@SeaYa Thank you this advice will be very helpful.
Fighter Swarm
-
@Emperor:
I never said anything about stopping them, you set up the premise of ignoring them, that is suicide, they will have consolidated the Pacific and Asia by round 2 with no threat on their back door, they are free to push right through to Russia unopposed, meanwhile they will have deprived the US of 2 of their 3 NO’s.
I ask you again, how do you stop them? If America fails to go all out against Japan, then Japan can easily hold onto its 50+ IPCs, destroy the American Fleet, and attack Russia anyways, while Germany is significantly less threatened.
@Emperor:
Under your plan Russia has no chance of taking Italy or Germany. While the UK\US are busy buying fighters, Italy is consolidating Africa\Med and building a huge army and fleet in the Med. Meanwhile Germany doesn’t have to worry about their Atlantic front since neither the UK\US are building transports, ships, or men to mount an amphibious assault, so they can buy all the fodder they need to bleed the allied air forces dry.
I suppose.
@Fighter:
japan will become a monster quickly without US opposition and should US after 2-3 round decide to go after japan anyway they will laugh their pants of and throw 50+ IPC worth og asskicking their way each round and muster up for an invasion probably.
Once again, I fail to see how the US can pose a significant threat to Japan, even if they throw every last penny into it. Japan has more IPCs than America and gets to play defense, while the enemy ground forces opposing them are wiped out after the first two turns.
@Fighter:
Germany may focus all forces against russia and totally ingoring the west coast and/or they could build up an invasion fleet to take UK + SBR (they are probably buying the bombers anyway as they would need to hit through alot of 4’s at some time)
How exactly do they build a fleet when there are 10-20 Fighters 1 or 2 spaces away from the Baltic Sea Zone? Even if they could, they would get slaughtered by Russia.
@Fighter:
without land units, the allies cannot conquer new territories and defend the existing.
And doing so is vastly more expensive and problematic than just sending fighters. Germany can sink the fleet/transports and you are back to square 1.
I’m beginning to think that an Alternative variant is that Britain and America build a mixture of Fighters and Bombers, with the Bombers doing SBR as well as holding the frontline stacks and the occasional strafe.
B1: 3 Fighters, 1 Bomber, [1 SBR]
A1: 4 Fighters
B2: 1 Bomber, 2 Fighters, [2 SBR]
A2: 4 Bombers, [2 SBR]
B3: 1 Bomber, 1 Fighter, [3 SBR]
A3: 4 Fighters, [2 SBR]
B4: 1 Bomber, 1 Fighter, [4 SBR]
A4: 4 Fighters, [6 SBR]By Turn 4, you are doing 8 SBRs or so per turn to Germany and Italy, hile having 16 Fighters deployed on the Russina frontlines.
-
I would expect that having the US/UK build exclusively fighters means to use in Russia means that they are ignoring Italy in Africa, save what they can strafe from the air and ignoring Japan, until Japan approaches Moscow from the east. No Operation Overlord or Operation Torch because there are no allied boats in the atlantic and hence no ground pounders ready to give Germany 2 fronts.
Yeah, the Eastern front will be a bear (pun intended) but the Godzilla creeping up behind and the Italians expanding will be a clock ticking on the allies doom.
Bombers could help, but I think you have to fight the war with a more balanced approach because those fighters/bombers will have to take hits in strafing attacks without ground forces.
UK’s drop in IPC income in the first few rounds will start to clip in on their ability to pump out aircraft as they lose Africa, Australia & India.
-
I would expect that having the US/UK build exclusively fighters means to use in Russia means that they are ignoring Italy in Africa, save what they can strafe from the air and ignoring Japan, until Japan approaches Moscow from the east. No Operation Overlord or Operation Torch because there are no allied boats in the atlantic and hence no ground pounders ready to give Germany 2 fronts.
Building a Ground/Naval/Transport force will be just as if not more expensive than an all Air Force in degree of punch, will take longer to be put together, be less mobile, and be vulnerable to counterattack.
Bombers could help, but I think you have to fight the war with a more balanced approach because those fighters/bombers will have to take hits in strafing attacks without ground forces.
Balanced isn’t feasible, because if you are going to launch a ground invasion, unless you go all out, you’ll either get your fleet decimated or your ground force easily wiped out in the counterattack. If you are going to land Fighters in Russia, it seems to be either all or nothing.
UK’s drop in IPC income in the first few rounds will start to clip in on their ability to pump out aircraft as they lose Africa, Australia & India.
And how do they prevent them from being captured? Frankly, they should just order their units in India to retreat to Russia for use as fodder.
-
I love air units, but you need to buy inf (and ships) with the UK and US. You can’t reclaim IPCs without land units. So once Afr falls to Ger and Ita you’ll have a hard time ever getting it back if you bought only air the first few rds. Also some of the Allied strengths are the ability to not only reclaim Russian territory for the Russians so they can conserve their troops but also the ability to threaten WE, Nwe, Ger, Pol, Bst, Kar from either Sz 5 or 6 and threaten WE, Ita, Blk from Sz 12. With no ground troops or significant Navy there is simply no threat to these places. Also Ger/Ita can counter with buying 1-2 AA guns and move them around to protect their inf.
It just isn’t cost effective to go only air. You might be able to make a case for bombers and just using SBRs, but you’ll still need one power (UK or US) to buy ships and ground units.
-
this game is about balance. some ppl think its decided by the combat/ dice. but really your buys/NCM decide this game, so buying all fighters for uk/us is just like thrwoing everything u have at japan. not balanced, hence u loose. ftrs are strong and good. but they are just like any other unit a piece of the whole puzzle. leaving out one piece wont ruin it, leaving out all others pieces for one will.
-
this game is about balance. some ppl think its decided by the combat/ dice. but really your buys/NCM decide this game, so buying all fighters for uk/us is just like thrwoing everything u have at japan. not balanced, hence u loose. ftrs are strong and good. but they are just like any other unit a piece of the whole puzzle. leaving out one piece wont ruin it, leaving out all others pieces for one will.
Thats probably the best way to put, there isn’t just 1 dominant unit or 1 dominant strategy, you gotta keep it balanced
-
this game is about balance. some ppl think its decided by the combat/ dice. but really your buys/NCM decide this game, so buying all fighters for uk/us is just like thrwoing everything u have at japan. not balanced, hence u loose. ftrs are strong and good. but they are just like any other unit a piece of the whole puzzle. leaving out one piece wont ruin it, leaving out all others pieces for one will.
I realize that. The key thing, I think, is flexibility. If you come up with a single un-changing strategy, the enemy simply counters it, as every strategy has a decently effective counter. However, if your strategy has many permutations and branching points, and each one has different counters, then you can be much more effective.
As such, I am revising the strategy again. It is now a Britain only strategy, America goes naval and tries to take over the Italian region of power. Russia acts as normal.
Britain does this
B1build: Build 3 Fighters, 1 Bomber
1. Egyptian Tank/Fighter and all units in Jordan and India(including AA) to Persia.
2. Egyptian Infantry/Artillery to Sudan (don’t leave any blockers, blitzing will leave their Tanks vulnerable)
3. South African Infantry to Rhodesia
4. UK Fighters to French West Africa
5. Australia Transport/Destroyer/Infantry/Artillery to Sea Zone 30
6. Canadian Transport/Destroyer/Tank to Sea Zone 1B2build: X Fighters/Bombers (Fighters if you will be getting Norway, Bombers otherwise)
1. Invade Norway, using Bombers from UK. Do not sacrifice ground units unless you really have to.
2. Recapture Egypt, using 4 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 2 Fighters, and potentially the Bombers from UK and the Tank/Fighter from Persia (the Tank should probably not go there.) Rhodesian Infantry move to Italian East Africa.
3. Advance your ground column in Persia to Caucasus. They are not to be used as fodder.
4. Send your UK Fighters to Moscow.B3build: 1 IC(Norway), rest for Fighters/Bombers
1. Invade Finland, Ukraine, and Libya, using Air Support as needed, giving up ground units sparingly, and advancing no more than 1-3 at a time, losing Fighters if need be.
2. If you have Norway, land lots of Fighters in it.
3. Transport Italian East African Infantry to Persia or Egypt.Onwards:
Start pumping out Tanks in Norway, begin heavy SBRing of Italy otherwise (they are being attacked by the US and can ill afford it). Since you have only limited ground forces, you keep making small attacks that consist mainly of air power, sacrificing Fighters in order to secure territories if need be, though if the Norway IC pans out, you won’t need to, unless you try blitzing through a newly captured Russian Territory to hit the German Territory behind it with your Tanks and air support, thus potentially blocking Germany from reaching the frontlines at all. If the Egyptian force gets wiped out, no sweat, you still got America coming, along with the South African and Australian Infantry (assuming they didn’t get killed as well.). -
UK’s drop in IPC income in the first few rounds will start to clip in on their ability to pump out aircraft as they lose Africa, Australia & India.
And how do they prevent them from being captured? Frankly, they should just order their units in India to retreat to Russia for use as fodder.
That’s kinda the question you are supposed to be answering… it’s your strategy. How you sustain large amounts of aircraft builds in the face of ever shrinking income? 4 FIG/BMBs built on turn one. How many less by turn 3? Turn 4? How do you keep your income going to take Norway and then pump more planes or tanks later on?
-
How do you keep your income going to take Norway and then pump more planes or tanks later on?
Short answer: you don’t.
-
You take Norway turn 2. Axis has no feasible way to recapture it. If Norway is held, you don’t need to be producing additional air units at all. If you can’t take Norway, then you fall back to SBR instead. Also, it is likely that America will regain control of Africa just as Britain loses it, then dominate the Mediterranean, Southern Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, where it blocks Japan from advancing further.
To Reiterate
Britain: Use Middle Eastern Forces in conjunction with Fighters in the Eastern Front, take Norway and drop an IC if possible, SBR Italy if one or both of the prior falls through.
America: Crush Italy, and liberate everything that Italy goes for.
Russia: Standard Russian stuff. -
You take Norway turn 2. Axis has no feasible way to recapture it. If Norway is held, you don’t need to be producing additional air units at all. If you can’t take Norway, then you fall back to SBR instead. Also, it is likely that America will regain control of Africa just as Britain loses it, then dominate the Mediterranean, Southern Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, where it blocks Japan from advancing further.
To Reiterate
Britain: Use Middle Eastern Forces in conjunction with Fighters in the Eastern Front, take Norway and drop an IC if possible, SBR Italy if one or both of the prior falls through.
America: Crush Italy, and liberate everything that Italy goes for.
Russia: Standard Russian stuff.stockpile infantery and move an aa gun around with all major axis forces and then lets see how long your planes can handle trading a least 10 ipc/unit with 3-5 for axis units. strategy flawed and failed imho unless modified to include fodder units. Only japan would come close to doing this, and that is after round 2-3 and under the assumption that us pretends as thouhg japan never existed
-
You take Norway turn 2. Axis has no feasible way to recapture it.
Aahhh, evidently missed that part in V.2 of the not-so-fighter-swarm-any-longer. Was apparently still going on the following from the first post.
I’m curious. What would happen if America and Britain did the following:
1. Built exclusively Fighters.
2. Sent them to reinforce the major Russian unit stack/s
3. At an opportune time, suicide the Fighter stack against an advancing German stack, in order to shred Germany’s forward momentum.
It would be KGF. Russia would go an even mix of Tanks and Infantry, tending towards Tanks by the end. If strategy begins to fail, Fighters can be converted into Carrier Groups for alternative tactics. Japan will be ignored, but it will be presumed that once Russia takes Germany, they will be able to start pushing Japan back.
I came to this when I began realizing that while Fighters may cost more than ground forces, for the Allies to deploy ground forces, they must also build a large transport and naval force, which is both less mobile than the Fighters, and much more vulnerable to counterattack.
Furthemore, while SBRs may seem more cost effective, the Fighters will allow you to wipe out critical frontline stacks, while providing valuable defense to the Russian stacks.
By the end of turn 3, Britain could have 9 Fighters and 1 Bomber in Belorussia or another frontline territory, while America would have 8 Fighters and 2 Bombers. Each turn, add 2-3 more Fighters for Britain, and 3-4 more for America. This gets even nastier the closer the Russians get to Germany, allowing Fighters to reach the battle quicker.
Russia should move their AA out of Karelia if they get the chance, that way the allies can strafe the hell out of it before landing in Archangel/Belorussia.So…
Depending on what GER does G1, they may not have to retake Norway anyway. Using the BMB in Germany and 2 SS in SZ 7 they have a 45% chance in round 1 and an 84% chance of taking out the BB & TRN in round 2 while still retaining their BMB, which would land in Norway. Then depending on how Germany used the Baltic TRN and landing of a couple fighters in Norway could stop a UK-2 landing of max 2 units from the SZ-9 TRN. Since the UK fighters are off to Africa they can’t be used on Baltic fleet turn, which can be then used to mess with UK shipping for 2 turns. Only aircraft means no more boats to go toot-toot!@Fighter:
stockpile infantery and move an aa gun around with all major axis forces and then lets see how long your planes can handle trading a least 10 ipc/unit with 3-5 for axis units. strategy flawed and failed imho unless modified to include fodder units.
FighterCommander has a solid point–AA50 has yet to reveal a weakness where 1 type of unit or all-out focus on 1 country while ignoring the rest really works and the ‘tweaks’ to your approach back that up.
-
its worth giving up the Russian NO to have an Allied air force in Russia…one less Russian tank per turn is irrelevant compared to having bomber/fighter units from the Allies on Russia for attack and defense.
-
@Fighter:
stockpile infantery and move an aa gun around with all major axis forces and then lets see how long your planes can handle trading a least 10 ipc/unit with 3-5 for axis units. strategy flawed and failed imho unless modified to include fodder units.
Which it already has. Also, if Germany builds AAs, Russia simply captures them if they are guarding a small stack of units, and on a large stack of units, the AA really isn’t all too important given that its probably a suicide mission anyways. Not to mention that every AA Germany builds is one less Tank or pair of Infantry for it to throw at Russia.
Also, why are you spouting this nonsense about trading at least 10 ipc a unit with 3-5 for Axis units? First off, Britain is doing this in addition to ground attacks by Russia and invasions by America, a combined attack that Germany/Italy can ill afford. Second, a German Infantry in Belorussia is significantly less replaceable than a British Fighter, due to the cost in momentum. Third, given that Britain would otherwise have to build a large navy and transport fleet, they are going to be forced to be trading 10 IPCs for every 3-5 IPCs they destroy anyways, if not more.
That last part is the vital concept. I realized that no matter what Britain and America, the need to cross an ocean guarded by large air forces means that they can never exchange on even terms with the Axis, and that in the case of Britain, it is reasonable to build solely Air Units, which are less vulnerable to counterattack than the fragile fleets, and much more mobile besides.
If Britain builds a fleet, Germany can simply kill it with the Luftwaffe, which can then quickly return to dealing with Russia. However, if Britain builds Air units only, there really isn’t anything Germany can do to stop them from running around willy nilly on the eastern front.
-
@Fighter:
stockpile infantery and move an aa gun around with all major axis forces and then lets see how long your planes can handle trading a least 10 ipc/unit with 3-5 for axis units. strategy flawed and failed imho unless modified to include fodder units.
Which it already has. Also, if Germany builds AAs, Russia simply captures them if they are guarding a small stack of units, and on a large stack of units, the AA really isn’t all too important given that its probably a suicide mission anyways. Not to mention that every AA Germany builds is one less Tank or pair of Infantry for it to throw at Russia.
Also, why are you spouting this nonsense about trading at least 10 ipc a unit with 3-5 for Axis units? First off, Britain is doing this in addition to ground attacks by Russia and invasions by America, a combined attack that Germany/Italy can ill afford. Second, a German Infantry in Belorussia is significantly less replaceable than a British Fighter, due to the cost in momentum. Third, given that Britain would otherwise have to build a large navy and transport fleet, they are going to be forced to be trading 10 IPCs for every 3-5 IPCs they destroy anyways, if not more.
example: assume a reasonable large german force in inland europe away from shore landings (not at all unlikely). who is going to go first against such an army?
if it is russia who makes the first punch, the they would be getting the most resistance compared to the UK and perhaps the US if the german army survives. in any case the UK would attack the remainding german stack with fighters, and i they have e.g. 6 units left, then you risk loosing ca. 3 if you are just a but unlucky and perhaps more with AA gun in the territory (not gonna mention radar here). further more you cant reinfroce the territory if russia didn’t conquered it on theirturn.as a “bonus”, if your are unlucky (please note that i call it luck), then the germans get the rader tech, and then you could be really f……
-
Not to mention that every AA Germany builds is one less Tank or pair of Infantry for it to throw at Russia.
trading one tank for a free shot at EVERY Allied plane isn’t too bad, and how many do they really need, 2…3…? Since they don’t have to buy ships either, it doesn’t seem too rough to purchase.
If Britain builds a fleet, Germany can simply kill it with the Luftwaffe,
Not if US/UK have attached CV’s with FIG to their fleets to intercept. then they are trading equal valued units that GER cannot replace as easily. GER trading INF/ARM for UK/US FIG is much better for GER than trading FIG with US/UK.
-
I’m curious.
I’m beginning to think that an Alternative variant
As such, I am revising the strategy again.
Bombers could help, but I think you have to fight the war with a more balanced approach because those fighters/bombers will have to take hits in strafing attacks without ground forces.
Balanced isn’t feasible,
this game is about balance.
I realize that. The key thing, I think, is flexibility.
Also, why are you spouting this nonsense
Ok, so don’t take this the wrong way here, but have you actually setup a board/ triplea/ abattlemap/ something and tried any of these ‘strategies’ against people? Because I’m trying to understand this- you have started multiple threads where the Allies ignore Germany, then ignore Japan, then just build fighters and people start discussing them and you drastically alter and rewrite them.
You seem to be theorizing by looking at a map for the game and relying on other’s experience in game. Now hey, I’m all for learning from others who have paved the way, but you argue with the passion of someone who has played it but your arguments and drastic alterations say quite the opposite.
-
Even though I didn’t play many (enough) AA50 games yet, I’d be happy to try and disprove some theories about good strats which seems far out.
I can host TripleA, we could play the last unstable version, although its not 100% AA50 yet, its not much thats missing.
-
@Subotai:
Even though I didn’t play many (enough) AA50 games yet, I’d be happy to try and disprove some theories about good strats which seems far out.
I can host TripleA, we could play the last unstable version, although its not 100% AA50 yet, its not much thats missing.
Don’t know how to do that kind of stuff.
Also, for the last time, I’m experimenting, and trying to analyze what strategies are possible, rather than sticking to the same strategies over and over. I offer an exotic strategy, take feedback, and alter the strategy to see if its possible to make a version that is feasible.
-
@Subotai:
Even though I didn’t play many (enough) AA50 games yet, I’d be happy to try and disprove some theories about good strats which seems far out.
I can host TripleA, we could play the last unstable version, although its not 100% AA50 yet, its not much thats missing.
Don’t know how to do that kind of stuff.
Also, for the last time, I’m experimenting, and trying to analyze what strategies are possible, rather than sticking to the same strategies over and over. I offer an exotic strategy, take feedback, and alter the strategy to see if its possible to make a version that is feasible.
Thats fair enough, and I wouldn’t read your posts if I think they are boring or useless :-D
But you should consider to test your theories against decent players, in the A&A communities there are many both good and bad players,
if you don’t have triplea then maybe play by forum could do it, and if you win against the best players using your strats, then, but only then, your theories will be more than just pure fantasy. :wink:
Suggested Topics
