German bomber strategy - How to play and How to counter

@axis-dominion:

Well, I’m currently playing my rematch against bmnielsen, and man it’s just not fun going against his strategy…but here it is for all of you to see the issues one faces when dealing with it:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35062.new;topicseen#new

I don’t think Russia will hold for much longer, but my hope is to keep the other Euro VCs long enough for me to overwhelm Japan and then rush to help a falling Europe. As you can see, Italy gets so big with this strategy, as nothing can get near the med and even the middle east. I’ve already blown out two of his Italian fleets (at a high cost in US planes), but they just keep coming as Italy’s income is great and it has a monster backing it up!

I could use a little cheering on  :lol:

Thanks for the upload, a-dominion!
Looking at your file I think the allies have more than 1 option to beat this strategy. But they have to pick an option and go for it with all their heart. The options that I do see (in general, not specifically to your game):

• KJF. Like your allies started out (Russians in China, UK giving japan a harder than usual time). Good hunting in the Pacific :-)!

• Early focus on Germany. Look at what Germany has in Bryansk and calculate some Russian options through. With Russia not going into China, producing all INF + ART and loosing no units as speed bumps, the ONLY way for Germany to enter Bryansk GE5 is to base ALL of the Luftwaffe there as well. Any other way they would be annihilated in there. Germany would have to make a choice and I feel both options they have are bad. IF the Wallies would have a large invasion fleet waiting at this very time.
  At Guyana / Suriname / Iceland with a NB there, OR at Gibraltar with enough escorts against those STR (3/4 fully loaded CV + a few DD and that starting US CA would do. British AB for extra scramblers would be welcome as well). Germany would then be either unable to contain Russia or unable to defend against invasions with the Luftwaffe deep into Russia. Ofc., if they stay west, preventing allied landings, they can still SBR Moscow with some of their STR. Untill the allies land a lot of FTR there as well, that is.

Anyway, good luck with this game, man!

I discovered this historical video that suggests this plan could work:

meemsy.com/v/29398

Let’s say Ger. Player builds R1-3 Bombers.
Would it not be the logical way to build AA Guns with Russia.
With logical way I mean to engage the natural problem with a natural solution/answer.

The good thing is:
You build with Russia R1 your regular stuff.
R2, just in case (because you are not sure of Ger strategy) you build two AA guns.
R3 you also build additional AAguns(you are sure).

What is this good for?

Germany can’t blitz through territorys with aa guns in it.
For each shot down Bmbr/plane Germany lost precious ipcs.
His Ground Forces are weak.

The chances are slim to get many bmbrs shot down but we have to consider that even the aa gun has multipal functions and is worth the cost if purchased.

If U.K. player realized that Ger builds bmbr en mass.
Build ftrs, bmbrs and aa guns as well
And if possible unis for S.Africa.
SBR Germany and intercept any time.
Uk will still have time to build ships but must land in Norway or Normandy first to force Ger to build. Ground units.
US should adjust gameplay but also buys bmbrs to SBR Germany when at war with them.

Just a thought.

I’m with Marsh on this one.  I know everyone is probably sick of hearing me say it  :-D but I don’t buy that the game has broken strategies for the Axis, including the bomber strategy (which, admittedly, I have never played against).

After reading the thread the three main arguments seem to be:

1. This forces a KGF strategy, which always ends in Axis victory

2. Russia won’t be able to build at all because of bombing raids

3. The Allies cannot put together a fleet presence in the Atlantic

I’ve spent enough time on the forums arguing against the first point, so moving onto to the second and third

Even if Germany is buying bombers every round, they still have to wait a few turns (turn four I think) before they can reach Moscow.  Russia can buy at least a fighter a turn (plus 7-9 ground units), UK (and even Anzac) can send fighters over.  If Germany launched a bombing raid round four with, say, ten bombers, Russia could probably scramble 8 or so fighters.

So Russia scrambles and rolls a total of 18 for one.  Let’s say Germany hits two of their 10 and Russia hits three of their 18; Russia can wait a turn before repairing that factory, then next turn repair and buy.  Is this a big win for Germany?  Are they holding their position easily without the normal tank buys?  Also, how are they committing that many bombers on this end AND holding off the UK and US in the Atlantic?  America and the UK can put a strong fleet together pretty easily (three or four loaded CV’s by turn 4 is pretty easy to attain).  Is Germany raiding Moscow and taking out this fleet with these bombers?  That’s fine, but they’re going to lose all of them sooner rather than later and once that happens they are s*** out of luck.

But here’s the big issue I have with this plan:

every game has a 3-5 battles where the rolling is way off; sometimes it works for you and sometimes against you.  That being said, one bad dice roll doesn’t usually determine a game.  But in this case?  One bad roll and Germany is royally screwed.  It’s one thing to roll four under, while your opponent rolls four over, when you’re talking infantry.  But what happens when it’s bombers?  ONE bad roll and it’s game over.

It’s possible I’m completely underestimating the Germans here and I plan on trying it out soon.  But it’s hard to believe that Germany ignoring the ground game is an unbeatable strategy.

I agree that it’s not unbeatable, but it is a tough strategy to counter. Done properly, Germany can reduce Russia’s troop production up to 50% after round 4. If you do a not entirely uncommon strategy with Russia of buying 1 fighter per turn the first 3-4 rounds, you can have 6-7 fighters available, as they start with 2. The odds are not good for scrambling 6-7 fighters against 10 bombers. I would probably just let them through and hope for some AAA hits.

Thus, I probably wouldn’t bother buying more than 3 fighters with Russia. Just enough to force Germany to send in all his bombers on the raid and expose them to AAA.

Once Russia is at war, I would focus on having Russia buy infantry/artillery (probably just every other round to build the max number of troops). Then just do the standard send as many fighters as possible to Moscow to defend it. Send the 2 India fighters. Send the 3 Anzac fighters. Send 5-6 British fighters. All of those can be in position to get to Moscow on round 4. Then, with the Russian fighters you suddenly have 16+ fighters defending Moscow. With a UK factory in Persia, you can churn out another 2-3 per round, assuming that you went aggressive after Italy and are in solid control of the middle east & Egypt.

If you assume that India is going to fall eventually anyway, you can have them produce a couple more fighters for Moscow as well.

This of course assumes that the USA is going heavy KJF.

With the all-bomber strategy, the Axis has the option of an economic victory.  Conquering Moscow in <10 turns is not critical to winning.  If Russia turtles down too much in Moscow, the German land units head south to the oil fields.  The bombers can fly back home in a single turn and be ready for either a late-game Sea Lion or Atlantic fleet attack mission.  The following round the bombers return back to the Russian front if the Moscow stack comes out to hassle your Iraq-vicinity pile.  They will quickly retreat back to their capitol because they simply can’t afford to split their forces into two piles.  Quick note: if the Allies are forced to build a fighter stack to defend factories, the economic cost is so massive that the Allies will surely lose.

I’ve only played the strategy once so I’m not claiming to be an expert.  Just remember that the bombers strategy gives them amazing amount of flexibility to attack in Africa, Russia, and Egypt.:roll:  For example, the Allies used a group of bombers to attack my Italian aircraft carrier.  The bombers landed on Cyprus and were reinforced by a stack of British fighters.  The German bombers sent 12 (out of 17) bombers and crushed the stack of Allied planes.  A total of 110 IPCs were destroyed for a cost of four bombers.  He thought that he had sufficient defenses to withstand my strike, but miscalculated my ranges.

An extreme SB strategy might be best countered by building a lot of tanks as that is the best defensive land unit in the game. Statistically, for the same amount of money, 2 defending tanks will inflict more casualties than 1 attacking SB. Once defending tanks have punished and discouraged bomber raids the tank builder can then look for opportunities to use his tanks offensively.

I don’t think the allies should be worried too much about the supposed German flexibility with a huge bomberstack.
For the simple fact that if Germany uses their bombers against any other target than SBR Moscow and/or London, the allies can win the game playing KGF. Let’s look at the German options with their airstack:

• Air Blitz Egypt. UK should be able to make this a too costly attack for Germany. Loosing all or at least almost all of the Luftwaffe in doing so, Italy may (or may not) grab Egypt, but Russia will start advancing west. 4 rounds of Russian production is enough to force Germany to land all Luftwaffe in Russia to protect their stack against the Red Army. If Germany fails to do so by (for example) air blitzing Egypt, Russia will break out and chase Germans down to where ever they try to flee.

• Mass SBR Moscow. Requires the bombers to base eastward. After the first raid anyway. It is 6range to Moscow and then the bombers must land in Bryansk. Which Russia can attack if not all German FTR + TAC land there also. Allied amassed invasion forces can now safely approach and do ‘Normandy’.

• Stay in WGe or SIt to prevent an allied approach. Germany marches its main army further east anyway. Red Army should be able to attack the German main army in Russia. If not early, then definately after the Siberians returned. But according to my calculations, the main German stack in Russia is not safe from RU5 even, if any portion of the luftwaffe lingers west.

• Stay in WGe or SIt to prevent an allied approach. Like the option above, but now the Germans do not advance further than Ukraine/Rostov, hoping to deadzone the areas directly west of Moscow. Axis may try to defeat the allies economically with this. Problem still remains that if Germany wants to SBR Moscow continuously, the Luftwaffe must rebase further east, away from the option to attack the approaching allies. So either Russia grows strong, or the Wallies can invade.

Anyway, it looks to me this strategy is looking dangerous untill the moment comes for Germany to actually commit their airstack somewhere. Allies should be able to exploit where the German Luftwaffe cannot reach as a result to that commitment.
Should Germany not commit their Luftwaffe, going for the last option above, then I think Russia will become too strong to handle for Germany.

If this all fails, there is still the allied KJF option to try (as always…), ending in a race to Cairo…

@ChrisX, how about building lots of defending INF/ART instead?
Defending vs. 10STR (@4^40): 20ARM (@3^60) = 40INF (@2^80) = 9ART + 28INF (@2^74).
Attacking vs. 10STR (@1^10): 20ARM (@3^60) = 40INF (@1^40) = 9ART + 28INF (@1 or 2^55).

@TheMethuselah:

After reading through all the comments here and looking at several games, it seems to me that KJF is absolutely the correct response to German bomber spam. One of the great advantages of the German strategy is that your threat projection is just bonkers, so why not entirely concede the European naval game and rely on British factories in the Middle East / Africa? In other words, give the German bombers fewer things to threaten.

LeClerc, I know you feel strongly about “KJF or lose,” but would you agree that against this specific German strategy it is the right response?

I think a massive allied presence in the ME (some moving over into Russia), is a great idea, Mehtuselah. Just be careful not to let London fall cheaply. Allies could have a reassurance-force in Canada, to retake London instead of trying to defend it whilst constantly repairing the IC there. I think the latter is very, very inefficient for the allies (and will only lead to another lost game, I suppose).

KJF is always one of the right responses ;-). KGF almost never is; exceptions being mainly the axis try to rush, or make a mistake. Exactly my problem, so yeah, KJF against this strategy as well, sure.
KGF looks promising against this bomberstrategy as well: allies could build up a massive invasion force at Iceland/Suriname (with a NB). As soon as the bombers do anything against Russia, ‘Normandy’ can be invaded.

@ItIsILeClerc:

ChrisX, how about building lots of defending INF/ART instead?
Defending vs. 10STR (@4^40): 20ARM (@3^60) = 40INF (@2^80) = 9ART + 28INF (@2^74).
Attacking vs. 10STR (@1^10): 20ARM (@3^60) = 40INF (@1^40) = 9ART + 28INF (@1 or 2^55).

True for defence, but tanks are much better offensive units and you’re going to have to build them sooner or later in order to take the fight to Germany. All the talk of German economic victory starts to seem less credible when there’s a mass of tanks bearing down on poorly defended areas. The UK can join in the fun by churning tanks out of Egypt, South Africa, Persia and India etc. and move them up into Russia.

@ItIsILeClerc:

I don’t think the allies should be worried too much about the supposed German flexibility with a huge bomberstack.
For the simple fact that if Germany uses their bombers against any other target than SBR Moscow and/or London, the allies can win the game playing KGF. Let’s look at the German options with their airstack:

• Air Blitz Egypt.

  Germany would have two options with support for Egypt:
  1)  Blitz a stack of infantry/mech infantry with the bombers.  Let’s suppose there are 12 defending Brits and 18 attacking bombers.  The defenders are toast in one round, inflicting 4 casualties.  Net change is ~40 lost IPCs for the Allies and 48 lost IPCs for the Germans.  The added money of Italy controlling Africa could make this trade acceptable.
  2)  Support land troops that have made it down to Trans Jordan by rnd ~9.  Let’s say the Germans have 6 land units + 18 attacking bombers vs 15 defending brits.  The Germans would lose ~20 IPCs of land units vs ~55 IPCs for the Brits and additionally open up the rest of Africa for destruction.

  Obviously Britain could have more than this number of units stacked on Egypt by late game, but at a cost of not having units to support a European invasion or protect London from a late game Sea Lion.

  Mass SBR Moscow: The Germans could have a suitable place to takeoff and land from on G2 or G3.  I don’t know why you think that this is an issue.  If Russia tries to stand close to the German invasion forces on those early turns, they most assuredly will be crushed.  They really can’t make a significant stand until turn 5-6 when the retreating Russians meet up with the newly-build Russian forces near Moscow.  I don’t think that Russia truly can project their attack down to a territory more than two spaces away from their capitol.  With a range of 6, bombers have lots of options.  They only chance for Russia to stop the SBR of Moscow is to force the German bombers to be used elsewhere on the map.

  Stay in WGe: From Novgorod, the German bombers can still do bombing runs over Moscow.  They also can crush land units that are dropped ashore in Western Europe by Allied transports.  Additionally, they the option of destroying the fleet that dropped off Allied land units.  Let’s say the Germans are up to 18 bombers by the time the Allies have a significant fleet to support the transports.  The German bombers could smash 3 loaded aircraft carriers in a single turn (108 IPCs destroyed + transports vs 60 IPCs lost).  The allies would need to invest in 5 loaded aircraft carriers to truly protect the transports.  That is an investment of 130 IPCs, leaving less money for the transports and land units.  It would be four full turns of Atlantic spending to truly build up a force that could withstand the German bombers.  If the Allies spend the first three rounds in the Pacific to contain Japan, they would not be able to have a first wave of transports land in Europe until turn 8, with a follow-up wave around turn 10.  By that time the Germans and Italians should have a massive economy with sufficient money left to start building protection for Western Europe while simultaneously matching the production in the Russian theater.  With Russia only building 2-3 infantry a turn at that point, it isn’t too hard to keep up in that theater.

  I’m not saying that there is no option for the Allies, but it is much harder to properly respond to the German bomber mobility combined with the possibility of economic victory.  One small mistake can be extremely costly for the Allies.  Germany, by contrast, can more easily avoid fatal blunders since the Allies do not have many fast moving units.

  If the Japanese player is good, Allies must do a KJF and at least deny the Japanese of the money islands.  Otherwise Japan will outproduce the Allies in the Pacific.  That gives Germany a good number of rounds to build up their bomber forces and increase their economy by grabbing the bonus territories.

Thanks for sharing, Arthur Bomber Harris!

You’re right about some points, I can see. But not all. KGF is still a possible counter, although I admit you decreased at least my conviction about it. Mainly because of your ‘Novgorod point’. STR from there cannot reach SZ105 however, if the allies invade from there and the allies can put ~40 units into Normandy Turn 5. That’s enough to kill even 28 German aircraft, so the question would be how much land units does Germany have in reserve in western Europe (and thus, weakening the eastern front even further)?

Britain can easily have more units in Egypt. Much more. Without too much pain for the late game in Europe. UK_London has ~150IPCs to spend untill Germany can have ~18STR to attack, and if they spend 39IPCs on units directly in Africa (for example: IC in Egypt Uk2, 3INF/turn from there), they can have ~35units in Egypt and still have 111IPCs left to spend in the Atlantic, or wherever they want. I’m not looking too much into the details here as to where the breakpoint is for the UK to spend too much into Africa, but obviously, the Brits could suffice with a little less units in Egypt. Even more units probably wouldn’t hurt, but finding that breakpoint is looking much more into details ;-).

In general, if Germany rushes, or its strategy leaves it too weak on land against Russia OR the Wallies after its commitment somewhere, it’s OK for the allies to start off with 'K’GF.
This bomberstrategy still looks weak on land units (on the defense) versus Russia, so i’m thinking what would the Wehrmacht do if they cannot stack themselves adjacent to the Russian stack?
On the other side, I think Russia actually can stack themselves adjacent to the German stack, later in the game.

But I may have gotten it all wrong, since I still need to playtetst this particular strategy  :-D.
I am absolutely positive however, that against a true axis economic strategy 'K’GF definately does not work at all. I just (still) doubt this ‘dark skies’ strategy has the potention to fall into this category.

ItIsILeClerc,

If there is a major landing force that is approaching the French shores, I would pull the German bombers back a bit closer for the counter strike.  I’m curious how you are proposing 40 units going to Normandy Turn 5.  That would mean that the US and the UK spends all of it’s money on troops and transports for the first three turns, correct?  There would be negligible protection of the transports for a counterstrike.  Additionally that means that there had been no money spent in the Pacific for the first three turns.  I always do a J1, as suggested by Cow.  If there is zero dollars spent for three turns, Japan has seven turns to run wild.  They have a good chance of victory in that time.  If I saw the Allies go KGF, I would definitely not try the German bomber strategy.  Instead, I would hunker down with cheap/defensive builds to slow down the invasion forces.  I would gleefully watch Japan grab the money islands, smash India, and head towards Australia.  Not much that those countries could do without American money.

Britain sure can have 35 units in Egypt.  In that case, Sea Lion should be a piece of cake on turn 6-8ish.

Please bring on your KGF!  That is the best way to guarantee Axis victory.

@Arthur:

ItIsILeClerc,

If there is a major landing force that is approaching the French shores, I would pull the German bombers back a bit closer for the counter strike.  I’m curious how you are proposing 40 units going to Normandy Turn 5.  That would mean that the US and the UK spends all of it’s money on troops and transports for the first three turns, correct?  There would be negligible protection of the transports for a counterstrike.  Additionally that means that there had been no money spent in the Pacific for the first three turns.  I always do a J1, as suggested by Cow.  If there is zero dollars spent for three turns, Japan has seven turns to run wild.  They have a good chance of victory in that time.  If I saw the Allies go KGF, I would definitely not try the German bomber strategy.  Instead, I would hunker down with cheap/defensive builds to slow down the invasion forces.  I would gleefully watch Japan grab the money islands, smash India, and head towards Australia.  Not much that those countries could do without American money.

Britain sure can have 35 units in Egypt.  In that case, Sea Lion should be a piece of cake on turn 6-8ish.Â

Please bring on your KGF!  That is the best way to guarantee Axis victory.

I could try to explain how the Uk can have ~35 units in Egypt without compromising their defenses in London but that would be so much detail (writing a lot of text) to such a little point… Isn’t it enough to know that it takes only 39IPCs off the investments the UK can make to protect London, out of a total of 150IPCs (over 5 turns)? I don’t think a 111IPC investment from the UK protecting London will make a Sea Lion a cake-walk. Ever. If using the FTR from London in Egypt is too dangerous for London later on, fine, then don’t use them in Egypt and Caïro will still have more-than-enough-31 defenders. Easy. Those FTR can base in Gibraltar and you can decide where they go. With an AB in Gibraltar they can go either Egypt or London… No. No, no, no, getting 30 to 35 defenders in Egypt does NOT compromise London defeses. It does however, take air units away from India. This is Always the dilemma for the UK (and is very closely related to what overall strategy the allies want follow).

We’re discussing a German bomber strategy, not a German turtle-offensive. If you change strategy, Allies can do that as well, ha-HA!
I agree that with a J1 there can never be a KGF. If you tell me that you’re preaching to the choir! USA only has ~100 early IPCs to spare for the Euro-front in this case. But I read J4 somewhere in this thread so, that’s what I am elaborating on…
If you throw a German turtle-offensive combined with a J1 at me, than I’d  respond with a KJF one way or the other no doubt. Best you keep in mind a German bomberstrategy is set in this thread, and the allies are supposed to react to that (who reacts to whom). If you change the axis strategy during the argument, it’s not a German bomberstrategy anymore…

Once again, and I’ll keep saying this, KJF is the standard for the allies that will give them best chance of winning. KGF almost never is. But… if the axis are rushing or making another strategical mistake, KGF will win the game for allies the quickest way. Right now I think the axis bomberstrategy falls under the category ‘rushing’. Why? Because the German ground defenses are seriously lacking. ALL the luftwaffe is required to assist in defending Western Europe AND the Eastfront, but they cannot be everywhere at the same time. Only if they position smartly (like in Novgorod) can they keep all their offensive windows open, but not defend everywhere.

Here’s an XDAP team game currently going on at round 4 that seems to be a ‘KGF’ strategy against the all-bomber plan (bmnielsen is germany of course):

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35184.60

Seems to me the allies are holding their own here, and with fewer carriers in the pac than usual at this point in the game. As expected, with that many war ships and planes in the atlantic, there are significantly fewer transports…but I guess the transports can follow gradually once the allies dominate the seas. What’ll be interesting is to see how the allies can land anywhere without getting vaporized by all the bombers. It’ll require quite the patience no doubt.

On the other side, I don’t think India will last much longer. But hey, that’s usually the case anyway. Once India falls of course, the allies will have to be on their toes the rest of the game just to protect against a pac VC loss.

I’ll be paying attention to this one to see how it pans out for the allies.

I think Japan’s DOW on round 2 actually helped the allies in that game. If they had waited then the US wouldn’t have been able to have such a large fleet in the Atlantic so soon. And that may cause problems for Germany now.

It’s hard to follow this game without seeing a map of the board.  It seems that the Japanese player is quite inexperienced to let America keep the Philippines on J4…  I normally crush that territory on J1 to deprive the US 50 PUs over the course of the next ten turns.  Regardless, the United States has to start putting massive money into the Pacific ASAP because Japan has a 2:1 economic advantage over India + ANZAC.

DL triplea and put it in your saved games. You’ll get the full visual effect then. :)

Thanks!  After seeing the map, I definitely can conclude that Japan is not a strong player.  They should have a much better economy at this point.  I don’t get the purchase of 2 more factories on turn 4 when there are few land units to oppose them…