The Bright Skies

@Afrikakorps:

Actually it is KGF, so USA, UK and USSR will play extremely aggressive against Germany focusing to take Scandinavia as soon as possible.

In the pacific the Allies make sure they don’t lose by giving Japan headaches annoying and counter-attacking everywhere it does not expand to. Yes I will lose some places but it will not be enough for Japan to win the game on time.

Scandinavia is balancing point between Germany and Russia. As soon Russia gets it (because massive USA bombers + UK aid and combine this with Iraq and Africa profits they well be able take on Germany.

Main point is not to see Russia as the big victim but as the big potential that can get USA like incomes without even taking German countries (besides Scandinavia). Of all places, Scandinavia is most difficult to defend for Germany, especially whem USA bombers take out the baltic fleet.

Every action has a reaction. In your plan you have not mentioned Italy. The reaction, or consequence, of a massive allied effort in Scandinavia, which is a long shot in my opinion, is a more powerful than usual Italy who will take the Med+Africa+ME virtually unopposed since Britain has sunk its production into the European theatre. America having produced bombers exclusively will not be able to pressure Italy nor will Britain. Once Italy has taken the ME, eliminating the extra income you claim will equal the Russian odds with Germany, it will be making a lot of money, money which does not need to be spent on naval units since US built only bombers, and the Southern flank is now extremely vulnerable. Do you leave your units in Scandinavia? Or do you pull back to Moscow? If you pull back to Moscow, then your plan was a waste because you are no further ahead and very exposed with no one coming to your aide any time soon. If Britain looses ME/Africa, it is not capable of conducting relevant warfare and the US bombers can only do so much without land units.

As the old saying goes never put all your eggs in one basket. I’m not saying that individual powers should not go all in against a select opponent, I’m simply saying that each power needs to be checked by an opposing power. Italy, contrary to popular belief, is a power. Especially if you let it become one.

Usually when I read bright skies I think USA bombers… Maybe that is green skies lol

@Afrikakorps:

Russian attack force Finkand R2 will be:

1 tactical
2 fighters
3 tanks
1 artillery
11 infantry

Yes Germany can counter reinforcing Finland with airforce, but my experience is Germany luftwaffe is active around the med in G2.

The other option is a R3 attack of finland, building 3 art in R1. Then its
16 infantry, 1 mech, 4 artillery, 4 tanks, 2 fighters, 1 tactical

Actually R3 is wiser I think, do you agree?

I am short on time and will come back to this more in-depth later. By the way I am not trying to be a DB, I simply love playing devil’s advocate.

You state in your original strategy that it will most likely be a GDOW on Russia T2. You have just stated that you plan to eliminate Italy first. How do you intend to do this while still blocking a potential Sea Lion, while also building fast movers in South Africa to dominate Africa, and while also defending Scandinavia with fighters?

You have just shown that Britain is spread way too thin. Also, Axis can simply bomb the harbour of Gibraltar and you are now unable to operate deep in the Med like you stated above for another turn. So it is more likely that the US Pacific fleet will not be a threat until at least T3/T4 by which time you have either been Sea Lioned, Egypt has fallen, or Scandinavia has been slaughtered and Russia is wide open. In the event that You were Sea Lioned, Scandinavia is lost as well no question and, therefore, so is Russia. In the event that Egypt has fallen, Italy is now able to breath while Germany kills Scandinavia because Britain is now hurting for cash. In the event that Scandinavia falls before any of the above Russia is essentially lost, and the Axis can now meet the US landing head on.

All the while Japan has not even been scratched.

You just cannot choke Germany fast enough for this strategy to work.

Fastest I have won with Japan is turn 6. Round 8 is typical if USA ignores the Pacific.

Here is the problem with Europe first strategies.

Transports.

Transports don’t attack or defend. In order for you take territories you  need ground troops. So that is 7 for a transport and 6-7 ipc to fill that boat. Now in the pacific, you take an island and lose a boat, japan is likely having to do the same thing to respond. So you get a fair trade. Now in Europe once you drop, you got to reload it. ON top of that, your boats have nothing to attack, the best option is to convoy italy out of the game after you make your drops.

So to sum, you basically have to waste tons of money to get barely anything, oooo you get finland and norway oooo look ma 5 ipc. Complete useless. The pacific has right out the gate 15 ipc in just cash island. 2 for phil with 5 no, boom shakalaka the payouts are faster.

There is a reason balanced both sides of the board strategies usually call for spain invade and something to hold russia / take out turkey. It is the crocodile method, back, belly, and mouth.

Why would UK land on Norway? USA can do it better and UK have too many other things to do.

^ yeah like getting air into Russia. You can get USA into russia from scotland with bombers. It is a solid method.

As a friend of mine has rather painfully demonstrated at my expense, Russia getting into Scandinavia can be devastating for Germany, and in principle I think it’s fine to build up the American bomber force to as many as 8 bombers, and then send it to kill the German Baltic fleet and/or the Italian Med fleet. Certainly it’s easier for Russia to grab Scandinavia if the Baltic fleet is sunk.

But this whole idea of building nothing but bombers with the USA for 5+ turns strikes me as way overblown, for some of the reasons Afrikakorps has been pointing out. If Britain focuses on Italy while the USA sends bombers to Europe, then Japan is free to annihilate China and capture India. A stack of bombers is not going to be enough to contain a Japan that has already taken out China and India – the USA just doesn’t earn enough to trade bombers against Japanese mechanized infantry.

On the other hand, if Britain builds a Persia factory and uses it to send troops east, builds ships in South Africa, sends fighters to India, etc., then Italy is free to take north Africa, clear the Med, and use the resulting cash to send mechs and tanks east to Stalingrad and the Caucasus. At that point, Italy is pulling in 32+ IPCs per turn, and so even if Germany is only collecting 40 IPCs and losing 10 of those to strategic bombing, then the Euroaxis are still substantially out-earning Russia even if Russia is holding Scandinavia. Russia’s not strong enough to hold out against the Euroaxis in that situation, and will be slowly pushed back – and, meanwhile, Japan’s probably not doing so badly. Sure, the pressure on land from UK Pacific, Russia, and China is formidable and will help to keep Japan in check, but without the need to spend heavily in the water to counter a growing US Pacific fleet, Japan can afford to fight all of the eastern Allied powers at once.

My point is that it’s probably a good idea to build a US bomber fleet in many games – perhaps a much better idea than this forum has traditionally believed – but even a really good US tactic is not the same thing as a “silver bullet” that can knock the Axis out of the game. All three Axis powers still have to be contained. A bomber fleet can contain Germany if it’s sent to kill the Baltic fleet, or it can contain Italy if it’s sent to kill the Med fleet, but you can’t kill both fleets fast enough to contain both Euroaxis, and that means at least one Axis power will be left unchecked unless America follows up on the initial bombing rush with an actual naval buildup.

Taking Scandinavia with Russia is very effective against novice opponents; against more seasoned players any attempt to do that will just result in stranded Russian ground units who get easily crushed by the Germans with minimal losses.  Any units that are lost with little gained in return will lead to a huge swing in the Moscow calculations for turns 6-8.  I am smiling from ear to ear when I see the Allies throwing away units in Europe during the first four turns.

I have lost finland/norway to Russia with Germany, I ignored them and took Russia G5. It was funny. I got to admit.

You get more mileage out of bombers than boats and oceans. Think about it, you get 4 transport 8 inf, then you have to protect it so what do you do? Say Germany is light on air and is sending it East anyway. 3 dd carrier 2 fighter. now time for some math.

28 + 18 +16 + 20 = 84. 84 ipc = 7 bombers. Hmm, suddenly 7 bombers seems pretty awesome.  This is the reason you seldom see G1 navy buys anymore, because it just gets blasted.

Speaking about G1 Navy builds, I have seen Adam play very successful League matches with a fleet being created on his first round.  He usually moves it down to Gibraltar on G2 and then over to the Med on G3.  He has mastered the strategy, allowing him to deliver key attacks into the Middle East or Africa.  It also discourages the Allies from building a minimally-defended fleet and getting it into the Med.  I can’t repeat it with his level of execution, of course, but I wouldn’t say that G1 Navy is a crazy idea.

So he DOWs J3? or Normandy to pass through gibraltar?

@Cow:

So he DOWs J3? or Normandy to pass through gibraltar?

Hmm, must be a strong enough fleet to defend against the USN. Can’t build in Normandy G1.

Interesting idea.