Second Thoughts

Honestly, with England I would go almost all tech/SBR in hopes of getting Long Range and Improved Factories/Radar

But that’s just me.

Sry, not playing techs  :-D

@HolKann:

Sry, not playing techs  :-D

Why not?  Techs are half the fun!  Good place to sink that money you were getting from National Objectives too!

Contrary to public opinion Cruisers DO NOT suck.  In the hands of a invasive power like UK, the shore shot is worth the price of admission alone.

I think people are going to become annoyed with Cruiser bombardment.

The 1 inf per shot rule does help to prevent the cheapshots like you used to see with the Destroyer tech in Revised, but for the mass invasions, I have a feeling that Cruiser bombardment is going to make the German defense of Europe a huge pain in the a**.

I see no reason for Germany to have to tolerated repeated CA bombardment invasions. Bombers cost the same as a cruiser but hit at one better. When not cleaning the seas the bombers can keep England’s ears pinned back with SBR’s or used on the Russian front.

With the reduction in price for bombers the only reason I can see to buy a fighter over a bomber is for defense or on carriers which is again mainly defense.

@Black_Elk:

Contrary to public opinion Cruisers DO NOT suck.  In the hands of a invasive power like UK, the shore shot is worth the price of admission alone.

I think people are going to become annoyed with Cruiser bombardment.

The 1 inf per shot rule does help to prevent the cheapshots like you used to see with the Destroyer tech in Revised, but for the mass invasions, I have a feeling that Cruiser bombardment is going to make the German defense of Europe a huge pain in the a**.

I’m not sure that I understand why cruisers are so great.  They cost 12 IPC’s, but for only 8 more IPC’s you can upgrade to a BB which attacks at a 4 instead of a 3, and it takes 2 hits to sink.
I do realize that it’s hard to cough up 20 IPC’s though - maybe that’s the problem.

The reason not to pick a battleship in their example is that they don’t need the 2nd hit, they were talking about when they aren’t worried about being attacked.

Still sounds like bombers would counter cruisers though.

With more experience under my belt, I have to say that without technologies, the game cannot be won by the Axis.  Germany almost has to get, or at least have the chance to get, Radar to negate the allied bombing runs somewhat.  Also, improved factories are a god-send when recovering from SBR runs (50% cost, so 1 IPC repairs 2 damage!)

Without playing with Technologies, it is far too easy for America to stock up on 9-12 bombers (depending on if Germany puts a factory in France) and just keep the Germans and Italians from ever getting a break!

@Cmdr:

With more experience under my belt, I have to say that without technologies, the game cannot be won by the Axis.  Germany almost has to get, or at least have the chance to get, Radar to negate the allied bombing runs somewhat.  Also, improved factories are a god-send when recovering from SBR runs (50% cost, so 1 IPC repairs 2 damage!)

Without playing with Technologies, it is far too easy for America to stock up on 9-12 bombers (depending on if Germany puts a factory in France) and just keep the Germans and Italians from ever getting a break!

When not playing with tech what could counter this? The only thing I could imagine is Japan doing SBRs on Russia with 9 bombers of it’s own and hoping Germany can break through to Moscow before it is defeated. Some naval help from Japan in the Med helps alot to keep Italy in the game. I play guys who play a global war so your scenerio will never happen in my games. So far I haven’t heard of anyone using this type of strategy to counter that USA bomber strategy. I’d like to know if it could work. Maybe this should be a thread of it’s own….

Invade American mainland with Japan and USA will not have even the time to build so much bombers

@HolKann:

Hmm, let’s imagine UK in the first rounds: main conern is defending fleet from German luftwaffe, but still being offensive:
Options:
*2 cru + 1 bmr (cost= 36 IPC’s):
-shore bombardment
-bmr can SBR
-bmr has great range

*1 AC + 2 ftr (cost = 34 IPC’s):
-2ftr’s are as good offensive as 1 bmr + 2 SBR’s
-better naval defense
-better defensive options with ftrs (in Russia ;) )
-AC adds a little bit more range to ftrs
-8% cheaper

=> I’d still opt for the AC + ftrs, but I do agree that when defense is not an issue any longer, that bmrs (+ cru) are slightly better. It’s a close match anyhow, but bmrs are not that strong I think (low defense :( )

PS: your other thoughts are totally correct. Especially the Russian sub one (though I like to harass Japanese trns with it :evil: ).

Lets just work with the fleet and not add bombers and such that contribute in different ways than what we want to analyze.

To get a solid fleet capable of deterring an Axis air attack I would estimate about 6 CA and for that cost you can build 2 CV, 4 fig. Defensively, it is roughly equal. In addition, in case of attack, you can’t lose the CV’s first to maintain defensive superiority because a strafe and retreat would leave you with fighters sitting in UK and no defensive fleet.

Also, most amphibious attacks are small engagements(2 v. 1, 4 v. 3) that don’t last more that 1 or 2 rounds which favors the more plentiful CA’s(6 over 4 fig) one shot attack over the fact that the fighters can fight past the first round.

And CA bombardments aren’t deterred by AA either.

@captainjack:

I’m not sure that I understand why cruisers are so great.  They cost 12 IPC’s, but for only 8 more IPC’s you can upgrade to a BB which attacks at a 4 instead of a 3, and it takes 2 hits to sink.
I do realize that it’s hard to cough up 20 IPC’s though - maybe that’s the problem.

You’re looking at it backwards. Look at it as 2 CA or 1 BB. For a 20% increase in cost(24 v. 20) you get a 50% increase in firepower (6 v. 4).

You want to buy a BB when you know that any naval engagement you get into is only going to last 1 round such as overwhelming attacks or when strafing is an option. In that case, the BB’s hit soak will save you money in the long run. The US fleet going against the Italian fleet is the example I would use here.

But, when you expect combats to last longer than 1 round or you will be doing multiple shore bombardments then opt for the greater firepower and go with the CA’s. The US island hopping and facing the Japanese fleet in the Pacific is where this is more helpful.

@kendric:

Still sounds like bombers would counter cruisers though.

Yes, but at what point does the German bomber build to counter the UK CA build become a money pit for Germany?

The UK CA’s are offensive(bombardments) as well as defensive. The German bombers are offensive only.

Can Germany afford to build 1 or 2 bombers per turn while Russia is building nothing but ground units and the UK is likely bleeding Germany of units in amphibious landings supported by the CA’s it is building?

Germany can’t use the bombers to SBR because any losses to AA instantly nullify the threat to the UK fleet.

I suppose Germany could build bombers to force the UK to build more navy than it anticipated(hard to justify since CA’s are versatile units and building more won’t hurt the UK unless it has more CA’s than transport capacity) and then switch to an SBR campaign against UK and Russia once building bombers becomes a liability. You would have to be careful not to become too aggressive because heavy trading losses with Russia could leave Germany woefully short of defensive ground units.

@Cmdr:

Without playing with Technologies, it is far too easy for America to stock up on 9-12 bombers (depending on if Germany puts a factory in France) and just keep the Germans and Italians from ever getting a break!

With an assumption of losing roughly 1 in 6 bombers every turn to AA and an average of 3.5 damage per bomber it would require 4 bombers to Italy and 7 bombers to Germany to generally assume maximum damage to their IC’s. 11 bombers is the minimum just for Italy and Germany and 15 is required if there is an IC in France.

That is much higher than your minimum of 9-12 bombers you assume is needed and also requires a committment of 2 additional bombers built every turn to replace losses which is, at best, half of the US production and more than half if Japan decides to take away the [Haw, wake, mid, Sol] NO and Alaska.

And you really do have to quit speaking as if the US already has a massive stack of bombers. Just to get to your minimum number of 9 bombers it would require AT LEAST 2 turns of full bomber production and one more turn to get the last of them to UK. 3 Turns of no navy and no ground units by the US means that Italy can sweep Africa with a minimum of units and then begin supplying Germany with infantry to defend France and free up Germany to send as many ground units as it can afford, after IC repair, toward Russia.

Plus, while a Japanese landing in Hawaii or Alaska to threaten the west coast is easily countered by the US, as Funcioneta says, it would, at the very least, put a hiccup in your bomber production schedule.

@Funcioneta:

Invade American mainland with Japan and USA will not have even the time to build so much bombers

I’m actually trying that right now. :)

America cannot keep up with Japan in naval assets, not in this game.

U-505:

Perhaps you have not yet played this game?  So far, each time I’ve been America, by the end of Round 3 I routinely have 9 bombers with America and I’m routinely bringing Germany and Italy to almost cap in damage.  Actually, the funny part is, I’ve yet to lose a single bomber to AA Fire in AA50.  Not that it isn’t possible, but to be honest, so what?  America loses 12 out of the 50 IPC it is making each round (55 if the allies get France too!) Big whoop?

And if America drops the ball a little, maybe gets unlucky, that’s why England has 4 bombers of her own!

@Cmdr:

U-505:

Perhaps you have not yet played this game?  So far, each time I’ve been America, by the end of Round 3 I routinely have 9 bombers with America and I’m routinely bringing Germany and Italy to almost cap in damage.  Actually, the funny part is, I’ve yet to lose a single bomber to AA Fire in AA50.  Not that it isn’t possible, but to be honest, so what?  America loses 12 out of the 50 IPC it is making each round (55 if the allies get France too!) Big whoop?

And if America drops the ball a little, maybe gets unlucky, that’s why England has 4 bombers of her own!

You know I’m playing. I’ve got more games going here than just about anybody on this site and I can see what a grind it is for the Allies to make any ground gains in Europe or Africa when the US builds 1 bomber per turn let alone their entire income for 3 turns.

Perhaps you think that because the dice have been favorable to you that it means you have a good strategy. Many people make that mistake. The numbers say that you are going to lose 2 bombers every turn to AA so you will need 4 for Italy and 7 for Germany to reliably do maximum damage and have to buy 2 more every turn to replace losses. I can’t put it any simpler than that. Not losing bombers to AA is anomalous and is no reflection on strategy. If you think it is, then you aren’t a very good player because you should know that the more you play, the more those numbers will even out and, when they do, you’re going to be losing games when those bombers begin dropping out of the sky.

And exactly how are the the US making 50 IPC’s or the Allies taking France when the US and UK are spending their entire incomes on bombers and not ground units or navy to transport them? Either you are playing poor opponents or you are getting lucky or both because you can’t sustainably do what you say you have been doing without help.

It is easier for Germany to produce an air fleet than Uk to produce a naval fleet. This is based on game experience. This also counters an easy allied defense of Africa. Which means the UK barely has enough cash to scrape up units for an invasion France never mind magically pulling a Cruiser out of its but at the same time.

US Bombers can hit Japanese units as they land in Alaska. On paper SBR’s are supposed to be break even or nearly so propositions. My game experience has not found this to be true even when I have been loosing bombers at twice the projected rate.

AA50 is the best in the series IMO. My brother and I have played about eight games (with Techs and NOs in about half of them) and they have all been pretty intense,with the Allies winning about five of those. I could do without the Techs but I really enjoy that extra cash from the NOs,especially for Russia. Subs,cruisers,unit costs,tranny rules,China,new territories–love them all. The worst thing about it?–the 3 piece board!! I hate that Fukien thing. But still… I give AA50 nine out of ten stars.

@a44bigdog:

It is easier for Germany to produce an air fleet than Uk to produce a naval fleet. This is based on game experience. This also counters an easy allied defense of Africa. Which means the UK barely has enough cash to scrape up units for an invasion France never mind magically pulling a Cruiser out of its but at the same time.

Well, ok. Lets argue semantics, then. Of course it is easier for Germany to produce aircraft to deter the UK navy from landing units by virture of Germany’s greater income. But, just because you say they can do it, doesn’t mean that it will work out for them.

The UK generally makes near 30 IPC’s or better every turn in the early part of the game. With about 30 IPC’s, the UK can magically pull out of its butt 2 CA/2 inf so Germany would need to build 1 fig, 1 bmb to very slowly begin to outpace them or at least 2 fig to maintain parity with the UK. Germany makes about 50-55 IPC’s so if you think that Germany can produce more aircraft that the UK can produce shipping, then you’re right, they can. But, since the Russians make roughly mid 30’s, Russia will be producing more ground units and start pushing Germany out of Russia and into Europe meaning less German income to maintain this strategy.

It has been my game experience that Germany can build up enough aircraft to prevent the UK from landing in Europe OR it can win the ground war against the Russians, but it can’t do both. It always loses ground somewhere. Otherwise, we would be bidding units to the Allies.

And none of this takes into account that the US can add navy and fighters to help in the UK fleet defense or that most players wouldn’t be dumb enough to risk the destruction of the luftwaffe on a 50/50 battle to sink the UK navy so you would have to maintain a very LARGE Germany air force to keep the threat in force.

A properly played Japan by ITSELF should have the UK down to 29 or 31 IPCs at the End of Japan 2. And that is without India falling. The UK is going to have to also build transports as well or all those CAs being built are going to waste. I assume you have read the rules and understand that shore bombardments are now matched 1 to 1 with landing units. Shore bombardments also no longer outright kill defenders before they get a chance to return fire as well now. Producing 1 BMB a turn is no problem for Germany. producing 1 CA a turn and enough units to invade France every turn with the UK is a huge stretch. And yes the US can join in but that leaves the beast in the east free to crawl up Russia AND America’s backsides.

Ok. Just to get this out of the way once and for all. For anyone who is interested, yes, I am playing this game, and yes, I have read the rules.

I am assuming that we are talking about the 41’ scenario because in 42’ Japan already has everything short of India and they can’t get Australia or any other UK territory (aside from NZe, and they would have to head straight for it) by round 2 in 42’.

I also assume that NO’s are in effect because Germany building 1 bomber a turn without the benefit of NO’s is going to be extremely short of ground units against Russia.

So, my first question is: Why can’t I build up a bunch of CA’s to protect my fleet before I build TP’s? They are by no means going to waste if they are allowing me to move my fleet within range of the German air force without being attacked. And if Germany is only building 1 bomber per turn, then I can alternate between 2 CA one turn and 1 CA, 1 TP the next and still be ahead of Germany in the air/fleet race.

Second, I don’t have to go after France. Aside from the fact that the UK can take Norway rather easily if Russia doesn’t take it, I can go after Northwest Europe. NWE is always defended much more lightly than France because Germany can’t spare the units to beef up both without sacrificing units for the Russian front. So I don’t need too many TP’s or ground units being built every turn to challenge Germany for a few IPC’s as well as trade a couple inf every now and then as I keep the fleet air raid proof.

Third, lets do the math.

In 41’, the bomber has to go to Egypt because if you don’t attack Egypt OR you attack without the bomber and the Egyptian fighter survives(roughly 60%), I’m building 3 bombers and sinking the Italian fleet on UK 2 and that’s the game right there.

That leaves 3 fig, 2 SS to sink 2 separate fleets of [1 BB, 1 TP in sz2] and [1 CA, 1 DD in sz12]. Let’s assume that you do fairly risky attacks of [1 fig, 1 SS v. 1 BB] and [2 fig, 1 SS v. 1 CA, 1 DD] and somehow come out of them without losing a fighter (unlikely). That gives Germany the best possible outcome you can expect when paired with the sz6 [1 CA, 1 SS v. 1 DD] attack assuming no losses there. All UK would have left is the DD/TP in sz9 while Germany will be left with their entire air force intact as well as a CA, SS in sz6.

As UK, I can build 1 CV, 2 CA in sz2 with my $43 and have $5 left over for 1 arm or 1 inf,$2 saved and use my airforce to sink the German CA taking the bomber as my casualty if need be and leaving the German SS alone. On the following turn, with my approximately $30 I can build 2 more CA and move the fleet to sz6 landing ground units in Norway. Assuming Germany built 1 bomber each turn, on G3, that gives them [3 bmb, 4 fig, 1 SS] against my [2 fig, 1 CV, 1 DD, 4 CA+Russian SS] OR [2 fig, 1 CV, 1 DD, 3 CA, 1 BB+Russian SS] if I saved $2 on UK1 and built 1 CA, 1 BB with my $32 instead of 2 CA on UK 2. Both of those G3 battles are 50/50 or worse.

Would you be willing, as Germany, to gamble on trading the entire German air force for the UK fleet there? Especially since out of the roughly $75-$80 Germany had to spend on G1 and G2, $24 went to bombers leaving about $50-$55 to buy ground units while Russia spent about $65 in that span? Would you be willing to even further hamstring Germany against Russia by building an extra fighter or bomber on G1 or G2 to make your threat only slightly in your favor against the UK fleet? Could you justify continuing on building 1 bmb every turn, being outspent by Russia in ground units, while the UK builds 1 CA, 1 TP or 2 CA plus a couple ground units every turn? It doesn’t matter if the UK only kills 1 inf per turn in the early round landings. Every German inf killed means 1 less inf going to the Russian front where Germany would already be underfunded.

I just don’t see Germany being able to sustain a policy of matching the UK 1 bmb built for every UK CA built without severly lacking units on the Russian front. If someone can do it, I’d love to see it, but I’m still skeptical.

Bombers can threaten both the UK naval and russia, its not like building bombers is a compelte neglect to russia. Its only a partial neglect.