I think the strategy is there and works well i win more than i loose against good axis players. Wondering if maybe we could setup a team to test and get the timings down. Figure out how many fighters Russia needs to survive Japanese and German non stop Blitz on Russia. Also how many bombers are optimal to avoid purchasing too many. I am not sure if you can have too many bombers they have dual roles to industrial bomb and to support attacking\landing infantry in Western Europe. Figure out what turn USA needs to quit buying bombers and switch to Naval.
Britain Strategies
-
@Herr:
I wouldn’t recommend a British strategy based on doing strategic bombing raids. In the fight against Germany, the UK holds a major strategic advantage as compared to the US: it’s a lot closer. So if you start producing ships and land units early as the UK, you’ll be able to either threaten German-held territories early, or reinforce Russia early. Because an amphibious assault from the UK can reach many areas in Europe, Germany will need to spend resources on defensive measures - resources that can’t be used against Russia.
Also, the UK initially has the money to build up a significant force - later on, it may be more difficult to them, as they tend to lose income during the early turns of the game when they lose African and/or Asian territories to the Axis.By contrast, bombers are (a) expensive, and (b) long-range. So if you want to use an approach based on strategic bombing raids (and I’m not saying that’s a very good idea in the first place), then do it with the US, which can more easily afford to buy bombers. Basically, it all comes down to using the nearby Allied IC (UK) for short-range units while using the far-away IC (US) for long-range units.
Well basically a UK bomber can hit its target in 1 round a US bomber is active one round later. Whereas US navy at least can do something usefull on their first round (unload in Africa). So I am not sure I follow your long range vs short range perspective for the air units.
However a US shuck to Europe requires twice the amount of transporters as the UK.I am quite convinced that the most feasible UK strategy is establishing an atlantic navy and hit Europe with 8 units per round. The acquisition of early round UK air (figs and bombers) can however be used to slow Japan, so that a UK navy is established later in the game (maybe round 3-4) under the protection of an already established US navy, maybe even at a time when Germany has less airforce and no subs as to earlier in the game.
-
But the UK bomber always has better things to do than bombing, already from the first turn (attacking in the Med or Africa or some place in the Atlantic).
-
Well basically a UK bomber can hit its target in 1 round a US bomber is active one round later. Whereas US navy at least can do something usefull on their first round (unload in Africa). So I am not sure I follow your long range vs short range perspective for the air units.
You’re right about that, but I don’t think that buying bombers for the explicit purpose of doing strategic bombing raids is a good plan at all. It’s just that if I would do that, I’d do it with the US rather than with the UK. And I’d do the sneaky thing by building them in the Western US (from where they can still land in Britain) to make Japan feel uneasy - at the very least they need to be careful if they plan to unload troops in Buryatia.
As for the UK naval strategy, I generally agree that it’s a better choice than bombers, but I don’t see a specific reason to wait for the US navy to arrive first. The UK can afford to build, say, an aircraft carrier and a destroyer, and put a few planes on the carrier - or land US planes on it. Put it all in SZ2 and it’s basically out of reach for Germany. Or put it in SZ8 and add the US cruiser to it.
-
The bombers aren’t my end all be all strategy by any means, and I wont buy more than one or MAYBE two. (game dictating) However, at least in our games, it usually takes a few turns before UK and the US are able to mount an effective offense in the West. I use them to hit Germany in the mean time. Then, once we are ready, they become great support to our amphibious assault and further operations.
-
@Herr:
Well basically a UK bomber can hit its target in 1 round a US bomber is active one round later. Whereas US navy at least can do something usefull on their first round (unload in Africa). So I am not sure I follow your long range vs short range perspective for the air units.
You’re right about that, but I don’t think that buying bombers for the explicit purpose of doing strategic bombing raids is a good plan at all. It’s just that if I would do that, I’d do it with the US rather than with the UK. And I’d do the sneaky thing by building them in the Western US (from where they can still land in Britain) to make Japan feel uneasy - at the very least they need to be careful if they plan to unload troops in Buryatia.
As for the UK naval strategy, I generally agree that it’s a better choice than bombers, but I don’t see a specific reason to wait for the US navy to arrive first. The UK can afford to build, say, an aircraft carrier and a destroyer, and put a few planes on the carrier - or land US planes on it. Put it all in SZ2 and it’s basically out of reach for Germany. Or put it in SZ8 and add the US cruiser to it.
I totally agree in all you said.
The standard opening for UK is to buy AC+2dstr and place them in a safe position according to the G air and navy positioning. Retake Egypt and kill the baltic dstr+trnsp.
Besides fom this I think the best location for an allied bomber (UK or US) is in caucasus.
Suggested Topics
