Get the Brit Inf back in Egypt and a Russian Bomber for 2nd Edition

@barnee said in Russians in Ethiopia:

@zooooma

That’s more than half the fun discovering it on your own :)

It really is! And I impressed my playgroup too.

@marshmallowofwar but if there are fighters just sitting in Norway, they’re useless elsewhere.

The problem the bombers would be solving is the fighters sitting in Norway just picking up dust. The bombers could be in Moscow, Gibraltar, the UK, Norway, bombing any German production point and contributing to those 1 inf and 5 planes vs 1 inf battles.

The question is in my opinion: is the versatility that the bombers offer worth the cost of having fewer fighters to sit on complexes to intercept, protect carriers and sit on airbases, and secure US landings.

I don’t buy it. It doesn’t excuse USSR to be this weak. The only conclusion I can come up with is ether they didn’t test Germany vs USSR enough OR they wanted USSR to be this weak.

And Russia has to be at war specifically with Japan. Also, USA has to be at war with someone. Any Axis power will do.

Risk taught us when we were young that Irkutsk and Yakutsk are like the North and South Dakota of Soviet Russia.  Have you not visited the region of Kamchatka before–by traveling on a bold line via Alaska?  We all know that bold lines can support gigantic armies.

@AndreasI:

Just some thoughts from someone who hasn’t really done the math nor played enough rounds to actually see this tactic through.

Can US really be at war, at their own initiative, with Germany on turn 3 (Combat/Movement phase?) so they can actually move to Gibraltar at all? Or are there any second edition additional rules that I have missed?

And then on down to the tactics on getting a strong fleet supporting units into Normandy or other mainland european regions:

Am I correct in assuming that Germany loosing it’s entire bomber force against, let’s say, a strong naval presence from US/UK equals a lost game for Germany? I am aware that Japan can still grow to be a monster and win the game for the axis anyhow but let’s keep focus on europe for now. Creating a fleet according to Nippon-kokus suggestion (or similar) would create a situation that requires Germany to respond with their bombers. Once there is a strong static fleet that Germany can’t attack without risking it’s entire air force it’s quite easy for the allies to maintain that ratio of units so that it stays safe. And what happens then? The US can land units basically every turn once the shuttle is running. 8 or 10 units are not frightening, I admit. Easily countered by Germany but the way I see it is that Germany from then on are forced to use their bombers plus land units each turn against a landing force. Using german bombers on that front every turn makes them unusable against the russians. I can certainly see where there could be a bit of trouble breaking through russian lines.

The way I see it, if the US can do this, why would Dark Skies really matter? Would buying 20 Infantry and 10 Tanks be any different? Germany still couldn’t kill the Allied fleet, would still have to divert forces from Russia, would still face the Allies landing every turn…

…and on top of it, It’d be harder for Germany to counter attack.

Seems like Dark Skies is still an optimal strategy against a US invasion.

@wittmann:

I believe there is room for two U-Boat commanders.

The more the merrier! We’ll form a wolfpack and rule the North Atlantic!

my group is using OOB, till they finally get errata and complete alfa setup ready
they change it every 15 seconds now.