@ckladman Yes, the game tends to favor the allies without objectives, and the axis with. To balance, you could trying giving a bid (additional starting units) to the side that is at a disadvantage, or play with objectives but reduce the payout. (3 ipcs vs 5.)
Fighter Swarm
-
I’m curious. What would happen if America and Britain did the following:
1. Built exclusively Fighters.
2. Sent them to reinforce the major Russian unit stack/s
3. At an opportune time, suicide the Fighter stack against an advancing German stack, in order to shred Germany’s forward momentum.It would be KGF. Russia would go an even mix of Tanks and Infantry, tending towards Tanks by the end. If strategy begins to fail, Fighters can be converted into Carrier Groups for alternative tactics. Japan will be ignored, but it will be presumed that once Russia takes Germany, they will be able to start pushing Japan back.
I came to this when I began realizing that while Fighters may cost more than ground forces, for the Allies to deploy ground forces, they must also build a large transport and naval force, which is both less mobile than the Fighters, and much more vulnerable to counterattack.
Furthemore, while SBRs may seem more cost effective, the Fighters will allow you to wipe out critical frontline stacks, while providing valuable defense to the Russian stacks.
By the end of turn 3, Britain could have 9 Fighters and 1 Bomber in Belorussia or another frontline territory, while America would have 8 Fighters and 2 Bombers. Each turn, add 2-3 more Fighters for Britain, and 3-4 more for America. This gets even nastier the closer the Russians get to Germany, allowing Fighters to reach the battle quicker.
Russia should move their AA out of Karelia if they get the chance, that way the allies can strafe the hell out of it before landing in Archangel/Belorussia.
-
ftrs for the allies are always a good buy:
-
Range
-
Power
-
DEFENSE!
You still need other units to go with them, however because it can become too expensive to lose them en masse if used in a straffing manner that you described.
-
-
If Germany takes Karelia on G1, then UK building nothing but fighters on UK1 and then sending them all to Belorussia on UK2 while Russia stacks up infantry and tanks there in order to attempt to retake Karelia could be a useful move to prevent Germany from preemptively attacking Belorussia. Also, those fighters are quite flexible: UK could build a transport or two on UK2 and then use their fighters to attack a Karelia which Russia has weakened; or if UK retreats the land units from India and moves them to Caucasus on UK2, then those land units and all those fighters could attack/reinforce either Ukraine and/or East Ukraine, depending on what is needed. Also, if going for Karelia, USA’s fighters and even their original transport off the east coast could reach Karelia on USA3 to attack a weakened Karelia or reinforce it if UK or Russia has already taken it back. So, in short, I think it could be a very useful buy for UK.
-
but are you suggesting to just give up Africa, the Middle East, China and the Pacific to the Axis? I know that’s a common KGF tactic, but it seems like the UK would be hurting to much after a few turns. Also it seems lie Godzilla Japan could push through China into Russia.
-
You still need other units to go with them, however because it can become too expensive to lose them en masse if used in a straffing manner that you described.
The problem is that the cost required to obtain other units (ground unit cost, transport cost, fleet cost) to go with them means that its probably cheaper just to strafe with Fighters, unless you are sure you can establish a beachhead and start landing troops. The problem is that the beachhead might end up being too little too late. The Fighter Swarm allows you to act early, and sacrificing your Air Force to wipe out Germany’s frontline is easily worth it.
-
I typically defend Moscow with fighters. If I am playing all three Allies I always send at least 1 US and 1 UK fighter to Moscow for defense. I try to have at least 4 (6 is ideal) fighters in Moscow by the time it is attacked. I consider the 4-6 fighters (usually mostly American) to be the core of Moscows defense. Those big 4’s hammering away while the infantry die, it’s really hard tfor Germany to win that fight. I really like the fact that tanks defend at 3 now in AA50 because they have this same effect now only to a lesser extent. I think tanks defending at 3 is a big help to Russia but haven’t played AA50 enough to understand how much it helps Germany.
-
They did so in Revised as well. Its a much bigger help to Germany, who gets more Tanks than anyone else typically.
-
And if you are playing with NOs those Allied fighters are costing the Russians a tank every round. Which as the Axis I really like to see.
-
And if you are playing with NOs those Allied fighters are costing the Russians a tank every round. Which as the Axis I really like to see.
Yes, I had noticed that there is a penalty for that in the new version. I like that, since I always considered the Allied fighter defense to be too powerful. I think I would probably keep 2 or 3 US fighters in London now, ready to go to Moscow at the last moment only after it is seriously threatened. It will be worth losing the 5 per turn for 3 or 4 (with a UK one sent too) fighters defending Moscow, but they’ll need to wait in London in AA50.
-
And if you are playing with NOs those Allied fighters are costing the Russians a tank every round. Which as the Axis I really like to see.
That’s why this strategy is all out. 5 IPCs a turn in return for a couple of Fighters in Moscow is of debatable worth. 5 IPCs a turn in return for 16 Fighters and 3 Bombers stacked in frontline Russian territories, which eventually suicide to wipe out entire German columns? Better. In this plan, India would also send all of their guys to Russia just because why not?
It might be better to have America and Britain drop a Bomber a turn as well, to give them more offensive punch, and allow them to SBR any turn they aren’t trying to punch a hole in the German frontline. On the other hand, this weakens their ability to block counterattacks.
-
It’s been my experience that ignoring Japan is suicide, within a couple of rounds they’ll be pulling in 50+ IPC. Add to that Italy in control of Africa and the Med gives them 30+ IPC with NO’s, and Russia down 5 IPC each turn for letting those bourgeois capitalist pigs basing rights in Mother Russia, I don’t see anyway that scenario could pay off.
-
@Emperor:
It’s been my experience that ignoring Japan is suicide, within a couple of rounds they’ll be pulling in 50+ IPC.
And what, precisely, can you do to stop them? They will be claiming 50 IPCs by the end of Turn 2, and unless America goes all out, they will easily demolish any threat opposing them anyways.
@Emperor:
Add to that Italy in control of Africa and the Med gives them 30+ IPC with NO’s, and Russia down 5 IPC each turn for letting those bourgeois capitalist pigs basing rights in Mother Russia, I don’t see anyway that scenario could pay off.
Russia capturing Germany and Italy, then going up to 70-80+ IPCs?
-
@Emperor:
It’s been my experience that ignoring Japan is suicide, within a couple of rounds they’ll be pulling in 50+ IPC.
And what, precisely, can you do to stop them? They will be claiming 50 IPCs by the end of Turn 2, and unless America goes all out, they will easily demolish any threat opposing them anyways.
I never said anything about stopping them, you set up the premise of ignoring them, that is suicide, they will have consolidated the Pacific and Asia by round 2 with no threat on their back door, they are free to push right through to Russia unopposed, meanwhile they will have deprived the US of 2 of their 3 NO’s.
@Emperor:
Add to that Italy in control of Africa and the Med gives them 30+ IPC with NO’s, and Russia down 5 IPC each turn for letting those bourgeois capitalist pigs basing rights in Mother Russia, I don’t see anyway that scenario could pay off.
Russia capturing Germany and Italy, then going up to 70-80+ IPCs?
Under your plan Russia has no chance of taking Italy or Germany. While the UK\US are busy buying fighters, Italy is consolidating Africa\Med and building a huge army and fleet in the Med. Meanwhile Germany doesn’t have to worry about their Atlantic front since neither the UK\US are building transports, ships, or men to mount an amphibious assault, so they can buy all the fodder they need to bleed the allied air forces dry.
-
in relation to the original idea –>
the idea is dead. short and simple in my eyes:
japan will become a monster quickly without US opposition and should US after 2-3 round decide to go after japan anyway they will laugh their pants of and throw 50+ IPC worth og asskicking their way each round and muster up for an invasion probably.
Germany may focus all forces against russia and totally ingoring the west coast and/or they could build up an invasion fleet to take UK + SBR (they are probably buying the bombers anyway as they would need to hit through alot of 4’s at some time)
germany could go for researching radar
without land units, the allies cannot conquer new territories and defend the existing.
If still wanting to go with this idea, I would seriously recomend spending some ipc a round on techs trying to achieve long range aircraft and jet fighters. But still you need the grunts as fodder…but hey, I’d be happy to be proven wrong :)
-
If you are going to use a strong fighter force to help Russia out why not just take Finland and Norway as UK/US and use them as airbases to strike the northern/central fronts. And i think getting some tech dice would be crucial in the early turns and go for chart 2 for either Jet Fighters, Long Range, or Heavy Bombers to help the Allies out on this tactic. I do agree that no one can be ignored and you have to be playing against a complete Axis and Allies rookie to pull something like this off. You also can’t avoid an entire theater of war to win a war, like no navy for invasion. I mean come on Wodan, have you ever read a history book about wars in the past??? Why don’t you try to think of some actual strategies that involve the chosen national power challenging each on the other team.
-
@Emperor:
I never said anything about stopping them, you set up the premise of ignoring them, that is suicide, they will have consolidated the Pacific and Asia by round 2 with no threat on their back door, they are free to push right through to Russia unopposed, meanwhile they will have deprived the US of 2 of their 3 NO’s.
I ask you again, how do you stop them? If America fails to go all out against Japan, then Japan can easily hold onto its 50+ IPCs, destroy the American Fleet, and attack Russia anyways, while Germany is significantly less threatened.
@Emperor:
Under your plan Russia has no chance of taking Italy or Germany. While the UK\US are busy buying fighters, Italy is consolidating Africa\Med and building a huge army and fleet in the Med. Meanwhile Germany doesn’t have to worry about their Atlantic front since neither the UK\US are building transports, ships, or men to mount an amphibious assault, so they can buy all the fodder they need to bleed the allied air forces dry.
I suppose.
@Fighter:
japan will become a monster quickly without US opposition and should US after 2-3 round decide to go after japan anyway they will laugh their pants of and throw 50+ IPC worth og asskicking their way each round and muster up for an invasion probably.
Once again, I fail to see how the US can pose a significant threat to Japan, even if they throw every last penny into it. Japan has more IPCs than America and gets to play defense, while the enemy ground forces opposing them are wiped out after the first two turns.
@Fighter:
Germany may focus all forces against russia and totally ingoring the west coast and/or they could build up an invasion fleet to take UK + SBR (they are probably buying the bombers anyway as they would need to hit through alot of 4’s at some time)
How exactly do they build a fleet when there are 10-20 Fighters 1 or 2 spaces away from the Baltic Sea Zone? Even if they could, they would get slaughtered by Russia.
@Fighter:
without land units, the allies cannot conquer new territories and defend the existing.
And doing so is vastly more expensive and problematic than just sending fighters. Germany can sink the fleet/transports and you are back to square 1.
I’m beginning to think that an Alternative variant is that Britain and America build a mixture of Fighters and Bombers, with the Bombers doing SBR as well as holding the frontline stacks and the occasional strafe.
B1: 3 Fighters, 1 Bomber, [1 SBR]
A1: 4 Fighters
B2: 1 Bomber, 2 Fighters, [2 SBR]
A2: 4 Bombers, [2 SBR]
B3: 1 Bomber, 1 Fighter, [3 SBR]
A3: 4 Fighters, [2 SBR]
B4: 1 Bomber, 1 Fighter, [4 SBR]
A4: 4 Fighters, [6 SBR]By Turn 4, you are doing 8 SBRs or so per turn to Germany and Italy, hile having 16 Fighters deployed on the Russina frontlines.
-
I would expect that having the US/UK build exclusively fighters means to use in Russia means that they are ignoring Italy in Africa, save what they can strafe from the air and ignoring Japan, until Japan approaches Moscow from the east. No Operation Overlord or Operation Torch because there are no allied boats in the atlantic and hence no ground pounders ready to give Germany 2 fronts.
Yeah, the Eastern front will be a bear (pun intended) but the Godzilla creeping up behind and the Italians expanding will be a clock ticking on the allies doom.
Bombers could help, but I think you have to fight the war with a more balanced approach because those fighters/bombers will have to take hits in strafing attacks without ground forces.
UK’s drop in IPC income in the first few rounds will start to clip in on their ability to pump out aircraft as they lose Africa, Australia & India.
-
I would expect that having the US/UK build exclusively fighters means to use in Russia means that they are ignoring Italy in Africa, save what they can strafe from the air and ignoring Japan, until Japan approaches Moscow from the east. No Operation Overlord or Operation Torch because there are no allied boats in the atlantic and hence no ground pounders ready to give Germany 2 fronts.
Building a Ground/Naval/Transport force will be just as if not more expensive than an all Air Force in degree of punch, will take longer to be put together, be less mobile, and be vulnerable to counterattack.
Bombers could help, but I think you have to fight the war with a more balanced approach because those fighters/bombers will have to take hits in strafing attacks without ground forces.
Balanced isn’t feasible, because if you are going to launch a ground invasion, unless you go all out, you’ll either get your fleet decimated or your ground force easily wiped out in the counterattack. If you are going to land Fighters in Russia, it seems to be either all or nothing.
UK’s drop in IPC income in the first few rounds will start to clip in on their ability to pump out aircraft as they lose Africa, Australia & India.
And how do they prevent them from being captured? Frankly, they should just order their units in India to retreat to Russia for use as fodder.
-
I love air units, but you need to buy inf (and ships) with the UK and US. You can’t reclaim IPCs without land units. So once Afr falls to Ger and Ita you’ll have a hard time ever getting it back if you bought only air the first few rds. Also some of the Allied strengths are the ability to not only reclaim Russian territory for the Russians so they can conserve their troops but also the ability to threaten WE, Nwe, Ger, Pol, Bst, Kar from either Sz 5 or 6 and threaten WE, Ita, Blk from Sz 12. With no ground troops or significant Navy there is simply no threat to these places. Also Ger/Ita can counter with buying 1-2 AA guns and move them around to protect their inf.
It just isn’t cost effective to go only air. You might be able to make a case for bombers and just using SBRs, but you’ll still need one power (UK or US) to buy ships and ground units.
-
this game is about balance. some ppl think its decided by the combat/ dice. but really your buys/NCM decide this game, so buying all fighters for uk/us is just like thrwoing everything u have at japan. not balanced, hence u loose. ftrs are strong and good. but they are just like any other unit a piece of the whole puzzle. leaving out one piece wont ruin it, leaving out all others pieces for one will.
Suggested Topics
