Posts made by Arthur Bomber Harris

I agree to the bid of 20 for the Allies, with the fighter in Malta, 2 infantry in Africa, and a Russian artillery.  Let the war commence.

PM sent.  20 sounds reasonable.  Low luck, or standard rolls?

We could play a game where a player can take back a move, or revert to an earlier save point.  We can also point out blunders/mistakes that the other player is doing.  It should work where we start a thread and play semi-cooperatively.

In terms of a bid, I have played before with 16 IPC’s for the allies (limit of 1 unit per territory, placing it in areas where there are existing units).  Let me know if this is reasonable?  I have used the carrier 96 previously… an opponent was more successful with an art in Alexandria, a sub in 96, and a sub in 91.  He was able to wipe out Italy for the first 4 rounds, bringing good bang for his buck.

Math is too difficult in this case with too many options ten turns later.  If the answer is no, I understand.

Well, let’s settle this the old fashion way:  a triple A game with low luck.  I will be the Axis and you take the Allies.  I will accept any terms and conditions that you want to place.  This is our first time using triple A so we would like to keep it friendly with redos for any obvious mistake.  I want to test the strategy, not major tactical blunders/misunderstanding of the software.

Are you willing to stand behind your theories?

You missed the troops for the TRS.  The US has a fair number of land troops to begin with, but hardly enough to fill 10 transports.  Subtract one of the loaded CV’s to pay for the troops and now the defense force is down to my estimates.  Germany could crush it if he decides to lose most of his bomber force.

Any Japan strategy that doesn’t force USA to spend heavily in the Pacific is almost by definition a horrible plan.  I follow Cow’s typically J1 plan, and then use his recommend J2 strat of grabbing a few more islands, setting up a factory+airbase in FIC, and advancing my economy.  It is almost scripted for those two turns with very little chance of major variation unless Russia makes a critical blunder of partially stacking Amur.  After that I decide whether to aggressively pursue India, ANZAC, or USA next.  Lots of good options, even if the US has spent three solid turns building in the Pacific.

Keep in mind that 210 IPCs in the Atlantic during turns 4-6 corresponds to three loaded aircraft carriers, six loaded transports, plus a few other minor buys.  That fleet could be sunk easily by the German airforce, forcing the UK to chip in on another loaded aircraft carrier.  Furthermore, the attack force wouldn’t be ready to attack W. Europe until turn 8.  By that time, Germany should be solidly in the Middle East, captured most of the bonus territories in Russia, and racked up a massive amount of money.  They might also be in position to launch a surprise Sea Lion attack, or keep driving into Egypt.  Italy might also have recovered from early turn loses and produced a useable navy in the Med.  I am not saying that these Axis forces are impossible to overcome, but it would take quite a bit of skill to find an effective attack strategy.

I would say that the United States has to spend entirely in the Pacific for the first 3 turns so that they have sufficient forces to force the Japanese out of the money islands.  They need ~5 loaded aircraft carriers plus supporting fleet or else the combined Japanese Navy + Air force can crush them without worries.  An airbase in French IndoChina for Japan is truly a dangerous thing.  The planes can be used in Asia, or fly out to the ocean to support the Japanese fleet in such a huge number of sea zones. They can even make it back to Japan in a single round.  For a well-played Japan player (not the one in the much-discussed tournament), the US cannot come within 4 sea zones of Asia unless they did KJF.  With the combined money from India, China, and the money islands, Japan is too out of control.  I concur with Cow’s conclusion that KJF is the only viable Allied strategy.  Note that KJF does not mean complete destruction of Japan.  To me, it means that Japan must vacate some or all of the money islands.

In regards to bombers for the US, my skilled opponent last match tried that strategy.  Japan did not build any additional navy, focusing on 3 mech/round in FIC plus bombers.  The US could not bring his fleet any closer than the Caroline Islands.  If they kept it any closer, the combined wave of bombers + navy would obliterate his forces.  He could periodically send out suicide runs to retake a few money islands, but could not hold any of them for more than a couple of rounds.  Japan was earning more than 70 each round, Germany was over 80 with the oilfields, and there was no credible way for the Allies to regain economic advantage.  There just isn’t enough ground forces or Navy for the US to pull off a all-bomber strategy themselves.  He might try it on me again, but I’m skeptical since it was not nearly as scary as a huge stack of loaded aircraft carriers.

Thanks!  After seeing the map, I definitely can conclude that Japan is not a strong player.  They should have a much better economy at this point.  I don’t get the purchase of 2 more factories on turn 4 when there are few land units to oppose them…

It’s hard to follow this game without seeing a map of the board.  It seems that the Japanese player is quite inexperienced to let America keep the Philippines on J4…  I normally crush that territory on J1 to deprive the US 50 PUs over the course of the next ten turns.  Regardless, the United States has to start putting massive money into the Pacific ASAP because Japan has a 2:1 economic advantage over India + ANZAC.

ItIsILeClerc,

If there is a major landing force that is approaching the French shores, I would pull the German bombers back a bit closer for the counter strike.  I’m curious how you are proposing 40 units going to Normandy Turn 5.  That would mean that the US and the UK spends all of it’s money on troops and transports for the first three turns, correct?  There would be negligible protection of the transports for a counterstrike.  Additionally that means that there had been no money spent in the Pacific for the first three turns.  I always do a J1, as suggested by Cow.  If there is zero dollars spent for three turns, Japan has seven turns to run wild.  They have a good chance of victory in that time.  If I saw the Allies go KGF, I would definitely not try the German bomber strategy.  Instead, I would hunker down with cheap/defensive builds to slow down the invasion forces.  I would gleefully watch Japan grab the money islands, smash India, and head towards Australia.  Not much that those countries could do without American money.

Britain sure can have 35 units in Egypt.  In that case, Sea Lion should be a piece of cake on turn 6-8ish.

Please bring on your KGF!  That is the best way to guarantee Axis victory.

@ItIsILeClerc:

I don’t think the allies should be worried too much about the supposed German flexibility with a huge bomberstack.
For the simple fact that if Germany uses their bombers against any other target than SBR Moscow and/or London, the allies can win the game playing KGF. Let’s look at the German options with their airstack:

• Air Blitz Egypt.

  Germany would have two options with support for Egypt:
  1)  Blitz a stack of infantry/mech infantry with the bombers.  Let’s suppose there are 12 defending Brits and 18 attacking bombers.  The defenders are toast in one round, inflicting 4 casualties.  Net change is ~40 lost IPCs for the Allies and 48 lost IPCs for the Germans.  The added money of Italy controlling Africa could make this trade acceptable.
  2)  Support land troops that have made it down to Trans Jordan by rnd ~9.  Let’s say the Germans have 6 land units + 18 attacking bombers vs 15 defending brits.  The Germans would lose ~20 IPCs of land units vs ~55 IPCs for the Brits and additionally open up the rest of Africa for destruction.

  Obviously Britain could have more than this number of units stacked on Egypt by late game, but at a cost of not having units to support a European invasion or protect London from a late game Sea Lion.

  Mass SBR Moscow: The Germans could have a suitable place to takeoff and land from on G2 or G3.  I don’t know why you think that this is an issue.  If Russia tries to stand close to the German invasion forces on those early turns, they most assuredly will be crushed.  They really can’t make a significant stand until turn 5-6 when the retreating Russians meet up with the newly-build Russian forces near Moscow.  I don’t think that Russia truly can project their attack down to a territory more than two spaces away from their capitol.  With a range of 6, bombers have lots of options.  They only chance for Russia to stop the SBR of Moscow is to force the German bombers to be used elsewhere on the map.

  Stay in WGe: From Novgorod, the German bombers can still do bombing runs over Moscow.  They also can crush land units that are dropped ashore in Western Europe by Allied transports.  Additionally, they the option of destroying the fleet that dropped off Allied land units.  Let’s say the Germans are up to 18 bombers by the time the Allies have a significant fleet to support the transports.  The German bombers could smash 3 loaded aircraft carriers in a single turn (108 IPCs destroyed + transports vs 60 IPCs lost).  The allies would need to invest in 5 loaded aircraft carriers to truly protect the transports.  That is an investment of 130 IPCs, leaving less money for the transports and land units.  It would be four full turns of Atlantic spending to truly build up a force that could withstand the German bombers.  If the Allies spend the first three rounds in the Pacific to contain Japan, they would not be able to have a first wave of transports land in Europe until turn 8, with a follow-up wave around turn 10.  By that time the Germans and Italians should have a massive economy with sufficient money left to start building protection for Western Europe while simultaneously matching the production in the Russian theater.  With Russia only building 2-3 infantry a turn at that point, it isn’t too hard to keep up in that theater.

  I’m not saying that there is no option for the Allies, but it is much harder to properly respond to the German bomber mobility combined with the possibility of economic victory.  One small mistake can be extremely costly for the Allies.  Germany, by contrast, can more easily avoid fatal blunders since the Allies do not have many fast moving units.

  If the Japanese player is good, Allies must do a KJF and at least deny the Japanese of the money islands.  Otherwise Japan will outproduce the Allies in the Pacific.  That gives Germany a good number of rounds to build up their bomber forces and increase their economy by grabbing the bonus territories.

With the all-bomber strategy, the Axis has the option of an economic victory.  Conquering Moscow in <10 turns is not critical to winning.  If Russia turtles down too much in Moscow, the German land units head south to the oil fields.  The bombers can fly back home in a single turn and be ready for either a late-game Sea Lion or Atlantic fleet attack mission.  The following round the bombers return back to the Russian front if the Moscow stack comes out to hassle your Iraq-vicinity pile.  They will quickly retreat back to their capitol because they simply can’t afford to split their forces into two piles.  Quick note: if the Allies are forced to build a fighter stack to defend factories, the economic cost is so massive that the Allies will surely lose.

I’ve only played the strategy once so I’m not claiming to be an expert.  Just remember that the bombers strategy gives them amazing amount of flexibility to attack in Africa, Russia, and Egypt.:roll:  For example, the Allies used a group of bombers to attack my Italian aircraft carrier.  The bombers landed on Cyprus and were reinforced by a stack of British fighters.  The German bombers sent 12 (out of 17) bombers and crushed the stack of Allied planes.  A total of 110 IPCs were destroyed for a cost of four bombers.  He thought that he had sufficient defenses to withstand my strike, but miscalculated my ranges.

I discovered this historical video that suggests this plan could work:

meemsy.com/v/29398

I recently completed a game using German bombers.  I forced Russia to retreat back to Moscow and then headed south into Persia.  Russia was only netting 3 infantry a turn after repairing bomb damage to the factory.  UK was hurting economically for bomb raids over London.  I was about to pull my German air force back home for a turn 7 Sealion when the opponent called it over.

My main German stack had to stay away from the big Russian stack, but likewise his army could never step out from Moscow.  His money just kept dwindling, especially after Japan picked off a few territories in the east.  America tried KJF, but never could get too close to the combined fleet + planes stacked up at FIC.  Japan played an economic game.  The money islands were taken and held, China reduced to three territories, and India made irrelevant by bombings every turn.  Japan couldn’t win in the Pacific, but America could not turn significant money towards a massive enough Atlantic fleet to withstand the German bombers.

To top things off, I had spotted the Allies 16: two subs in the Med and an artillery in Africa.  I never once stepped foot back onto Africa after the first two rounds of obliteration, but it still was one of my easiest Axis victories.  I had some bad dice rolling as Axis, but the amount of economic superiority far then made up for the lack of luck.

I think that the Allies do have a chance against the German bombers if they can quarantine Japan with 3 solid rounds of American building in the Pacific and then an abrupt change of focus into the Atlantic.  Still, it is tough to prevent Germany and their bombers from reaching the oil fields and winning by economic superiority.  Moscow does not have to fall for the Germans to have overwhelming amounts of money.

What a fantastic strategy for J1!  I did this plan along with G2 push into Russia.  America threatened the Japanese fleet until they finally needed to produce units in the Atlantic to control Germany.  I had India contained to just a couple of territories, and a sub was taking away a fair bit of their limited production.  If the Indian units stepped too far away from the capitol, I could send transports and planes to cheaply grab it.  Hence, they turtled down and waited for my onslaught.

My question is why attack India until it is your final victory city?  Why not bottle them up down there and convey raid their money down to nothing.  Perhaps a J1 or J2 build with a sub or two to head down to the Indian Ocean would hasten the total economic collapse of India without need for an actual invasion.  That would free up additional money to spend on the Japanese navy instead of a land army.  America could obviously counter in this theater with a heavy navy spend, but with the cost of handing Europe to Germany.  Thoughts?