Brit Strategy

The Americans can land more forces in Africa than any British IC. The IC in South Africa is worthless. You might as well buy two bombers on the first turn, since I am an advocate for industrial bombing and since your strat. revolves around industrial bombing.

I did that with the UK, bombing runs on Germany. I even got heavy bombers by luck. I hit him for loss of 30 ipc every turn. Yet Axis still prevailed by means of Magic 84. How can u stop them from taking over africa if you said that ic on s. africa is useless?

As the UK take out the German fleet within the first two turns to limit the number of troops in Africa. Then it’s only a matter of building a small navy to transport troops into africa or getting the US to help.

1st turn, build all bombers and/or fighters. That seems to be a strategy that always works.

I don’t know that there is anything particularly wrong with that strategy….myself I would not waste the IC there (SA) but I can see long term benefits of 2 tanks slowly making their way to defend the middle east and counter-attack japanese forces pushing towards moscow…but it may still be a waste of money with very little payoff…

“How can u stop them from taking over africa if you said that ic on s. africa is useless?” I think he means it’s a long way to go to take an IC and then produce units that have a long way to go to attack , unless the US has sent an invasion force.
–-------------------------------------------
“What the hell is that?”-Steve Martin on Saturday Night Live in the 'What the hell is that sketch(and the Japanese around Hiroshima on August 6, 1945.

One objection I have to the HB tactic is the major effect that multiple heavy bombers can have on the game. IMCO heavy bombers should be limited to 1 specific heavy bomber so that the defender has a chance to get back in the game. That way the one HB would need to be rolled against specifically rather than in a group of bombers that could be chosen as loses by the attacker.
Whacho think?
–-------------------------------------------------------------
“I knew I shoulda taken a left turn at Albuquerque.”-Bugs Bunny in multiple WB cartoons

On 2002-04-28 18:40, TM Moses VII wrote:
1st turn, build all bombers and/or fighters. That seems to be a strategy that always works.

trans and AC…always :grin:

As an alternative UK tactic, how about
BUILD-
1 AC, 1 TRN, and 1 INF.
ATTACKS-
1)Use the RAF to clear the UK SZ. Land remaining BMR & FTRS in Karelia(with massed Soviet forces).
2)Other attacks are up to you.
NONCOMBAT MOVEMENT-
1)Load E. Can. ARM on TRN in E. Can. SZ, move TRN/ARM to UK SZ and unload ARM to UK.
2)Other moves are up to you.
PLACE-
1)AC & TRN in UK SZ with Brit. TRN moved from E. CAN. SZ and (hopefully) 1 SS & 1 TRN(both Soviet).
2)INF in UK to join 3 INF & 2 ARM(one moved from E. Can. and 1 AA.
This is in preparation for the US to
1)fly both FTRs in NONCOMBAT MOVEMENT to land on the Brit. AC in the UK SZ, and
2) load 2 INF on the TRN in the E. US SZ, move the TRN/2INF to the UK SZ and unload the 2 INF to the UK.
Prior to the German turn this leaves the UK with -
-2 US INF,
-4 UK INF,
-1 UK ARM, and
-1 UK AA.
At the same time it also leaves these items in the UK SZ-
-1 SS (Soviet)
-1 TRN (Soviet)
-1 AC (UK)
-2 TRN (UK)
-1 TRN (US)
-2 FTRs(US on the UK AC).
Even if Germany hit this fleet with 1 BMR & 5 FTRs he would lose a lot. Next turn UK might only build 1 AC and have 2 FTRs and 1 TRN (US, built T1 and moved T2)in the UK SZ for the next battle. After this Germany would not have a Luftwaffe…unless he did not attack the fleet which would be sending 2 FTRs to Karelia or Russia each turn and sending forces to Norway and/or Africa.
WHat say you?

“Th-th-th-th-th-that’s All Folks!”-You-know-who you-know-where.

Wazzup wif dat? I typed it in as me-“Xi”

Xi as either side if you have heavy bombers (and a medium amount of ipcs) the game should easily be yours. However it is very costly and difficult to get ANY advance let alone a 1 in 6 chance AFTER that to get heavy bombers….therefore if someone is willing to spend all that money (or gets that lucky) they probably deserve to win…personally i never go for the advances :smile:

Someone getting “that lucky” by getting heavy bombers does NOT deserve to win. No one should ever win in a strategy game by getting “that lucky” I’m not saying we should take the luck out of A&A, but luck should be an inconvenience or a small factor in the outcome of a game. Luck should never(okay, at least 80% of the time) trump skill. In a strategy game, the more skilled player should win. If you’re opponent has good luck but low skill then you should just have a harder time winning. And likewise, if the better player has good luck then it just speeds up the inevitable. I think the present tech system gives luck too much power in a strategy game.(there’s another thread about new tech) And don’t tell me to go play chess, because I’m not looking for a strat. game with no chance involved.

-Mike

Wow, this wasn’t a british strategy at all. Does anyone have a counter to Xi’s UK AC post. It looks pretty solid to me.

Maybe I’m not reading it right, but it looks like what Xi is talking about is illegal. You can’t place and AC and then move fighters onto it!! Did I read that wrong?

Ansbach

doh! - I missed the “This is in preperation for the US to…”

My group usually doesn’t play with CiC - makes it too easy for the allies to get an Atlantic fleet going…

Ansbach

I think that heavy bombers are acceptable if you follow one general rule, which is strategic bombing can never inflict more damage then the existing IPC value of the country. How is it possible to have a negative in production hours and capacity?

Also, if you’re sick and tired of bombers and fighters, rolling for technologies in the first two turns serves as a good substitute. It adds an interesting mix with long-term benefits. You’re guaranteed to receive at least one, maybe two technologies if you buy the maximum number of die. The existing tech system could use a face lift, more in the form of progressive technologies.

I usually buy 2 Bombers on the first turn with the UK. Keep all 3 based out of Moscow.

The UK troops are spread all over the place, and the range and power of the bombers give the UK alot of flexibility eary: they can be used to support land troops in Africa or Asia, they can hit German and sometimes Japanese navy, and they can be used to strategic bomb Japanese factories or Germany.

If you’re looking for more versatility, try going with fighters. They can’t strategic bomb, but their added defensive bonus is a must. Bombing Africa is usually a bad idea since bombers can only reach North Africa before returning to British airfields. However, with fighters, you can land in Africa afterwards without the threat of German counterattacks due to their defensive ability. 2 fighters will also serve as valuable carrier defense and play a huge psychological difference when grouped with Russian forces in Eastern Europe.

That’s a sound strategy as well TM Moses, but I usually give up India and have 1 fighter in Africa and 2 protecting the Russians anyway.

I still prefer 3 UK bombers in Russia for several reasons:

1.) Strategic bombing from 3 bombers is more effective - a lucky run and you can wipe out 15 IPCs. Losing a large amount of IPCs in one turn is more of a disadvantage than losing a little bit over 3 turns,

2.) The Bombers threaten both German and Japanese transports,

3.) They slow down Japan - players that build factories are forced to bring over or build AA guns, and if they aren’t paying attention they get pounded by 3 bombers without an AA (only happens once :smile:!) They also give alot of teeth to UK infantry in Russia.

I do build fighters instead of bombers when I build a factory in India.

The point about protecting your factories is a must. Whenever I set up my factory in India with Great Britain, I get hit around the clock from Japan. Without any threat of retaliation (even with a defense of 1), factories are extremely valunerable to bombing runs.

Anony(& everybudy)

My group usually doesn’t play with CiC - makes it too easy for the allies to get an Atlantic fleet going…

Ansbach

A CIC(Commander-in-Chief) is NOT required as the US FTRs on the UK AC are not attacking with the UK forces. However, they will defend against any attack in the UK SZ(just as UK & US FTRs defend against any attack in Karelia.
–-------------------------------------------------------------
“Where’s the beef?”-
Little Old Lady in the
Great Wendy’s Commercial