German bomber strategy - How to play and How to counter

@axis-dominion:

I would like to do some play testing as allies against anyone wanting or willing to try out this axis strategy. The stronger the player the better (e.g., a tier E, 1, or 2 preferred). We can make it a non-league game so there’s no competitive pressure there, and we’d be free to explore options. I now feel I’m losing my second game against this strategy, and let me tell you, I don’t lose a lot of games, but I do feel helpless against this one. I take some comfort at least in that I’m not the only one who’s struggling against it…as far as I can tell, NO ONE has yet to beat this strategy (Dizzknee said he hasn’t lost in 5 games using it, and I know bmnielsen is something like 10-0 between last season and this one so far). Sure there was that Allweneed game a while back, but unfortunately it never finished so it’s still hard to conclude anything out of that one.

Anyway, I’d like the game to be under similar conditions to the ones i’ve played already vs bmnielsen, which are:

1. allies get 20 bid
2. germany builds mostly bombers, but sometimes a fighter or two as needed, and mechs as needed (an occasional ss or dd of course)
3. J2 DOW (he seems to emphasize transports over factories)

He’s very good at using the Italians to gain a landing spot for the german bombers who can then air blitz the hell out of any unsuspecting stack. This forces allies to either really unstack and spread thin, or really stack up in just one or two critical places (in the middle east e.g.).

I can usually play at a pretty fast pace too. PM if interested.

I’m bumping this for the new page.

I just wanted to point out, that if you divide the IPC value of a bomber by the attack value, you get the same effectiveness as infantry attacking.

bomber: 12 IPC’s/attack at 4 = 3 IPC’s per attack
infantry: 3 IPC’s/attack at 1 = 3 IPC’s per attack

This, combined with bombers’ much greater range, shows why this strategy is so effective.

If you look at other units,

artillery 4 IPC’s/2 per attack = 2 IPC’s per attack
tank 6 IPC’s/3 per attack = 2 IPC’s per attack

but these land units move slow compared to a bomber

sub 6 IPC’s/2 per attack  = 3 IPC’s per attack
destroyer 8 IPC’s/2 attack = 4 IPC’s per attack
cruiser 12 IPC’s/3 attack = 4 IPC’s per attack
battleship 20 IPC’s/4 attack = 5 IPC’s per attack

fighter 10 IPC’s/3 attack = 3.3 IPC’s per attack
tac bomber 11 IPC’s/3 attack = 3.7 IPC’s per attack

back in the original Axis & Allies, infantry was the most effective unit on the board because of this (and that it was cheap cannon fodder) and the fact that the territories were much bigger proportionately so infantry moving only 1 did not make much difference.

@madscientist:

I just wanted to point out, that if you divide the IPC value of a bomber by the attack value, you get the same effectiveness as infantry attacking.

bomber: 12 IPC’s/attack at 4 = 3 IPC’s per attack
infantry: 3 IPC’s/attack at 1 = 3 IPC’s per attack

This, combined with bombers’ much greater range, shows why this strategy is so effective.

If you look at other units,

artillery 4 IPC’s/2 per attack = 2 IPC’s per attack
tank 6 IPC’s/3 per attack = 2 IPC’s per attack

but these land units move slow compared to a bomber

sub 6 IPC’s/2 per attack�  � = 3 IPC’s per attack
destroyer 8 IPC’s/2 attack = 4 IPC’s per attack
cruiser 12 IPC’s/3 attack = 4 IPC’s per attack
battleship 20 IPC’s/4 attack = 5 IPC’s per attack

fighter 10 IPC’s/3 attack = 3.3 IPC’s per attack
tac bomber 11 IPC’s/3 attack = 3.7 IPC’s per attack

back in the original Axis & Allies, infantry was the most effective unit on the board because of this (and that it was cheap cannon fodder) and the fact that the territories were much bigger proportionately so infantry moving only 1 did not make much difference.

This analysis was very helpful, it really helps me gain the confidence needed when buying so many bombers over infantry or naval units.

But of all the countries, Germany stands to benefit the most out of buying them in great numbers, due to its strong starting ground army, its high starting income and its even higher income increase potential, its need for very minimal navy and transports, and its strategic reach from WG or SI to so many critical targets, including London, Gibraltar, egypt, Middle East, Moscow, and almost all sea zones from which transports might invade.

@Young:

@madscientist:

I just wanted to point out, that if you divide the IPC value of a bomber by the attack value, you get the same effectiveness as infantry attacking.

bomber: 12 IPC’s/attack at 4 = 3 IPC’s per attack
infantry: 3 IPC’s/attack at 1 = 3 IPC’s per attack

This, combined with bombers’ much greater range, shows why this strategy is so effective.

If you look at other units,

artillery 4 IPC’s/2 per attack = 2 IPC’s per attack
tank 6 IPC’s/3 per attack = 2 IPC’s per attack

but these land units move slow compared to a bomber

sub 6 IPC’s/2 per attack�  � = 3 IPC’s per attack
destroyer 8 IPC’s/2 attack = 4 IPC’s per attack
cruiser 12 IPC’s/3 attack = 4 IPC’s per attack
battleship 20 IPC’s/4 attack = 5 IPC’s per attack

fighter 10 IPC’s/3 attack = 3.3 IPC’s per attack
tac bomber 11 IPC’s/3 attack = 3.7 IPC’s per attack

back in the original Axis & Allies, infantry was the most effective unit on the board because of this (and that it was cheap cannon fodder) and the fact that the territories were much bigger proportionately so infantry moving only 1 did not make much difference.

This analysis shows the advantage, and really helps me gain confidence when buying bombers over infantry or naval units.

So, for example, if the axis needed to invade america the same way the allies need to invade europe, then a similar all-bomber strategy for the U.S. would be as effective as it is for Germany, since the US also has a high starting income, has a reasonable and proportionate starting ground force considering the fewer territories to protect, would need very little navy, and the bombers could thwart anything trying to get near–simultaneously on both sides (pac and atlantic).

One other very important factor that makes bombers so effective for germany is that, in effect, Italy goes first (technically they go after germany, of course, but after the first german turn, one can consider Italy as leading the way, since there is no real power that goes in between the italian and german turn (France is a joke and anzac has almost no bearing in the European theatre)). The Italians pave new landings for the bombers, so they are in effect continually increasing their range. The US, for example, doesn’t really have this. The Russians are usually shrinking, not expanding, so they’re not so helpful with this, and UK goes after.

Another way to use the turn order is to have Germany do a drive-by on Egypt with the bombers so Japan can follow through with amphibious assault.  This is one of those to-hell-with-the-pacific kind of strategies.

@Young:

I am currently in the middle of a table top game with a friend and I am playing the Axis. I’ve got a very strong game going and I’m expecting to win eventually, it’s round 5 and I’ve only got 3 bombers for Germany, but I’ve also got 9 transports with naval support in the Baltic shucking to Leningrad. Is it too late to turn and do this bomber strat which should help me crack Egypt if I want to go there, and the Allied fleet which he will now build because my sealion fake is weak, or should I continue to use my transports and drive land units and SBR Moscow with the few bombers I have? In other words… is it too late to apply this strategy if you only have a few bombers and lots of transports for Germany on round 5?

It’s never too late, but be smart about it.  1 or max 2 bombers a turn.  Once you have 5 or 6, look out!

@Gargantua:

@Young:

I am currently in the middle of a table top game with a friend and I am playing the Axis. I’ve got a very strong game going and I’m expecting to win eventually, it’s round 5 and I’ve only got 3 bombers for Germany, but I’ve also got 9 transports with naval support in the Baltic shucking to Leningrad. Is it too late to turn and do this bomber strat which should help me crack Egypt if I want to go there, and the Allied fleet which he will now build because my sealion fake is weak, or should I continue to use my transports and drive land units and SBR Moscow with the few bombers I have? In other words… is it too late to apply this strategy if you only have a few bombers and lots of transports for Germany on round 5?

It’s never too late, but be smart about it.  1 or max 2 bombers a turn.  Once you have 5 or 6, look out!

1 or 2 a round and see what happens… got it.

Thanks

I just saw that in the current tournament, this strategy is used by the axis. At least so far (Germany having 11STR already and bmnielsen playing Germany). I know 1 of the guys playing Allies is actually a very strong axis player so this game may be interesting.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35184.0

The allies in this game seem to be following a strategy with more focus on Europe than Pacific and it must be said they are allowed to, because Japan is focussing a lot of its resources so far on Mainland Asia (no Japanese fleetbuilds = freedom for the USA to focus more on Europe). Maybe an interesting game to follow for a while.

@axis-dominion:
I am currently too busy playtesting against a different axis strategy.
As allies I never lost twice against the same axis strategy, but the strategy I am up against now has seen about 9 allied losses and 1 draw in a row already and I want to close this off before I move on to anything else in A&A. I hope you find a sparring partner but if not, you could play both sides yourself as well, as your axis strategy is pretty much set already. I am very interested in your findings anyway, if any  8-).

Curious, which of the allied players is the strong one, as I don’t know any of them? I agree that this one is looking interesting, and I did post it earlier in this thread (maybe you missed it due to all the postings).

As for this other strategy that has been enjoying a lot of success, can you point me to a game or two so I can check it out as well?

I appreciate all your input.

@ItIsILeClerc:

I just saw that in the current tournament, this strategy is used by the axis. At least so far (Germany having 11STR already and bmnielsen playing Germany). I know 1 of the guys playing Allies is actually a very strong axis player so this game may be interesting.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35184.0

The allies in this game seem to be following a strategy with more focus on Europe than Pacific and it must be said they are allowed to, because Japan is focussing a lot of its resources so far on Mainland Asia (no Japanese fleetbuilds = freedom for the USA to focus more on Europe). Maybe an interesting game to follow for a while.

@axis-dominion:
I am currently too busy playtesting against a different axis strategy.
As allies I never lost twice against the same axis strategy, but the strategy I am up against now has seen about 9 allied losses and 1 draw in a row already and I want to close this off before I move on to anything else in A&A. I hope you find a sparring partner but if not, you could play both sides yourself as well, as your axis strategy is pretty much set already. I am very interested in your findings anyway, if any  8-).

yep…KJF was a bad idea…germany has had complete freedom to bomb the crap out of not only russia but london too, and now russia is sitting helpless at 20 damage and about to die hard, while japan is still quite intact.

maybe i did it all wrong, but i don’t see a total KJF as the viable solution, as it just leaves germany all that much freer to bomb bomb bomb.

What if the US bought nothing but bomber themselves?

I would say that the United States has to spend entirely in the Pacific for the first 3 turns so that they have sufficient forces to force the Japanese out of the money islands.  They need ~5 loaded aircraft carriers plus supporting fleet or else the combined Japanese Navy + Air force can crush them without worries.  An airbase in French IndoChina for Japan is truly a dangerous thing.  The planes can be used in Asia, or fly out to the ocean to support the Japanese fleet in such a huge number of sea zones. They can even make it back to Japan in a single round.  For a well-played Japan player (not the one in the much-discussed tournament), the US cannot come within 4 sea zones of Asia unless they did KJF.  With the combined money from India, China, and the money islands, Japan is too out of control.  I concur with Cow’s conclusion that KJF is the only viable Allied strategy.  Note that KJF does not mean complete destruction of Japan.  To me, it means that Japan must vacate some or all of the money islands.

In regards to bombers for the US, my skilled opponent last match tried that strategy.  Japan did not build any additional navy, focusing on 3 mech/round in FIC plus bombers.  The US could not bring his fleet any closer than the Caroline Islands.  If they kept it any closer, the combined wave of bombers + navy would obliterate his forces.  He could periodically send out suicide runs to retake a few money islands, but could not hold any of them for more than a couple of rounds.  Japan was earning more than 70 each round, Germany was over 80 with the oilfields, and there was no credible way for the Allies to regain economic advantage.  There just isn’t enough ground forces or Navy for the US to pull off a all-bomber strategy themselves.  He might try it on me again, but I’m skeptical since it was not nearly as scary as a huge stack of loaded aircraft carriers.

@axis-dominion:

Curious, which of the allied players is the strong one, as I don’t know any of them? I agree that this one is looking interesting, and I did post it earlier in this thread (maybe you missed it due to all the postings).

As for this other strategy that has been enjoying a lot of success, can you point me to a game or two so I can check it out as well?

I appreciate all your input.

Hehheh yes I must have missed it. Or, not missed it but not looked at it at that time.
I kow that MagicQ is a very decent axis player (not seen his allies yet), but I don’t know his teammate in this tournament.

I discussed the axis strategy I have a problem with here: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35071.0. I included one of my savegames against this axis one in the OP. I think I am near the allied solution to this problem, but I need a few final playthroughs. It more or less comes down to ‘KJF’ with a twist, or just ‘KJF’. Since the axis do J4, the USA can produce a lot in Europe. Germany turtles up in this strategy and so the allies cannot land in Europe. I think to sail the Atlantic fleet through the Suez Canal (castrating Italy in the process) into the Pacific again, liberating India and/or take the DEI. Note that this solution is not displayed in the savegame I posted in that thread. IIRC I tried to find an opening in Europe in that save, which never came…

I agree with Arthur Bomber Harris’ last post, although I am a bit less strong about ‘KJF’ being the only viable allied strategy. If Japan is played according to Cow, then yes, the USA must attend to the Pacific immediately and cannot spend >125IPCs (roughly) on the Eurofront during the first 3 turns and cannot spend a single IPC in Europe after that.
If the USA can pull off what ABHarris suggested, it can most likely spend ~190IPCs in Europe during turns 4-9. So the USA can then spend more in Europe, but the units will arrive much later. Probably just too late…
Truth be told, I don’t see any reason for Japan not to be played Cow-style, other than a ‘J4 Russia crush’, and both Japanese strategies require a ‘KJF’ more or less. However, the more people spend in Mainland Asia with Japan, the more viable KGF becomes. Not that I would advice to play Japan like that, but a lot of people do ;-)…

Anyway, with anything in between 125 and 190 IPCs the USA can build a darn dangerous threat in Europe. My guess is that your ‘dark skies’ problem could be solved with ‘KJF’ along the lines ABHarris described if Japan is played ‘Cow-style’, still spending about 190IPCs in the Atlantic just not during the first 3 turns. If Japan is not played Cow-style (is not building a LOT of units aimed at USA), the USA can spend a lot more in Europe, and a lot sooner at that too.

I haven’t read every post in here, but I should say that my dad has been making big bomber buys for Germany for years and I always gave him a hard time for it. Seems the old man may know some things after all!

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).