By the way, on my first test game, we just concluded round 5 (with the axis), that game will end turn 9 when the axis gather their 8th city on turn 8. After Anzac and France go, turn 5 will be over and I will post the solution. This was just the first test game, and others will behave differently so this game is not conclusive, but how many games end in a Europe VC win on turn 9?
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=31303.new#new
Please wait until the allies have finished round 5 before posting what you think I am going to do.
I replied on the game thread, but realized you may not get it.
How can you say that so far in advance? Don’t you need Cairo and Stalingrad? Are you going Sealion? London be tough with the allied fleet there. Stalingrad may be a tough battle, but then again if its in danger he can just retreat the Russian stack to Cairo. How do you get to 8 VCs in three turns?
It looks as though Russia messed up early by stacking the Ukraine. You cannot hold the Ukraine, so stacking in Belarus and Western Ukraine is better early, with a fallback to Bryansk. Then at least the bulk of your army is in Moscow. You cannot hold Leningrad- you should retreat from there to preserve your army for later. Russia also did not go for Iraq… why not? This is not representative of strong Russian play.
Japan does not look very strong, not having any of the money islands, but I suppose you are just trying to win in Europe?
I sent you a private message outlining the next 3 turns, let me know if you agree.
Thanks.
I put on a new tread in House Rule 3 posts in reply to the first one in this tread.
My last solution (and not the better one) � :| is to raise back the bomber price to the original 15 IPCs.
But, I think everyone like the 12 IPCs price which give more units on the board.
That’s why I prefer the solutions posted in the HR tread.
P.S. I know many prefer to stay inside the OOB rules, but the rules around Bombers (cost+AB move), SBR+interception and AA (vs AAA) has change often during the A&A improvement and maybe JamesAleman have find a blind spot which need some cure.
Anyone an idea on this? Let’s explore it in the Houses Rules tread.
All interesting points but do you mind taking the SBR and AAA adjustments to another thread. I’d like to see in game responses to this strategy that are being considered.
I don’t know why so many of you are exploring different house rules when I am pretty convinced that there is a way to beat this strategy, just not discovered yet. It’s not even proven to be even better than the regular axis strategies.
All interesting points but do you mind taking the SBR and AAA adjustments to another thread. I’d like to see in game responses to this strategy that are being considered.
I didn’t want to derail this tread but point some weak aspects of the OOB in regard of this Bombers strategy.
I moved my posts according to your suggestion.
Let’s have two parallel treads on this interesting topic. Â :-)
I don’t know why so many of you are exploring different house rules when I am pretty convinced that there is a way to beat this strategy, just not discovered yet. It’s not even proven to be even better than the regular axis strategies.
I don’t know if there is so many. Of course, it takes time to get a full-proof evidence on this matter.
But I find some good defense and justifications of this strategy: JamesAleman and Gargantua seem to me very good advocate.
For now, it’s only a working hypothesis.
If anyone interesting on house rule adjustment can discuss it on the other tread.
Raising bombers to 15ipc would wreck them entirely
Jamesaleman doesn’t seem to confident anymore in his game with allweneedislove lol
Just 1 game tho
In theory, the limit of this strategy is that it put every eggs in the same basket.
On the long run, almost all of the offensive punch will rely on this massive flying hammer.
It cannot be everywhere and probably cannot be too much split up either.
The general response must be a kind of duck and cover until the bombardment pass and there is not enough Infantry units to feed all the front lines. Then all your mass of ground troops can retake the almost barren ground.
Is that true? Isn’t it?
@Baron:
In theory, the limit of this strategy is that it put every eggs in the same basket.
On the long run, almost all of the offensive punch will rely on this massive flying hammer.
It cannot be everywhere and probably cannot be too much split up either.The general response must be a kind of duck and cover until the bombardment pass and there is not enough Infantry units to feed all the front lines. Then all your mass of ground troops can retake the almost barren ground.
Is that true? Isn’t it?
Its a valid point, but not enough feet on the ground to make the difference for Russia, remember how fast this happens to Russia. Remember implied threat is the factor and if the hammer drops, then yes it makes a difference, but with Germany, the hammer drops every round. You can reach everywhere from Europe with bombers. Britain/Russia/Egypt. Take your pick.
Bombers gotta eat. And when they do, the eatin is good. You never trade down, only up. And you have enough to force the issue. Allweneedislove is an excellent example of implied threat. He vacated Moscow…as have I(repeatedly)…to fight again another day…and that is without the German bombers flyin to Moscow, that is from WGerm/Sita!!! The same bombers that are threatening your fleet in N.Atlantic/Med! The same bombers that are threatening Sea Lion/SBR London. The same bombers that threaten strafe of Egypt. If there was a queen gambit where you could end the game, then sacrificing one of these would be worth pushing the bombers slightly out of theatre for one turn, but still…it would be quite the gambit, and even then, when does Germany truly need to pull the trigger?
I used to think Germany was on a timetable to get the job done, but once Moscow falls…I am not sure the allies aren’t on the timetable now to threat of Sea Lion/Egypt/end of game.
JJ is actually proving his point fartin around in the Pacific.
This strategy has been tested repeatedly by JJ and myself. We are bringing it to the community asking for help countering it. While the “test game” you are viewing with Allweneedislove looks lopsided, please note that every game mimics the test game now, why not? it is too easy with bombers and literally - no exceptions, so hopefully, you guys will help. I do admit a lack of credence within the community, but after playin JJ for 20+ years, I have learned a thing or 2.
Thanks Auswanderersland for the details explanation.
It helps better understand this strategy.
I would like to see how this strategy plays out. James and Auswanderersland, are either of you interested in starting another test game?
Now I want to try this strategy. I should have tried it this weekend in a face to face game I had. The thing though, I play with relatively inexperienced player so I don’t even know if they would have realized the implied threat of more than a dozen bombers within range.
My gut says this is a better face-to-face strategy than an online strategy. It will be far easier to overlook bomber options on the physical gameboard.
My gut says this is a better face-to-face strategy than an online strategy. It will be far easier to overlook bomber options on the physical gameboard.
Agreed
My gut says this is a better face-to-face strategy than an online strategy. It will be far easier to overlook bomber options on the physical gameboard.
really? The bombers are big units right in front of you… I forget things all the time playing on Triplea. Perhaps the screen isn’t quite showing that territory fully… don’t see the bombers next to the tac bombers or something…
Online play, in email/forum games at least, gives people more time to examine than board than most live players would take (unless they have super patient friends). Plus I think it’s easier to count the borders on the tripleA map (though people may differ).
Time is the bigger factor though.
