• Armor is best. You can send them in R3 and then back to caucasus in R4 (unless germans have so many troops they can toast Israel anyway)


  • R3 maybe is too late, it should be sent in R2 to cover the bomber and the fighter in TJ.

    Borrowing the Word of Emperor Mollari:
    Russian Tanks, UK fighter and UK bomber all in the same territories (or package) how efficient of the Allies…

    I mean Germany will throw at TJ all the available units at hand!


  • Well, UK2 did retake AE in this case. German AE units are dead.

    What German units can they send to TJ outside of bringing in some more with transport(s)?I say transport with (s) since I don’t see Germans able to retake TJ without additonal transports in Med.

    2 ground unit with 2 fighters and 1 bomber will not punch easily trough 2-3 infantry, 1 tank, UK fighter and bomber. Certainly not without heavy losses and at any rate, it’s easy for Russia to figure out what is needed to stop a retake of TJ. They play first, send 1 more tank and even one fighter R2 from caucasus at worst case, Red fighter will still be in range to swap Ukraine.


  • @Romulus:

    R3 maybe is too late, it should be sent in R2 to cover the bomber and the fighter in TJ.

    Borrowing the Word of Emperor Mollari:
    Russian Tanks, UK fighter and UK bomber all in the same territories (or package) how efficient of the Allies…

    I mean Germany will throw at TJ all the available units at hand!

    Yea, it’s R2, my mistake. But in a KGF, you can have 1 fig, 1 bomb, 1 per inf for uk and about 3 armors for soviets. That’s 6 units, so, or germans have at least 2 trannies in Med Sea, or they need tons of planes, and this means uk inf and sov armors traded for germans figs. As Germany, I’d think two times before launching that attack with only 1 trannie


  • @Corbeau:

    Well, UK2 did retake AE in this case. German AE units are dead.

    What German units can they send to TJ outside of bringing in some more with transport(s)?I say transport with (s) since I don’t see Germans able to retake TJ without additonal transports in Med.

    2 ground unit with 2 fighters and 1 bomber will not punch easily trough 2-3 infantry, 1 tank, UK fighter and bomber. Certainly not without heavy losses and at any rate, it’s easy for Russia to figure out what is needed to stop a retake of TJ. They play first, send 1 more tank and even one fighter R2 from caucasus at worst case, Red fighter will still be in range to swap Ukraine.

    From where come from the 2-3 inf? If there are 2-3 inf there I will not attack for sure! :)
    By the way if there are 2-3 inf there why sending in Russian tanks?

    We are considering sending in russian tanks instead of Infantry. I have only said that if there are only “premium” units in TJ it is a good opportunity for Germany.


  • From my very first comment.

    I always reffered to 2-3 infantry R1 to persia and R2 to TJ. Weither or not you send extra tanks R2 is your choice. But i guess we understand each other.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Honestly, I’d only counter attack Egypt if Germany took a pounding or did not have a bid in Africa.  The risk to the bomber is too great for England, in my humble opinion.

    However, if I did the attack, I too would select Italian East Africa for a landing zone.  It allows you to pose a threat to the Japanese fleet (not a credible one, but a threat); to counter attack in India or attack FIC; or to move quickly to assist in attacking the Germans if they unify their fleet in SZ 7.

    Though, to be honest with you, if Germany has 2 fighters and a bomber in range of IEA, I wouldn’t even bother.  In my opinion, the British bomber is the most valuable unit on the game board followed with each of the Russian fighters. (The Russian fighters would be most important if Russia only started the game with one.)


  • @Adlertag:

    @Crazy:

    I usually land it together with the UK fighter in the horn of Africa, Italian East Africa.

    Suppose Germany landet two figthers and a bomber in Libya, and purchased another bomber in Italy, you still want to land in that good spot ?

    No, I wouldn’t.  But if Germany didn’t land their bomber in Libya, and they didn’t buy another bomber - then I would.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @captainjack:

    @Adlertag:

    @Crazy:

    I usually land it together with the UK fighter in the horn of Africa, Italian East Africa.

    Suppose Germany landet two figthers and a bomber in Libya, and purchased another bomber in Italy, you still want to land in that good spot ?

    No, I wouldn’t.  But if Germany didn’t land their bomber in Libya, and they didn’t buy another bomber - then I would.

    Even if Germany landed a bomber and fighter in Libya, I still wouldn’t.  That’s 7 attack punch to 5 defense punch (and you KNOW the British bomber is dieing before the British fighter in that battle) so you’re almost guaranteed to do 15 IPC damage to England for 10 IPC damage to Germany.  Not to mention, that British bomber is the most important piece on the board in my opinion, whereas a German fighter is expendable. (Hell, I probably average close to 20 German fighters lost in every game, I use them like candy!)


  • @Cmdr:

    @captainjack:

    @Adlertag:

    @Crazy:

    I usually land it together with the UK fighter in the horn of Africa, Italian East Africa.

    Suppose Germany landet two figthers and a bomber in Libya, and purchased another bomber in Italy, you still want to land in that good spot ?

    No, I wouldn’t.  But if Germany didn’t land their bomber in Libya, and they didn’t buy another bomber - then I would.

    Even if Germany landed a bomber and fighter in Libya, I still wouldn’t.  That’s 7 attack punch to 5 defense punch (and you KNOW the British bomber is dieing before the British fighter in that battle) so you’re almost guaranteed to do 15 IPC damage to England for 10 IPC damage to Germany.  Not to mention, that British bomber is the most important piece on the board in my opinion, whereas a German fighter is expendable. (Hell, I probably average close to 20 German fighters lost in every game, I use them like candy!)

    I agree with that, Jen.  I meant as long as Germany’s bomber(s) stay in Germany.  If Germany had a fighter only in Libya, I don’t think they would chance it, do you?

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @captainjack:

    @Cmdr:

    @captainjack:

    @Adlertag:

    @Crazy:

    I usually land it together with the UK fighter in the horn of Africa, Italian East Africa.

    Suppose Germany landet two figthers and a bomber in Libya, and purchased another bomber in Italy, you still want to land in that good spot ?

    No, I wouldn’t.  But if Germany didn’t land their bomber in Libya, and they didn’t buy another bomber - then I would.

    Even if Germany landed a bomber and fighter in Libya, I still wouldn’t.  That’s 7 attack punch to 5 defense punch (and you KNOW the British bomber is dieing before the British fighter in that battle) so you’re almost guaranteed to do 15 IPC damage to England for 10 IPC damage to Germany.  Not to mention, that British bomber is the most important piece on the board in my opinion, whereas a German fighter is expendable. (Hell, I probably average close to 20 German fighters lost in every game, I use them like candy!)

    I agree with that, Jen.  I meant as long as Germany’s bomber(s) stay in Germany.  If Germany had a fighter only in Libya, I don’t think they would chance it, do you?

    Sure, if Germany only had the one fighter in range, I’d drop the fighter and bomber in IEA.  Maybe even if Germany had two fighters - maybe.


  • @Corbeau:

    From my very first comment.

    I always reffered to 2-3 infantry R1 to persia and R2 to TJ. Weither or not you send extra tanks R2 is your choice. But i guess we understand each other.

    Agreed!


  • @Cmdr:

    Not to mention, that British bomber is the most important piece on the board in my opinion,

    Blasphemy!

    Every good player knows that the Russian ftrs are the most important pieces in the game.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @axis_roll:

    @Cmdr:

    Not to mention, that British bomber is the most important piece on the board in my opinion,

    Blasphemy!

    Every good player knows that the Russian ftrs are the most important pieces in the game.

    No, because there are two of them but only one British bomber.  That means the British bomber is more important because each of the Russian fighters has importance.

    The second is one Russian fighter, and third most important is the third Russian fighter.


  • UK bomber is more important because if you lose it, it’s lost for all the game. How many bombers purchase the people for UK? I have seen some for germans, japaneses, USA and one time even one for soviets  :-o  , but I have to see one bomber purchased for UK.

    Then, buying a fig for soviets is not so rare.


  • @Funcioneta:

    UK bomber is more important because if you lose it, it’s lost for all the game. How many bombers purchase the people for UK? I have seen some for germans, japaneses, USA and one time even one for soviets  :-o  , but I have to see one bomber purchased for UK.

    Then, buying a fig for soviets is not so rare.

    To me, your post PROVES how important that piece is.  In what way?

    The russian fighters are so important, they get REPLACED if lost.  The UK bomber, however, is not replaced… it’s EXPENDABLE.


  • Jen I am not trying to pick a fight I just want to understand your point of view.

    Why is the UK BMR more important then the one in the US or (more so in my opinion) Japan?

    Japan is also an island nation that could benifit from this long range unit.  Also Japan has a lower starting income then the UK making it harder to replace if the player chose to do so.

    LT


  • I use “intensively” the UK Bomber and I do not feel “lost” when it is downed. I agree with allies_fly, it is an expendable units. Losing even a wing of one Russia fighter is a much grater dramatic situation!

    Moreover in many games I bought up to 2 bombers (for a total of three) with UK. In a game after having destroyed the German fleet with them I used the bombers for SBR the Germany, and luckily they were never shot down, but if they were I have not given up, for sure. Usually I do not attack baltic fleet in UK1, if it stay at home, and prefer to add some bomber to the RAF, for attacking in UK3 or UK4. I think that RAF is, complexively, the more inportant force for UK.

    I think that other single UK units are more important than the bomber. The BB for example. The Indian AC. (The Indian AAG.  :-D)

    Nonetheless, I do not commit bomber in battle, like AE counter, were it can only land in dangerous places. One thing is to consider expendable a unit another thing is to leave it exposed to attack, poorly defended and without obtaining nothing in exchange.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    My opinion is that the British Bomber is the most important for a number of reasons.

    1)  It is a very vital and functional piece of equipment for the British Empire.  It has any number of uses in the first round of the game and gives range and punch to the British navy and army in subsequent rounds.

    1a) It can be used to liberate Egypt and secure Africa
    1b) It can be used to SBR Germany limiting their production on round 2
    1c) It can be stationed in Novosibirsk to threaten the Japanese fleet almost forcing them to hold back some warships in SZ 60
    1d) It can be used to sink the German Baltic Fleet
    1e) It can be used to liberate India on UK 2
    1f) It can be used to sink the Germans if they move their fleet west to Gibraltar

    Etc.

    2)  It is very expensive to replace, especially for England.

    2a) England normally loses Africa for a good portion of the game, and they lose Australia, India, Madagascar and New Zealand as well as possibly Persia and Trans-Jordan too. This means England’s hoping to earn in the mid to high teens.  A bomber costs almost that entire pay check.
    2b) Russian fighters only cost 10 IPC and Russia can expect to be earning in the mid to upper 20s for much of the game. (This explains why almost every game results in a Russian air force of 3 or 4 fighters before the end of the game.)  Therefore it is significantly easier to replace Russian fighter losses than it is British Bombers.
    2c) Americans are wealthy.  Even if all their outlying territories are conquered, America is still earning 28 IPC meaning they can still build at least one bomber and have money left for navy or ground forces.  But most likely, America’s earning in the upper 30s and can easily build two bombers a round if they so chose.


    Therefore, I have determined, in my opinion, that the most important piece on the board is the British Bomber for two main reasons:  1) It is too expensive to replace given England’s finances.  2)  It is too valuable in extending the power of the British empire and in slowing down Japanese and German expansion.

    Note, this is just my opinion.  If you, personally, feel that the Russian fighters are more important, then that is great!  I am not going to force my opinion on you, your playing style is probably not the same as mine.  After all, how many of you purchase 2 bombers on UK 1 and 2 Bombers on USA 1?  Probably not many.  And if you did, then your valuation of the British bomber may not be as high.  Heck, if you routinely end up with England owning all of Africa and W. Europe and Norway you may feel the British Bomber is much more expendable than the Russian fighters (maybe even more than a Russian tank) as well.

    I cannot read your mind and I do not have the drive to go investigate every game you’ve ever played - even if I had the ability.  All I can say is, in my personal and humble opinion, the British bomber has been the most valuable unit for my strategies as the allies and, as the axis, I generally go out of my way to kill that bomber as fast and soon as possible.


  • I must agree with Jen here. Losing the UK bomber is the main reason for not attacking baltic fleet in UK1. Sometimes I don’t counter Egypt simply because I can lose the bomber (and that is more than a round of whole Afrika IPCs).

    That Jen and I are saying is that is more painful losing the UK bomber than one soviet fig. Thinking more on the soviet figs, sometimes simply I prefer buy 1 or 2 art for trading territories instead the 3rd fig, or even the 2nd lost soviet fig. A UK art cannot solve the lose of the UK bomber, especially if you go against Japan (and here, UK bomber is veeeery good, trading red territories with Germany/Japan, trading FIC, taking E. Indies supporting the aussies or even killing any unprotected Japan trannie if I have a fig as cannon fodder).

Suggested Topics

  • 8
  • 5
  • 22
  • 50
  • 29
  • 42
  • 11
  • 10
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

36

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts