The Bright Skies

So the game is getting close and this week I will be able to test out the Bright Skies strategy!

The Bright Skies: The United States of America.
In short this strategy is the Allied version of the Dark Skies, with the USA going full strategic bombers. This post focuses on the perspective from the USA.

Ofcourse the bombers will be coupled with additional units such as submarines etc. However the main thing that the USA will not do, is to build invasion fleets that focus on either Germany or Japan. Therefore the mission of the USA is not too kill a certain enemy first, so no KJF, KGF or KIF, but too stop a certain first. What do I mean with stopping instead of killing? By weakening a certain Axis nation to such extent, that the combined efforts of the mainland Allies will be able to defeat and kill it.

The reasoning behind this strategy is that logistics are the main problem of the USA, to get their economic superiority to a place where it can attack the Axis. Western Europe is very easy to defend for the Germans, so is Scandinavia as long as the Baltic Fleet lives. Yes it can be overpowered by the USA, but it takes the USA a lot of IPC to build a strong enough invasion force, time that is used by Axis to advance and win the game. The moment Scandinavia permanently falls to the Allies, might also be the moment the Germans take Moscow. Also by focusing on 1 Axis, it loses threat to the other Axis, that can go rampage. So how to solve these two fundamental problems of the USA: logistics and threat?

The answer is simple I think: Strategic Bombers. From airbases they can move 7 zones, which is simply amazing, They have the strongest attack value in the game and are relative cheap. Even better, they can bomb industrial complexes therefore hurting the Axis economies, which is crucial for them to maintain momentum. There is one particular target the Strategic Bombers excel against: fleet. While Japan has such a big fleet, it will still take many turns to build enough Bombers to take out its fleet, both Germany and Italy are no great sea-faring nations with only small effective fleets. Germany prefers to build up its luftwaffe instead of its fleet, as its fleet is useless against Russia. Therefore the logical focus of the USA should be to take out Germany’s fleet as soon as possible resulting in SGF (Stop Germany First).

Even before stopping Germany, the Axis have a much weaker partner, Italy. UK alone is already able to take out this medium Axis player when played aggressive, but the USA can finish them off without any investment. The USA have 3 initial transports and a relative strong fleet based for the Atlantic side. One transport will remain in the Pacific with several blockers to slow down Japan if they decide to attack the USA, but the rest will move to the Atlantic. In the Atlantic they get into the Med, kill any Italians left and then convoy it to death. So actually without any investment, the USA will use its initial forces to SIF (Stop Italy First). This should not be any problem or need much consideration.

The mission of this strategy is to kill the German Baltic Fleet as soon as possible, and to do this with Strategic Bombers. It can build 4 bombers every turn, more when in war. In USA4 it can attack the Baltic States with 8 bombers, 9 if the USA is at war in his second turn (and the minor complex becomes a major complex). Normally 8 Bombers should be enough to finish the small Baltic Fleet if the Germans have focused on Russia. As soon the Baltic Fleet is destroyed, the Allied have a big strategic advantage where both the UK and Russia will take advantage off. A bit more about the destruction of the Baltic Fleet. The Baltic Fleet is crucial for the Germans to keep its Reich intact, but it is also very easy to defend, that is why the UK is normally not in the position to achieve that with traditional aircraft. Germany is also likely to want to keep its Baltic Fleet alive at all costs, and have two tools to achieve that. 1. investing in airbase in Germany, this is the best thing Germany can do and very cost effective taking in account it is likely to have enough fighters to scramble 6 of them in this case. There is nothing the USA can do except for building up its Bombers until it is strong enough. If Germany wants to rescue its Baltic Fleet the only thing it can do is 2. build up its fleet for more hits. This is great as all those ships are IPC that is not invested in artillery and tanks against Russia.

So in any case you win, as you give Germany the choice between two bad options: 1. lose the Baltic Fleet or 2. build useless fleet.

But it does not stop with destroying the Baltic Fleet. The mission of the USA bomber fleet is threefold.
1. Deny German Logistics (fleet)
2. Destroy German Military Strength (airforce)
3. Lower German Production (infustrial complexes)

It is also ranked on importance, as the first target should be German fleet, second German airforce and third German industrial complexes. By destroying the German fleet you deny his excellent logistics to Scandinavia. By destroying unprotected airforce you greatly reduce its military strength against Russia. By strategic bombing crucial German industrial complexes (those at the Russian front) you lower his income or even cripple his ability to reinforce the Eastern front. Therefore the bomber fleet should always be able to do something useful for the Allied war effort.

The goal is to send 25 USA bombers to SGF (Stop Germany First), something that only needs 5 turns in the case Japan declares war in its third/fourth turn. These 25 Bombers can threaten a lot of positions of the Germans from London, forcing them to defend their airforce much more careful while giving much more other head aches.

After the 25 USA bomber fleet has been sent to the Atlantic side, the mission of the USA is to stop Japan. Again not by taking over Japan itself, as this is something very difficult to achieve against a good Japanese player, but stopping them. Ideally the game should end by the surrender of the Axis because they have lost momentum, fast shrinking economies and will definately lose the game.

Also against Japan the USA will focus on Bombers, however in this case it did not have initial fleet to convoy like it had against Italy. Therefore it becomes a mix of Submarines and Bombers. Ideally in USA6 you buy 6 submarines, and then 2 every turn after, while the rest is invested in Bombers, normally 5 per turn. The combination of massive bombers and submarines should be able to take out lone Japanese fleets, force the main fleet to remain united and therefore slow to react while you flood the Pacific with submarines to convoy the Japanese economy.

So here you have it, the USA Bright Sky strategy.

Ofcourse to make this strategy work there are certain things the other Allies should do.
1. Focus heavily on Yunnan to slow down Japan, do anything in your Allied power to make Japanese life hell in China and try to get China in the ‘out of control’ stage.
2. UK should be the one doing the small amphibious landings in Westen Europe
3. Russia mobilize to the north to capitalize on a destroyed baltic fleet taking over Scandinavia.

I play the USA, Russia and China. This was the first perspective of the Bright Skies strategy, the Russian and Chinese perspective will follow later.

EDIT: While it might seem to be un-historical to go full Bombers with the USA, remembers that you do follow the historical order of the USA: Italy, Germany, Japan. More than any nation (especially Germany!) it should be the USA that swarms the world with its flying fortresses!

Hello guys I just returned from an Allied victory and the strategy worked perfectly. USA early bomber swarm destroyed all Axis fleet in Europe without effort and then bombed Germanies in IC’s to hell. Because Baltic Fleet was destroyed Russia could hold Leningrad and conquer Scandinavia and this extra income let it spiral out of control, in its last turn (T8) USRR collected 89 IPC!

Also Russian/China strategy worked perfectly as he has to hold too much Japan forces in rhe north allowing China too keep the Burma road open with UK support resulting in a very hard game for Japan trying to contain China.

Within several weeks I will have another game, will try the strategy again, still think it has a lot of potential.

Russia delays Japan in the East while concentrates near Scandinavia.

Because USRR concentrates north Japan can not go all out on China, leading to their survival for several turns longer making the expansion of Japan slow and painfull.

USA builds bombers and send them to Scandinavia asap

USA bombers sink the German fleet and now the USRR can overpower Germany in Scandonavia letting it become rich enough to take Germany on 1 vs 1, because Germany lost Scandinavia early.

No problem, around the time he reached Moscow the USA has 20 bombers that can either do a suicide run, stack Moscow that is now able to spam tanks instead of infantry. If Germany ignored the north and thus Leningrad a few USSR transports combined with those USA bombers + UK invasion fleet makes Berlin a possibility.

OK 20 bombers might be an overestimate, however I don’t think Russia ia helpless when Germany ignores the nothern troops that are concentrating to take over Scandinacia. The extra income gained from an aggressive Russia north and south might make defending Moscow a lot easier. What the USA bombers will achieve is dead German fleets, board control and low production output for Germany or other useful stuff.

Some ideas following Cows arguments. The moment the Axis started to dominate the game was when they started to be more aggressive, likely the Allied will start to dominate the game again when they start to be more aggressive.

An aggressive UK in the med is already common sense, why not a more aggressive USA, Russia and Pacafic?

Japan is strong with its enormous airforce, but it can not attack northern russia, southern china, the money island, india and caroline islands / hawaii at the same time, while the Allies can attack from all sides. Concentrated Japan can overpower any of them, but when the Allies are on the offensive from the start on Japan, it will have difficulty to expand somewhere without losing territory where is retreating.

Germany is much better defended, so that is why Allied landings are not that scary for Germany as it can both defend the West and advance on the East, generally winning the games for Axis.

It is a time clock, and while Axis has figured to make their time go faster and more efficient, the Allied are lagging with old ideas that USA needs convential landings to suport the Allies.

I disagree.

I think Germany has a lot of trouble fighting two fronts when USA negates these three things:

1. LOGISTICS
2. PRODUCTION
3. SAFE SPOTS

1. Logistics is killing the German fleets, making his expansion and inner reinforcemets much more difficult, USA from London excell in this
2. Production is bombing all important German factories so Germany will be losing lots of IPC and even halting builds at some places (20 damage on Germany).
3. Germany has many safe spots where it can land aircraft, USA bombers range negates this and forces lots of troops to make his Luftwaffe is defended, those troops are not attacking Russia next turn.

So I see lots of benefits for a USA that invests the first 4-5 turn in Bombers against Germany. After that, they are free to respond to the situation, most of the time this will be to support the Pacific.

Same for Russia. It can have conquered Scandinavia in R3, while all builds are focused on the defense of Moscow. When UK and USA are doing their job, Germany will have a very difficult war. The moment they reach Moscow might be the moment they lose Berlin…

For only 10 IPC force the USSR might have lots of extra IPC in the middle east + africa. Already in 2 turns Iraq it has paid for itself. I will also send 1 tank, 1 mech and 1 fighter to help out the Chinese, while all Siberian forces retreat first turn and then go on the offensive (or lure Japan ground troops in pursuit).

I think it is possible to overpower the Axis much earlier than the Allies are doing currently. The roles are simple

UK takes down Italy and takes all those countles opportunities, whittling down Axis small bits while making sure they defend their capitals well. ANZAC plays the same way, taking that money island or killing that lone sub etc.

USSR provides manpower, land troops, land troops and more land troops, so does China.

USA provides the expensive and heavy stuff, bombers, capital ships. Bonus for them is taking Rome.

In this way all the Allied forces play to their strengths, not their weaknesses. For example Russia can more easily get land troops against Japan / Germany, while aircraft is too expensive. So, logically, the USA has lots of difficulties getting land troops to Germany, so don’t bother, bring those Bombers instead.

So no USA is not 100% bombers, but it will be their focus in the first turns. Ofcourse some transports or subs etc. might be a good addition based on the gameplay.

About ignoring Russian forces in Scandinavia and go directly for Moscow. That still needs 5 turns at minimum, those northern Russian in the meantime force Germany to deal with them or they take back Leningrad. Scandinavia alone allows 4 infantry to be upgraded to 4 tanks. Combine this with fighters from UK and more extra income from Middle East + Italian zones.

About the Siberian troops retreating to Moscow, how can this ever be a good idea? You make sure there are 18 infantry not being part of the game for 6 turns?? Any Axis player would be declared insane for not using 18 infantry for the offense… In only 2 turns you build all them right in Moscow while those 18 do something usefull such as killing Japanese, saving you 6 IPC per turn by keeping the Japanese honest or make sure China gets enough time to remain annoying for Japan by playing cat and mouse in the North