• Been playing a few games now and my friend has found a good little system for the Allies.  Its the ‘conveyer belt’ but every round he purchases 2 bombers for the US.  He sends them down to Queensland and by round 4 he has at least 8 bombers ready to cause havoc on my Japanese fleets in around Borneo, Celebes and Malaya.

    I had 2 games where I was ready to finish India and he wiped me out in Burma twice with his bombers from Queensland. Lands them in India with all of indias fighters.  One game he had 9 roles at 4 to my 8 rolls at 2 in Burma and he wiped me out while I only hit him twice.  He then wiped out one of my fleets in Java the next turn and still had 2 bombers left to land back in Aust.

    He doesn’t even buy carriers anymore…I just think that bombers are too cheap and need to be raised to 14 ipc or 15.  Our third game is going alot better for me since I have adapted a bit but just doesn’t make the game realistic with this US Strat.  Just wondering if anyone else has seen the same with US bombers.


  • That’s an old strategy from the previous version on Axis and Allies Pacific.  In that version bombers cost 15 and fighters cost 12.  However, the previous version was a better model of the economic capability of Japan versus the United States.  In the old AAP a huge mass of US bombers and/or subs was a very effective way to send the Japanese fleet to the bottom of the Pacific.  Once that was accomplished a more conventional mixed force could move in and capture the land.

    :evil: Nasty Bombers!  :evil:

    Although not very realistic or fun, I could see this US bomber stack being effective in AAP40.  I believe in air superiority.  If a squardron of bombers comes in unescorted by fighters, the defending fighters will destroy them!!  The game allows fighters to scramble to defend against a strategic bombing attack and fight air to air.  The game designers need to take the next step and allow fighters scramble to fight air-to-air for naval and land attacks. That would show those stinkin bombers who owns the sky!

    Air Superiority, learn it, live it or die.  8-)


  • I think a large bomber commitment will make it much more dangerous for Japan to split their navy up, but with scrambling, cheap destroyers and Carriers and Battleships soaking two hits a large naval group should be able to wipe out an opposing bomber force in a turn. It is somewhat of a trade off as well, almost half of US production going to bombers means less transports, and navy.


  • Thats the problem though…every turn he buys 2 bombers, 2 destroyers, 1 transport and 1 infantry, 1 artilery.  He hardly buys ships but when he combines them with the Ausies at Queensland, they are hard to get at.  He waits for me in Burma, just when I’m ready to hit India from Burma, his bombers come in and wipe me out.  This saves India.

    The game goes on and on and eventually I lose all the DEI and my money.


  • It sounds to me like you are missing things in your strategy to allow him to do it.


  • One thing you could try would be to transport the AA gun in Manchuria further south to help protect your land units.  Just move it during your non-combat move to keep it on the front line of your push into India.


  • @Gravy:

    Thats the problem though…every turn he buys 2 bombers, 2 destroyers, 1 transport and 1 infantry, 1 artilery.  He hardly buys ships but when he combines them with the Ausies at Queensland, they are hard to get at.  He waits for me in Burma, just when I’m ready to hit India from Burma, his bombers come in and wipe me out.  This saves India.

    The game goes on and on and eventually I lose all the DEI and my money.

    This sounds like an interesting build for the US. Anything to help keep India in the game is a good idea for our group just now.

    We have seen that bombers in Australia have yielded good results for the Allies, maybe we just need to increase the number of bombers…


  • Maybe use Anzak navy to boost?


  • In the games we’ve played this week anzac focused on a navy and that seemed to work well. I might have to try this idea against my friend next time we get to play. We (my bro frinds and i) have yet to beat him at this type of. This spans years of playing lotr risk in my basement. This seems like if china can roll well and uk plays good defense, and anzac does good with a navy that this could be solid. I’ll have to play a 1 plaer game and try it out.


  • If I play japs, US has no chance to build any bombers, if he do he is dead. (2 carrier seazone around hawai, 1 carrier most of fleet carrolins((option to send many fighters to the us fleet ;) )) rest of fleet at hawai full loaded transporters carrolin/ build all money transporters to japs. Bombers to carolin)  :mrgreen:

    I take Hawai turn 2 with option to send 16 troops over there and whole fleet, if he builds bombers turn 1 i attack westcoast turn 3. If he buys no ships US fleet sinks turn 2 and hawai and turn 3 westcoast down.


  • Well this has the advantage of speed, which is exactly what US needs after a J1 attack.

    Is this a better strategy to use against Truk fleet, rather than massing DDs and subs?


  • IF US is not at war with JP it can’t send units to Australia…


  • Incorrect game play seems to be a common problem with the few ‘winning’ allied strategies that get posted. Poor Japanese play and rare situational exploitations cover the rest.


  • There is nothing in the OP to suggest incorrect play. He says by round four there are 8 bombers in Queensland. He does not say what round Japan declares war. Both of these are entirely possible within the rules of the game. It’s only one round to fly from Western US to Queensland. It doesn’t take poor Japanese play for the allies to win.


  • In the one game I played against a friend, I went heavy navy with US, coupled with Anzac fighters and naval supplements it was just a matter of time to kill the Jap fleet.  Problem was my friend wasn’t keeping up in the ship building arms race.  Thats the key to Japan in this game, be able to attack on all fronts and all theaters of war, you have to continually build land, air, and naval units to keep up and win.  I think most Japan players get too devoted to putting all their cash into taking Asia and DEI.  Great idea for cash and taking out some opponents but you are probably giving ground elsewhere.  Convoy raiding works both ways and can do some reverse “bleeding dry” of the Allies.  Countering air force and naval force movements is key, even feinting moves to get your enemies to buy units that will delay them another turn is a great idea.  I know everyone doesn’t have several free days to play a single game but when AAE40 version comes out, tactical delays will pay off.  Making the game last longer in your favor never hurts cause it is an economic game after all.


  • If the game lasts beyond a few turns (say, 4-5 turns after the declaration of war), Japan has probably lost.

    A lot of the winning US strategies posted take a long time to implement. They only work against a slow Japanese player.
    Japan should be cleaning up in Asia and UK down to 5-8 IPC’s per turn, with India living on borrowed time.

    USA has to get into the game FAST. THis means an unassailable fleet that rules the Pacific. Hawaii sea zone occupied and reinforced ASAP (assuming Japan goes after UK first)

    Assuming a J1 attack, US builds should be:
    US1: CV
    US2: DDs/Subs (~equal numbers of both)
    US3:DDs/Subs/2-3 Transports (plus enough ground units to carry)
    US4:DDs/Subs (+ additional Transports/ground troops as needed) <–- repeat for rest of game.

    There are tactical considerations. If US needs to build additional fighters to send to ANZAC (because ANZAC has correctly reinforced India with all their own fighters) then by all means build extra fighters. If USA has the time to reinforce India with fighters then do so. If Japan stops crushing China to build up its fleet then by all means build a 3rd CV.

    If US reaches a point where they can afford such luxury builds as CA’s or loaded carriers the momentum has turned. As soon as US starts to implement island hopping strategy without fear of the IJN the game is over IMHO.


  • I agree with you on US plans taking several turns to be implemented, just throwing another viewpoint out there.  Just really wondering if anyone playing Japan has ever considered sending a sizeable invasion force to knock out Anzac and stop the fighter pipeline while keeping solid pressure up on UK and China.  If Allied airforce is tipping the game in their favor why not take out one of the powers and stop the reinforcement?


  • @Gwlachmai:

    There is nothing in the OP to suggest incorrect play. He says by round four there are 8 bombers in Queensland. He does not say what round Japan declares war. Both of these are entirely possible within the rules of the game. It’s only one round to fly from Western US to Queensland. It doesn’t take poor Japanese play for the allies to win.

    I don’t contend the bomber numbers, but was responding to his stunning example of their use.

    Watching a hoard of bombers accumulate without doing anything about them seems to fall under “poor Japanese strategy.” Since he only got hit by it twice, hopefully by now Gravy has figured out the counter.

    @Gwlachmai:

    It doesn’t take poor Japanese play for the allies to win.

    True that, bad dice runs can be a killer. Just wish more people would be like Gravy and post those strategies rather  than just saying they exist.


  • Just wish more people would be like Gravy and post those strategies rather  than just saying they exist.

    Given the variety of openings in this game it’s pretty hard to post any concrete strategies that dont get replied to with ‘Nuh-uh, my fleet would have killed yours, my army would have occupied your capital, and I would have a colony on the moon before you can stop me’. ;)

    The variety is great for playing the game (it feels FAR less scripted than most A&A) but it makes it harder for meaningful strategy discussions IMO.


  • As the Japanese player, I usually attack in round 2.  So yes by end of round 4, the US player (my buddy) always has at least 8 bombers in Queensland.  However, I did win our last game against his bomber strat…close game that could have went either way.  I just kept my carriers consolidated together so his bombers took some big losses.

    Just when I moved all my forces into Burma I threatened Australia with a big fleet, he used what bombers he had left to hit my fleet instead of Burma…India then fell and game swung my way after that.

    As Japan I always kept my carriers around Islands so my carriers took all the hits while still being able to land my planes. Huge importance in this game.  I was also getting some great dice rolls.

    But…I still think that bombers should be 14 ipc’s instead of 12.  JMHO

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

34

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts