• '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    You know what, Axis, I’m tired of letting you flame bait me and attack me with slander.

    I’ll be referring your comments to Imperial Leader and DarthMaximus for review.


    Seth:

    A basic premise is not a strategy.  The PREMISE is to do 24 IPC dmg to Russia each round.  the STRATEGY is to make the allies waste money.

    In either event the outcome is the same.  You either attack Russia doing 24 IPC in damage (max) through direct bombing, or you cause the allies to spend 24 IPC or more to return themselves to the status quo (which has the same effect as just bombing them, but at a reduced risk to the axis.)


    Eumaies:

    I disagree.  It should be counted as 4 IPC in damage.  Likewise, in LL, you shouldn’t have 2.5 IPC damage to your bomber, it should be 3.  This negates having partial IPC if using odd numbered bombers.


  • for the record, i’m completely on axis’ side in this skuffle.   IMO you were really rude and condescending in this paticular discussion, jen.


  • @Cmdr:

    Yoshi,

    The bombers cost nothing because they can be used as bombers each round.

    As I said, I agree that this bombers are usefull. But some other use of the 15 IPC could be more usefull in such situation. What I want to say is that building a bomber has a cost: 15 IPC. This is not zero IPC. Then, of course, the bomber is used, so that you do not lose your money : this money is a usefull investment. But you cannot say “the bomber  has no cost ; they make russia lose IPC ; thus the axis win” (I do not say that these words are precisely yours, but this is the way I understand what you mean when I read your posts). Indeed, you can loose the bombers, such that you are trading money between Axis and Russia (if making SBR campaign against this country). This is not useless, and can be very good. But this is not unbeatable. It depends of what happens in the other points of the game, and also of the dice (for instance, if you are quite unlucky with AAguns, you can be in trouble, and on the other side if your bombers are never killed, Russia will be in a very bad position ^^ ), more than in classical battles I think (since each plane killed is 15 IPC lost, and not 3 IPC when you took one more defense it than the average in ground combat for instance)

    @Cmdr:

    For instance, the bombers are used passively as a deterrent to allied naval shipping in the Atlantic forcing them to consolidate their fleets and buy more units to defend American transports from attack.  The best part is, they pretty much have to do this even if you never intend to attack their fleets because they don’t know your intentions!

    I totally agree with this point. This is one of the interest to invest in planes with germans. But in practice, it will make the Allies buy a carrier for UK and US, what they often do. And then, to force them to buy more naval units, you will have limited movement with your plane. Thus, you force them to buy these carriers, but you cannot say that this is 32 IPC spent for nothing for the Allies : first, they often buy it, and secondly this enable them more flexibility for their plane also.

    But on an other hand, the first bomber bougth by german is very usefull to protect Algeria in the first trun (and so to gain one turn on the classical Africa reconquest of the Allies).

    To conclude this point, I would say that bombers are very interesting for this point, but it is difficult to conclude that it cost money to the Allies…

    @Cmdr:

    They are used aggressively in a myriad of ways:

    1)  They can attack Russia’s or England’s Industrial Complexes.  Russia can try to counter with AA Guns, but I’ve pretty much shredded anyone’s hopes and dreams that would ever be cost effective for Russia.  England does not have that option being on an island.

    without talking of buying more AA guns for Russia (which I think need a lot more of details to understand all the problem), attacking industrial complexes has a cost : the price of the bombers you can lose. In average (and to look this point we need to consider the average), you loose 15/6=2.5 IPC, and you win 5/6*3.5=2.91 IPC, that I will round to 3 (which is better for your strategy). Thus, you gain only 0.5 IPC buy bombers. And this is for one bomber, which can make 6 IPC damage (for instance, this change when you attack Caucas or when you have two bombers on Russia, since when the two bombers are not killed by AA Gun, you are limited to 8 on your damage). But anyway, I think that we can assume the following : you do not gain money when you attack russian industrial complexes, and you do not loose money (I can make the all average computations if you want to be more precise, but I do not think that we need more mathematics in this discussion. The aim is not to see if you win 0.1 IPC or 0.3 IPC, at least this is my opinion: I make enough mathmatics at work :) ).

    This said, I think that even if you do not gain money by bombing the Russian Factories, it is still interesting: as Germany and Japan make this, they each loose a part of their money where as the Russia loose most of its own. And this is an oter interesting point of this strategy. What I want to say is that bombers have a cost: precisely this money that you invest to make Russia loose money.

    @Cmdr:

    2)  They have massive range allowing Germans to trade territories much farther away without having to move their fighters, this allows them to defend western territories with less men and in turn allows them to bring more cannon-fodder to bear on Russia. (Because the fighters can stay in Western and 1 fighter can replace - in my opinion - 3 to 4 infantry on defense.  That means those guys can move to the front lines.)

    If you replace fighters by bombers to trade territories, when you are not applying your original strategy. Thus here you do not gain really something from your bomber. I mean, let say that you can keep 2 more fighters in France because you have two more bombers. Assume that this 2 fighters enable you to send 7 more guys to the east then if you needed your fighters (and this is I think a lot, or only when you already have a very big number of infantry in France, that means not a the beginning). The two bombers you bought cost you 30 IPC, that is 10 infantry, less than 7.

    But I agree that this may be a usefull use of your bombers, especially to force allies to invest in navy if they want to attack for instance from SZ 5 (since the fighters in france are more agressive on the UK or US navy). One more, UK can go via SZ 4 to deal with such fighters agression.

    To conclude, this can be interesting, but not more (in my opinion of course, I do not claim anything more than my opinion ;) ). Only in special situation I think.

    @Cmdr:

    3)  They CAN go attack America’s transports if you chose to send them there.

    Once more, a AC buy from the US, added to its initial boats (1 BB and two destroyers, added to 2 planes an a carrier, and say 5 trannies, you need a very big number of planes to attack that), can cancel that. And this is when you want to go close to the German planes. Otherwise, you can for instance go to SZ4 with the UK, and do not have to consider any defense against Germans planes, since you will have the two Allies fleets together)

    @Cmdr:

    Because of these 4 reasons, a bomber has either no cost, or a negative cost to Germany.

    As already said, I considered that they have a cost. This cost  is an investment that you will get back during the game. But it include the Allies losses from your bombers.

    So you can say that it has no cost if you include money lost by the Allies from that bomber, and I will agree with that. But then, you cannot say “they have no cost and then they make Allies losses”: the Allies losses have already been counted to say that the bombers have no cost.

    @Cmdr:

    Do note, however, I did assign a cost to Japan’s extra bombers due to their lack of utility.  They either go SBR Russia or they go SBR America, they really serve no other purpose at all and they cannot shift from one to the other like Germany can without downtime in between.

    For Japan bombers, I think it depends: if US goes KJF, then you will have more power to fight against the US navy and may appreciate these bombers. Thus, in such case, we can say that this is usefull (but as said a44bigdog, I think that a 8 bid for a japan tranny is required such that you can send some troops in Asia at the begginning).

    Otherwise, if US goes KGF, I think that Japan can buy bombers, since he will become rich quite fast. Thus, the trade of money between Japan and Russia is clearly an advantage for Japan.

    To conclude, I think that this strategy is interesting. I see here an other way to defeat Russia. But how Germans will defend against a KGF strategy with a two bombers buy at the beginning, I do not know how it will conclude for the germans. I would say that it would conclude with a fall of Russia an Germany, as quite often in KGF games, but then… too much difficult to say what would appear ^^

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Let me rephrase, since it seems some are unclear on the concept of “cost.”

    The bombers require 15 IPC to build.  However, if their original purpose for being built is not realized, they are still valuable units.  Therefore they don’t “cost” you anything to build.  Perhaps 5 infantry would be better, perhaps not.  Remember, the bombers still pull double duty by acting as both a deterrent and a long range heavy hitter for your attacks.

    Building a second carrier and fighters for it, or a pair of destroyers (which I prefer since they don’t tie up the fighters which is what makes the carrier a good defensive piece) to defend against the threat of the bombers is “lost” money.  Yes, you have the units, but they are not adding anything to your ability to prosecute the war.  Their only reason for being is to counter the bombers.  If the bombers never attack, then they have added nothing to your strategy.  Therefore, they “cost” you money.

    Building AA Guns are potentially the worst possible move you can make.  Not only are they completely useless unless they are attacked by aircraft, but they can be captured.  If they are captured you have to chose to attack them with high value units or let them be wisked away.  There’s just no good option with these things.  No matter what you do, they’ve cost you more in the long run than if you had never built them to begin with.  At best you are out 5 IPC and manage to win every engagement to liberate them with only the 2 infantry you would have sent in to battle in a normal engagement.  At worst, they cost you the 5 IPCs to build them and tanks or planes liberating them each round.  No matter what you do with these, they cost you!  Now, I know, you are going to say they cost the Axis too since they have to dedicate tanks or planes trying to take them each round, but you have to think, we’re talking round 3 here (according to eumaies) when these things are built.  Who exactly can afford to lose tanks each round better?  Germany and Japan or Russia?

    Furthermore, each AA Gun that Russia produces is one less unit that can attack.  That doesn’t seem like much, but then, you are worried about a little old bomber doing a mere 3 IPC (according to eumaies) or 4 IPC (according to me).  Both of those are less than the cost of one little AA Gun.  So right off the bat, if you build two of these which is what eumaies wants to build, you are taking a 10 IPC hit, and now you have to defend them.

    Furthermore, if you wanted to bring AA Guns from America, as some had mentioned, if you started in Round 3 we’re talking 1 Round to E. Canada from E. USA.  1 Round to England from E. Canada.  1 Round to Arkhangelsk from England. And multiple rounds getting into position from there (depending where you want to go, Arkhangelsk could be your destination, but so could W. Russia, Kazakh, Novosibirsk or Evenki.)  So at the very best, you’re looking at 3 rounds just moving the gun.  So, starting in round 3 which is when you see those bombers (1 Gerry in Round 1, 1 Gerry in Round 2; 2 Japanese in either Round 1 or Round 2, I prefer round 2, but the original statement by A44 was Round 1)  means you will have your AA Gun from America around turn 6 to turn 8.  Are you sure Russia will still be there?


    Just to reclarify:

    “cost” does not mean IPC required to build it.  “Cost” means a detraction from your ability to prosecute the war.  Anything built purely for defense with no offensive ability and/or offensive expectation “costs” you.  Sometimes that “cost” is valuable, sometimes it is not.  In the case of extra ships and planes to defend transports way out in SZ 2 for America or extra AA Guns for Russia, that “cost” is not justified.

    What does it “cost” Germany to build the bombers?  Nothing.  The loss of cannon fodder is minuscule compared to the production ability of Germany.  That minuscule loss of fodder is more than balanced by the increased flexibility of having an extra or two extra bombers on hand.  If that were not enough, the ability to keep your fighters in W. Europe to maximize your threat to the allied fleet and defend from invasions (thus freeing cannon fodder which might even exceed the number you could have bought for those IPC) clearly sends the value of that Germany bomber from “cost” to “asset”.

    In Japan’s case, it is a cost.  Japan does not have the same production capacity of Germany and what it does have, requires transports and/or new industrial complexes.  Furthermore, Japan has plenty of fighters and bombers to do what it needs without needing to build more.  If America was being a nuisance and going KJF, then they might be an asset, but in the general case, they are a cost.


  • Now let the person HAS played quite a few of these games chime back in.

    Buying 2 AA guns with Russia is a completely horrible idea.

    That is 2 armor when Russia desperately needs those two armor. I have had the Allies bring in additional AA guns and I have either flown around them or judged the potential damage to Russia worth the risk and went ahead and flew right on over them. And as Jenn did point out those AA guns have to be protected. Russia cannot afford to lose a fighter over a trade territory.

    To the point of the reduced Japanese ground forces. I have found it has very little effect. Japan has about what it normally has on the front lines. With the bombers it has increased flexible offensive units to expand its area with, which is something it normally lacks.

    In both Axis’s and eumanies’s arguments Russia has some super strong army in Asia halting Japanese expansion that I have yet seen.

    From what I have seen so far is the Allies HAVE to consolidate and supplement their fleets in the Atlantic to even survive. They then have to ferry units to Russia to make good their losses to keep the Japanese out. This means less pressure on Germany. So far no American fleet has been more than a periphery annoyance. Perhaps liberating New Zealand and Australia but that is it. The ones that have come closer have been sunk.

    Again I have not been able to develop an Allied response to this yet. I can say for a fact that surrounding Russia with AA guns is no silver bullet.


  • i think aabigdog and jen you both just have different experiences, or “data sets” in terms of what occurs on the asian front than others in this discussion do.  It’s probably a function of opponents and play style, but in my games japan gets squeezed very hard for a significant amount of time, rather than the all out KGF that is closer to normal in the games and examples you’re citing.  Examples include jen’s expectation of a retreat from buryatia and india, as compared to my expectation of pushing hard on those fronts.  The bomber strat no doubt works better in the former case.  Part of this might also be the bid of a transport for japan, which i do think is a bit much (certainly more than i’d ever expect) and probably colors the experience.

    Axis has already addressed the first of these two expectation differences but I’ll make them again:

    1. the aa’s positioned in asia covering the east asia front presuppose there’s no back and forth conflict there for several turns.  In our games, there typically isn’t.

    2. for the allied fleets in the atlantic, i think your expectations (and aabigdog’s opponents) are simply mistaken.  allied fleets need to be capable of killing expensive german bombers and fighters, not of keeping all their transports safe no matter what.  1 destroyer & 2 transports is FINE against 2 bombers.  1 destroyer and 4 transports is FINE against 3 bombers.  It seems crazy, but the defender wins more often then not and germany (which can least afford it) loses at least as much value as the US.  What has essentially happened is the us builds a high volume of useful transports, and if they get attacked it’s not the end of the world and a few ground forces get delayed, and if they don’t, you use them.   Finally, as axis pointed out, where you land the bombers makes all the difference in whether they can threaten the US or prep for effective SBR runs.

    anyway, while it’s only one of multiple reasonable responses to the SBR strategy, i’m certain building 2 aa’s is not a game breaker build for russia on turn 3.

    also, jen, while i’m not banking on any aa guns from eastern us, it actually makes perfect sense to move the us aa gun to eastern canada on turn 1 in every game.  it’s no use at home and you never know when you might want to or have extra space to ship it over.

    finally, on the disagreement about probablities – rounding is probably not something you want to do until you get your final answer… at the end 8.7 or 10.2 is not a whole $ value, so then you round to 9 or 10.  But I gurantee if you bomb with 3 bombers 100 times in various games, you will on average cause 9 damage, not 10.  (as a simple example, consider 2 bombers – one rolling a 3 and the other a 4, = 7, /2 = 3.5… and suddenly the average damage was 3.5.  Go figure!  Fractions happen in real life).

    p.s.  i just can’t bring myself to learn how to work the aabattlemap system withposting on the forum and separate die rolling and all that, but if either of you guys ever wants to try this on gametable.com, i’d be open to it. While I can’t give you the extra transport in the environment, I could simulate a reasonable bid bonus for the axis by walling off $3-5 away from russia that i would hold but never spend, or something like that.  The idea would not be for me to test a rigid strategy like always building 2 aa guns (i might or might not depending on situation), but I’m pretty sure I could demonstrate the asian experience japan should be contending with given those builds.


  • eumaies if you would be willing to try a game here on the forums I would be glad to walk you through it. Basically you post what your moves are, roll the dice via the forum, post the results and your non combat moves and then attach the map. Battlemap “does” absolutely nothing. It is merely a virtual game board.

    I did try to play a game with you at gametable and honestly I do not like the program for the same reason I do not like tripleA. I find that looking at such a small view of the map reminds me of playing drunk with one eye open and I play about as well.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Let’s clarify, in a Kill Japan First game, this is not an ideal solution.

    Generally speaking, you will know it is a Kill Japan First game at the end of Russia 1, definitely by the end of England 1 against MOST opponents. (I do not follow the traditional path for KJF, I like to make my opponents feel that it is a traditional KGF in the first round only making the first KJF move with America 1.)

    So, if you follow my traditional method of SBR potential against Russia (note, POTENTIAL, not ONLY OPTION) you have purchased 5 Infantry, Fighter, Bomber (possibly 2 armor instead of the fighter, I just happen to enjoy having that 6th or 7th fighter for use against the Allied fleets, stops them from uniting in SZ 8 or 12 pretty effectively (5 Fighters, 2 Bombers, Transport, Battleship and possibly surviving members of the SZ 5 fleet which I have “unBaltic” moved. See Caspian Sub Paper on the Unbaltic.  Sometimes it is Submarine to SZ 3, Submarine to SZ 7 and Submarine, Transport, Destroyer to SZ 6 (BB by Gibraltar sunk with Transport/Battleship instead of using the SZ 12 submarine. and yes, there are likely to be fighters in that battle.))

    So if the allies do go KJF, you are not locked into bombers for Japan nor have you wasted any money for Germany. (I’ve never heard of aircraft for Germany being called a waste.  Possibly bombers are not your thing, but I happen to enjoy their immense flexibility and the amount of trouble they can cause for the allies.)

    To be honest, that 3rd bomber for me usually comes on Germany 3, possibly on Germany 2 if things are going well.  Japan is almost always Japan 3 for the two bomber build (since this is when Japan is earning 40+) but again, it could happen on Japan 2 if the allies are bone-heads allowing me to expand faster than normal.

    If you start moving AA Guns from England/America on Round 3, it’s round 6+ before they are in place.  And they are really expensive to use effectively.


    Honestly, the only hope I see for the allies is for America to do a super job liberating Africa, England to do an amazing job dumping units into Russia to use keeping Japan back (by liberating Russian territories, Russia can focus on taking German ones, increasing Russia’s income that much more instead of sapping it) and Russia, as I just mentioned, storming Germany.

    But the Axis have an easy counter to this as well.  By taking Karelia very, VERY strong, you can stop England from reinforcing Russia.  I’d even go so far as to not liberate W. Russia if I needed too (Ukraine can be liberated from Balkans by units that cannot make it to Karelia anyway).


  • you see, there we go.  now we agree perfectly when considering a KJF strategy.  all a big misunderstanding.

    so aabigdog, i might get on one of these days.  let me review some technical detail questions with you:

    1. i have to learn how to use the battlemap graphics so i can change maps and send them (doesn’t seem too hard)
    2. i have to be able to use some kind of die rolling web tool, right?  or is it manual?  plz let me know what the link is.  (also, this is an honor system, right?)
    3. and then i just have to type in each of the moves i made (and the results of each combat round?) on the forum back and forth.

    how long do games usually take this way?


  • Abattlemap is dirt simple. Consider it like a real game board and the little tool box as trays of pieces. To add units click on what you want in the tray and then click where you want it on the map. Shift-click is in increments of 5, Ctrl-click is in increments of 10. To move existing pieces on the map click on them and drag them. Shift-click and ctrl-click apply in the same way here. Shift-Ctrl-click is the whole stack. Up at the top right click on DEL to bring up a crosshair to delete units. Again Shift, Ctrl, and Shift-Ctrl apply as above. We use the control markers as Money in Saudi and turn indicators in the Sahara.

    The dice are rolled right here on the forum

    So for say 3 INF and 1 FGT you would type
    ;3@1 1@3;

    Except you replace the ; with :
    and get
    :3@1 1@3:

    As far as how long games take they can go pretty fast if both parties are online and posting their turns back and forth. With me you can expect it to go on for a few weeks as I am only online Friday through Sunday and Holidays.


  • Doh messed up on the dice roll, it is
    ;aaa 3@1 1@3;

    DiceRolls: 3@1 1@3; Total Hits: 23@1: (5, 6, 1)1@3: (3)


  • DiceRolls: 1@6; Total Hits: 11@6: (6)

    neat (if this works)

    at some time when i have time i’ll probably give this a try.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I have to admit, the thing that makes Battlemap my favorite, even over using the real board, is how simple it is.  Sure, the graphics are really old school, but so what?

    If you run into any problems with battlemap, eumaies, feel free to PM me.


  • cool, thanks for the tips, folks.

    worst part is probably those little details that require back and forth interaction, like establishing the axis bid bonus… but i’ll give it a try sometime.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Frood has a feature you can use to do a blind bid.  Just create a game and submit a bid, your opponent gets an email with a link in it to submit his (or her) bid and the frood server will randomly pick one of you two if the bids match or tell you who had the lowest bid, what the amount was, and where the units are to be placed.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Okay, so latest game, with the strategy.

    Germany bought 5 Infantry, Fighter, Bomber on Round 1.  Combats were:

    Egypt (with bid units and a fighter from Balkans) which was won with Infantry, 2 Armor, Fighter because I got lucky. (I expected to win with 1 or 2 armor and the fighter.  Seems reasonable given the 9 Defensive Punch vs 11 Offensive Punch.)

    SZ 13: No brainer, Transport/Battleship, Fighter form W. Europe, Fighter from Norway, fighter from Germany - killed the Battleship without loss (he even failed to hit my battleship, not that it would have mattered.)

    Ukraine: He won with an armor and some fighters, so I sent a pair of infantry from Balkans and the fighter from E. Europe, liberated iwth Infantry, Fighter.

    Gibraltar taken, but only because I didn’t want the RAF on me. (Infantry from S. Europe.)

    Okay, so those are all given battles.  No one even questions that since it happens in every game.  Here’s where things diverge a bit.

    Germany stacked the crud out of Karelia.

    • Infantry, Armor from W. Europe
    • 2 Infantry from Belarus
    • 2 Infantry, Armor from E. Europe
    • Armor from Balkans
    • 2 Armor from Germany
    • 3 Infantry from Norway

    He had a single defender to stop a blitz of Arkhangelsk.  It missed.  So Germany had 8 Infantry, 5 Armor in Karelia effectively stopping any British reinforcements from landing in Arkhangelsk and surviving to see another day.

    Meanwhile, the German fleets broke up.  Submarine from SZ 5 to SZ 3 (Stops bring AA Guns to Russia too); Submarine from SZ 12 to SZ 8 (Stops invasion of W. Europe), Submarine, Destroyer from SZ 5 to SZ 7 (Because I can and allies seem to go mentally insane when you threaten a fleet unification, throwing away perfectly usable air units for worthless ships.)


    Japan followed this with a pretty standard build on Round 1. (I never advocated buying bombers with Japan round 1, that was A44.  I happen to like to wait for round 2 since by that point, I have transports roaming around getting infantry off islands and I don’t need to build ground units since I have no method of transport anyway.)

    Japan hit Pearl light getting out with only the loss of a submarine.  SZ 59 was cleared again without loss.  China was taken without loss as was Buryatia. (India was ignored this time.)  I didn’t take Hawaii round 1 because I gave the bid to Germany instead.  Normally I would have taken Hawaii as well since this drops America by 3 fighters before they get a turn, which I feel is significant. (Bid would be Transport in SZ 50 to bring the extra two men and then you’d have to go Pearl Heavy so you can have the fighter to assist. For those counting, that would be 3 Infantry, Armor, Fighter vs 2 Infantry, Fighter.)


    Russia scrambled to get his troops online.  Germany decided to go with the 3rd bomber and unified the fleet in SZ 13. (Submarine, Destroyer, Transport, Battleship.)  The other submarines were sunk, allies unified in SZ 8.

    From here on out, Russia was bombed by no less than two bombers per round, averaging about 4 IPC in damage each.  Germany lost the first bomber on round 5, 2 bombers on round 6 (Germany had purchased one this round which was placed in Germany to be used later) but Russia fell on Japan 6.

    Japan after round 3 had 3 bombers going as well.



    I mention this game today, because I was talking to my buddies about the AA Gun defense.  They tried it.  They ended up finally getting the British gun to Caucasus on Round 3, it was captured on Round 4.  The Russians built two guns on Russia 3 so they could have a gun in Kaz and another in Novo.  Neither helped. (Primarily because Germany took Caucasus on Round 3 allowing the Japanese to fly over Caucasus with two bombers and the third went to go to combat since Russia is only worth 8 IPC.)

    From round 3 onward, Russia never had more than 12 IPC to spend on units.  England and America were so desperate to get units to Russia they tried just about everything.  They did eventually get off Norway, but not before Caucasus was firmly in Germany’s hands. (At which point, Germany went 100% turtle mode.)

    The allies were smart enough NOT to attack the SZ 13 fleet realizing that Russia was in dire straights right away and seeing the SZ 13 fleet for what it was, a distraction to slow the Allies down. (I didn’t really care about Africa, so I did not use the submarine to stop the British from attacking me with their carrier, submarine, transports, and RAF. They didn’t anyway, and I just ended up using the transport to feed units to help take Caucasus faster.)


    Now, I am not now, nor have I ever said, this is a game breaking strategy.  I am saying it is viable, it does work and it can be done quite effectively.

    Furthermore, I am saying that there is no possible way for the allies to win if the Russians start buying AA Guns.  Even as little as two guns.  They don’t have the cash for it, not once they start getting bombed.  And if they don’t get the guns early enough, then they are not worth getting at all.  And if they do go for them early enough to make them somewhat useful, then it is too soon for the allies to make up for the lack of units with increased reinforcements.

    I’m sorry, I know there are some who really want the Double Down AA Gun thing to be a viable counter.  It just is not.  You cannot both get the guns in a timely manner AND prevent Russia from falling.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    That said, we did play a second game with the roles reversed.

    Russia was a bit more jonny on the spot this time, IMHO.  Instead of just taking W. Russia and Ukraine, I also went for Belorussia…daring, I know, but considering my standard opening since September this year (with a few exceptions) has been to take Norway, Ukraine and W. Russia, I thought this was pretty conservative of me.

    This was followed up with a strong American attack on Africa. (For some reason they decided throwing away the German fleet was ill advised.  They also decided on two tanks instead of the fighter I bought.)

    And finally, England went on the offense by dumping units into Arkhangelsk. (They did not stack Karelia like I did, they went straight for Caucasus which, to be honest, is more traditional.)

    This Allied Tri-Fecta DID end up saving Russia.  But only because England was dumping 20+ IPC of units into Moscow each round which meant the 5-12 IPC Russia was collecting was enough.

    Eventually the Americans were able to move a large stack into Persia and from there, it was down hill for the axis.


    Thus, by anecdotal evidence (not the best, but hey, we only have one day to play, and I had to get online here to post my rounds against Mollari in our AARe game too!) it seems that the only good defense against the bomber play is a well coordinated offense with England picking up the slack for missing Russian units and American staying focused on the over all objective of moving in against Germany and Japan through the middle east.

    BTW, yes, I know, it takes forever to walk to Persia.  But since I had to go through Africa anyway to keep England’s income up, it was the only viable solution.  Otherwise, England would not have had the resources needed to send units to Russia and liberate Russian lands. (Which btw, is a great way to keep Russia’s income from going to Zero since they can now use their fighters taking German lands instead of liberating Russian lands!)


  • jen, thanks for posting the games.

    you’re continuing to compare apples to oranges regarding the whole aa gun things.  I completely agree you shouldn’t build 2 bombers on turn 1 for japan, but then you can’t go around and cite this debate when you don’t do that.

    I mean no offense to aabigdog’s posted strategy – it’s aggressive and interesting, but different from what you did.

    The original aa-gun idea was a response to aabigdog’s strategy, which was pretty extreme on one end, and so buying 1-2 aa guns was a pretty extreme, interesting, and useful response.

    In your game, japan played a more conservative game and actually put alot more pressure on asia because of it, which would’ve made aa guns in novo, etc a bad move to make.

    so please don’t put strategies in our mouths :)

    On the flip side, i have no bones with judicious use of bombers.  you played a balanced strategy, it worked against that opponent, so kudos for you!

    … but when you start tossing around “the only way to counter this” kind of language, I of course am going to disagree with you.  It’s not even clear what you’re defining “this” as!  (but if you want to suggest a specific move, build order and approach that is more balanced, plz do so in another thread and I’d be happy to debate countermoves).

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Ah, and that’s where the confusion happened.  I had thought you meant to put 2 AA Guns out with Russia the instant you saw the Axis with 4+ bombers regardless of what turn it was to “stop the bombing” and I was sitting here going, “like hell it will stop the bombing, it’ll only cause you to bleed faster.”

    I don’t know if 2 AA Guns on Russia 2 with all of Japan’s money going to bombers on Japan 1 would work.  I suspect, deeply so, that it would not since Japan cannot get bombers to Moscow anyway the round after they are built unless they happen to own a territory next to Moscow (like if Germany owns Arkhangelsk or West Russia.)

    The other issue is when people take my counter arguments and accuse me of “morphing them” or don’t fully read and understand what I am actually saying.

    For instance, German bombers having no cost does not mean they don’t take IPC to build, it means their utility more than balances the financial cost.

    Lastly, we have to remember that just because you originally wanted to go on a bombing spree of Moscow and Stalingrad does not mean you will actually do it.  If the allies scatter a bunch of unprotected submarines all over the Pacific and Atlantic in range of your bombers, what the hell, go for them instead, bigger return on investment! (It’s a stupid example, I picked it because only an idiot would scatter 6 submarines where the bombers could get them and shoot without risk of being shot down themselves.  It’s only meant to demonstrate that sometimes better objectives for those bombers exist.)


  • What’s this?  An agreement has been reached, and the whole heated debate was a simple misunderstanding?  I thought it was quite clear we were commenting on Japan buying bombers r1, and russia and the allies responding r2.  :?

    Anyway, as far as the game that proves the theory, dont know how germany captured Caucus r3. Bad dice? russian errors? This can happen I guess if the Russian player over-extends themselves, like in a Russian triple attack r1. But typically, things have had to go real wrong for germany to have sacked Cauc r3.

Suggested Topics

  • 2
  • 1
  • 5
  • 1
  • 39
  • 4
  • 10
  • 4
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

40

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts