Unbeatable Allied Strategy

[Jennifer]

@Krieghund:

@Cmdr:

Didn’t realize you couldn’t do 20 IPC dmg to Germany if you used two different nations.  Kinda figured that technically you COULD do 30 dmg to Germany (Russia - 10 IPC, England - 10 IPC, America - 10 IPC)

You can.  You can do up to 10 on each of the Allied powers’ turns.

Thanks for clarifying.  It’s been a long time since I read up on SBRs in AAR.  I really only do SBR in AARe now, so I was beginning to wonder! hehe.

So technically with England and America going at it, you could do up to 32 IPC damage to Germany - realistically speaking.

[losttribe04]

So for this strategy to be most effective ([edit:] with the LHTR) Russia needs  1-3 BMR’s as well.

That could put this into the to hard to do box.

LT

[Krieghund]

@Cmdr:

So technically with England and America going at it, you could do up to 32 IPC damage to Germany - realistically speaking.

Yes, under LHTR, by bombing both Germany and Southern Europe.

@LT04:

So for this strategy to be most effective ([edit:] with the LHTR) Russia needs  1-3 BMR’s as well.

That could put this into the to hard to do box.

LT

Yes, it is much harder to do under LHTR with the damage cap.  However, under the box rules it’s ridiculously easy, with each bomber being capped at 10 IPCs.  You need only about 5-6 heavy bombers to reduce Germany to zero IPCs every turn, unless Germany gets very lucky with AA.

[Guest]

I have checked both my Rules manual for Revised that came with the game, and the Rules download from the Avalon Hill website.  I do not find in either set of rules anything about capping heavy bomber attacks at 10 IPC per bomber.  The only cap that is mentioned is a Strategic Bombing Raid may not inflict more damage for each bomber than the territory has IPC value.

Saying that each bomber is capped at 10 IPC is very much different that saying the each bomber can do a maximum of 10 IPC damage because that is Germany’s IPC value. 

@Krieghund:

Yes, it is much harder to do under LHTR with the damage cap.  However, under the box rules it’s ridiculously easy, with each bomber being capped at 10 IPCs.  You need only about 5-6 heavy bombers to reduce Germany to zero IPCs every turn, unless Germany gets very lucky with AA.

[TimTheEnchanter]

@timerover51:

I have checked both my Rules manual for Revised that came with the game, and the Rules download from the Avalon Hill website.  I do not find in either set of rules anything about capping heavy bomber attacks at 10 IPC per bomber.  The only cap that is mentioned is a Strategic Bombing Raid may not inflict more damage for each bomber than the territory has IPC value.

Saying that each bomber is capped at 10 IPC is very much different that saying the each bomber can do a maximum of 10 IPC damage because that is Germany’s IPC value. 

@Krieghund:

Yes, it is much harder to do under LHTR with the damage cap.  However, under the box rules it’s ridiculously easy, with each bomber being capped at 10 IPCs.  You need only about 5-6 heavy bombers to reduce Germany to zero IPCs every turn, unless Germany gets very lucky with AA.

I think he just used 10 because the case being cited was an attack against Germany.

[Jennifer]

Also, I don’t think Russia needs in on the game.

-16 IPC from England + -16 IPC from America is -32 IPC total.  Russia should use their cash to exploit the decimated German manufacturing ability, not in bombers.  With -32 potential damage a round, I don’t think Germany’s going to have a lot left over for Russia to bomb anyway

[Krieghund]

@TimTheEnchanter:

@timerover51:

I have checked both my Rules manual for Revised that came with the game, and the Rules download from the Avalon Hill website.  I do not find in either set of rules anything about capping heavy bomber attacks at 10 IPC per bomber.  The only cap that is mentioned is a Strategic Bombing Raid may not inflict more damage for each bomber than the territory has IPC value.

Saying that each bomber is capped at 10 IPC is very much different that saying the each bomber can do a maximum of 10 IPC damage because that is Germany’s IPC value. 

@Krieghund:

Yes, it is much harder to do under LHTR with the damage cap.  However, under the box rules it’s ridiculously easy, with each bomber being capped at 10 IPCs.  You need only about 5-6 heavy bombers to reduce Germany to zero IPCs every turn, unless Germany gets very lucky with AA.

I think he just used 10 because the case being cited was an attack against Germany.

Exactly.

[dakgoalie38]

For those questioning what the UK should do, now hearing about the Larry Harris Tournament Rules it depends.  If playing a normal game without the LHTR, then UK should do an India factory to stop Japan from advancing too far and should use its transports to get into Africa, and then once Africa is taken back the forces there can move east to assist the factory in India which by this point should be close to being taken by Japan.  Of course, the UK would sieze any opportunity to make landings in Europe if Germany went weak on defense.

If playing with LHTR, then I would suggest doing what most other people suggested and use Britain to assist in bombing Germany.  Russian bombers, like Jennifer said, would be pointless.  With Germany losing 32 IPCs per turn, Russia should have double their economy and therefore should focus on ground forces.  Germany doesn’t have to be completely bankrupt for Russia to win, it just makes it easier.  But if Russia focuses on bombers, it sort of ruins the whole point of going after Germany since you then have a weakened Germany with nobody to take it over.

[eumaies]

OK, separate from the question of whether bombing hits max out at 10 damage for a square worth 10, let me take another shot at this math:

US builds 2 bombers and 2 rolls a turn (I wouldn’t necessarily do it this way, but it’s a good example)

Assume success in the technology at the start of US3.

Assume germany makes 40 per turn - bombing (a conservatise assumption since you are leaving germany alone)

A non-heavy bomber does 2.9 damage per shot (counting AA;'s), a heavy bomber does 5.8 damage per shot.

Bomb # hitting Germ Damage Germany Spends
Normal US0 0 0 40
Normal US1 0 0 40
Normal US2 1 2.9 37.1
HEAVY US3 2.83 16.43 23.57
HEAVY US4 4.36 25.29 14.71
HEAVY US5 5.63 32.68 7.32
HEAVY US6 6.7 38.83 1.17

So germany gets 3 full builds, and is not receiving as much pressure from the US so can afford to send the bulk of them at Russia.

I don’t know, that’s plenty of builds for me to put enough pressure on russia to allow them to be weakened when japan breaks through.  and meanwhile africa is more vulnerable to conquest by germany or japan as well.  I’m just not convinced that the 24 + 15 cash germany uses to turtle after its first three builds is really insufficient to defend itself.  while it’s first 3 builds focused primarily on russia can get the job done in terms of exhausting her resources.

Doesn’t strike me as unbeatable at all.

[Jennifer]

I think there are flaws in your calculations Eumaies:

1)  Why is America not bombing right off?
2)  Why are you wasting time on technology before you have at least 3 bombers running, preferably 5 bombers?
3)  Why are we wasting money on technology anyway?  5 Bombers > 3 Bombers + Tech (figure 30 IPC for the tech) but equal cost.  Not to mention, it’s much harder to shoot down 5 bombers than 3 bombers.
4)  Why is Germany being left alone?  USA, UK and USSR have plenty of units they can use to stop the German advance, especially if America is the only one focusing on bombers.  That’s 54 IPC for USSR + UK vs 40 IPC for Germany, a 14 IPC advantage to the Allies!

Figure you take 2.5 IPC in damage per bomber and do 3.5 IPC in damage per bomber.  By USA 2 you should easily have 6 Allied Bombers running. (UK starts with 1 and buys 2 on UK 1.  USA starts with 1 and buys 2 on USA 1.)

63.5 = 21 IPC to Germany on average
62.5=15 IPC divided between England and America, on Average.

Coupled with influxes of troops into Africa and the Russians stonewalling in Europe, I can easily see the Germans getting into a very tight situation very quickly.  Especially if Stalin goes mad and stacks the trading territories with 4 infantry, armor in each.  Now Germany has to for go liberation or dedicate large numbers of units to liberation which will bleed them faster.

[eumaies]

good questions.

1. America can’t bomb on turn 1, you can’t reach germany.  On turn 2, only 1 bomber reaches, on US turn 3, your first “new” batch of bombers has arrived.

2. I wouldn’t waste money on tech that early, but that was the original poster’s idea.  I would perhaps build an extra bomber on US turn 2, and then spend less on bombers and more on tech later if I were attempting this.  Similar overall dynamics, though.

3. I basically agree, hence my post.  But for the record heavy bombers is worthwhile… you double your damage without doubling the number of AA guns fired at you, I just don’t think it’s broken.

4. Your argument is somewhat weak here – obviously Russia and UK have to consider japan, whether sooner or later.  And also, germany is really going to be making more than 40 for the first few turns, which makes my estimates conservative.

By USA 2, in your scenario, the allies would have bombed with 3uk bombers and 1 us bomber on that turn.  On USA3, that would increase.  in any case, no one is particularly concerned that regular bombers are “unbeatable” – i personally would never waste UK resources exclusively on bombers when they are actually in much closer range to attack germany directly.

More to the point, the general case for heavy bombers is overstated by many because they fail to consider the opportunity cost.  If i shell out $90 on 4 bombers + tech, I could instead have, in a simple example, 9 US fighters.  These fighters would cause significant damage on each turn in conjunction with land attacks.  They could easily do more than 20 damage per turn in killing german armor and infantry.

So I just don’t agree with the overall “unbeatable” storyline.

[italiansarecoming]

man usa is all bombers i feel a bit wacked becaus ei forget ground forces i am sorry……

[Jennifer]

That’s my point, what makes it viable is over-whelming them with bombers.

1 Heavy Bomber shot down by AA Gun is -2d6 in damage.

it is doubly likely that a heavy bomber will be shot down than two regular bombers will be shot down.

1 Bomber shot down by AA Gun is -1d6

Therefore, it is doubly beneficial to use two bombers instead of one bomber.

---

That said, Heavy Bombers do have their use (original rules that htey get 2d6, and can score two hits) because you can obliterate fleets.

---

Also, Japan can be safely ignored for 5 game turns before having to deal with them.  In 5 turns, Russia should be sitting on Berlin’s doorstep if you got slightly lucky on your bombing runs.  By then, you should be able to replace Russian units with American and British units and send them back towards Japan. (Japan’s earning 50, Russia’s earning -8 for lost territories, + 14 for conquered territories, so 30 IPC enough to stop Japan’s advance.)

[italiansarecoming]

Um… all you need to do as allies = make russia make infantry, usa make bombers and some men tostop japans success in asia/pacific and great britian to be slowing the axis by doing things that the axis would not like (help africa help india mass bombers to kill germany mass fleet)

[Black_Elk]

There is no such thing as an “Unbeatable Allied strategy” in the Revised game, and if there is one, it certainly doesn’t involve purchasing bombers.

The only time you should ever even think about buying a new bomber is when the game is so far skewed in favor of one side already, that it really doesn’t matter what you buy anyway. Veteran players avoid SBR like the plague, and will only risk a bomber against an AA gun, if it has absolutely nothing else to do that round.

Rolling for Heavy Bombers is considered bad form by most players, because it is widely acknowledged that this particular tech is hopelessly broken under the standard Revised rules (and not much better under the LHTR rules.) Nobody who is serious about the game will respect a strategy built around strategic bombing. Its too unpredictable.

[03321]

I’m not sure how you can say that an unbeatable allied strategy (OOB) would certainly not include bombers, but then admit that heavy bombers (OOB) are overpowered.  I believe I have seen several ‘serious’ players around here mention how broken a US strat bombing campaign is without LHTR.  I would consider myself decently ‘serious’ and was recently discussing with Jennifer (who I would guess also considers herself decently ‘serious’) an Axis strategic bombing strategy against Russia in the Most Surprising First round purchases thread, even under LHTR bombing rules.  a44bigdog tested it and reported that it was fairly viable.

And on top of all that people have been expressing their fear (for weeks, if not months) of overpowered bombing campaigns in the AA50 board because bomber cost was dropped to 12, plus the fright that heavy bombers will once again be overpowered - despite random techs, AND that rockets could be game-breaking - also despite random techs.  Now, I’m not saying those fears will be correct, they may they may not, but the fact that they are there in significant amounts tells me that people don’t consider bombing ‘too unpredictable’ for ‘serious’ consideration.

I understand and agree that bombing is less predictable than large-scale battles involving far more die, but I don’t see how you can so lightly dismiss bombing as a whole the way you did, especially in the hands of the US under OOB rules.

[eumaies]

lots of interesting arguments here…

Jennifer, with regards to bombers and aa guns, the heavy bomber does an average of 5.83 when counting the 1 aa shot, the 2 regular bombers do a total of 5.93, on average.  So it’s basically a wash on damage caused, and the expected “rebuild cost” to the single heavy bomber run is -2.5, while the rebuild cost of dual bomber run is -4.6 to aa fire.  But good point on the other 2-shot uses of heavy bombers to make them somewhat useful.

Most importantly, I think Japan can absolutely threaten russia before turn 5 if left relatively unnopposed, and 3 turns of full german production are all they need to punish russia and keep then keep their front lines from collapsing.  An efficient Japan should be threatening moscow and/or killing russian troops adjacent to moscow by turn 4.  This drains resources from any russian effort to completely pwn germany a reap the rewards.

Black Elk, I totally agree with the sentiment that building a “strategy” that relies totally for success on a highly random tech research is kind of bad form - at least that’s why I avoid it.  But I think as 03321 points out if you could make the argument that some cookie cutter bomber strategy gives you a >50% chance of winning the game, that would be an “overpowered” thing to be concerned with.  As I’ve tried to argue, I don’t see the over-powered argument carrying much weight.

I do think building some bombers with the US is not a bad idea at all, though.  NOT for bombing raids, which are risky, but for strategic coordination with land troops all over the land and sea.  It’s great to have 6-movement air support to supplement a limited # of US troops, especially for out-of-sequence attacks that screw germany when russia can take advantage of holes the us creates in their lines.

[Black_Elk]

Rolling for Heavies under the ‘Out of Box’ rules in order to cripple Germany with bombing runs is just weak sauce gameplay. It’s lame in the same way that rolling for Long Range Aircraft with Germany in the first round in order to take London is lame. It’s a cheap shot win.

The Out of Box Technologies in Revised are totally broken if left unmodified, we all know this already and even the designer admitted it when he put out special tournament rules to address the problem. That’s all I meant went I said no ‘serious’ players are going to respect such a strategy. The only way to play the game with the OOB rules, is to play it without technology advances.

I would still council against bomber purchases, even in LHTR rules though. It might work on occasion, but losing a bomber to AA fire sucks it hard. All it takes is a single 1, and you’re screwed. I think you’re always better off with 5 inf, or some tanks, or a transport, or a fighter. Only strat bomb when you can’t find something else to do with your bombers. You will win more games than you lose, and those games will also be more satisfying for both players.

:)

[Lucifer]

Hypothetically there may be unbeatable strats, but this is very unlikely because many players have been trying all sorts of strats.

Bombers are almost never bought by experienced players, generally speaken. Same goes for DD’s and BB’s.

[Jennifer]

My point was that with 2 bombers attacking Germany you have a much better chance of doing 1d6 damage than if you had one bomber attacking Germany.

To defend itself from all damage, Germany would need to get 2 AA Hits against 2 Bombers.  That’s (1/6)*(1/6) or 1/36 which is ~ 3% chance of occurring.

To defend itself form all damage, Germany would need to get 1 AA Hit against 1 Heavy Bomber.  That’s (1/6) or ~ 17% chance of occurring.

Which is more likely to occur?  3% to shoot down two bombers resulting in 0 IPC damage, or 17% to shoot down one heavy bomber resulting in 0 IPC damage?  Obviously a 17% chance is more likely to occur than a 3% chance.  Therefore, the odds of doing damage to Germany is greater if you have two normal bombers vs one heavy bomber.

And that is what I was trying to get at.