German bomber strategy - How to play and How to counter

Perfectly stated, Zhukov.

I would like to share some thoughts about that strategy. I encountered it just this weekend, and I lost playing the Allies. Nevertheless, I do not think it is overpowered. Why?

Let’s start with what the strategy is good in:
-Germany is obviously flexible
-Germany can deny any small naval force to approach Europe
-Germany can defeat even a huge drop force when you have like ten mech inf stationed in Western Germany
Therefore, I do think it is a rather defensive strategy. It has obvious weaknesses when attacking Russia:

As pointed out by LeClerc (who is, as always, a good analyzer), you cannot attack Russia without ground forces, and German ground forces cannot approach Russia if you have not bought additional units. Russia buys mostly inf and art and waits for the German to come one step too close. You can of course sit and wait until your economic gains from the Russian territory and the bombing raids on Moscow allow for a save approach, but: I do think there are other strategies to allow Germany to defeat Russia late in the game – that is not overpowered.

Moreover, Anit aircraft comes in handy: assume you have Bombers/3 AA units. They fire three times at 1, thus, are better than inf, and they hit a plane, not a mech inf. They only shoot once, but all inf I could buy instead would be killed in the first round and, thus, also only shoot once.

So, Russia can hold out for some time. In our game, we tried to invade Europe and had a huge force assembled to counter the German bombers. That force could participate in the attack, so we were able to easily take Rome. The problem I see is that if you cannot achieve more than taking out Italy before Moscow falls, the German player has enough to counter US and GB if he focusses completely on them. But you could either be more successful with your D-Day, or you just send everything to Japan. So: not overpowered.

I should add that we do not play with victory cities or bids.

@Zhukov44:

@amanntai:

Baron had some interesting math in another thread: I believe it was a full carrier versus 3 attacking bombers. The bombers had only a 24.3% chance of survival! In a battle between 24 bombers and 8 full carriers, the bombers had only a 7% chance of surviving!

If the Allied match the Axis bombers 1 IPC for 1 IPC with carriers, There is no way the German bomber stack can wipe out the Allied fleet. Of course, they also need transports and land units, which means they can’t build all carriers. But just something to consider. I don’t think fleets are going to be demolished by bombers with very few Axis losses.

Theoretically, bombers are not unbalanced vrs. fleet.

What’s making them unbalanced is the combination of deterring Allied navy, bombing raids, killer range, overwelming superiority in land trades, and utility in major land battles.  All that together makes them formidable.

Changing SBR damage and/or interceptor rules is probably the way to go.  Until then…higher bids.  The higher the bid the less money Axis will be able to make and the less bombers they can buy.

But as DizzKneeLand pointed out, SBR isn’t even a part of the strategy! Changing SBR damage and interceptor rules will have absolutely no effect on Dark Skies.

How can such a strategy deter Allied Navy, if the Navy will inflict heavy losses on the bombers? How can Germany win in Russia if they spent less on land units and more on bombers that died in the Atlantic?

@Arthur:

Sure, 8 loaded carriers would be sufficient to prevent the Germans from launching a bomber raid against the Allied navy.  Keep in mind that such a build requires 4 full turns of US spending in the Atlantic plus a turn or two for moving the fleet into position.  Time is on the German side in Dark Skies.  Once the Germans reach the oilfields, their income will start matching that of the US.  Also consider that Germany has quite a bit of flexibility.  The bombers can be used to destroy Russia, navies, London, and supporting raids on territories with medium-sized stacks of troops.

In my last game, the US tried a KGF strategy with a very large navy off the coast of Gibraltar on round 3.  The Germans mostly ignored it.  From the base in Paris, the bombers could limit the options of the Allied navy and also force Russia to retreat back towards Moscow.  Meanwhile, Japan was about to capture India and it seemed inevitable for a total victory on J7-J8.

1. As has been pointed out by myself and others, what the Germans can use the bombers for is not as important as what they do use it for. If the Allies don’t build a fleet because they are scared of Bombers, of course they will lose! The Allies in this strategy must force Germany to make a choice. As soon as Germany commits the bombers anywhere, flexibility and strength decreases. German bombers can destroy the Allied fleet or kill Russia, but it can’t do both at the same time.

2. The US doesn’t need 8 carriers. That provides only a 7% survival for 24 bombers, obviously this is overkill. I haven’t done the math, but I’m pretty sure the US could get by with a smaller fleet.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Shaniana :-)!

I see a lot of valid pros and cons for/against this strategy by a lot of people here. Not that I know much about this strategy, but many considerations I see here make sense. Both in favor or against the DS strategy.

@Zhukov44:

Theoretically, bombers are not unbalanced vrs. fleet.

**What’s making them unbalanced is the combination of deterring Allied navy, bombing raids, killer range, overwhelming superiority in land trades, and utility in major land battles.  All that together makes them formidable.  **

This provides a good summary of the tactical advantage of Strategic Bombers stack, IMO.

@Arthur:

Sure, 8 loaded carriers would be sufficient to prevent the Germans from launching a bomber raid against the Allied navy.  Keep in mind that such a build requires 4 full turns of US spending in the Atlantic plus a turn or two for moving the fleet into position.  Time is on the German side in Dark Skies.  Once the Germans reach the oilfields, their income will start matching that of the US.  Also consider that Germany has quite a bit of flexibility.  The bombers can be used to destroy Russia, navies, London, and supporting raids on territories with medium-sized stacks of troops.

In my last game, the US tried a KGF strategy with a very large navy off the coast of Gibraltar on round 3.  The Germans mostly ignored it.  From the base in Paris, the bombers could limit the options of the Allied navy and also force Russia to retreat back towards Moscow.  Meanwhile, Japan was about to capture India and it seemed inevitable for a total victory on J7-J8.

ABH, thank you. you speak a lot of sense. i’m sorry, but when people focus on things like “loaded carrier vs bomber–bring it on!”, they’re not really understanding the difficulty. i guess they have to just experience it for themselves. to think that US can build 8 fully loaded carriers in the atlantic is, imo, showing inexperience and lack of really understanding just what kind of punishment will be delivered by the foe on the other side of the map.

zhukov is totally right. of course i’d expect that from one of our elites :)

@Zhukov44:

@amanntai:

Baron had some interesting math in another thread: I believe it was a full carrier versus 3 attacking bombers. The bombers had only a 24.3% chance of survival! In a battle between 24 bombers and 8 full carriers, the bombers had only a 7% chance of surviving!

If the Allied match the Axis bombers 1 IPC for 1 IPC with carriers, There is no way the German bomber stack can wipe out the Allied fleet. Of course, they also need transports and land units, which means they can’t build all carriers. But just something to consider. I don’t think fleets are going to be demolished by bombers with very few Axis losses.

Theoretically, bombers are not unbalanced vrs. fleet.

What’s making them unbalanced is the combination of deterring Allied navy, bombing raids, killer range, overwelming superiority in land trades, and utility in major land battles.  All that together makes them formidable.

Changing SBR damage and/or interceptor rules is probably the way to go.  Until then…higher bids.  The higher the bid the less money Axis will be able to make and the less bombers they can buy.

umm…if you don’t play with VCs, that changes everything…then US can focus way more on KGF, without fear of losing on the pac side. imo, a no VC game is VERY different from the one we are discussing…it is like apples and oranges different. sorry

I should add that we do not play with victory cities or bids.

as i have mentioned a few times before in this thread (look back at some of my points), the real advantage of the bomber stack goes exclusively to germany. no other nation comes close to the advantage they have in utilizing this strategy, due to the unique combination of favorable factors. i don’t wanna repeat the argument, as i have mentioned it a few times. america is a distant 2nd, since it desperately relies on navy, is not as centralized, and starts with a significantly smaller ground army.

@Baron:

@Zhukov44:

Theoretically, bombers are not unbalanced vrs. fleet.

**What’s making them unbalanced is the combination of deterring Allied navy, bombing raids, killer range, overwhelming superiority in land trades, and utility in major land battles.  All that together makes them formidable.  **

This provides a good summary of the tactical advantage of Strategic Bombers stack, IMO.

one of the characteristics of bm’s (bmnielsen’s) version of the all-bomber strat is that he gets italy big fast, and it’s italy that allows his bombers to reach ever farther into the atlantic (via control of gib), mid east, and africa. my current thinking on how to counter this strat is to strike down italy as fast as possible (call it a KIF), so as to defeat germany’s primary ally very early on. my thinking is to first ensure absolute control of egypt (which is relatively easier to do in this strat), and then to flood the med with subs and the threat of many planes. make the med as hostile as possible for the trannies, and do whatever you can to keep control of gib.

i’m noticing that more and more players are trying out this bomber stacking idea…it’s caught a lot of attention and attraction lately. i would differentiate between the “all-bomber” strat that bm is into, and the “mass-bomber” strat that others are doing, which is a slower build-up of the bombers. my guess is that others aren’t as confident about just going all bombers as bm is. i think the all bomber variant is more powerful, so far from my experience and observations, but the mass bomber approach is also hard to play against.

@Baron:

@Zhukov44:

Theoretically, bombers are not unbalanced vrs. fleet. �

What’s making them unbalanced is the combination of deterring Allied navy, bombing raids, killer range, overwhelming superiority in land trades, and utility in major land battles. �All that together makes them formidable. �

This provides a good summary of the tactical advantage of Strategic Bombers stack, IMO.

Also Germany isn’t forced to commit to an attack when it reckons that it isn’t in their best interest.

Another thing is even if you could somehow afford those 8 loaded carriers in Atlantic (lol), that still only gives you 1 protected sea zone, so once you move out of 91, no reinforcements can make it to the front.

@Adam514:

@Baron:

@Zhukov44:

Theoretically, bombers are not unbalanced vrs. fleet.

What’s making them unbalanced is the combination of deterring Allied navy, bombing raids, killer range, overwhelming superiority in land trades, and utility in major land battles. All that together makes them formidable.

This provides a good summary of the tactical advantage of Strategic Bombers stack, IMO.

Also Germany isn’t forced to commit to an attack when it reckons that it isn’t in their best interest.

Another thing is even if you could somehow afford those 8 loaded carriers in Atlantic (lol), that still only gives you 1 protected sea zone, so once you move out of 91, no reinforcements can make it to the front.

What about moving into SZ109 to get a full 6 Fgs scramble from England and Scotland?
This SZ can be a way-point before unloading land units in any TT within 3 SZs range.
Reinforcement could came from Halifax in Nova Scotia, SZ106, directly into SZ109 which can unload troops 1 turn out of two (going back and forth).
SZ110 can be a drop point to Bordeaux or Holland Belgium (1 out of 2 turns) and it can still be protected by 3 Fgs scramble coming from England.

@Baron:

@Adam514:

@Baron:

@Zhukov44:

Theoretically, bombers are not unbalanced vrs. fleet.

What’s making them unbalanced is the combination of deterring Allied navy, bombing raids, killer range, overwhelming superiority in land trades, and utility in major land battles. All that together makes them formidable.

This provides a good summary of the tactical advantage of Strategic Bombers stack, IMO.

Also Germany isn’t forced to commit to an attack when it reckons that it isn’t in their best interest.

Another thing is even if you could somehow afford those 8 loaded carriers in Atlantic (lol), that still only gives you 1 protected sea zone, so once you move out of 91, no reinforcements can make it to the front.

What about moving into SZ109 to get a full 6 Fgs scramble from England and Scotland?
This SZ can be a way-point before unloading land units in any TT within 3 Szs range.
Reinforcement could came from Halifax, SZ106, directly into SZ109 wich can unload troops 1 turn out of two (going back and forth).
SZ110 can be a drop point to Bordeaux or Holland Belgium (1 out of 2 turns) and it can still be protected by 3 Fgs scramble coming from England.

That would work if there wasn’t a massive threat on both sea zones simultaneously.nvm misread, but 1 out of 2 turns gives lots of time for Germany to either increase their airforce enough to prevent a 110 landing the next turn or beef up ground forces enough to take back Normandy

I’m talking about moving the whole fleet into SZ109 to merge with incoming transports.
Next turn, empty transports goes to Nova Scotia SZ106 while the massive fleet unload into either Normandy or Holland.
Next turn, this massive fleet (8 Carriers!!!) return to SZ109 to protect incoming loaded transports.
And so forth,

The pace is slowed down but not entirely impossible to protect the reinforcements TPs.

Or reinforcement transports can wait an additional turn in SZ106 if UK is already loaded of ground units ready to make a debarkment.

The first two turns is a full blown attack, the third is calm (TPs coming in SZ109), the fourth turn can continue to unload.

This is the fastest rate I can think of.

Guys, I don’t think anyone actually meant that USA would literally build 8 carriers.  The reason for 8 is just for argument sake because 8 carriers + 16 fighters = $288 and 24 bombers = $288.  Its a common denominator thing.  His idea was to pint out that carriers defend better than bombers attack dollar for dollar, but yeah there’s a lot more to it than dollar for dollar.  Its all about position and threat projection

Sure, that might work. Of course while allies are busy amassing carriers, many planes atop the carriers, many planes in UK for scramble, many more planes protecting the invasion force, and many, many tps for the shuck, moscow will be smoked, Middle East smeared, and the rest of the world painted yellow.

@Baron:

I’m talking about moving the whole fleet into SZ109 to merge with incoming transports.
Next turn, empty transports goes to Nova Scotia SZ106 while the massive fleet unload into either Normandy or Holland.
Next turn, this massive fleet (8 Carriers!!!) return to SZ109 to protect incoming loaded transports.
And so forth,

The pace is slowed down but not entirely impossible to protect the reinforcements TPs.

Or reinforcement transports can wait an additional turn in SZ106 if UK is already loaded of ground units ready to make a debarkment.

The first two turns is a full blown attack, the third is calm (TPs coming in SZ109), the fourth turn can continue to unload.

This is the fastest rate I can think of.

@variance:

Guys, I don’t think anyone actually meant that USA would literally build 8 carriers.� The reason for 8 is just for argument sake because 8 carriers + 16 fighters = $288 and 24 bombers = $288.� Its a common denominator thing.� His idea was to pint out that carriers defend better than bombers attack dollar for dollar, but yeah there’s a lot more to it than dollar for dollar.� Its all about position and threat projection

And I’m saying that even at that exaggerated amount of US Atlantic navy, it doesn’t do that much good versus bombers.

@axis-dominion:

Sure, that might work. Of course while allies are busy amassing carriers, many planes atop the carriers, many planes in UK for scramble, many more planes protecting the invasion force, and many, many tps for the shuck, moscow will be smoked, Middle East smeared, and the rest of the world painted yellow.

Fighters and even Tactical Bombers can also be used to attack in the amphibious assault.

How many German’s Bombers can be a more realistic number?

@Baron:

@axis-dominion:

Sure, that might work. Of course while allies are busy amassing carriers, many planes atop the carriers, many planes in UK for scramble, many more planes protecting the invasion force, and many, many tps for the shuck, moscow will be smoked, Middle East smeared, and the rest of the world painted yellow.

Fighters and even Tactical Bombers can also be used to attack in the amphibious assault.

How many German’s Bombers can be a more realistic number?

15 bombers sounds about right for US4.