• '19 '17 '16

    I don’t see the need for an airbase.

    Otherwise I agree that such a strategy would hardly be optimal.

  • '21 '20 '18 '17

    Mr. Tolstoj,

    You are interjecting other objectives, and calling this a strategy other than to say it is “allied dark skies”…What I was pointing out was that bombers can fly from the WUS, bombing SZ 6 and landing in a protected Russian territory.  From there, if they are on the coast, they can SBR Japan.  This doesn’t require any US fleet and it doesn’t do anything to take the DEI back from Japan which is not really possible anyways until Japan’s fleets are defeated or their planes are mostly lost/out of position.  It does not require an air base, but you wanted to bring a fleet up there so I was suggesting a way.  Its nice to add US ground forces but its not easy to protect US ships from a Japan counter attack.  This is one of the few ways that you can attack Japan without trying to out build him on the water, which doesn’t work very well.  Even though the bombers cant defend, once you have 8 or more of them, they can smash pretty much any fleet or stack by themselves on either side of the world.

    Like you said, a strong Japan player will crush the USSR stack if it is on the coast, or will take all these territories before war begins.  This takes forces away from a south push.  If he leaves with his ships to make a south push, you can take that opportunity to move (up to all of) your forces to the coast and bomb.  If he always leaves planes up there and hes defending SZ 6, then you’ve already accomplished part of your objective by keeping him distracted.

    And, if you don’t see the opening once war starts, the bombers on WUS can still fly to London and you can initiate a KGF instead.


  • We dont do SBR… So this is useless I think in our game. If Japans attacks in J2 or J3 the US bomber can only be used in US4 or US5…

    Better to place the bomber on Hawaii than you can attack SZ6 and have it near the DEI…

  • '21 '20 '18 '17

    You don’t play with a non-optional rule?  Are you saying that you 1) don’t do it because you don’t think its worth it, or 2) do you mean that you simply ban it because you don’t like it?

    If it is the first case,

    You will never beat Japan by invading them unless you destroy their economy first and you don’t like or permit that for some reason so by your own predilections or rulings you’ve made KJF impossible.

    If it is the second case,

    your input isn’t meaningful because you are arbitrarily changing the game.  You could also ban destroyers because you don’t like those and then play a completely different game and then comment on that game.

    Still everything I said remains true, that you can attack the fleets in SZ 6 with bombers the turn the US enters the war.  If you don’t permit SBR, then you also have eliminated the possibility of Sea Lion by the Germans, Dark Skies by the Germans, or an economic combined attack on Russia (aka Crussia), so the game is reduced to a slog on the eastern front.


  • We dont play with SBR because we dont like it. When we did, bombers seem to influence the game to much…

    So in your opinion SBR is the only way to beat Japan?

    And what is KJF?

  • '21 '20 '18 '17

    bombers ARE powerful, not just because they can move so far, but because you can use them so many different ways.  They are probably overpowered for $12, but changing them threatens to make the game more difficult to win by nerfing a critical tool that  the big teams need.

    strategic bombing does influence the game, it is difficult to use against the Axis since Germany has a lot of production squares and Japan is hard to reach.  Against the Allies, it is the only clear way to suffocate USSR UK-P and UK-home.  Without the constriction of SBR,  the game can be difficult to bring to a conclusion.

    There are other ways to modify the SBR, which we have discussed at great length.  However the core rules seem to be the best balance between offense and defense, changing the rules too much either makes it even more overpowered or not worth doing.  If you feel SBR is too powerful, I suggest you reduce the bonus to +1.

    KJF = Kill Japan First.  This is usually 80%+ US commit of all $$ throughout the game.  Attacking Japan sea+air across the pacific, it is very difficult to gain the advantage for the US unless Japan screws up.  The only opening will come if he takes his fleet past SZ 37 to grab the $$, then you will outnumber him for 1-3 turns up north.


  • We like to play long games. ;) And as the Axis are already in a good position, I dont think we will reintroduce SBR. As you said, Russia will be out of the game sooner.

    During the real WW2 bombing also had a huge impact… Germany had to leave much of its fighter force at home and had to adjust production to keep up its fighter force instead of making more bombers. The German fighter force was critically reduced because of the allied bombing campaign. Also artillery production had to be adjusted (3/4 of the 88’s had to defend German cities from air attack, instead of destroying Russian T-34’s or KV1’s). And German moral, production and logistics were damaged…

    But as the real war economy is too difficult to emulate in this game, and bombing seems to influence the game even more than the real life we like to try without the SBR.

  • '19 '17 '16

    I have some sympathy for your viewpoint. SBR is difficult and impractical to defend against. In Balanced Mod, played in the league, escorts and interceptors roll at a 2. This makes things a bit more reasonable rather than having SBR almost impossible to stop. Saves UK Pac from buying a fighter turn one to stop SBR and also helps Moscow significantly. Generally, you can stop unescorted bombing raids from ever happening with this rule.

  • '15 '14

    I am very much convinced that USA focussing on reinforcing Russia is a bad idea because it is totally ineffient.

    All what Japan has do it is to more or less ignore the threat. Either just block Amur/Korea which it will easily be capable of or even concede korea/Manchuria temporarily.

    In the meantime Japan will just easily bash India because it has not to worry about DEI or losing transports. USA has way more important jobs to do than focussing on sending units to eastern Russia.


  • @JDOW:

    I am very much convinced that USA focussing on reinforcing Russia is a bad idea because it is totally ineffient.

    All what Japan has do it is to more or less ignore the threat. Either just block Amur/Korea which it will easily be capable of or even concede korea/Manchuria temporarily.

    In the meantime Japan will just easily bash India because it has not to worry about DEI or losing transports. USA has way more important jobs to do than focussing on sending units to eastern Russia.

    I agree. I think the UK should help Russia via the Middle East, and the US should focus on the DEI…

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

45

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts