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.