Bombers a broken Unit, Observations

Have you considered the interceptor rules that Larry Harris added with the Errata/Faq and such with this plan?  perhaps it was something he saw as well.

I agree, Bombers are too omnipurpose now.  Their huge range, combined with their usefulness in both ground support, naval combat, SBR, and even transporting, allows them to do just about everything.  This wasn’t a problem when they weren’t especially cost effective.

Possible Corrections
1. Fighter Interception/Escort rules.
2. Cost back to 15
3. Move down to 4
4. Can’t attack Naval units.

Gargantua, I’ve been watching your tourney game and I feel for you man :x

I think that bombers are ridiculous at the $12 price point. I am trying to encourage all my opponents in “friendly” games to use the interceptor optional rule from the errata.

With interceptors, it means that you have the option of doing something other than praying for an above average number oh AA hits @1 to stop the economic carnage.

I would have to disagree.  The problem with an SBR campain is the time it takes, and the lack of other uses of the bomber for the allies, mainly being protecting transports getting to the front line.  If anyone gains alot of power with the bomber, it would have to be Germany as they can SBR UK, or Russia, sink fleets, and take Russian dirt.  But I don’t think they are overpowered anymore than battleships are.

Bombers don’t average 3.5 in damage, but rather 5/6 times that amount since they only do damage if they survive the AA. So the average SBR mission against a guarded factory nets [5/6*(3.5) - 2] IPCs. That is less than one per bomber and hardly seems excessive. You are probably better off using them for other purposes than SBR. If that is the case, it is hard to see how the Axis or Allies are significantly disadvantaged by them. Campaigns heavy on SBR do seem to turn the game into a bit of a crap-shoot though. 6 bad rolls either way and the side rolling poorly is hurting.

I assume bombers were made cheaper as a defense to cheaper navy. They seem fine to me although I never play with the Heavy Bomber tech. It just seems to make the game into another kind of crap-shoot. Without tech, bombers are strong but every country can afford them.

It’s well known that bombers inflict on average 2.92 IPCs per raid while only costing the attacker 2 (it used to be 2.5 average cost)

The point is, economic power houses such as the Western Allies can happily afford to trade + 0.92 IPCs per SBR while Germany really cannot.

You are also not considering the fact that the Allies have 3 bombers to start with whereas the Axis only have 1.

So if each bomber inflicts it’s average amount of damage before going down, that’s already 52.5 IPCs of damage without even having to spend a cent.

Also Russia generally has redundant production points, so SBRing Karelia or Caucus for some early tokens often doesn’t cost Russia any money immediately, as they can normally max out their available builds in other locations.

As you say, SBR encourages a crap shoot which IMHO is bad for the game and should be discouraged (see Gargantua’s Tourney game, where I believe he has played better, but been severely out crap shot in the SBR campaign).

@wodan46:

Possible Corrections
1. Fighter Interception/Escort rules.
2. Cost back to 15
3. Move down to 4
4. Can’t attack Naval units.

Can you please explain what you mean by #3 (Move down to 4)?

Reduce movement points down from 6 to 4 perhaps

The reduced of cost for bombers from 15 to 12 is one of the nice changes from AAR. In AAR bombers were not bought, they were useless because of the high cost.

I’ve not seen any games yet in which allies have won a game because of bombers doing SBR.

As with bombers + tech, don’t play tech, tech is broken, not the bombers, bombers are fine units, and it’s not like axis are forbidden to buy bombers. Actually, the reduced cost of bombers goes both ways, in several games I played, Germany usually buy one or two bombers, thats enough to make allies buy more boats to protect their fleet, which means less tanks+inf going against the axis. Especially for UK, which often have their fleet in range of the German fighters as well as the bombers.

I guess the real question is do you think OOB SBR rules are good for the game?

Why did Larry add the interceptors to the official optional rules if he didn’t at least think there might be an issue?

@DY:

I guess the real question is do you think OOB SBR rules are good for the game?

Why did Larry add the interceptors to the official optional rules if he didn’t at least think there might be an issue?

The game designers could be looked upon as ‘copping out’ by taking the optional approach to many of the features of the game.  As in:

“here’s a cool feature, but we’re not sure it ‘works’ well in the context of the game because we didn’t test it enough or decided not to listen to the game play testers feedback.”

I believe Larry’s optional rules are indeed, as DY points out, a way to deal with certain issues (possibly that arose during game play testing) but WOTC chose not to deal with.

Might I add that implementing the escort rules for SBRs really changes the game.  SBR’s become MUCH less cost effective, which results in less bombers in the game which also reduces the bomber threat to the navies.  How so? You might have several bombers that do not do much since they do not have escort ftrs in range or there is no other units in range to accompany them on attacks on enemy naval units.

@DY:

It’s well known that bombers inflict on average 2.92 IPCs per raid while only costing the attacker 2 (it used to be 2.5 average cost)

The point is, economic power houses such as the Western Allies can happily afford to trade + 0.92 IPCs per SBR while Germany really cannot.

I think it is worthwhile to point out that if bombers are really that effective, then they are that effective for everyone. The Allies may start out with more bombers, but the Axis powers can quickly even the score if they want to. So in that respect, if the bomber advantage is available to everyone, then I think it keeps the game balanced. Different, but balanced.

Second, money plowed into bombers is not being put into other units, particularly ground units that can take territory and, in the case of certain countries, naval units to get your ground units to the fight. Thus, I feel there is a natural cap on the number of bombers that anyone should be buying.

Finally, in general I do not believe that SBR’s are the best use of one’s bombers. As already pointed out, the expected net IPC gain is only 1 IPC per bmbr per IC (and that doesn’t count the impact of the damage cap on ICs). In any other battle where a bmbr is augmenting an attack, and thus relatively free from loss, the expected net IPC damage is at least two (hit on inf), but can go much higher.

That being said, the average expected gain/loss often goes out the window when a key objective must be taken, or a well-timed SBR can support one’s overall strategy. However, buying lots of bombers and relying on SBRs to carry the day strikes me as a less than optimal strategy.

All this presumes a non-tech game. I think the OOB tech rules need some major re-work to keep the game balanced, and one of the big reasons is the huge impact of LRA, HBs, and paratroops - all of which greatly increase the utility of bombers.

There are no units that are broken in AA50, it’s a very good game. Some units may still be overpriced, or some units will be of little use because other units are better to use for a certain strategy or purpose. Bombers or other units is not related to game balance. I’ve said it before, and I tell you again, when things are changing from one game/version to another, how about adapting?

Instead of changing the game and making house rules, it’s more clever to think outside the box and make up new strategies.

Allies need SBRs to start having a chance of win the game with vanilla setup. Escort rules make allied SBRs impossible (due distances) while german SBRs in Soviet Union can still be conducted easily. So I say no escort rules

Stop complaining about SBRs or tech (I love the new ones) and take a look on Asia setup and that stupid page 10 of the rulebook. Those are the really broken ones :-P

@Subotai:

Instead of changing the game and making house rules, it’s more clever to think outside the box and make up new strategies.

Quote of the week.  +1 to you, Subotai!

I think the OOB tech rules need some major re-work to keep the game balanced, and one of the big reasons is the huge impact of LRA, HBs, and paratroops - all of which greatly increase the utility of bombers.

As much as I like playing games with tech, I think that I have to agree with you.  Bombers already start out as as nice unit, but giving them 3 tech upgrades is a bit much.

Here are my thoughts on the 3 bomber tech upgrades.

1) Long Range Aircraft - This has always been a VERY powerful tech (assuming tech takes effect immediately).  With this tech, a bomber can basically circumnavigate the earth in 2 moves or can strike almost anywhere.  While fun, this is neither realistic nor fair.
The oceans should be larger which would solve this problem, but I understand the game balance idea to get the US into the game more quickly.

Perhaps LRA should only effect fighters or should only give +1 to the movement of air units.

2) Heavy Bombers - Gotta love 'em if ya got 'em, gotta hate 'em if your opponent’s got 'em.  SBR aside, even with the reduced naval costs, Heavy Bombers just absolutely totally dominate naval warfare.  This should not be so.

Perhaps this tech should only increase your bombers’ attack to 5 and your bombers’ SBRs to 1 die roll+2, or just totally lose this tech, and create a new, better, less game-breaking tech.

3) Paratroopers - Long missing from Axis & Allies, this tech totally changes the game into a different boardgame.  I’ve already had several games turn into a Long Range, Paratrooping, Heavy Bomber fest.  This is NOT how WWII was, and neither what Axis & Allies is or should be.

Perhaps there should be a completely separate air transport unit or only allow paratrooping on a 1-for-1 basis when attacking with land troops/amphibious assaults.

We havent seen a problem with SBR or bombers yet (in dozens of games).

SBR can be effective at reducing enemy IPCs, but the opportunity cost is high. In general, I’d much rather invest IPCs in units that can not only deprive my enemy of IPCs but give them to me (ie, ground units and/or naval units to get my ground units in place).

For combat effectiveness, my gut instinct is that bombers are a bit too good, but I havent really seen that play out in actual games. Sure they hit hard, but they ARE 20% more costly than a Fighter. That adds up, I guess.

Again, I think a lot of it depends on how long (in turns) your games tend to last. If they stalemate and tend to drag on, then ya, SBR and bombers in general will start to look more and more attactive. In tight time constraint games (which is what most of ours seem to be), there just isnt time to build up enough of a bomber force to really have a dramatic impact…there are usually plenty of other items which are needed.

@Subotai:

Instead of changing the game and making house rules, it’s more clever to think outside the box and make up new strategies.

Just to notate the odd choice of terminology here, when talking about not changing the rules that come with the game (often referred to as rules that come out of the box), wouldn’t thinking  “outside the box” actually mean that you are changing what was in the box?

@wodan46:

I agree, Bombers are too omnipurpose now.  Their huge range, combined with their usefulness in both ground support, naval combat, SBR, and even transporting, allows them to do just about everything.  This wasn’t a problem when they weren’t especially cost effective.
Possible Corrections
1. Fighter Interception/Escort rules.
2. Cost back to 15
3. Move down to 4
4. Can’t attack Naval units.

-Bombers have always been multi-purpose.  What are they but big hollow metal tubes that can be filled with anything you want and flown at really high altitudes to move things or push things out of like people or explosives.  Cost effective is in the eye of the beholder–good points Uncle Joe.  Bombers can do many things, but of all the great and wonderful things that they can do, what they can’t do is capture and hold territory.

If you really want to diversify how they interact with other units in combat, take some of the Guadalcanal rules and apply them…  Bombers can go max 3 spaces to combat, and 3 spaces back.  Aircraft battle first, surviving aircraft participate in sea/land combat.

@Bardoly:

3) Paratroopers - Long missing from Axis & Allies, this tech totally changes the game into a different boardgame.  I’ve already had several games turn into a Long Range, Paratrooping, Heavy Bomber fest.  This is NOT how WWII was, and neither what Axis & Allies is or should be.

Perhaps there should be a completely separate air transport unit or only allow paratrooping on a 1-for-1 basis when attacking with land troops/amphibious assaults.

I’ve honestly never understood how Paratroopers is a tech upgrade.  What did they exactly have to invent mid-war that allowed troops to jump out of planes with parachutes?  If you wanted to create a glider piece that was used with paratroops, that could be neat and all, they didn’t have to invent them.  paratroops were something that everyone had and could already do at the beginning of the war–why not come up with a different tech and give everyone that to start with.
–I know why, because the allies have the advantage of money to start and can afford to build bombers to move paratroops while the Axis don’t.  that’s the problem.  hit the allies so hard they don’t have a choice but to build ground troops and you won’t have so many bombers if some of these games.