My opinion: It doesn’t work with this map.
I love this strategy, in theory, and have used it successfully in other versions of Axis & Allies many times. But the G40 map just doesn’t allow it. Maybe for the better, since it is so historically inaccurate and unlikely.
The US Navy needs to sit in SZ 3 to protect its transports, which is not a threat to SZ 6, which gives Japan an extra round of builds to counter when they see the US move into attack position. We all know Russia can’t afford to buy a naval base. Most Allied strategies are designed to help Russia, not cost it 5 infantry in its fight against Germany. Even if you thought Russia will lose to Germany no matter what, and decide to give the US the SFE naval base, the allies have too many territories to defend: The Russian coast, Alaska, Aleutians, Western Canada(have you noticed this before?), and Hawaii. Hawaii is out of range of US recovery, and Western US, SZ 10, is only in range if the Soviets give you that naval base. It’s a logistical, geographical, economic nightmare.
But it IS fun, if you don’t mind losing! :lol:
But if Japans sees a build-up in the far east, they can easely defeat that with their fleet and airforce. How many ships can the US send in let say US3 or US4 or US5? Japan has a whole lot more and can use fighters to attack the far east from Japan. The only disadvantage is that those fighters cannot be used in China or the DEI. But Japan can always use its whole airforce to defeat China first (J4/J5) and then swing around. And since the US is not building up in the south (Australia), Japan can take and keep the DEI without trouble… Who is going to drive them from the DEI???
If Japan has China and the DEI it will be difficult to beat them…
The goal is to wreck Japan’s economy with SBR. Taking those islands back with the allies requires a sea superiority you’re not going to have until Japan’s forces have been exhausted by attrition. The americans can move through Queensland and make a java base but Japan can build a hong kong factory which already has a sea base and they can drop battleships down there that can join the attack to drive the US away.
But how are you going to wreck Japans economy by landing in the Soviet Far East???
But how are you going to wreck Japans economy by landing in the Soviet Far East???
He’s theorising that by doing SBR from SFE that Japan will be weakened. Or at least tie down a lot of their fighters.
What does ‘SBR’ mean mean? :roll:
And why should the Japanese airforce be tight down? The US fleet with help from ANZAC and UK cannot stand against the Japanese… how can they stand against it alone, and next to the Japanese capital where it is easier for Japan to buy ships?
strategic bombing raid.
That’s what I’m saying in all these posts…you don’t need to move the US fleet over there because the concept is that you make a land square so hard that japan cant take it or has to turn around and take it. No fleet element is required, but if you build an air base with the Russians, one might be able to go over there after you hit them with a giant stack of bombers/and/or bomb Tokyo.
I’ve had the US do this to me and even though we both wiped out each other’s fleets, japan couldn’t put a fresh one in the water with so many US planes nearby (on Iwo in that case).
The Japanese fighters might be tied down if they have to remain on Japan as potential interceptors for the strategic bombing raid.
Okay its about the bomber raid than…
But how is the US going to drive the Japanese fleet from the DEI if they buy three bombers? And shouldn’t those bombers be protected by US planes? And… what if Japan attacks Soviet Far East (thats what I would do the moment I see a Russian airbase there)?
I don’t see the need for an airbase.
Otherwise I agree that such a strategy would hardly be optimal.
Mr. Tolstoj,
You are interjecting other objectives, and calling this a strategy other than to say it is “allied dark skies”…What I was pointing out was that bombers can fly from the WUS, bombing SZ 6 and landing in a protected Russian territory. From there, if they are on the coast, they can SBR Japan. This doesn’t require any US fleet and it doesn’t do anything to take the DEI back from Japan which is not really possible anyways until Japan’s fleets are defeated or their planes are mostly lost/out of position. It does not require an air base, but you wanted to bring a fleet up there so I was suggesting a way. Its nice to add US ground forces but its not easy to protect US ships from a Japan counter attack. This is one of the few ways that you can attack Japan without trying to out build him on the water, which doesn’t work very well. Even though the bombers cant defend, once you have 8 or more of them, they can smash pretty much any fleet or stack by themselves on either side of the world.
Like you said, a strong Japan player will crush the USSR stack if it is on the coast, or will take all these territories before war begins. This takes forces away from a south push. If he leaves with his ships to make a south push, you can take that opportunity to move (up to all of) your forces to the coast and bomb. If he always leaves planes up there and hes defending SZ 6, then you’ve already accomplished part of your objective by keeping him distracted.
And, if you don’t see the opening once war starts, the bombers on WUS can still fly to London and you can initiate a KGF instead.
We dont do SBR… So this is useless I think in our game. If Japans attacks in J2 or J3 the US bomber can only be used in US4 or US5…
Better to place the bomber on Hawaii than you can attack SZ6 and have it near the DEI…
You don’t play with a non-optional rule? Are you saying that you 1) don’t do it because you don’t think its worth it, or 2) do you mean that you simply ban it because you don’t like it?
If it is the first case,
You will never beat Japan by invading them unless you destroy their economy first and you don’t like or permit that for some reason so by your own predilections or rulings you’ve made KJF impossible.
If it is the second case,
your input isn’t meaningful because you are arbitrarily changing the game. You could also ban destroyers because you don’t like those and then play a completely different game and then comment on that game.
Still everything I said remains true, that you can attack the fleets in SZ 6 with bombers the turn the US enters the war. If you don’t permit SBR, then you also have eliminated the possibility of Sea Lion by the Germans, Dark Skies by the Germans, or an economic combined attack on Russia (aka Crussia), so the game is reduced to a slog on the eastern front.
We dont play with SBR because we dont like it. When we did, bombers seem to influence the game to much…
So in your opinion SBR is the only way to beat Japan?
And what is KJF?
bombers ARE powerful, not just because they can move so far, but because you can use them so many different ways. They are probably overpowered for $12, but changing them threatens to make the game more difficult to win by nerfing a critical tool that the big teams need.
strategic bombing does influence the game, it is difficult to use against the Axis since Germany has a lot of production squares and Japan is hard to reach. Against the Allies, it is the only clear way to suffocate USSR UK-P and UK-home. Without the constriction of SBR, the game can be difficult to bring to a conclusion.
There are other ways to modify the SBR, which we have discussed at great length. However the core rules seem to be the best balance between offense and defense, changing the rules too much either makes it even more overpowered or not worth doing. If you feel SBR is too powerful, I suggest you reduce the bonus to +1.
KJF = Kill Japan First. This is usually 80%+ US commit of all $$ throughout the game. Attacking Japan sea+air across the pacific, it is very difficult to gain the advantage for the US unless Japan screws up. The only opening will come if he takes his fleet past SZ 37 to grab the $$, then you will outnumber him for 1-3 turns up north.
We like to play long games. ;) And as the Axis are already in a good position, I dont think we will reintroduce SBR. As you said, Russia will be out of the game sooner.
During the real WW2 bombing also had a huge impact… Germany had to leave much of its fighter force at home and had to adjust production to keep up its fighter force instead of making more bombers. The German fighter force was critically reduced because of the allied bombing campaign. Also artillery production had to be adjusted (3/4 of the 88’s had to defend German cities from air attack, instead of destroying Russian T-34’s or KV1’s). And German moral, production and logistics were damaged…
But as the real war economy is too difficult to emulate in this game, and bombing seems to influence the game even more than the real life we like to try without the SBR.
I have some sympathy for your viewpoint. SBR is difficult and impractical to defend against. In Balanced Mod, played in the league, escorts and interceptors roll at a 2. This makes things a bit more reasonable rather than having SBR almost impossible to stop. Saves UK Pac from buying a fighter turn one to stop SBR and also helps Moscow significantly. Generally, you can stop unescorted bombing raids from ever happening with this rule.
I am very much convinced that USA focussing on reinforcing Russia is a bad idea because it is totally ineffient.
All what Japan has do it is to more or less ignore the threat. Either just block Amur/Korea which it will easily be capable of or even concede korea/Manchuria temporarily.
In the meantime Japan will just easily bash India because it has not to worry about DEI or losing transports. USA has way more important jobs to do than focussing on sending units to eastern Russia.
I am very much convinced that USA focussing on reinforcing Russia is a bad idea because it is totally ineffient.
All what Japan has do it is to more or less ignore the threat. Either just block Amur/Korea which it will easily be capable of or even concede korea/Manchuria temporarily.
In the meantime Japan will just easily bash India because it has not to worry about DEI or losing transports. USA has way more important jobs to do than focussing on sending units to eastern Russia.
I agree. I think the UK should help Russia via the Middle East, and the US should focus on the DEI…
