Though I here what you are saying, the key I think is to take as many IPC’s away from Germany as fast/much as possible. Do I think industrial bombing will completely turn the tide? No, not really unless one gains heavy bombers. But I do think industrial bombing over time will lead to a stalemate on the Eastern Front.
Let’s figure: Germany has less IPC’s meaning less forces to buy, plus Germ. needs to send forces to defend Western Europe from an invasion. Russia builds its forces places them in Karelia. Plus, Britain is sending in a few transports of infantry each turn plus a fighter now and then. That is a recipe for stalemate and that is the best thing that could happen to the Allies.
I’m going to type up my American Strat and post it for you guys to try to trash, this bombing Idea is a big part of it.
As for you Candyboy when ever you ready to be thrashed by an ond man just let me know.
:razz:
As for the USA, if they just buy bombers to strat bomb Germany, and if that is all they do, then Germany will have time to take and defend Africa, while Japan marches through Russia’s back door(without a Sinkiang complex) But after Africa has been secured, if one decides to focus on bombing, then don’t just but bombers, 4 out of 6 technologies benefit an Air force (Jet Power, Long range, Industrial tech, Heavy Bombers). And Rockets add another SBR each turn that cannot be shot down.
Industrail bombing ,as ive say in another post, can be, is devastating. If the US and Britain buy a couple of bombers each, they can take turns Pounding Gremany. Which leads to some serious hurtin for Gremany. Russia can even get into the act.It gets dumb pretty quick,mainly because Germany can do almost nothing against it. A 1 on a D six is weak at best.
I would think that america building a huge navy is better than building a huge strat force. strategic bombing didn’t make germany lose the war, it was truly the land battles. Axis and allies is won on the land.
P.S. If i were japan, any complex built in asia would be captured by turn two, and for those who read what i said about germany losing the war on land, not the air, is open to debate. one can debate germany literally ran out of gas (petrol) when the artificial fuel facilities were bombed, but germany’s peak year of production was 44- far into the allies strat bombing campaign.
But when you have next to nothing to build infantry and tanks with, it is hard to win the war on the land. If I may use an analogy to WWII, the Western Allies success was a large part due to their air supremacy.
Regarding your comparison to strategic bombing during WWII, you are comparing apples to oranges. Strategic bombing in A&A is completely different from it in WWII. Also, Germany was fully mobilized for war economically at that point and were waging total war.
As for Red, it’s total war! Hah.
The Candyman does have a point. Germany wasn’t fully mobolized for way until at least Feb. 1943 (mainly because Hitler predicted that the war would be over or close to it by then). However strat bombing wasn’t very effective at bombing war production facilities like ball bearing or aircraft parts plants (Americans did much more damage to the Luftwaffe in the air then bombing aircraft plants). However, the strat. bombing of oil refineries like Polesti(sp) did a huge amount of damage to the German war machine and shortening the war by a few months. Anyways, enough about history:
Here’s my final word. America is much better off build transports and inf. than buying bombers. The main reason being that now the Germans have to worry about a two front war, Germany spends less time in Africa, and buying bombers can be very risky. A lucky roll or two will do much more damage to a bomber force then a few unsuspecting transports/inf.
Of course I don’t rule out bombing completely. If the dice are with you (rolling sixes), then why not? Plus bombing is my opinion is MUCH more exciting then the standard load/unload inf. from transports strat. It serves to dice up (no pun intended) the game a bit and against less experienced Axis players, Russia and Britain can handle Germany by themselves and then some.
Oh and one more thing about strat bombing. With A&A:E rules the dogfights and flak attacks can be INTENSE!
We talking about the board game here not history itself.
I believe this is a good strategy for US to buy 2 bombers each time. Rest of the money could go to the defense of Western US. If Russia have tanks, and UK holds Africa. 2 on 1 is a good way to defeat Germany. Germany will have a tough time balancing out the unit placements. Their only chance is wait for Japan to come in. The US could have 3 bombers on Germany the second turn, and 5 the turn after that, 6-7 after that (assuming a bomber gets killed). The US should knock the production down of Germany by 10 on average, if africa doesn’t fall(if UK spends money on it)While Russia builds small offensive power. Germany should die in a few rounds.
America isnt the only country that can bomb Germany, 2 bombers from Britain can really make life hard on Germany
Mr. Ghoul, I like how you are backing me up with this one and you are talking from experience.
Buying all or mostly Bombers with the UK/US in the first few turns is a good way to lose the game.
While your trying to bomb Germany, they are running amuck in Africa and Japan is turning into a monster in Asia. The game is about capturing territory, which can’t be done by bombers. While you are busily bombing factories, a smart axis player will be gobbling every territory in Africa/Asia/Australia. The US can’t even bomb Germany with more than 1 Bomber until US 3. If you have no naval infrastructure or even any UK IC infrastructure early, you have no ability whatsoever to stop/delay Japan in Asia/Pacific and Germany needs only modest luck to take all of Africa. Plan for the Allies to lose to an 84 economic victory by J4/5 with no ground forces to take back critical areas in Africa/Asia. Game over. Try it sometime. Just shift your Axis strategy to an IPC victory strategy and not a military victory.
SUD
For a man or women who chooses to remain Anonymous, you sure know your stuff! I whole heartily with the comments made above. Building bombers is a long term investment that can ill afford to wait. Usually I won’t buy a bomber until at least the 4th turn for USA when transports are away.
Holy….did i suggest one buys all bombers in the first few turns…i didnt eh. Look, most games i play are close, one easy way for the allies to tip the scales is to bomb Germany. just maintaning a bomber fleet of 5-6 is all that the allies need to lay-a-hurtin. And its tough for Germany 2 defend against it.
Hey SUD, why not make a name on this sight, your IP address says you have one but don’t post under it.
