@MrRoboto:
And Arthur Bomber Harris (axis) over MrRoboto (Allies) balanced mode.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37321.0
That whole massive bomber strategy with Germany, developed about a year ago, really destroys the game. It is no fun to play against. Maybe I’m too stupid to find something against that, but if it continues to be so popular among Axis players, I don’t know if I want to continue playing the game at all, or at least the Allies.
Although we had this discussion very often, I still would to share my opinion about it. I definitely believe that the bomber strategy is not better (slightly worse) than a well executed Barbarossa.
The axis are just tough to beat if played well, even with a 25+ bid, that’s it.
For a reason I do not quite understand losing against bombers hurts somehow more and people start complaining that bombers are unbeatable.
I mean, take players like Zhukov or Adam, they are both Barbarossa lovers and only start buying bombers if this is the quickest way to put pressure on Russia (Round 4-5 usually). As far as I know both haven’t lost a single game with the Axis (unless dice have been ridiculous maybe)
So I wonder: Why doesn’t everybody complain that Barbarossa ist just unbeatable and flawed? Just buy ground units towards Russia ruthlessly the first 3-4 rounds and Germans are unstoppable. THIS is what I believe might be some kind of a flaw –> Germans pushing brutal on Russia PLUS great execution forces Allies to ask for 32+ bids.
Bombers are annoying for the Allies as the make the game dicey, so there is no safe way to stop them. However many games have been reported where dark skies failed. And interestingly, in the top competition of this league dark sky is rarely executed, and to me its no surprise why :)