Strategic Bombing Raids in Revised.....completely pointless

[C_Strabala]

   It seems to me that in the newer versions of Axis & Allies that SBR's are completely pointless. My reasoning for this statement is as follows. When you launch a SBR, you are risking a 15 IPC unit in the attempt to take away, at most, 6-12 IPC's from your opponent depending on which version of the game one is playing. I submit to you that the only way to make an SBR worth its time is to re-implement the Heavy Bomber technology with three die. Then your bomber is capable of causing up to 18 IPC's in damage, thus paying for itself in the process.

[Krieghund]

It's true that SBRs are nearly a break-even proposition.  However, if they weren't, they'd dominate the game.

The whole point of SBRs is inflicting damage that the enemy can't afford.  The US is the only country that can really afford an SBR campaign, simply because it can afford the losses, while Germany can't.  The US sacrifices its own income to suppress Germany's so that the UK and USSR can take advantage of its weakened state.  This is not really pointless.

If SBRs were a money-making proposition, there's no way that the Axis could survive, since they start off economically inferior to the Allies.  The Allies could simply build a few bombers to SBR with, then devote the rest of their income to defense.  Eventually, the combined toll of the bombings would render the Axis powers bankrupt, then the Allies could move in for the kill.  Doesn't sound like a very fun game, does it?

[Adlertag]

I was looking through my A&A Europe rulebook but couln't find Heavy Bombers anywhere ?
So I figure the average SBR-loss pr bomber will be 3 IPC, right ?

But since this is Europe, the bombers have fighter escorts, and the defender have both AA-fire and fighter interceptors. And both the escort, AA-fire and interceptors roll dice simultanesly, so the AA-guns cant exploit any opening fire. Or am I at thin ice here ? So the trade is, that both defender and attacker have an opportunity to kill a lot of 12 IPC fighters in this battle, right ? Making the 3 IPC SBR average loss less important.

[Krieghund]

Adlertag, I assumed that the OP was talking about Revised and was just posting in the wrong forum, since his exaxmple uses Heavy Bombers.  But, to answer your question, according to the FAQ AA fire is resolved before dogfighting begins, so fighters hit by AA don't get to fire.

[Cmdr Jennifer]

You know, on paper SBRs are not so good.  However, I can tell you from experience, when you are Russia or Germany and are on the receiving side of those SBRs, it is HORRIBLY over powered. *smile*

Let's say this, if England and America go heavy SBR, and they can do it and keep Africa in most games, then Germany could have a very serious problem.  -32 IPC a round maximum, probably averaging -16 IPC a round (which is 50%, a good guess in my opinion.)  Now, if you set it up correctly, Russia should have taken E. Europe territories (Ukraine, W. Russia, Belorussia, E. Europe, Balkans and Norway) so they can mass troops against Germany and consolidating power there.


On the other side, if Japan and Germany go heavy SBR, and they can do it without too much effort, that could be a maximum of -24 IPC from Russia a round (their entire pay chit!) or at least an average of 12 IPC a round, still a MAJOR hit to the pocket book.


On the other side, what do you lose?  Maybe a bomber.  However, I've seen plenty of games where SBR campaigns were waged and won without a single bomber shot down. (I won two of them in league this year alone.)

[a44bigdog]

I used to feel the way you do, but as I have run more SBR campaigns my feelings have changed. SBRs are just fine as they are. While statistically they should be about a break even proposition I find they are not. For example on paper, an Axis SBR campaign using 3 bombers per turn should do 15 IPCs damage per turn to Russia. While the Axis powers each loose a bomber every other turn, resulting in an equalization. I find that the Axis powers can afford the IPCs spent to procure the bombers. However; a Russia with little or no income is all but dead and praying the dice can hit the bombers or the Allies can get units to Moscow in a hurry.

People should keep this point in mind. It is not how much you spend versus how much damage you do, within reason. It is where the damage to your opponent is done. And I feel that applies to much more than just strategic bombing.

[Cmdr Jennifer]

That is an interesting point.  If you weaken the enemy's economy to the point they cannot afford to trade land, you save money on units you did not lose taking or defending the land and thus, you offset the loss of the bombers.

Perhaps that has always been a factor not included in our analysis of SBR campaigns.

[DarthMaximus]

Timing is everything.
Risking an SBR early when Germany is still earning 44, 45 ipc probably not a good idea, but later in the game when they are at 35 and you pull off the UK/US double (say 3 ipc each) knocking them down to 29 can really thin out their lines and reduce their options.
Likewise when Russia is earning 22,23 and really counting on every ipc and you do a Ger/��� 1-2 and knock them down to 16-17 it is defintiely worth the risk.  Especially since at that point the Germans are more concerned with defense so the bom becomes somewhat expendable and Japan can also spare the bom or even buy a second or 3rd pending the overall Axis strat.

I will also look at times when Ger or Rus is right at a multiple of 3 for cash, knowing that even if I only do 1 ipc damage I knocked them down 1 unit in their purchases.

[Cmdr Jennifer]

A German strike on England Round 1 hitting for 3+ (preferably 6) can be quite devastating too.  But I agree, SBR is usually an end game tactic to turn the tide in your favor.  Generally used by the allies once they catch up in manpower to the axis to allow them to pull ahead earlier in the game.

[Mazer Rackham]

Fellas,

There are a couple other instances where SBRs are the correct move.  Here's from Caspian Sub article #08:

The Exceptions (when you SHOULD SBR)
We have established that the base economics of the SBR are not worth it, but there some possible exceptions where an SBR is desirable.  Those circumstances are when there is a sunk cost, an opportunity for dollar transfer, or the unStrategy.

Sunk cost refers to the fact that everyone except Russia starts with a bomber already on the board.  You’re not building your starting bomber, so it may not be worth 15 IPCs to you.  If you are in a defensive position, it is a lousy defensive piece.  In that case the economics and some opportunity costs don’t apply you.  Bomb away.

Dollar transfer refers to the concept that although an SBR may be a bad economic move in and of itself, you may not care because other investments may be less effective.  The US, for example, is far away from the Axis powers.  That player may decide that the fastest way to get in the game is to build the long-flying bombers just to get active quickly.  That is likely sub-optimal (see Policy Paper #02 on US transports), but it is one reason why some people like the strategy.  For instance, is it worth $4 American dollars to kill $3 German dollars?  In some instances it is.

And lastly there is Sweet Mother Luck (the unStrategy).  Some guys like to take their chances.  If the AA guns are cold, you can rock a paycheck pretty badly.  But this isn’t exactly a ‘strategy’; it is more of a prayer.

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Caspian_Sub/

[Cmdr Jennifer]

I don't know if I'll buy into all those points.

However, it is a somewhat decent tactic for America to go heavy SBR.  In two rounds you can easily have 5 bombers on the board which should, notice I said should, not WILL, do about 16 IPC in damage to Germany for a loss of maybe 15 IPC to America.  Early in the game (and Round 3 and 4 is early) that can really hurt Germany.   Much more so than, let's say, spending those two rounds putting aircraft carriers and transports in the water and almost identical cost for America. (Not to mention, later, those bombers can be used for other events like D-Day or the Italian invasion.)

[C_Strabala]

I must admit though that I'm of the mindset that it is better to use your bombers to take out actual units as opposed to possible units. For example, I would use my bombers to take out enemy tranports before doing an SBR no matter the circumstances. Because it doesn't matter how much cash he has if he has to keep rebuilding units I'm destroying.

[Cmdr Jennifer]

Sometimes it's less feasible to take out enemy units with your bomber than to SBR.  Like if everything is too well defended or the only unit in range is the bomber.

[C_Strabala]

That is true & must be taken into account when deciding where to deploy your bombers.

[Cmdr Jennifer]

My basic rule of thumb on the issue is this:

1)  If I need my bomber as an offensive unit (or even as an extra hit to defend my capitol) then I do not SBR.
2)  If I have any attack that would benefit from using my bomber, then I do not SBR.
3)  If 1) or 2) do not hold, and a complex is in range to SBR, I SBR.