The Bright Skies

Curious as to why fast movers G2 are so important in your opinion?

Germany has a big enough stack of infantry that USSR can’t take them down very easily and slow movers bought G2 will arrive early enough for a G7 attack on Moscow. Unless you are targeting a G6 take down, of course.

@Arthur:

In most of my games taking Moscow is not an option as it has received some reinforcements from the UK.

@simon33:

Germany has a big enough stack of infantry that USSR can’t take them down very easily and slow movers bought G2 will arrive early enough for a G7 attack on Moscow. Unless you are targeting a G6 take down, of course.

Yes, ABH, if you say that Moscow on G6 isn’t generally an option in your games, you might as well go for those slow-moving artillery on G2 which might give you the edge on G7, right? Or are we missing something?

If Russia builds 0 Art/Mech/Arm they have gimped themselves to the point that they can not counter attack Germany in T1-6.

I wouldn’t advise buying zero offensive weaponry, but the weaponry you buy needs to be suited to its task. You’re not going to get a realistic counterattack before R8 against the main stack of a dedicated German+Italian 100% push on Moscow, but you might get some counter-attacks against little fringe pockets in the corners. Like, if you have 2 mech and 2 tanks available, then Germany has to watch where it lands its planes, maybe it winds up leaving 2-3 infantry behind the main stack on garrison duty, and then those infantry don’t quite reach Moscow for G6. If you have 2 art available, then that makes it a little harder for Germany to permanently occupy the territories immediately adjacent to Moscow.

But you start with most of the offensive equipment you need, so – replace it as needed, maybe add one or two pieces if you have a specific purpose in mind, but don’t go dropping 20+ IPCs on offensive equipment for Russia while Germany and Italy are devoting 100% of their income toward rushing Moscow.

I don’t even know why we discussing this. If you don’t care if Russia is lost on G5 or G6 then it can be fun to mess around in finland/norway combined with buying armor and bombers for Russia. Yesterday I played with some guy online and he did exactely this, he bought bombers, armor and offensive stuff. End of R4 he had to evacuate Russia and it gave me a nice price of about 35 ipc for Germany. He surrendered the game just afterwards.

If you play against someone who just goes directly for Moscow this is the result always. Period. Germany can fix Finland and Norway afterwards.

With that beeing said it is OK for Russia to buy a mix of inf and art, even 4 art and 7 inf for the first two rounds is not bad. I usually buy 11 inf and 1 art. I also try to buy a fighter, maybe round (3), 4 or 5. A few mechs can be fine too at this point. The first two rounds Russia should focus on retreat and not loose units. By this approach you might be able to keep Bryansk for a round or two if Germany goes south. If Germany goes north this is hard if there is a credible Italien can opening force. In this case Moscow can be lost to German fast movers.

I have not seen any better than this if the goal is not to loose moscow on G5 or G6

So the result was this way because the German play didn’t commit 100% to the Moscow push. This to me sounds like a German player who couldn’t make up his mind as to whether he wanted Russia or London. That is why the game resulted in an allied victory.

@Afrikakorps:

Yesterday I discovered another important reason for Russia to build mainly artillery and mech. On the defense offense, Germany can use its Luftwaffe, which adds a lot of power to his force making it much stronger. On the defense however, especially in newly taken zones, there can be no aircraft, making Germany much weaker on the defense than on the offense in Russia.

You’re forgetting the Italian can-opener. Axis will send Italians to the Russian front, who can take a step towards Moscow allowing their German friends to move in during non-combat (and land their planes).

Right but you had touched on the German Luftwaffe not being able to land in the territory that Germany is taking, which wouldn’t be an issue if you use Italian can openers as pointed out by Ozymandiac. I like that we are discussing some alternate strategy options for Russia, but these types of conversations only lead to a positive strategical outcome if the steps that are discussed actually take place in the game. For instance, if Germany does not make the proper advancements, or have the Italian can openers, then the strategy may work. If Germany commits to a Sea Lion attack then Russia can afford to purchase some offensive units. The entire strategy relies on Germany not being completely focused on Russia for one reason or another, and you will not be entirely aware of what Germany is doing until G3. I do think we should change the strategy name, considering we haven’t really talked about the inclusion of American bombers. This is a whole other part of the strategy that I don’t agree with. If Japan is left unchecked in the Pacific, we could foreseeabley have a quick Japanese victory.  They only need 6 capitol cities, and Hawaii would be wide open. Once Japan sacks Calcutta, it would be a cake walk. Russia needs to be able to hold Moscow to save Europe, and the US needs to be able to contain Japan. I think we need to label the two strategies desperately.

Bright Skies: the US strategy of only purchasing bombers to destroy naval fleets and or devastate Europe.

Red Tide: Russian strategy of purchasing fast moving units, and artillery in an attempt to take preventative attacks against the Axis, while being able to move more quickly than standard infantry in order to relocate i both defensive and offensive means.

Can you buy a UK carrier in SA and send to Anzac for the figs to land on and help put a bit more pressure on Japan by taking that 1 extra money island for lack of US support do to Bright Skies ?

You could do this, however the Japanese navy would just be too much of a monster for the smaller allied force in the Pacific to deal with. I think without US help, Japan would have free reign. I would even go as far as to say that after sacking Calcutta Japan could make a move on Sydney considering they would have a formidable navy and air force left. They wouldn’t run into much opposition if the US was focused on Europe. Japan could also use the strategy that I have mentioned before called “Divine Dragon Operation #2” in which the Japanese make a push onto the African east coast resulting in a loss of IPCs for the French and British, and liberation of some Italian territories. This kind of strategy would only be made easier by the sacking of Calcutta and the lack of US navy given they do “Bright Skies”

When does Japan attack Singapore ? Pretty much Anzac only gets 1 NO for just 1 turn in game ever.

Japan can move onto Singapore after they sack Calcutta. It is not going to be a vital territory to them, because they should have the naval base in Calcutta, the Philippines, and Hong Kong, along with one in Hainan if they do the sack Calcutta strategy. Japan would be able to move somewhat leisurely through the Pacific.

I might open a new thread for the Japanese strategy I mentioned. I might also open one for the Red Tide strategy. I’m thinking about testing these two strategies out, and then making videos or just some lengthy articles discussing them. It is nice to extend your playbook with both the Axis and the Allies, however the #1 reason you win or lose a game is your ability to adapt to any situation and take advantage of your opponents mistakes. That being said, it is best to have a strategy planned for any specific game that you play, and adapt accordingly.

When discussing the bright skies tactic of USA going all in on  STR bombers early I would propose a different approach.

USA is the one country that has such a large income that they can do a more ‘balanced’ approach to their builds and not focus on a turn and build just all of X.

Lets say USA gets the J2 attack on them, thus they are at full production on USA3.

Every turn spend 33-36 IPC on 3 aircraft. FTR/TAC/STR every single turn, starting on turn 1. Maybe, based on the board switch it up and go 3 STR one turn. Then 3 FTR another turn.

IF the USA is producing 3 aircarft every turn for the first 6 turns, they have produced 18 planes + what ever naval/ground you deem you need.

The USA will build up a huge air force once the critical point of the game arrives in T6-8. Now, how you disperse them across the globe is up to you and what their ‘role’ is and thus a totally different discussion.

I just think the USA is the one country that can actually allocate 33-36 IPC to air force and 20-25 IPC in navy and the rest in land units almost every turn. Granted there are times you need to go heavier on land and light on navy based on the TRS shuck plan of attack you have but you never go light in air power on your builds.

I understand that STR Bombers are the most powerful unit because of range BUT I think it is un wise to ignore the power of FTR/TAC and the roles they can play also. TAC can get up to 4 attack value and just as strong as STR bombers. Granted their role is different but I think you should not discount that ability TAC have. FTR are you best defense weapon on scrambles and defending against STR bombing. All 3 air units have a role and just going all in on one type of aircraft can get you in trouble against a good player.

This is part of the reason that I am not totally convinced on purchasing only bombers for the US. You need to be able to hold Japan from expanding. This doesn’t mean that I am opposed to supporting Europe. I think that this is also crucial.

When it comes to supporting Europe with the bright skies tactic they can do it with minimal use of force at the start of the war. USA can get onto Mororco once they can declare war with basically just their starting force. They can then move into Tunisia with ease and now Italy can be STR bombed by the USA from Africa. Also 4-6 subs from USA and or UK can totally decimate Italy in the med on convoy routes.

With a slow methodical build up of air power moving into Africa you can secure Egypt and crush italian production to the point that they can no longer “can open” for Germany. You dont have to kill off Italy, just reduce them to a rubble pile that can’t support Germany in any meaningful way on the Eastern Front. USA/UK can accomplish this goal early in the game around T4 if USA is in the war on a J1 or j2 Attack.

USA and Japan are very similar in the approach to the war since they are both naval powers. Air Power is key to their success and when they do attack 50%+ of the attacking force is usually with air power. That is why I advocate a more balance build approach build plan for the USA. Once they go into Europe they have overwhelming air power behind their small stack of land units.

Once USA can opens for UK they follow up with the land units to secure their conquest.

I will open a thread soon. To discuss these strategies is great. The different outcomes of the games using these strategies relies on the individual players on both sides of the game. It will be interesting to see these strategies implemented and tweaked into a nice refined workable strategy.