German bomber strategy - How to play and How to counter

@ShadowHAwk:

How does japan get more income in pacific then in global?

I thought that the NO’s where the same and the russian income is not that much. Compensates for the fact that russia can help china in pacific and that india can be reinforced from europe. That most people butcher india to kill italy first is a choice not a fact :)

US needs to split its income to really hold back the axis everywhere, They need to slow down japan with the help of the rest while building up to start harassing germany and italy.

With spending about half the income the US can build a fleet together with the UK to counter dark skies pretty fast. Yes you will drop less units in afrika at the start but your goal isnt to hit where germany is strong it is to hit where they are weak untill you build up enough to attack him head on.

I still don’t see how this is a counter to Dark Skies. If the US can get an invasion fleet capable of taking Rome or West Germany (as you suggested) by TURN 3, then the Axis are in trouble no matter what strategy they used. How would building land units have helped? It’s not like buying Bombers prevented Germany from taking Moscow on Turn 3! “Oh, if only I had bought 20 tanks instead of these bombers. I could have taken Moscow before that inevitable Turn 3 Italy invasion!”

If anything, Dark Skies would be the optimal counter to such a US strategy, as it can easily counter attack anywhere the allies land, whereas land units would be unable to reach anything more than two territories from Berlin and West Germany.

Of course, I still don’t believe a turn 3 invasion of Europe is a viable Allied strategy.

I have to say, having fought the DS strategies 4 times and beaten it twice, there is no “hidden” or “calculated” way to beat it other than you load up the CVs in the Atlantic and grab your balls and see what happens.  It really is not much more complicated than that.  The USSR needs to watch its options vis-a-vis being aggressive with Germany. UK needs to hold Egypt using the bid. That is that.

I’m just hoping for a more detailed discussion of plans that generally work, yet have a suitable balance against Japan and Germany.  Obviously a plan where the US spends all of their money in the Atlantic will eventually crush any German strategy, but at the same time lose the game in the Pacific.

I would like to know more than just “build lots of CVs”.  Germany can simply ignore the loaded aircraft carriers.  They have little to do except convoy raid for a few PUs per round.  No point of spending 200 PUs on loaded carriers just to do minor raids!  Transports have to be part of any allied plan.  Where should troops land and how do they get reinforced?  At what round should the Allies start dropping troops in Europe?  Can a Neutral Crush work against Dark Skies (it failed miserably for me)?  How many turns should the US spend in the Pacific before starting to spend in the Atlantic (or vice-verse). Should Russia go purely defensive in their build or mix in a fair bit of artillery/tanks/planes?

I would like to know more about how a good Allied player beats a good Axis player using this strategy.

Why would Japan do a China crush?  That seems like a strange tactic for a country capable of crushing India, grabbing the money islands, swiping Philippines, and wrecking havoc in the Pacific.  How does attacking the Allies make it tougher on Germany?  I completely miss the connection since it appears that you will focus on Germany if Japan is wasting its time in China but have to build in the Pacific if Japan is doing what it is supposed to do.

@Arthur:

Why would Japan do a China crush?  That seems like a strange tactic for a country capable of crushing India, grabbing the money islands, swiping Philippines, and wrecking havoc in the Pacific.

In a nutshell: G40 is about getting Moscow or the economic edge as Axis in case Russians turtles and keeping an impotent Infantry army.

Crushing China means Japan penetrating Russia from the East, stealing Russian income and support to get Moscow.

I do not advise that Japan should always crush China and neglect India. But rushing India with Japan is certainly overrated.

Very well said, JDOW.  Crushing India is often not worth the loss of fighters.  Getting Japanese support into Russia certainly can swing the game.  Japan certainly can pump 6 units into Asia while maintaining good spending to hold the money islands.

You are highly ranked in League play and far more experienced than I am.  What are your thoughts on spending heavily on bombers for Germany?  Do you do that strategy or seen it played well by opposing players?

Indeed the India-crush is overrated!
If Japan ‘crushes’ India while the USA is in the process of JF, the axis loose the game. It is that simple, because the cost in Japanese air is indeed too high. I may not have a lot of experience with/against a US JF strategy yet, but this is just so simple and so obvious, even I can predict that with ease :evil:.

Like JDOW stated in another thread, Dark Skies is a strong German strategy, but not better in itself than (for example) a heavy Barbarossa. I have said this earlier as well and I am not convinced otherwise now. The axis are just super-strong together and will only loose the game if the allies can sucessfully contain one of them. And I guess they have around 15 turns to do it. Which is maybe too hard as it is now (oob anyway), but that’s not due to DS.

Since enough people are having VERY much problems with it, maybe it is an idea to start a little anti DS-project?
I wouldn’t be playing myself because I can’t play A&A for more than a couple of weeks in a row, plus I don’t consider myself experienced enough to produce reliable enough results. I simply don’t have enough games under my belt versus the A&A cracks of the league ;-). But I will certainly follow the progress and assist such a project in any other way I can with great pleasure, ofc.
Some ace axis players who can be considered very skilled with DS and Japan (for example bmnielsen, perhaps?) then play 10 or more games in a row using the DS strategy + whatever they see fit with Japan, while some other high level players from the E or 1 ranks of the current standings who are willing to participate take the allies. After a few months we could have enough data (game results) to come to some sort of a preliminary conclusion, not?

@Arthur:

JDOW[…]What are your thoughts on spending heavily on bombers for Germany?  Do you do that strategy or seen it played well by opposing players?

This is C&P from another said, where I wrote:

"I think bombers are a valid strategy but they are not necessarily better than a brutal and perfectly executed Barbarossa (which I personally fear way more as Allies). Furthermore there are no TierE players yet complaining that bombers are imbalanced.

I simply think the high winning percentage a) correlates with the fact that Axis are strong in general and b) that playing bombers makes the game more complex and dicey and that specifically less experienced or mediocre players simply do not know how to react appropriately (yet).

The most important thing is: The counter strategy is not created on the flip chart but by playing each move precisely. Many people say “I did this and that and bombers still beat me” but in the end the execution was just poorly. Successful play always depend on execution and details. "

This is C&P from another thread,

@ShadowHAwk:

Keeping the US out of the war for 3 rounds also means that the allies lose 52 effective ipcs for those 3 rounds. They cannot be used, and troops being 2 turns to late are a lot less important then troops being on time.

For Japan it is a disadvantage to keep US out of the war.
I prefer a DOW2 because US is not in position to do damage on the Japanese fleet which can be split without any risk.

Giving US too much time makes a) the DOW way more difficult and b) gives India lots of money which makes it way harder to get a shot on India or to force them to sit in India and not progress towards Yunnan.
In this case US must play very offensive and position its fleet and air as close as possible to the Japanese sea zones near China or DEI.

Delay of DOW should only be done to support the Germans by delaying any US invasions in Europe. Or in case Japan does an air strike on the Chinese army.

I’m quite late to this conversation, but my thought is this:

The counter to this German bomber strategy is to choose not to use it, and to avoid playing against players who do. I mean this with all respect!

I can speak for myself, and probably many others, in that I don’t play A&A purely as a series of mathematical equations. If that were the case, there are plenty of other games out there to scratch that particular itch. I play because I’m also interested in history, as well as the history of warfare, and World War II in particular.

I’m always a bit suspicious of the constant search to discover a mechanical ‘break’ in this (very elegant) game. If I learned I could win every time by buying 20 infantry every round for Germany, personally I won’t just start buying 20 infantry a round every turn until someone stops me. That’s not my definition of fun. For some, it is, and that’s fine - diversity is a beautiful thing.

Give me 6 infantry, an artillery, 2 mech infantry, 2 armor, a fighter, and a destroyer for 60 IPCs as Germany. If I’m feeling whimsical or aggressive, replace the 2 armor with a bomber. That’s my definition of dark skies!

When I read through this thread, not once did I start considering that I should try it as a strategy - why would I? Part of the enjoyment - for me - is replicating/advancing themes from warfare conducted early in the last century. If anything, it helped me realize that I should buy a few more bombers, but that’s about the extent of it.

Some see this as as a dice game with strategy - I choose to see it as a strategy game with dice. Mass purchases of one unit for the purpose of maximizing movement and mathematical assurance, in my opinion, shift the game toward the former. Again, a matter of personal preference.

@Stalingradski:

I’m quite late to this conversation, but my thought is this:

The counter to this German bomber strategy is to choose not to use it, and to avoid playing against players who do. I mean this with all respect!

I can speak for myself, and probably many others, in that I don’t play A&A purely as a series of mathematical equations. If that were the case, there are plenty of other games out there to scratch that particular itch. I play because I’m also interested in history, as well as the history of warfare, and World War II in particular.

I’m always a bit suspicious of the constant search to discover a mechanical ‘break’ in this (very elegant) game. If I learned I could win every time by buying 20 infantry every round for Germany, personally I won’t just start buying 20 infantry a round every turn until someone stops me. That’s not my definition of fun. For some, it is, and that’s fine - diversity is a beautiful thing.

Give me 6 infantry, an artillery, 2 mech infantry, 2 armor, a fighter, and a destroyer for 60 IPCs as Germany. If I’m feeling whimsical or aggressive, replace the 2 armor with a bomber. That’s my definition of dark skies!

When I read through this thread, not once did I start considering that I should try it as a strategy - why would I? Part of the enjoyment - for me - is replicating/advancing themes from warfare conducted early in the last century. If anything, it helped me realize that I should buy a few more bombers, but that’s about the extent of it.

Some see this as as a dice game with strategy - I choose to see it as a strategy game with dice. Mass purchases of one unit for the purpose of maximizing movement and mathematical assurance, in my opinion, shift the game toward the former. Again, a matter of personal preference.

As always, Stalingradski is the voice of decency and historical integrity.

I agree with this “gentleman’s agreement” approach.  This kind of idea was floated back in the alpha days when sealion was unstoppable and it took official setup changes and the Soviet NO to get that down to a reasonable level where now sealion is possible but rarely done and the game is much better for it.  Now we have this other thing that seems close to unstoppable in the hands of top players, and the situation might get out of hand when and if us middle-of-the-pack players get the hang of it.  We could just all agree not to do it, but what about in league and tournament games?  Rules are rules.  I think the bomber thing is really goofy and unhistorical but it is now part of the game unfortunately.

So if the axis decide to do something as radical and crappy as dark skies, maybe the allies should do something equally radical and crappy.  I hereby propose a ridiculous and untested approach to handling a mega bombers situation.  This would no longer look anything like World War II, but if it works then the allies having this crappy option in their back pocket might deter axis players from going dark skies (much like how we all know the sealion solutions that deter them from going full bore sealion most of the time).  So here is an untested and very crappy anti-dark skies strategy in principle:

The Russian Rotate

• USSR builds only mobile units and everything goes EAST.  Far East troops go into Manchuria.  Startup units on the Eastern front withdraw to Moscow then keep on going East.  Moscow is abandoned round 5, but the goal is to Kick Japan off the continent, starve them, and deny them the pacific win.
• USA and ANZAC mount a Minimal defense of Hawaii and Sydney until late game when Japan is to be killed.
• UK focuses exclusively on deterring sealion and holding Cairo.
• USA puts almost everything into the Atlantic to help UK hold Cairo and London and thereby deny them the Europe win, starve them economically and kill them later
• If Germany tries to follow Russia into China they will drown in Chinese infantry because by then all China will be free
• This is probably a 20+ round kind of game

@variance:

(…)
The Russian Rotate

• USSR builds only mobile units and everything goes EAST.��������������  Far East troops go into Manchuria.��������������  Startup units on the Eastern front withdraw to Moscow then keep on going East.��������������  Moscow is abandoned round 5, but the goal is to Kick Japan off the continent, starve them, and deny them the pacific win.
• USA and ANZAC mount a Minimal defense of Hawaii and Sydney until late game when Japan is to be killed.
• UK focuses exclusively on deterring sealion and holding Cairo.
• USA puts almost everything into the Atlantic to help UK hold Cairo and London and thereby deny them the Europe win, starve them economically and kill them later
• If Germany tries to follow Russia into China they will drown in Chinese infantry because by then all China will be free
• This is probably a 20+ round kind of game

I like the out-of-the-box thinking, Variance :-).
I will certainly try something like this sometimes, but I must admit I feel uncertain about 1 thing with this:
If Moscow is abandoned early, and completely unchecked, Germany doesn’t need to keep a (very) large portion of their army around the City to prevent Russia from retaking it, nor do they loose a lot of troops/air by an assault of subborn defenses. So all their forces can just go for Cairo instead of just a small portion of 'em, and they can assault Cairo turn 9/10 which is early, compared to when they first need to deal with Moscow.
Now will the UK/USA be ready in Cairo? Minimal defenses for the Pacific requires quite a lot. On the other hand, if Russia removes Japan from mainland Asia, Japan will have a lot less resources to spend, freeing up more for the USA to spend in Europe…

Maybe it can be done as well with a 3-turn JF from the USA, after which they switch to putting everything in Europe from turn 4 and onwards.
No way Japan will survive this sandwiching from Russia/China/India from one side and the USA from the other. They will be dead in the water. I don’t think Japan will have even a minimal influence on the game left, after turn 6. The battle for Cairo will be the game-winning one. Unless the allies can liberate France, they cannot loose Cairo.

I’m playing against a German bomber strategy for the first time. What I’m finding to be the most significant challenge is their range. 7 spaces let’s them hit the west Gibraltar SZ from France or West Germany, while simultaneously threatening Russian stacks on the eastern front. I’m finding that really hard to defend against. So I had a couple of ideas (assuming the intent is to restore balance – I’m not necessarily in favour of either of these rules in principle, but for the purpose of play-balance, they might make sense.) They are influenced by my observations in early games that saw Germany have a tougher time once they commit fighters and tac to the eastern front and they aren’t available to threaten atlantic shipping. As well, the combined price reduction and increased movement have increased the lethality of bombers. Apologies as well if these were already mentioned but the search function wouldn’t work for me so i couldn’t see if these ideas have already been raised.

My first suggestion is a fairly simple one: to remove the airbase movement advantage from strat bombers. This would maintain their range just enough that they can’t threaten Moscow and gibraltar and everywhere in between West Germany. They could still operate out of Germany and protect the coast of Europe, or Russia, but it would open up some shipping lanes in the Atlantic.

If that’s seen as too extreme, or if the effect on the pacific might be deemed too undesirable, my second suggestion is to give strat bombers the extra movement point if there is an an airbase at takeoff AND landing. In the pacific, there are so many airbases on islands, Australia, and Japan oftens by an airbase for SE Asia to increase fighter and tac range, so this might not affect the pacific as much as the European theatre.

Just some food for thought.

After several tests - it is my opinion that although annoying, the bomber strategy is not overpowered or unbeatable.  In fact it’s slightly sub optimal, and much higher risk.

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.

The Axis will either bite, and end up losing the edge they need in Russia, or ignore, and the allied fleets will make gains.

If you can find a way to take out 3 or 4 bombers, that seems to be just enough.

@Stalingradski:

I’m quite late to this conversation, but my thought is this:

The counter to this German bomber strategy is to choose not to use it, and to avoid playing against players who do. I mean this with all respect!

I can speak for myself, and probably many others, in that I don’t play A&A purely as a series of mathematical equations. If that were the case, there are plenty of other games out there to scratch that particular itch. I play because I’m also interested in history, as well as the history of warfare, and World War II in particular.

I’m always a bit suspicious of the constant search to discover a mechanical ‘break’ in this (very elegant) game. If I learned I could win every time by buying 20 infantry every round for Germany, personally I won’t just start buying 20 infantry a round every turn until someone stops me. That’s not my definition of fun. For some, it is, and that’s fine - diversity is a beautiful thing.

Give me 6 infantry, an artillery, 2 mech infantry, 2 armor, a fighter, and a destroyer for 60 IPCs as Germany. If I’m feeling whimsical or aggressive, replace the 2 armor with a bomber. That’s my definition of dark skies!

When I read through this thread, not once did I start considering that I should try it as a strategy - why would I? Part of the enjoyment - for me - is replicating/advancing themes from warfare conducted early in the last century. If anything, it helped me realize that I should buy a few more bombers, but that’s about the extent of it.

Some see this as as a dice game with strategy - I choose to see it as a strategy game with dice. Mass purchases of one unit for the purpose of maximizing movement and mathematical assurance, in my opinion, shift the game toward the former. Again, a matter of personal preference.

If that’s the case, why bother with strategies at all? Why not just have a script where you buy units representative of the units produced historically, and follow all the battles in a way that happened historically?

Dark Skies isn’t historically accurate, but it’s still a strategy. This is a strategy game. The goal is to find a strategy that allows you to win (secondary of course to the goal of having fun). If Dark Skies allows you to win, you’re meeting that goal.

Personally I don’t use Dark Skies because if it’s as broken as some claim then no one would want to play against me using it, and if it’s not broken as some claim then I have no reason use it over a more traditional strategy that works just as well, if not better.

Variance - thank you  :-)

Amanntai - perhaps I oversold the point, or didn’t communicate my point sufficiently.

I would never advocate for a simple reenactment. I’m just as interested in novel ideas and new methods as anyone. I’ve been playing one version or another of A&A since the 1984 Milton Bradley version - thirty + years. As a disclaimer, I love new strategies - it’s why I play against other people and try to read threads on new strats. However!

There’s a point at which it becomes something else entirely, and (to me!) loses the spirit of the game. There are thousands of ‘chance’ games available for people to choose. Since I don’t have the time in my life to delve into serious WWII simulations, I fall back on this particular A&A system - a strategy game with dice. I’m not interested in counters and chits with historically accurate divisions, logistics, terrain issues, etc… speaking for most working class individuals with a family and a stressful job, I don’t have time. A&A is the (close to) perfect amalgam of history and chance and also has the my-wife-can-deal-with-me-playing-it-now-and-then factor. But… I’m interested in history. Not the pure domination of others. Not pure mathematics. History. And I like to recreate history, with chance involved, and add my own particular twist.

I tried to state in my post (if you go back and read) as often as possible, the disclaimer that this was my particular preference. But I know that I speak for some others as well… picking one particular unit for mathematical assurance violates a basic code for me… as Omar in The Wire (and later The Hound in GoT) noted - “A man’s gotta have a code.” My code is that I want to reenact WW II, and put my own twist on WII warfare in A&A, and not to find a mathematical break in the game and exploit it… does that make sense?

Another, more concrete way to say it - if I were to learn that the US could buy all battleships in the Pacific, and that by turn six I would win every game, would I do it? No way. I would have to say that I’d stubbornly still buy some aircraft, and try to get boots on the ground and take some islands, because I’m playing for more than just victory… I’m playing for an elegant victory, and for fun. I’d rather lose and play by my code than win by exploiting mathematics. To some, that makes no sense! To others, it makes perfect sense. Ahh… the wonder of diversity.

I simply offered a response to the original question about how to deal with the issue of German Bomber Strategy… and I chose to say “Don’t engage at all”. I think it was fair to add my voice to the discussion.

@Gargantua:

After several tests - it is my opinion that although annoying, the bomber strategy is not overpowered or unbeatable.  In fact it’s slightly sub optimal, and much higher risk.

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.

The Axis will either bite, and end up losing the edge they need in Russia, or ignore, and the allied fleets will make gains.

If you can find a way to take out 3 or 4 bombers, that seems to be just enough.

Garg is correct.  There’s no big secret to beating the bombers. Loaded carriers and a little luck.

@Stalingradski:

Variance - thank you  :-)

Amanntai - perhaps I oversold the point, or didn’t communicate my point sufficiently.

I would never advocate for a simple reenactment. I’m just as interested in novel ideas and new methods as anyone. I’ve been playing one version or another of A&A since the 1984 Milton Bradley version - thirty + years. As a disclaimer, I love new strategies - it’s why I play against other people and try to read threads on new strats. However!

There’s a point at which it becomes something else entirely, and (to me!) loses the spirit of the game. There are thousands of ‘chance’ games available for people to choose. Since I don’t have the time in my life to delve into serious WWII simulations, I fall back on this particular A&A system - a strategy game with dice. I’m not interested in counters and chits with historically accurate divisions, logistics, terrain issues, etc… speaking for most working class individuals with a family and a stressful job, I don’t have time. A&A is the (close to) perfect amalgam of history and chance and also has the my-wife-can-deal-with-me-playing-it-now-and-then factor. But… I’m interested in history. Not the pure domination of others. Not pure mathematics. History. And I like to recreate history, with chance involved, and add my own particular twist.

I tried to state in my post (if you go back and read) as often as possible, the disclaimer that this was my particular preference. But I know that I speak for some others as well… picking one particular unit for mathematical assurance violates a basic code for me… as Omar in The Wire (and later The Hound in GoT) noted - “A man’s gotta have a code.” My code is that I want to reenact WW II, and put my own twist on WII warfare in A&A, and not to find a mathematical break in the game and exploit it… does that make sense?

Another, more concrete way to say it - if I were to learn that the US could buy all battleships in the Pacific, and that by turn six I would win every game, would I do it? No way. I would have to say that I’d stubbornly still buy some aircraft, and try to get boots on the ground and take some islands, because I’m playing for more than just victory… I’m playing for an elegant victory, and for fun. I’d rather lose and play by my code than win by exploiting mathematics. To some, that makes no sense! To others, it makes perfect sense. Ahh… the wonder of diversity.

I simply offered a response to the original question about how to deal with the issue of German Bomber Strategy… and I chose to say “Don’t engage at all”. I think it was fair to add my voice to the discussion.

The great thing about A&A is there are so many variables that there is no way you can “do X and win by turn X every time”. There are millions of possible moves and strategies, and any one of the dozens of dice rolls made at each turn can be disastrous and foil your whole plan. It isn’t like Tic Tac Toe, where a skill player can always ensure either a win or a draw, or even like Chess, where an advanced computer can predict every move and develop a winning strategy every time.

Even then, Dark Skies is different than “US buys only battleships in the pacific and wins every time”. Dark Skies isn’t “all bombers and Axis victory”. It’s “buy a lot of bombers early, with some other units, and then build whatever you want after you have ‘enough’ bombers, and then you might win”. I see no reason people shouldn’t be allowed to play a valid strategy that isn’t a guaranteed win.

Fair enough Amanntai, and a good counter point.

If people can win against this strat, then it isn’t necessarily a break in the game. I’d vigorously defend anyone’s ability to try any new strat, as wild and out of the box as it is.

When it gets to a certain point, it just won’t be me  :-)