• '17

    US Bomber Strategy

    As many new people to the game I have been struggling with the strategy for America. I have experience with revised. There I would by default reinforce my Atlantic fleet with a carrier, get my battleship to the Atlantic and go for Africa first. By building up there I threaten Germany until I grap an opportunity to get a foothold somewhere in Europe. But in 1942 second edition it is just not so simple. With the starting position in the Atlantic for Germany it seems impossible to get England and America in an effective ground war with Germany in time to make a difference.

    Because of this I was contemplate the feasibility of a partial bombing strategy. American bombers can hit in the second turn after purchase. If you would continuously buy a bomber and start to max out the damage of German production. But I have a few concerns.

    With the new price of 12 IPC the average damage the bombers do, this can break even according to my quick calculations. There is a good chance that you do more damage. At the other hand there is a chance that Germany throw a few lucky roles and your attack never gets momentum. And that is my main concern compared to other strategies. This strategy has about a 30% chance that you only hurt yourself. This is quite a high chance.

    Does anybody have experience with this style of play, or other comments on how to put the US to good use?


  • I like this one, I did do one game where America bought 3 bombers each round which was a bit over do. Even though Germany barely shot one down and had to pay lots of ipc for repairs, axis still won by take out Russia.


  • I am pretty new to this lark like yourself, but past posts from expert colleagues highlight the importance of deploying US/UK fighters to Moscow in order to keep Russia in play.

    My few attempts to play the allies are characterised by finding too much else to do with limited resources and so failing to deploy sufficient fighters to aid Russia. Even when the US & UK successfully resist Axis attempts on Africa and India, Russia has fallen by the time I feel able to redeploy those fighters.

    Am about to start a forum game against wittman (who has c. 25 years A&A experience) in which I play the allies. I am determined to learn from my mistakes! I will also watch this thread with interest ….

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14


  • How will this strategy fare if Germany has managed to preserve most/all of his OOB fighters and keeps them parked in the countries with the IC’s and uses them for interceptors?

    And are you sending in supporting fighters with your bombers?  And if so, how many do you think you can manage?

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Most of the people in my playgroup don’t play with the optional rules anymore, sz 16 closed or escort/intercept. In the latter case anytime I have played with escort/intercept it effectively just ended SBR as a worthwhile mutli-round strategy. What seemed to happen is the attacker would save up until they could bring overwhelming numbers during the endgame, and then the defender would just let them through, not wanting to risk defensive fighters on intercept but just reserving them for a normal combat role. I think escort intercept changes the optimal location for fighter landing in a lot of cases. Norway/Finland become a lot more important for Allies as escort landing spots, especially when you don’t have sufficient carrier space.
    I think people are really hesitant to put their fighters at risk, as the tradeoff in SBR damage vs the cost of fighter replacement is rather poor. I know there a lot of discussions about how to improve this dynamic with house rules, so that might be an option worth exploring.

  • '17 '16

    @Black_Elk:

    Most of the people in my playgroup don’t play with the optional rules anymore, sz 16 closed or escort/intercept. In the latter case anytime I have played with escort/intercept it effectively just ended SBR as a worthwhile mutli-round strategy. What seemed to happen is the attacker would save up until they could bring overwhelming numbers during the endgame, and then the defender would just let them through, not wanting to risk defensive fighters on intercept but just reserving them for a normal combat role. I think escort intercept changes the optimal location for fighter landing in a lot of cases. Norway/Finland become a lot more important for Allies as escort landing spots, especially when you don’t have sufficient carrier space.
    I think people are really hesitant to put their fighters at risk, as the tradeoff in SBR damage vs the cost of fighter replacement is rather poor. I know there a lot of discussions about how to improve this dynamic with house rules, so that might be an option worth exploring.

    The replacement cost is something difficult to evaluate.

    If you have any idea how to judge whether it worth the risk or not based on this criteria, I’m all ears.
    Anything which increase the incentive factor or reduce the deterrent factor is welcome.

  • '17

    I’m not so familiar with calculations, but i did some simulation for this case. I found that on average the damage is about equal to the cost. That means that it is not a very strong strategy. You do need some luck for it to be effective. However, if you have average luck, you’ll be cutting germany’s income quite a bit. If at the same time you are able to kick him out of africa, you will give Rusia a much easier time to hold off Germany, until you are able to start a second front in Europe.

  • '17 '16

    @GiddyXray:

    I’m not so familiar with calculations, but i did some simulation for this case. I found that on average the damage is about equal to the cost. That means that it is not a very strong strategy. You do need some luck for it to be effective. However, if you have average luck, you’ll be cutting germany’s income quite a bit. If at the same time you are able to kick him out of africa, you will give Rusia a much easier time to hold off Germany, until you are able to start a second front in Europe.

    You are helping me thinking deeper on that issue.
    This question rise in my mind:
    what is the average TUV change in a fruitful combat with a combined attacking forces with ground and air units?

    It is easier to calculate what is the average TUV (Total Unit Value) change per SBR with 1 Strategic Bomber without any interception.

    1 Strategic Bomber doing SBR against no interceptor / with special HR bonus damage (+1 /+2/+3) to IC when STB is killed by IC’s AAA
    1D6 (avg 3.5 IPCs): +2.917 - 2 = +0.917 IPCs damage/SBR  / (1 damage pt if StB is killed) +1.084 IPCs damage/SBR
    1D6+1 (avg 4.5 IPCs): +3.750 - 2 = +1.750 IPCs damage/SBR / (1 damage pt… ) +1.917 IPCs damage/SBR
    1D6+2 (avg 5.5 IPCs): +4.583 - 2 = +2.583 IPCs damage/SBR / (2 damage pt…) +2.916 IPCs damage/SBR
    1D6+3 (avg 6.5 IPCs): +5.417 - 2 = +3.417 IPCs damage/SBR / (3 damage pt… ) +3.917 IPCs damage/SBR
    2D6 (avg 7 IPCs): +5.833 - 2 = +3.833 IPCs damage/SBR  / (3 damage pt… ) +4.333 IPCs damage/SBR

    G40 OOB D6+2: +4.583 - 2 = +2.583 IPCs damage/SBR
    Triple A 1942.2 D6: +2.917 - 2 = +0.917 IPC damage/SBR
    OOB 1942.2 D6: +2.917 - 2 = +0.917 IPC damage/SBR

    But what is the usual TUV change an attacker can hope for in a not so risky battle, on average?
    Is it far better or not than +2.583?

Suggested Topics

  • 7
  • 9
  • 7
  • 9
  • 5
  • 37
  • 14
  • 2
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

30

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts