How to cut Germany's economy over half in three turns

[Count_Zeppelin]

UK 2: Build 4 bombers (with the 8 IPCs you saved from turn one you should be able to do this)

UK starts with 43 IPC; 3 Bombers is 36 IPC, 7 IPC remain.
UK loses 10 to 13 IPC on its first round, depending on egypt; remaining IPC (loss = 10) 33 + 7 = 40 IPC
(Borneo, East Indies, Burma, Egypt, Trans-Jordan)

[a44bigdog]

Count_Zeppelin already touched on one problem, that being the money is incorrectly figured.

Here are some others. Since England is buying all bombers, what is preventing the Germans from throwing everything they have at Russia? Who is keeping Italy from having all of Africa? What happens when the AA guns  shoot down all your bombers? What if the bombers roll all ones and twos? Who is keeping Japan company? They might feel left out and seek someone to play with.

Strategic Bombing campaigns are useful, I have used them in Revised by both sides, however, they are not the easy automatic path to victory every one assumes they are. Also a problem with this strategy as laid out is one I find with many. It assumes a static and willing victim for it to succeed and if your opponent is that bad, then do you even need a real strategy?

[tcnance]

yep dog is right, what if germany buys an ac and tranny for sea lion, uk is sitting there with 4 bomber 2 fig and  a couple of infantry for defense?

[mikecool70]

@a44bigdog:

Count_Zeppelin already touched on one problem, that being the money is incorrectly figured.

Here are some others. Since England is buying all bombers, what is preventing the Germans from throwing everything they have at Russia? Who is keeping Italy from having all of Africa? What happens when the AA guns  shoot down all your bombers? What if the bombers roll all ones and twos? Who is keeping Japan company? They might feel left out and seek someone to play with.

Strategic Bombing campaigns are useful, I have used them in Revised by both sides, however, they are not the easy automatic path to victory every one assumes they are. Also a problem with this strategy as laid out is one I find with many. It assumes a static and willing victim for it to succeed and if your opponent is that bad, then do you even need a real strategy?

England is not building only bombers every turn.  They do that the first couple of turns only.  Then on turn 3, maybe 1 per turn or (if they get heavy bombers) 2 per turn.  They should definitely build up a small fleet with at least one transport just to bleed off some German/Italian forces.

England is the only one doing this.  The USA is building just enough fleet to keep Japan from attacking USA.  The USA is also building enough fleet and air force to take out the Italian navy and maybe threaten Italy itself (depends on how much of the UK air force survives and if they are also bombing Italy each turn).

You ask what happens if UK loses all of its bombers or if it rolls low numbers.  Well that depends on what turn it happens.  If it happens on turn 2, then sure, the Axis will probably win the game.  But if happens on turn 5, when Germany is already on the defensive, then the Allies can probably survive it.  By the same token, I could point out that the German air force could get unlucky and be completely destroyed on G1.  Wouldn’t that give the Allies an advantage at winning the game?  Others have been saying that this game seems to be decided in the first few turns, so what difference does it make if the Allies lose because the UK loses all of its bombers on UK2?

What is preventing Germany from throwing everything at Russia?  Uh, the SBRs perhaps?  If Germany repairs the damage, then they have less money to spend on troops.  The SBRs will most likely put their spendable money down to about as much as Russia’s spendable income (assuming that they don’t repair ALL of the damage each turn; but this would allow UK to use less bombers on their next turn and therefore less chance to get shot down, so it balances it out). Plus Germany might be spending money on technology, trying to get radar and/or improved production.  Each 5 IPCs they spend on that is one less tank going towards Russia.

[mikecool70]

@tcnance:

yep dog is right, what if germany buys an ac and tranny for sea lion, uk is sitting there with 4 bomber 2 fig and  a couple of infantry for defense?

If Germany builds a navy to invade UK, then UK has achieved its purpose: to take pressure off of Russia.  Then all those bombers, fighters and remaining UK navy can destroy the German fleet and Russia is in even better shape.

[kendric]

Atleast japan can only bomb moscow for 12 a turn instead of the 20 on germany :)
One counter to thsi might be for germany to repair only 12-13 (from -10 to 2-3) and build only fighters or something. And just turtle till japan gets there.

[gebs99]

like the idea, i usually play the game with 3 players, 1 Rusia, 1 UK, and both handling USA. 1 for the whole axis (im RUsia). The axis player usually forgets completely about africa, focuses germany and italy on attacking Rusia and expands japan as much as he cans in asia. This strategy could surely make germany much more weaker. However, perhaps i would go with a more long term sbr strategy meaning that i wouldnt buy 3 bombers for UK but maybe only 2 or even 1  and do that per turn.

[tarkonis]

How is it that you can use all your bombers you just built in turn 2, when you cant deploy them until the end of your turn?

[Fenian]

@mikecool70:

If Germany builds a navy to invade UK, then UK has achieved its purpose: to take pressure off of Russia.  Then all those bombers, fighters and remaining UK navy can destroy the German fleet and Russia is in even better shape.

A baltic navy serves to shorten supply lines to russia so i am not sure you actually have relieved pressure.  Also you may have succeeded -too- well if England actually falls to the Sea Lion it would pretty much be game over even if Russia is doing well.

[tin_snips]

SBR’s are fairly effective, but i don’t think your stratagem is as effective as you think. i only need three turns as Germany to get enough forces to defeat Russia (obviously it still comes down to luck, just talking generally though). and considering Germany goes before the UK, that means two SBR’s on me in that time. the first one won’t be overly effective as you don’t have a large enough force of bombers, and there will be enough IPC’s gained from NO’s and territory captures to let me get the forces i need still

SBR’s aren’t something that can be relied upon as a single strategy. bombing AND building up forces for an invasion is always the way to go. it just may take longer to invade if you focuse more on the SBR’s

[Jennifer]

I reject the notion that three turns with Germany is enough to defeat Russia.

Sorry, but 3 turns is a maximum of +30 units and you’re bleeding units taking and defending territories during that time.

[tin_snips]

you can reject it all you want, but if the UK is only building bombers, then the US has to focuse completely on Japan so that’s less defences to the shoreline yet again. and if the US splits its attention between Europe and Asia, then Japan can help with Russia. it all works out

AND don’t forget Italy. what will they be doing while un-checked?

[tin_snips]

i just feel that, like any strategy employed in this game, you cannot pick one and go with it. you need a spread of them, and be ready to change in your next turn if an opportunity presents itself  :-o

[Young Grasshopper]

@tin_snips:

i just feel that, like any strategy employed in this game, you cannot pick one and go with it. you need a spread of them, and be ready to change in your next turn if an opportunity presents itself   :-o

This is most true, If the UK builds only ships or only planes around London than by round 3…… London might be the only thing left.

[alwayswin]

The UK must get an Atlantic fleet going. You can’t keep building planes without any IPC’s to work with. I would welcome any opponent who focused solely on strat. bombing. And what happens if Germany gets radar? Then what?

I almost never strat. bomb in my strategy, it’s too expensive and too risky. The only exception is a powerful Japan doing it to Russia later in the game when the bombers may be heavy and they can afford to replace them.

[Lema099]

@alwayswin:

I would welcome any opponent who focused solely on strat. bombing.

I agree in AA50.  In earlier versions, an economically superior power would usually benefit from bombing, since it was essentially a 1-for-1 IPC swap mechanism.  But now that it’s a more-realistic factory suppression mechanism, a bit more thought is needed (since the bombed nation might have other factories, or might just save up IPCs and only repair factories every other turn, rendering your bombers worthless half the time).  It’s a good improvement with more options all around.

[Young Grasshopper]

@alwayswin:

I almost never strat. bomb in my strategy, it’s too expensive and too risky.

There might be a case for you’re argument, If Britian Flies into Germany with 2 Bombers and avoids snake eyes than there is a potential of taking a maximum $12 from the enemy (best case senario) however, if Germany shots down just one British bomber than they have already achieved the max damage $12 that britian was hoping for in the first place. My question is…. Besides SBR’s what else can Britian and America do to slow down Germany before an invasion?

[Jennifer]

@tin_snips:

you can reject it all you want, but if the UK is only building bombers, then the US has to focuse completely on Japan so that’s less defences to the shoreline yet again. and if the US splits its attention between Europe and Asia, then Japan can help with Russia. it all works out

AND don’t forget Italy. what will they be doing while un-checked?

There’s no possible way short of the German’s using 4 sided dice instead of 6 for all their attacks that Germany can take Moscow in 3 rounds even if England and America did nothing but buy tech dice for the entire game!

Well, unless Russia decided not to build anything there and even then, i think it’s pushing it severely, since you’d have to at least assume the Russian player is smart enough to build units which means there’d be at least one rounds worth of defensive units in Moscow!

Even if we assume that Germany attacked nothing but East Poland and stacked it all there to conserve units, and subsequently moved to Belarus or East Ukraine on Germany 2, that’s still not going to leave them with enough units to take Moscow!

Sorry, uh-uh.  You may have been exaggerating things to demonstrate a point, in which case just say so and I’ll back off, but there’s absolutely no way the Germans are taking Moscow on Round 3 with normal dice results.  No way possible.

Hell, if Russia does nothing but run everyone they can to Moscow, they have enough to stop 100% of all the German forces that can legally get in range of Moscow on Germany 3.

[tin_snips]

sorry, perhaps i meant turn 4. keep in mind that i’m just running it all over in my head and not looking at a map or checking the board setup  :roll:

so exaggeration aside, it still is a a very bad idea to focuse solely on SBR’s  :-D

[Jennifer]

Okay, tin.  I can buy turn four given the plan goes without hitch and the dice land in Germany’s favor in most of the battles.

Just glad you agree that turn 3 was a little exaggerated. :)

Anyway, turn 4 is pushing the envelope, it could theoretically happen, but realistically speaking, even with building as many tanks as possible with Germany (I say as possible since it’s safe to assume Germany is losing 10-20 IPC a round to SBRs thus reducing Germany’s available income to 30ish IPC) you might be able to break Russia’s back.

I am not saying Germany will lose.  I am saying it would be more realistic for Germany and Japan to plan a tank dash to Moscow with the goal of taking Moscow on Round 6.  This would account for some bad dice and the loss of income to Germany.