Operation Dark Skies JamesAleman(axis) vs Allweneedislove

p.s.: A big thanks at both players to post your game here and discuss your strategy. Great entertainment and Education!

I am playing a sloppy game, yes. The point will be proven later I believe. If I fail to win, that’s on me. I mainly wanted to demonstrate each concept discussed in one game, that calls for a very erratic game. I did keep Japan down, to show the German situation. Yes, IPC for IPC axis are being outproduced in dollars, but not in “effective” units. Each German air unit built…forces the allies to defend more than one location…meaning to win, the allies must “double” the axis placement. If I am wrong with this “advanced” concept, it will bear out. Germany is now outproducing USA for a few turns, that should present opportunity, I believe.

On Germany round 1, I believe, it is foolish to make a combat move that relies on luck for success when I have other uses for that piece that does not require me to roll a die(if I dont roll dice, I can’t roll poorly), and will likely move my opponent’s pieces where I want him to. This is a strategy game. I much prefer to move the sub towards z124 because as you saw in this game, it “forced” my opponent to move pieces out of position. This “advanced” concept is called “flooding” your opponent with “soft” targets, tempting him into spreading himself out. Permitting me to attack with air force at my leisure.

Now Imagine this game when I don’t gimp Japan, when I don’t throw Italy away…tell me how the allies build enough to stop this…I am playing the worst game yet, and I argue this game isn’t over. If I am right, I will have proved my point in the worst possible way, so that under ideal conditions, it will be deemed unstoppable. Give me 12 games to prove the concept, if I lose a game, I will concede bombers are no better…If I don’t, will you?

I will be starting a forth game Monday, I will post the results of these 4 games when I am finished. I will happily play others publicly as soon as some of these games finish.

@JamesAleman:

I am playing a sloppy game, yes. The point will be proven later I believe. If I fail to win, that’s on me. I mainly wanted to demonstrate each concept discussed in one game, that calls for a very erratic game. I did keep Japan down, to show the German situation. Yes, IPC for IPC axis are being outproduced in dollars, but not in “effective” units. Each German air unit built…forces the allies to defend more than one location…meaning to win, the allies must “double” the axis placement. If I am wrong with this “advanced” concept, it will bear out. Germany is now outproducing USA for a few turns, that should present opportunity, I believe.

On Germany round 1, I believe, it is foolish to make a combat move that relies on luck for success when I have other uses for that piece that does not require me to roll a die(if I dont roll dice, I can’t roll poorly), and will likely move my opponent’s pieces where I want him to. This is a strategy game. I much prefer to move the sub towards z124 because as you saw in this game, it “forced” my opponent to move pieces out of position. This “advanced” concept is called “flooding” your opponent with “soft” targets, tempting him into spreading himself out. Permitting me to attack with air force at my leisure.

Now Imagine this game when I don’t gimp Japan, when I don’t throw Italy away…tell me how the allies build enough to stop this…I am playing the worst game yet, and I argue this game isn’t over. If I am right, I will have proved my point in the worst possible way, so that under ideal conditions, it will be deemed unstoppable. Give me 12 games to prove the concept, if I lose a game, I will concede bombers are no better…If I don’t, will you?

I will be starting a forth game Monday, I will post the results of these 4 games when I am finished. I will happily play others publicly as soon as some of these games finish.

This post was an answer to JapanDOW’s comments. Allweneedislove is playing well, he also had an idea of what I was going to do, and I am playing Germany tight and conservative to demonstrate that I believe I have all the time in the world…I believe it was worth it to expose the German navy to UK, he allowed me to sink the UK units without the American’s present at a low cost in planes…that required me to have a juicy enough “bait”, we’ll see if that concept works or blows up in my face.

Hat’s off to allweneedislove, he was willing to let me test this crazy concept. He is backing up his beliefs with games played, I will back up as well against any willing opponents, I just ask that you let me do so publicly to reenforce my points. I will not play Japan this badly in future games, so that you can see the full potential of a strong Japan and Germany…in a typical game, you have Japan “contained” by now (turn 10) how big is your navy going to need to be, if the navy currently there was in the Pacific crushing a strong Japan…how do you hold both Egypt and London, without the resources that are currently there…I will attempt to prove in future games that you can’t…not conventionally at least.

Remember in this game I was “forced” to build fighters and tacticals instead of bombers to defend West Germany……if you mop up Japan by turn 8 or 9 and I have only bombers…good game.

Look at the bonusbent game, Andy was concerned about UK, Russia is trying to hold, it simply can’t. Just ignore UK to a degree, take Russia, then take UK fleet out of the Med….they have 1 factory in Egypt, London is Germany’s any turn Germany wants it (after they take Russia) and the Italian can openers make “blocking” too expensive so that it will not be done. The same concept holds true when you land 3 German bombers in Asia, Australia cannot afford to block against that, and the bombers never fire a shot…implied threat prevents blocking. When you do test us, and we pull the trigger…if you didn’t block the navy or capital falls…These advanced concepts turn the economic game on its head…you can be outproduced and still have your way with proper piece positioning and maneuver. As you can see, I am demonstrating the “potential” energy of Japan’s pieces on the board, a Japan that was collecting 13 IPCs redeployed to collect over 30 in two turns…When I uncoil the German airforce and “release” that potential energy that is still winding, in “2” turns you can see a similar effect. This is as advanced and foreshadowing a concept as I can convey and it is hard to explain, it must be shown…If I win this game that all “conventional” thinkers say is lost, how will they explain it under conventional theory… They won’t, it will beg for a new theory…the piece position and potential theory…IPCS are irrelevant if they are not the right pieces on the board in the right places. This game is won with victory cities, not IPCs.

What stops Berlin, (when they are ready) from moving all air force to Caucasus, building 20 land units in Europe and then swinging the German "IPCs’ upwards by 10 for the mid east and its NO’s. Is India, alone going to outproduce Berlin? I don’t even have to do it that way. Another concept I am eager to show is this: Drop land units in Scotland, throw away a transport…strafe London three turns in a row of all pieces…land 2 units in Scotland on the second strafe, land the air force on the Scotland troops, and on the third turn, strafe I capture London without sinking the fleet…This concept requires Berlin to build 8 fighters a turn…an easy feat, in fact I could make two of them tactical bombers…I would have to ignore Caucasus to do so, its too soon…That is what I almost started this turn, but I don’t rely on dice, and the time is not right…patience is a virtue in a strategy game.

Thanks for your answers guys, again great fun to follow this thread and your game!

@JamesAleman: Don’t get me wrong, I am convinced that one key element of successful German play is to build up a large bomber stack for the obvious reasons:

• You can hit any allied fleet on almost any relevant and threatening seazone
• You can hit Moscow
• Later you could even hit egypt

However so far I am convinced that a German “bomber only” strat is worse than building ground (Ger1 Carrier, destroyer/transport is also viable) at least 1-2 rounds is simply superior to hit Moscow most effectively (4 tanks 3 mechinf e.g. cost the same as 3 bombers but are way way way more effective for the Moscow hit and even after capturing Moscow you need them anyway to march towards egypt)
I am quite sure you would have run into trouble in at the gates of moscow if allyouneed would not have made this mistake he stated he did.

So in the end we all know that Axis seems to be slightly favored and that Allies need to be extremely good to outplay the axis.

This leaves me with the opinion so far that in games you won you are not successful because of your bombers only strat but despite of it :-)

@AllYouNeed: But in case you do not buy ground units what is the winning plan? If your opponent would play till eternity you one day need to capture any of the capitals which only works with ground? So you are just patient and let your income edge grow until you maybe have 40+ bombers?

Do you have any experience in taking Spain? I tried it once successfully for the obvious advantages:

• You can transport ground in one move from US to Europe –> 10 transport could bring 10 ground every round
• Spain airbase covers so many seazones
• Spain factory allows you to even produce ground in Europe --> Less transports
  I think this can outweight the disavantages of giving Turkey and Sweden (later Afganistan) for free for Germany. Ecowise you do not even need to lose too much as you grab Portugal and Saudi-Arabia as well and the later the game the less the extra inf play a role.

So far my experience in Europe (especially in Europe only) is that usually IT and UK are the decisive factors
Strong UK allows to secure US fleet with fighters and even to secure US landings with fighters and to outperform Axis eco wise
Strong IT prevents this making any invasion not working and equalizing Eco.

Cheers!

@allweneedislove:

would you like to scramble in sz95?
would you like to intercept in west germany?

Sorry for the sidetrack, no intercept or scramble this time, I would have to rely on good rolls, that’s not how I “roll” ;)

@JapanDOWRound1Fan:

Thanks for your answers guys, again great fun to follow this thread and your game!

@JamesAleman: Don’t get me wrong, I am convinced that one key element of successful German play is to build up a large bomber stack for the obvious reasons:

• You can hit any allied fleet on almost any relevant and threatening seazone
• You can hit Moscow
• Later you could even hit egypt

However so far I am convinced that a German “bomber only” strat is worse than building ground (Ger1 Carrier, destroyer/transport is also viable) at least 1-2 rounds is simply superior to hit Moscow most effectively (4 tanks 3 mechinf e.g. cost the same as 3 bombers but are way way way more effective for the Moscow hit and even after capturing Moscow you need them anyway to march towards egypt)
I am quite sure you would have run into trouble in at the gates of moscow if allyouneed would not have made this mistake he stated he did.

So in the end we all know that Axis seems to be slightly favored and that Allies need to be extremely good to outplay the axis.

This leaves me with the opinion so far that in games you won you are not successful because of your bombers only strat but despite of it :-)

@AllYouNeed: But in case you do not buy ground units what is the winning plan? If your opponent would play till eternity you one day need to capture any of the capitals which only works with ground? So you are just patient and let your income edge grow until you maybe have 40+ bombers?

Do you have any experience in taking Spain? I tried it once successfully for the obvious advantages:

• You can transport ground in one move from US to Europe –> 10 transport could bring 10 ground every round
• Spain airbase covers so many seazones
• Spain factory allows you to even produce ground in Europe --> Less transports
  I think this can outweight the disavantages of giving Turkey and Sweden (later Afganistan) for free for Germany. Ecowise you do not even need to lose too much as you grab Portugal and Saudi-Arabia as well and the later the game the less the extra inf play a role.

So far my experience in Europe (especially in Europe only) is that usually IT and UK are the decisive factors
Strong UK allows to secure US fleet with fighters and even to secure US landings with fighters and to outperform Axis eco wise
Strong IT prevents this making any invasion not working and equalizing Eco.

Cheers!

Thanks for your comments, and they are welcome indeed. I didn’t not mean to convey rudeness or irritability, I must work on my tact.

Here is why I hope to demonstrate the superior side of bombers….land units built in Europe are stuck in Europe, when consumed they are slow to redeploy. I can place bombers in Asia to prevent Japans eventual fall in a normal game, chew on that for a bit ;)

With enough fodder to assure you don’t lose the air force, bombers redeploy far faster than ground troops can. As this stack grows, if it is conserved and nurtured it will be strong enough to address your next target. This is a serial concept and does not do well when you do not focus on one target at a time. Once Russia was gone, and if you try to build land and retreat into Moscow (as I and my groups have done) the outcome is the same, only delayed by at best 3 turns. You see, the bombers are a spring board, they give you the jump, and you can build conventional forces from forward deployed factories, and redeploy the bombers as needed while you wait for the fodder…the implied threat prevents UK from doing more than one task at a time…build all navy…see this game, build all land, or build all sea…they must pick and stay and without land and sea, there is no threat to Europe. If you land with USA and UK, Germany has plenty of air and land units at this point to retake anything in Europe.

@JamesAleman:

Yes, IPC for IPC axis are being outproduced in dollars, but not in “effective” units. Each German air unit built…forces the allies to defend more than one location…meaning to win, the allies must “double” the axis placement. If I am wrong with this “advanced” concept, it will bear out. Germany is now outproducing USA for a few turns, that should present opportunity, I believe.

You absolutely agree that there is a difference to realize IPCs for US and Germany. While Germany can almost always use IPCs in effective fighting power US needs to invest in transports securing them etc, tons if IPCs not fighting to win ground and IPCs. However I would not say that Allies must double. Once you have a fleet if transports you don’t need to buy excessive amounts, especially if you manage to capture factories or build some

On Germany round 1, I believe, it is foolish to make a combat move that relies on luck for success when I have other uses for that piece that does not require me to roll a die(if I dont roll dice, I can’t roll poorly), and will likely move my opponent’s pieces where I want him to. This is a strategy game.

You can still sink the entire UK fleet (except SZ109) round 1 safely –> Each attack is >90% and the worst thing that can happen is that you lose some air. In many cases even Subs survive (assuming UK does not a -EV scramble in SZ110 which often leaves UK with severe convoy damage in rounds 1-3

I much prefer to move the sub towards z124 because as you saw in this game, it “forced” my opponent to move pieces out of position. This “advanced” concept is called “flooding” your opponent with “soft” targets, tempting him into spreading himself out. Permitting me to attack with air force at my leisure.

Here I simply disagree - not with the general principle that tempting targets can make sense to weaken a formation but in this particular case. You can hit DD and TT which is +4 TUV plus potential convoy raids plus the damage you could do as a defender
In your case you offer yourself as target for DD and air.
the UK fleet is doomed anyway the only thing you cannot effectively hit is Canada except that Sub^^

Now Imagine this game when I don’t gimp Japan, when I don’t throw Italy away….tell me how the allies build enough to stop this…I am playing the worst game yet, and I argue this game isn’t over. If I am right, I will have proved my point in the worst possible way, so that under ideal conditions, it will be deemed unstoppable. Give me 12 games to prove the concept, if I lose a game, I will concede bombers are no better…If I don’t, will you?

I will be starting a forth game Monday, I will post the results of these 4 games when I am finished. I will happily play others publicly as soon as some of these games finish.

As I said I am convinced bombers are super strong and important. I just think the way you use them is not optimal while I think the optimum is build ground with Germany next to bombers. Still, a large bomber stack should be build in any case.

Cheers:)

Sorry for the quotation mess. I wish I could edit my posts but I guess I can’t?

Thanks for your comments, and they are welcome indeed. I didn’t not mean to convey rudeness or irritability, I must work on my tact.

Here is why I hope to demonstrate the superior side of bombers….land units built in Europe are stuck in Europe, when consumed they are slow to redeploy. I can place bombers in Asia to prevent Japans eventual fall in a normal game, chew on that for a bit Wink

With enough fodder to assure you don’t lose the air force, bombers redeploy far faster than ground troops can. As this stack grows, if it is conserved and nurtured it will be strong enough to address your next target. This is a serial concept and does not do well when you do not focus on one target at a time. Once Russia was gone, and if you try to build land and retreat into Moscow (as I and my groups have done) the outcome is the same, only delayed by at best 3 turns. You see, the bombers are a spring board, they give you the jump, and you can build conventional forces from forward deployed factories, and redeploy the bombers as needed while you wait for the fodder…the implied threat prevents UK from doing more than one task at a time…build all navy…see this game, build all land, or build all sea…they must pick and stay and without land and sea, there is no threat to Europe. If you land with USA and UK, Germany has plenty of air and land units at this point to retake anything in Europe.

You are not rude at all, also thanks for your comments, much appreciated :)

regarding the quoted text I even agree. Bombers are the key element for Germany and seem to be the ultimate weapon to manage to resist multiple threats by the Allies and create some to give them a headache.

As usual the devil lies in the detail. I simply think think that Germany should not build bombers R1 and R2 (end maybe even R3 depends when you want to hit Moscow). R3 Bombers can be build and R4 they must/should be build as you need to hit both, Moscow and the fleet after a potential reckless invasion by US/UK.

From then it all depends and I think we are on the same page if I’d say Germany should build as many bombers as possible in order not to be vulnerable to invasions and in order to keep enough ground units which can march towards Egypt.

TripleA Move Summary for game: World War II Global 1940 2nd Edition, version: 3.6

Game History

Round: 11

Purchase Units - Italians
            Italians buy 1 destroyer, 2 infantry and 2 transports; Remaining resources: 0 PUs;

Combat Move - Italians
            1 bomber moved from Western Germany to Normandy Bordeaux
            2 fighters moved from Western Germany to Normandy Bordeaux
            1 mech_infantry moved from Western Germany to Normandy Bordeaux
            1 bomber moved from Southern Italy to Gibraltar

TripleA Turn Summary for game: World War II Global 1940 2nd Edition, version: 3.6

Game History

Round: 11

Purchase Units - Italians
            Italians buy 1 destroyer, 2 infantry and 2 transports; Remaining resources: 0 PUs;

Combat Move - Italians
            1 bomber moved from Western Germany to Normandy Bordeaux
            2 fighters moved from Western Germany to Normandy Bordeaux
            1 mech_infantry moved from Western Germany to Normandy Bordeaux
            1 bomber moved from Southern Italy to Gibraltar

Combat - Italians
            Battle in Normandy Bordeaux
                Italians attack with 1 bomber, 2 fighters and 1 mech_infantry
                British defend with 1 factory_minor, 1 harbour and 1 infantry
                Italians win with 1 bomber and 2 fighters remaining. Battle score for attacker is -1
                Casualties for British: 1 infantry
                Casualties for Italians: 1 mech_infantry
            Strategic bombing raid in Gibraltar
                Bombing raid in Gibraltar rolls: 6 and causes: 6 damage to unit: harbour
                Bombing raid in Gibraltar causes 6 damage total.

Non Combat Move - Italians
            1 bomber moved from Gibraltar to Southern France
            1 bomber moved from Normandy Bordeaux to Southern Italy
            2 fighters moved from Normandy Bordeaux to Southern France
            6 mech_infantrys moved from Western Germany to Southern France
            2 mech_infantrys moved from Southern Italy to Southern France
            1 mech_infantry moved from Rostov to Caucasus
            1 armour moved from Volgograd to Caucasus
            3 artilleries moved from Rostov to Caucasus

Place Units - Italians
            1 transport placed in 97 Sea Zone
            1 destroyer and 1 transport placed in 95 Sea Zone
            2 infantry placed in Southern Italy

Turn Complete - Italians
            Italians collect 22 PUs; end with 22 PUs total
            Objective Italians 1 Control The Mediterranean: Italians met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 27 PUs