I don’t buy it. It doesn’t excuse USSR to be this weak. The only conclusion I can come up with is ether they didn’t test Germany vs USSR enough OR they wanted USSR to be this weak.
The Bright Skies
-
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.
-
I don’t think I understand the Pacific side of your strategy. You talk about holding Yunnan, but you also say that you start building bombers and subs for the Pacific on turn 6, right? Usually by turn 6, China is eliminated entirely unless it gets major aid from a US Pacific campaign. Who is containing Japan for the first seven turns of the game?
-
Don’t build naval with Germany against bright skies just build a bunch of mech.
-
You lost me when you said Russia will invade Scandinavia. That strategy only works against inexperienced Axis players. Against anyone decent, you will have a bunch of valuable troops stuck with no place to retreat. Russia being aggressive in more than one small theater is a guarenteed recipe for failure because of the overwhelming air power of the Axis.
-
Sounds like an inexperienced Axis player. What did you do to keep Japan focused on the north? If you stack siberia an experienced Axis player will just go destroy them and then move on.
-
I tried a strategy with a lot of US bombers in a league game with RegularKid. Went pretty badly. I doubt this one will be very successful.
@Arthur:
You lost me when you said Russia will invade Scandinavia. That strategy only works against inexperienced Axis players. Against anyone decent, you will have a bunch of valuable troops stuck with no place to retreat. Russia being aggressive in more than one small theater is a guarenteed recipe for failure because of the overwhelming air power of the Axis.
I know you hate Scandinavia for the Allies but I still think a combined nation force has merit in tying up Germany. You need to involve some fast units for the USSR and can come out with a USA IC on Norway. If that happens, Germany is in some trouble. Obviously, you need to weaken Germany more than you’ve strengthened it by sending Soviet troops away from Moscow. That is hardly impossible though.
-
I think he’s talking about attacking it with Russians, not later. Russians get cut off up there, every guy. The other allies get there after a long long road.
-
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.
-
Be prepared for the German player to completely ignore you and throw everything at Moscow. They will no longer need their fleet or their German factories after a few turns.
-
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.
-
The timing of what you are saying doesn’t jibe. How can America be attacking with 20 bombers (turn 8) at the same general time as Russia is taking scandanavia? On most turn 8s, Russia is down to 3-5 territories and is fighting for its life. Russia does not usually own Leningrad, Archangel, Karelia at that juncture, if it does, Germany has utterly failed to preserve its advantage and is about to lose to Russia, not the US.
-
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.
-
The ipcs gained from an aggressive ussr take a long time trio convert into troops. Moscow will normally fall in the meantime and then that income its lost.
-
Worse, its given directly to Germany.
-
It’s great to see fresh new ideas, and to win, the Allies need a plan.
I agree, but bright skies is certainly not a good plan, I am sorry. And the reason is very simple.
With bright skies, Moscow will certainly fall by turn 6. And then Germany can easy compensate the loss of Scandinavia (which will leave red territories with no income).Also it is not that easy to accumulate US 25 bombers against one power (you made a miscalculation in USA1 btw, 4 bombers + 2 inf is 54, but USA has only 52)
There is another problem: In case USA buys bombers only against Germany, Japan will easily achieve a victory, either by rushing India with transports or by taking Sydney and Hawaii.
Those simple all-in strategies on paper never work (assuming strong Axis play). Axis have too much power early to be easily overwhelmed by the Allies. If the Allies want to win, they need to overstretch the Axis while keeping Moscow safe, this requires a lot of small needle sticks here and there forcing the Axis to wear down slowly.
In case you would like to play a league game, I am happy to demonstrate how easily Axis will win against a strategy that offers Moscow more or less for free :)
-
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 SPOTS1. 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
-
China gets enough time to remain annoying for Japan by playing cat and mouse in the North
I don’t understand your obsession with keeping China alive “a few extra turns.” What will this accomplish? How can China alone put any sort of pressure on Japan that Japan cannot handle even if it is occupied with Russia/India. If Japan is operating effectively in Indo-China, then chances are the silk road is closed and China has no offensive punch whatsoever. Effectively if one wished, they could win the game by ignoring China completely and letting them survive the length of the game. As long as there is infantry on the coast and the swinging Japanese airforce, as well as the coastal bombards, China is pond scum. Prolonging China has no bearing on keeping Japan at bay. One can make nearly the same amount of extra income by taking Russia’s Eastern territories as one can by taking out China.
As for the bombers, I have one thing to say to this: Bombers cannot take territory. Even if the USA has enough bombers to eliminate any stack on the board, it is all for not if the axis can double or triple team Russia. Once the two front war for Germany is gone the game is virtually over, since the USA has now invested everything into bombers and has nothing coming behind and it is now too late to start building.
-
I think the truth of the matter lies somewhere between the two sides you all have presented here.
The Russian stack is important and it works well when combined with the Chinese, but it won’t matter much in the end unless there is a strong American presence in the Pacific. All they will do is stall the Japanese for a couple of turns.
American bombers are powerful but the realities of the board need to be confronted and they won’t win the game all by themselves.
-
I do this often as the allies… Holding Russia from a G6 all in is the hard part.
Suggested Topics
