German bomber strategy - How to play and How to counter

Any Japan strategy that doesn’t force USA to spend heavily in the Pacific is almost by definition a horrible plan.  I follow Cow’s typically J1 plan, and then use his recommend J2 strat of grabbing a few more islands, setting up a factory+airbase in FIC, and advancing my economy.  It is almost scripted for those two turns with very little chance of major variation unless Russia makes a critical blunder of partially stacking Amur.  After that I decide whether to aggressively pursue India, ANZAC, or USA next.  Lots of good options, even if the US has spent three solid turns building in the Pacific.

Keep in mind that 210 IPCs in the Atlantic during turns 4-6 corresponds to three loaded aircraft carriers, six loaded transports, plus a few other minor buys.  That fleet could be sunk easily by the German airforce, forcing the UK to chip in on another loaded aircraft carrier.  Furthermore, the attack force wouldn’t be ready to attack W. Europe until turn 8.  By that time, Germany should be solidly in the Middle East, captured most of the bonus territories in Russia, and racked up a massive amount of money.  They might also be in position to launch a surprise Sea Lion attack, or keep driving into Egypt.  Italy might also have recovered from early turn loses and produced a useable navy in the Med.  I am not saying that these Axis forces are impossible to overcome, but it would take quite a bit of skill to find an effective attack strategy.

210IPCs for the Atlantic = a fully loaded 3CV + 10TRS and 5DD. Or, if you like that better, a fully loaded 4CV + 7TRS and 5DD. If you keep some of the starting units in Europe.

You missed the troops for the TRS.  The US has a fair number of land troops to begin with, but hardly enough to fill 10 transports.  Subtract one of the loaded CV’s to pay for the troops and now the defense force is down to my estimates.  Germany could crush it if he decides to lose most of his bomber force.

But… that’s exactly what I was calculating! The US has 4INF to begin with, 3INF to pick up from Brazil, 4MECH, 2ART, 1ARM and 4AAGUNS. Fill 10TRS with all the non-INF units you can and then you’ll need to produce 3 more INF (9IPCs).

Producing:
3CV + 5FTR (USA starts with 1) + 9TRS (USA starts with 1) and 5DD + 3INF = 210IPCs.
Makes a fleet of: 3CV[6FTR] + 10TRS[10INF, 4MECH, 2ART, 1ARM, 3AAA] + 5DD + 1CA (also a starting unit).

Alternative (using the same starting units):
4CV[8FTR] + 7TRS[7INF, 4MECH, 2ART, 1ARM] + 1CA + 4DD (or 2DD + 3SS) = 208 (210)IPCs.

A bit harder to crush for Germany but even if the Germans do so, and loose most of its bomberforce, where does this leave Russia (also assuming the allies dropped their load in Normandy)? If Germany produces 16STR in 6 rounds (totalling 18 assuming they also produced a few other units), loosing all or almost all of them against the allied fleet, this means Germany basically produced 0 units against Russia for at least 6 turns. I think Stalin will just start a drive westwards.

And that’s with only the US production. UK will surely throw in 1CV[+air] and 1 or 2 DD and a few transports… I admit that this is just a theory yet and it may well turn out to be a paper tiger so I’d say it needs to be included in some strategy testing (which I will certainly do when I’m ready).

Well, let’s settle this the old fashion way:  a triple A game with low luck.  I will be the Axis and you take the Allies.  I will accept any terms and conditions that you want to place.  This is our first time using triple A so we would like to keep it friendly with redos for any obvious mistake.  I want to test the strategy, not major tactical blunders/misunderstanding of the software.

Are you willing to stand behind your theories?

@Arthur:

Well, let’s settle this the old fashion way:  a triple A game with low luck.  I will be the Axis and you take the Allies.  I will accept any terms and conditions that you want to place.  This is our first time using triple A so we would like to keep it friendly with redos for any obvious mistake.  I want to test the strategy, not major tactical blunders/misunderstanding of the software.

Are you willing to stand behind your theories?

oh yah, now we’re talking. Let’s see these theories in action!

In a recent game as UK/India (that was a bit of a free-for-all with the true neutrals being attacked by the Axis and Japan taking on Russia) I turtled in India while removing Italy from Africa and built up a nice income from the neutrals in S. America, Africa and the Middle East. I then left Germany and Italy for Russia and the USA to deal with, started building strategic bombers every turn and sent them to India where they gradually destroyed the Japanese navy (even though I didn’t have a fleet) and every smaller stack of Japanese planes that I could target. Japan’s position collapsed and the massed SB’s were even able to eliminate the Japanese defence force in Japan. So, it seems that all you have to do to be a ‘genius’ at this game is to build loads of super bombers and there’s no question that they are over-powered in their current form. On a side note, in reality Germany didn’t have any 4-engine heavy bombers until 1943 and Japan didn’t have any at all. Could that be why they lost the war? I feel there is enough material here for another Hitler Plays A&A sketch.

@Arthur:

Well, let’s settle this the old fashion way:  a triple A game with low luck.  I will be the Axis and you take the Allies.  I will accept any terms and conditions that you want to place.  This is our first time using triple A so we would like to keep it friendly with redos for any obvious mistake.  I want to test the strategy, not major tactical blunders/misunderstanding of the software.

Are you willing to stand behind your theories?

Hmmm, tempting.
As I said to axis-dominion already, I’m currently already playtesting another axis strategy with the time I want to give A&A.
If I’d accept I would need to put that other playtest in the freezer and I also feel axis-dominion has ‘first rights’ when it comes to strategy testing anything against this particular axis thing. I wouldn’t consider it fair (from me) to have turned down his request and then a few days later start a strategy test with some1 else ;-). Furthermore, I don’t think my theories (or yours) need proof. I know my theories about this axis strategy for what they are: theories, still. Come to life as a result of doing the math and though the math is correct, the theory may still be a paper tiger, as I already said.

Let’s say I put my other test in the freezer…
I am willing to try and find a working allied strategy against this ‘axis monster’, as a team-effort. As opposed to trying to prove a point. I am more willing to play strategy testing games like this for reasons of finding an answer together than for proving or disproving any point. I don’t like, nor believe in playing games for the latter.

So how about we bundle forces to try out some allied strategies against this set axis strategy?
ABHarris, axis-dominion and me. In A&A I still have hope, that there’s an allied answer to every axis ‘question’ (however frustrated I am becoming about how frequently ‘KJF’ turns out to be that answer). I’m not sure as to how to do this effectively with tripleA, though. Playing around the table makes this very easy: making moves as you discuss them over the maps. But that’s a little harder when playing online (and in different time-zones at that).

At this point I am not yet certain about how exactly the USA should divide its resources. Should it go put ~125IPCs into Europe, first 3 turns, with a mostly defensive stance against Japan, should it adapt a more offensive stance against Japan first, letting Europe go for a while first but then produce a bit more in Europe later, OR should it go very offensive in the Pacific for a prolonged time, only switching back to Europe after Japan is in the pocket…

Axis dominion: if ABHarris doesn’t like this we can still do it together if you like. Now that I’m ‘turned’ I shall do it or die trying ;-).

Math is too difficult in this case with too many options ten turns later.  If the answer is no, I understand.

Well, the answer is not exactly no.
I was just clarifying why I am not interested in playing a game to prove a point, but do like to play a game with the goal to find the proper answer against this. As a team effort, so not really playing against each other but more like cooperating (for as much as that is possible, of course), also including axis-dominion if he 'd like that.
Because axis-dominion asked for some strategy try outs before.

But if you don’t like a bit of cooperation in a game, that’ll be off and we could play a normal game at some other time, after I finished playtesting against that other axis strategy to my satisfaction. When that happens you’ll know it. I’ll most likely post my findings somewhere then ;-).

I would be down to play a test game more in a cooperative spirit to try to find an answer. I think it’s a good idea. You two could play it out and I’d follow along and make comments or observations in the topic. Since each turn is posted, if things start to look really bad for the allies at some point due to a bad strategic decision made earlier in the game (ie false start), you guys could restart at whatever saved point and then explore a different option (without having to actually start a new game, which would hopefully save time).

@ItIsILeClerc:

Well, the answer is not exactly no.
I was just clarifying why I am not interested in playing a game to prove a point, but do like to play a game with the goal to find the proper answer against this. As a team effort, so not really playing against each other but more like cooperating (for as much as that is possible, of course), also including axis-dominion if he 'd like that.
Because axis-dominion asked for some strategy try outs before.

But if you don’t like a bit of cooperation in a game, that’ll be off and we could play a normal game at some other time, after I finished playtesting against that other axis strategy to my satisfaction. When that happens you’ll know it. I’ll most likely post my findings somewhere then ;-).

Fair enough then, if ABH likes to play a cooperative game :-).
I have only played tripleA by mail so far, so I’m not 100% sure how to do it by forum.
From what I’ve seen I take it you need to enter threadname + your login information in TripleA. Are e-mail adresses also required?

We can discuss all other relevant settings (like what can be considered a fair bid) in the thread for it, if we are actually starting this.

Yah let’s first see if ABH is intersted. The forum play is very similar to PBEM and I can help you get that going so no worries there.

We could play a game where a player can take back a move, or revert to an earlier save point.  We can also point out blunders/mistakes that the other player is doing.  It should work where we start a thread and play semi-cooperatively.

In terms of a bid, I have played before with 16 IPC’s for the allies (limit of 1 unit per territory, placing it in areas where there are existing units).  Let me know if this is reasonable?  I have used the carrier 96 previously… an opponent was more successful with an art in Alexandria, a sub in 96, and a sub in 91.  He was able to wipe out Italy for the first 4 rounds, bringing good bang for his buck.

ok ABH and IIILC, please PM me your email addresses (that are registered with the MARTI server), and i’ll go ahead and set up a pbf (play by forum) game with a 20 bid for the allies (that’s what i’ve had against bmnielsen), and then i’ll paste the link to the topic so you guys can get started.

ABH you’ll be axis and will employ this aggressive all-bomber strat, right?

IIILC what do you want to buy with the 20 bid for the allies and where do you want the units?

@Arthur:

We could play a game where a player can take back a move, or revert to an earlier save point.  We can also point out blunders/mistakes that the other player is doing.  It should work where we start a thread and play semi-cooperatively.

In terms of a bid, I have played before with 16 IPC’s for the allies (limit of 1 unit per territory, placing it in areas where there are existing units).  Let me know if this is reasonable?  I have used the carrier 96 previously… an opponent was more successful with an art in Alexandria, a sub in 96, and a sub in 91.  He was able to wipe out Italy for the first 4 rounds, bringing good bang for his buck.

PM sent.  20 sounds reasonable.  Low luck, or standard rolls?

Okay!
This all sounds good enough to me :-).

I was already working on starting a game and created a thread here: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35507.0.
Thought it was +16 but +20 is fine too ;-). You finish the job then, axis-dominion, muchos gracias!
You can use the thread I ceated or create a new one, I don’t mind. I want a FTR in Malta, 1INF both in Egypt and Anglo-Sudan and an ART in Leningrad (or wherever in western Europe).

I’ll PM the mail right away.

Interesting thread.

I recall that when Global was being playtested, it was put to LH that even though bombers had been reduced to 12$ since aa50, players still strongly preferred 10$ fighters, and nobody was SBRing because it was usually overly risky.  So the average SBR damage was raised from 3.5 to 5.5.

This might have been a bit too much.  Even though SBR remains dicey and risky, it is now almost always a solid play economically, provided there aren’t better targets or there aren’t too many interceptors.  This means that as along as there are unbombed factories, bombers always have a target.

Another factor improving bombers are airbases.  Given their badass range, bombers can usually land on an airbase, which just increases their effectiveness all the more.

The main thing Allies can do to protect themselves is combine their defensive stacks–on land, at sea, and at airbases.

Know what would make this whole issue go away in a hurry, and also make the game a whole lot more fun?

That old house rule that repairs to bases do not become effective until the start of noncombat movement phase.

@variance:

Know what would make this whole issue go away in a hurry, and also make the game a whole lot more fun?

That old house rule that repairs to bases do not become effective until the start of noncombat movement phase.

What does that accomplish?