Bomber Strategy and Karelian Gambit.

@Meijing:

What about this.
G1: Bomb Karellia but otherwise leave it alone. Move the AA out of Southern Europe to Eastern Europe.
G2: If Karellia is still an easy bait, take it, move your AA into it on your non combat turn and, if necessary, build a new one in SE. Else proceed as usual.

If this occurs, the Russians should be able to grab and hold the Ukraine on turn two. This forces the battle into Eastern Europe for turn two and three instead of Karelia. I’d say this puts the German timetable back a turn. Also, Germany spends 5 IPC to build an anti-aircraft, weakening it’s land forces by a tank or two infantry. The bombing contines, only this time, the USA should strengthen it’s commitment to Africa, threatening Southern Europe with both Strategic Bombing and Amphibious Assault. Furthermore, if the Germans send their bomber to an unprotected Karelia, then it won’t be sinking allied shipping. This seems like an acceptable trade-off for the Allies.

Even with anti-aircraft coverage, the bombing continues. See my poorly rendered table in my other post for average losses to Germany for turns one to five.

@BigBlocky:

Britain will lose Africa quick as you can’t defend India and counter the German build up via the untouched med fleet. The English income would rapidly fall to the 20 IPC level. You have to build 3 units/turn in India and use all your fighter airforce to defend it. You’d be lucky to build 1 bomber/round.BB

This is the worry factor for me, that Germany will defend on the continent for the first couple of turns and attack aggressively in Africa. But then I said earlier that the strategy assumes Germany will be conservative in Africa…

If Germany pursued an aggressive African campaign on turn one and two, I would build Fortress Russia (all infantry builds from turn two onwards, with numerous UK and USA fighters to reinforce Russia). I’d also pursue a vigorous naval program to liberate Africa and threaten Southern and Western Europe with the UK and USA.

The med fleet is too much of a wild card for the allies to predict accurately. Sometimes Britain can inflict casualties on it on turn one or two, sometimes they steam into the Black Sea to deliver Italian troops into the Caucasus or Ukraine (putting them in range of the russian fighters). Sometimes they stay put to guard Southern Europe from the USA (who sinks them with air power), sometimes they conduct amphibious landings in Africa etc etc.

@BigBlocky:

As your bombers scale up so does the German income as it takes more of Africa. It will be 3-4 turns before you get Germany below 30. .BB

Math was never my strong suit, but the gist of it is that Germany has less and less money every turn. Your assumption of Germany’s income level relies on a Rommellian Africa, which is contrary to my previously stated assumption of German passivity on the Dark Continent.

@C_F:

I guess you don’t play Russia restricted, which pretty much gives the game to the allies if you are not bidding.

It depends on the relative skill levels of who’s playing and what sort of strategy we’ve decided to test that determines whether the “Go For Broke!” boys of the 442nd Axis & Allies Regimental Combat Team plays with a restricted russia or not.

@C_F:

The strategy of giving Karelia to Germany so you can run bombing raids on it is interesting, but I have to say that as Germany I would let you keep Karelia and use my German and Japanese bomber to bomb Russia.

If Germany refuses the Gambit on turn one and proceeds to aggressively attack in Africa (remember that the bombing assumes that Germany will relinquish Africa) , then UK/USA must spend 30-40 IPC for turns 1-3 on Operation TORCH in Africa. They can also send bombers to africa and bomb Italy to irritate Axis players who like to drag the Southern Europe AA to Eastern Europe.

@C_F:

I can just sit in EE and the Ukraine, straif Moscow now and then, and wait for Japan to swallow Asia. If the allies see after a couple of turns that I am not taking the bait and decide to start transportnig troops to WE, FN, and Karelia then the Japanese have gained much needed time to win the race.

This is why the UK builds a Factory in India. This annoying move, combined with a Russian invasion of Manchuria on turn two, delays the Japanese Invasion of Russia until turn 5-7. It also destroys any illusions the Japanese might entertain concerning Africa. It would be devastating to the Allies if the Japanese were able to take India on turn one or two though.

@C_F:

I really do like the idea of giving someone a IC so you can bomb them though, but only the allies are rich enough. Maybe let Japan have the UK complex or have the US build in Sinkiang, since they have more disposable $$$. As soon as they put an AA gun there though it is not very attractive.

A factory in Sinkiang by the USA, and/or a UK Factory in India would be something to look at. I dunno if it would prove successful, but it would certainly be interesting… I’d fear that if the Japanese could capture the Sinkiang Factory on turn two, and they build a factory in French Indo-China on turn one, then Japan could outproduce the UK in Asia on turn three and beyond. Not a good thing. Perhaps the Industrialization of Asia could prove fruitful in an all out allied effort against Japan, but that ill-considered plan usually becomes a bottomless pit for IPC’s…