yugoslavia), 1 Bomber, 1 Fighter. 3 Tanks, 3 Mech, 2 INF**2.**The bombing campaign begins G2 with the attack of 3 Fighters and 2 Bombers vs what is likely 2-3 UK Fighters. I dont care about the raw math here….I expect to lose one plane, and dont expect to kill a UK plane. I dont expect to lose a bomber, but I expect to do 6 damage.
Now here is the crucial part…UK must be spending in South Africa, and cant spend in the sea around UK or else it will get blown up. So what does it do? buy another useless fighter to stop the bloodflow? (useless in that it can only defend in UK, and is little threat to your coastline because of its limited reach) buy units in canada? that are too far away to strike you? UK is at 25-35 IPCs at this point. They cant buy stuff for south africa AND defensive boats AND transports AND stuff to put in the transports AND repair the damage to UK. This plan spreads their money thinnner and thinner…and once it gets up to three bombers the damage magnifies. Germany can afford to replace the planes…if UK replaces a plane then it just spent 33% of its money. The bombing campaingn eventualy forces UK to just not repair the factory, and build eleswhere. And then on to point 3.
**3.**Bombing the Port and Airbase is a secondary concern, and only compunds the problem for UK, this is especialy detremental to the UK once the US is in the war….why so you ask? Because the US needs that port to be operational so it can shuck units back and forth to UK to prepare the invasion. The shuck from Newfoundland to UK of US units is the easy way to get unprotected transports and loads to the UK for the eventual invasion. By damaging the port, the UK MUST spend the money to repair it or the US transports on the way back to canada are behind a turn. They can only move 2 when the port is damaged, not 3. Bombing the Airbase has little significance, other than to limit the range of air units there by 1. Because UK isnt an island, the fighters there cant scramble anyway.
-
UK can build from Canada and South Africa. They don’t need rebuild damage at London at least until that they receive 5-6 of damage, and the defending fighters are there
-
Interesting and I’ll definitely try it out at some point in time. However, the UK doesn’t really need to spend IPC’s in Africa for several turns if it blasts the Italian fleet (something it should do if you’re not threatening a Sea lion) and moves some or all of its Pacific fighters over and it seems like the success of this strategy is mostly predicated on them churning out units in South Africa.
-
Is it plausible for Britain to effectively ignore, or provide token support (1-2 inf per turn) for their factory in Africa, and instead spend their money on ships in the near England sea zones?
Not that ships will help alleviate any of the Blitz, but it can at least be preparitory for a strike somewhere in Europe. I do not know how many ships your strategy will leave UK with after turn 1, but if I were the UK facing your German strategy, I would move what ships I have to a safe location (Either north of England or to Canada), and then begin building my fleet. I mean… who says I have to repair the factory in England? If I didn’t want to do that, it frees up my money to buy ships in Canada and land units in South Africa. If you aren’t planning for a Sealion, then by all means, bomb my factories into oblivion; you won’t be taking money away and it won’t really be hurting me. I have to wait to do a lot until America is in the war anyway. As long as Germany can’t take England, the situation is managable. I would prepare a strike with the Americans and wait it out until they are in the war. Or even make preemptive strikes somewhere in Scandinavia or landings in Africa. I don’t know.
Like I said, I haven’t played a global game yet, so I don’t know the dynamics. But would anyone think this is at least a plausible counter strategy? Or am I missing something from lack of experience?
-
Sorry, good thoughts, but I’ll never try.
Do you play with low-luck-rule?
One round of bad dices and for example 2 Ftrs and 2 Bmbrs are gone while damaging UK facilities a minimum.
I need the planes everywhere, but not for bombing missions.
I could imagine bombing runs vs. UK if russia is defeated.
-
I do not play with low luck
I play using reasonable assumptions about unit capiblities….of course I could lose 2 fighters and two bombers…but UK could lose 2 fighters and take 12 damage…that door swings both ways.
-
Is it plausible for Britain to effectively ignore, or provide token support (1-2 inf per turn) for their factory in Africa, and instead spend their money on ships in the near England sea zones?
Not that ships will help alleviate any of the Blitz, but it can at least be preparitory for a strike somewhere in Europe. I do not know how many ships your strategy will leave UK with after turn 1, but if I were the UK facing your German strategy, I would move what ships I have to a safe location (Either north of England or to Canada), and then begin building my fleet. I mean… who says I have to repair the factory in England? If I didn’t want to do that, it frees up my money to buy ships in Canada and land units in South Africa. If you aren’t planning for a Sealion, then by all means, bomb my factories into oblivion; you won’t be taking money away and it won’t really be hurting me. I have to wait to do a lot until America is in the war anyway. As long as Germany can’t take England, the situation is managable. I would prepare a strike with the Americans and wait it out until they are in the war. Or even make preemptive strikes somewhere in Scandinavia or landings in Africa. I don’t know.
Like I said, I haven’t played a global game yet, so I don’t know the dynamics. But would anyone think this is at least a plausible counter strategy? Or am I missing something from lack of experience?
And how about this? …
-
The only problem I see with your thinking, is that I do not see the UK building at London in a normal game much anyway. Until the US is in the war the sea around London is too dangerous, south africa, possibly a persian IC, and canada are just fine. The race doesn’t begin until the US and Russia are in the war anyway. All UK needs to do is survive and hold on to the middle of the board as long as possible, the economic difference will do the rest.
-
The only problem I see with your thinking, is that I do not see the UK building at London in a normal game much anyway. Until the US is in the war the sea around London is too dangerous, south africa, possibly a persian IC, and canada are just fine. The race doesn’t begin until the US and Russia are in the war anyway. All UK needs to do is survive and hold on to the middle of the board as long as possible, the economic difference will do the rest.
That is much of my point: unless a Sealion is legitimately threatened, the UK need not build in England at the beginning of the game. It is too dangerous for British ships by themselves. Stick it out in Canada and wait for the US to get in on the action. So pulling a blitz on London becomes fairly pointless. Germany can’t play that game if the UK player won’t play along.
-
“Bombing still gets a good rate of return for Germany, dont give me that childisih sh*t that a bomber does 3.5 a run, and losing a fighter escort is like losing your first born child.”
I am not above strategic bombing. Just let me know what part of the math I have wrong.
I believe:
A bomber survives an AA attack of 1 five out of six times.
The average roll or a D6 is 3.5 (1,2,3,4,5,&6 are the possible outcomes. Each is as likely as another. Figuring out the odds of any number coming up in craps which uses two die is more interesting)Over six turns the bomber does an average of 5 x 3.5 damage. That is 17.5 IPCs of damage for a 12 IPC loss.
Throw in “X” number of fighters in defense and the math changes. A fighter rolling at 2 gets a kill 1/3 of the time. If you have 2 escort fighters for every 1 defending fighter that evens out.
Germany IS in a position to do damage to the UK. Strategic bombing with the damage it causes is really interesting because repairing the damage can be put off. The damage also caps at 20 (my rule book is away from me so let me know if I’m wrong!) so using more than 3 bombers changes the math since some of the permutations that cause more than 20 damage get discounted. That formula I need to look up.
Gimme 3 bombers sitting idly and no fighter defense or 2 to 1 escort odds and either Russia or the UK is likely to get bombed by me though!
-
I am not against bombing if you have extra planes who aren’t doing anything better at the time. But a dedicated bombing campaign seems less than useful if the enemy doesn’t care anyway. And once the rules changed from direct IPC loss in AA Revised to factory damage in AA50 … well… strategic bombing loses some of it’s effectiveness. I think this new way is better (that the player must pay to repair), but it is worse for the attacker because the person being bombed doesn’t necessarily have to spend all their money on repairing the factory, whereas before they’d lose the money right away, whether they wanted to or not.
This might be a viable and useful option, to pull a blitz on London… but first I want someone to refute my counter-strategy to it. Then I might be more convinced.
-
Seems like UK can ignore bombing and not launch interceptors.
If I was going to bomb UK, I would just rather conduct air attacks on London land and air units, thereby actually killing units and forcing at least a small buy there as Germany starts the game with 1 transport.
Each bomber or fighter kills 3 IPC’s when it kills an infantry, or 10 IPC’s when it kills a fighter. On G1 you can kill 3 fighters and 2 infantry for a cost of 3-4 air units. The UK fleet is meaningless without land units to take German soil. If you build a tac bomber and fighter (1 IPC cheaper) a turn, you will still clear 9 infantry (27 IPCs) for like 5 air units (unless you can build enough air to end it one round in which your losses would be 3 units-30 IPCs). I would rather throw air units away killing units then damaging a facility that may not be repaired.
I’m not saying I would do any of this, but this is the technique I would prefer over bombing.
Suggested Topics
