Ok, On Turn one buy an IC and a bomber. Strategic bomb Germany. Move your sub off of gilbatar and attack the kraut battleship and sub. Land the fighters in england on karelia if she still stands. Place the bomber in england (duh) and the IC in South Africa. By all mean Do NOT place the IC in india. The japs will take it. On T2 buy a bomber and two men, and whatever else you want. Strategic bomb berlin. You wanna keep doing this to take money from germany. Place the two infantry in south Africa. If germany takes the SA IC, big deal, what will they do with it. When you throw out germany with the help of the yanks you can use this IC to take back Africa, and build another one in Egypt to help the soviets. If you ever have extra money, buy a weapons tech and pray for heavy bombers.
The Americans can land more forces in Africa than any British IC. The IC in South Africa is worthless. You might as well buy two bombers on the first turn, since I am an advocate for industrial bombing and since your strat. revolves around industrial bombing.
I did that with the UK, bombing runs on Germany. I even got heavy bombers by luck. I hit him for loss of 30 ipc every turn. Yet Axis still prevailed by means of Magic 84. How can u stop them from taking over africa if you said that ic on s. africa is useless?
As the UK take out the German fleet within the first two turns to limit the number of troops in Africa. Then it’s only a matter of building a small navy to transport troops into africa or getting the US to help.
1st turn, build all bombers and/or fighters. That seems to be a strategy that always works.
I don’t know that there is anything particularly wrong with that strategy….myself I would not waste the IC there (SA) but I can see long term benefits of 2 tanks slowly making their way to defend the middle east and counter-attack japanese forces pushing towards moscow…but it may still be a waste of money with very little payoff…
One objection I have to the HB tactic is the major effect that multiple heavy bombers can have on the game. IMCO heavy bombers should be limited to 1 specific heavy bomber so that the defender has a chance to get back in the game. That way the one HB would need to be rolled against specifically rather than in a group of bombers that could be chosen as loses by the attacker.
Whacho think?
–-------------------------------------------------------------
“I knew I shoulda taken a left turn at Albuquerque.”-Bugs Bunny in multiple WB cartoons
On 2002-04-28 18:40, TM Moses VII wrote:
1st turn, build all bombers and/or fighters. That seems to be a strategy that always works.
trans and AC…always :grin:
“Th-th-th-th-th-that’s All Folks!”-You-know-who you-know-where.
Wazzup wif dat? I typed it in as me-“Xi”
Xi as either side if you have heavy bombers (and a medium amount of ipcs) the game should easily be yours. However it is very costly and difficult to get ANY advance let alone a 1 in 6 chance AFTER that to get heavy bombers….therefore if someone is willing to spend all that money (or gets that lucky) they probably deserve to win…personally i never go for the advances :smile:
Someone getting “that lucky” by getting heavy bombers does NOT deserve to win. No one should ever win in a strategy game by getting “that lucky” I’m not saying we should take the luck out of A&A, but luck should be an inconvenience or a small factor in the outcome of a game. Luck should never(okay, at least 80% of the time) trump skill. In a strategy game, the more skilled player should win. If you’re opponent has good luck but low skill then you should just have a harder time winning. And likewise, if the better player has good luck then it just speeds up the inevitable. I think the present tech system gives luck too much power in a strategy game.(there’s another thread about new tech) And don’t tell me to go play chess, because I’m not looking for a strat. game with no chance involved.
-Mike
Wow, this wasn’t a british strategy at all. Does anyone have a counter to Xi’s UK AC post. It looks pretty solid to me.
Maybe I’m not reading it right, but it looks like what Xi is talking about is illegal. You can’t place and AC and then move fighters onto it!! Did I read that wrong?
Ansbach
doh! - I missed the “This is in preperation for the US to…”
My group usually doesn’t play with CiC - makes it too easy for the allies to get an Atlantic fleet going…
Ansbach
I think that heavy bombers are acceptable if you follow one general rule, which is strategic bombing can never inflict more damage then the existing IPC value of the country. How is it possible to have a negative in production hours and capacity?
Also, if you’re sick and tired of bombers and fighters, rolling for technologies in the first two turns serves as a good substitute. It adds an interesting mix with long-term benefits. You’re guaranteed to receive at least one, maybe two technologies if you buy the maximum number of die. The existing tech system could use a face lift, more in the form of progressive technologies.
I usually buy 2 Bombers on the first turn with the UK. Keep all 3 based out of Moscow.
The UK troops are spread all over the place, and the range and power of the bombers give the UK alot of flexibility eary: they can be used to support land troops in Africa or Asia, they can hit German and sometimes Japanese navy, and they can be used to strategic bomb Japanese factories or Germany.
If you’re looking for more versatility, try going with fighters. They can’t strategic bomb, but their added defensive bonus is a must. Bombing Africa is usually a bad idea since bombers can only reach North Africa before returning to British airfields. However, with fighters, you can land in Africa afterwards without the threat of German counterattacks due to their defensive ability. 2 fighters will also serve as valuable carrier defense and play a huge psychological difference when grouped with Russian forces in Eastern Europe.
That’s a sound strategy as well TM Moses, but I usually give up India and have 1 fighter in Africa and 2 protecting the Russians anyway.
I still prefer 3 UK bombers in Russia for several reasons:
1.) Strategic bombing from 3 bombers is more effective - a lucky run and you can wipe out 15 IPCs. Losing a large amount of IPCs in one turn is more of a disadvantage than losing a little bit over 3 turns,
2.) The Bombers threaten both German and Japanese transports,
3.) They slow down Japan - players that build factories are forced to bring over or build AA guns, and if they aren’t paying attention they get pounded by 3 bombers without an AA (only happens once :smile:!) They also give alot of teeth to UK infantry in Russia.
I do build fighters instead of bombers when I build a factory in India.
The point about protecting your factories is a must. Whenever I set up my factory in India with Great Britain, I get hit around the clock from Japan. Without any threat of retaliation (even with a defense of 1), factories are extremely valunerable to bombing runs.
