• Usually, but not always, if you loose a capital in AAR, you lost the game. there are sometimes this rule does not apply, if a capital falls on both sides, other factors will determine the outcome.

    So if Germany spends all money on LRA G1 and gets it, Germany still need some luck to capture London, although odds are about 51%?, but if London is taken, and both players are not n00bs, allies will almost certain lose the game.


  • Actually, Subotai, that’s not true.

    If germany spend $40 to get LRA, then takes UK after losing almost it’s entire air force (which is typical), then you’ve just completely blown your wad and russia is about to kill you.

    Meanwhile the british battleship and 1 tank from eastern europe retake the UK capital on their turn, which allows the UK to collect money again.  US can reinforce on their turn.

    The only way you get a significant edge is if the UK is unlucky enough to fail to re-take britain.  Otherwise, even with the $30 stolen, germany still hasn’t made really big gains.


  • We can try it if you want, I can host TripleA, we then would have to agree that if I (as axis) fail to get long range G1, then we have to restart the game. Also, if I fail to take London, then I lost the game, obviously. About 50% of such games will be lost.
    But the premise for my statements is: all things being equal, so with Germany getting long range, then tech is on, and of course, if US gets heavy bombers pretty soon, then that factor comes into play, and will bring Germany down.

    But if we assume a game with only Germany gets any tech, and that is long range, and Germany captures London G1, then allies will lose the game most times, even if it is very easy for UK or US to recapture London.


  • yeah i’d be happy to simulate it - i’m “bmaster” on gametableonline.  but the math and situation are pretty obvious.  assuming the UK battleship hits and the uk takes london back, neither germany nor britain produces any troops on turn 1, and on turn 2 germany gets an extra $30 and in return has no air force to speak of (though they did kill the small uk air force).  No reason for it to be that hard for the allies.


  • A word on SBR campaigns from someone who has actually played them out with both powers.

    First off forget all that math junk. Axis and Allies is not won by who lost more or less. In other words 15 IPCs lost for a bomber shot down may not be equal to 15 IPCs spent by your target.

    Second. Hoard your bombers. If going an all SBR Allied campaign in US 3 when you could have 3 bombers hit Germany only use 2. I have found it is much more important to keep up sustained pressure than inflicting maximum damage on one round. Always maintain a reserve of bombers even if this means over building.

    Third and probably the one everyone misses about SBRs. Just because you have embarked on an SBR campaign you do not have to bomb every round. Note what I said about sustained pressure above. However I have found there will be rounds where your 5 or 6 Bombers can be much more devastating in battles than bombing and knowing when to commit them to such is critical.


  • Unfortunately we cannot try this at gametable, because it doesnt support bids.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @Subotai:

    We can try it if you want, I can host TripleA, we then would have to agree that if I (as axis) fail to get long range G1, then we have to restart the game. Also, if I fail to take London, then I lost the game, obviously. About 50% of such games will be lost.
    But the premise for my statements is: all things being equal, so with Germany getting long range, then tech is on, and of course, if US gets heavy bombers pretty soon, then that factor comes into play, and will bring Germany down.

    But if we assume a game with only Germany gets any tech, and that is long range, and Germany captures London G1, then allies will lose the game most times, even if it is very easy for UK or US to recapture London.

    You would have to play with out of the box rules, since LHTR stipulates that technology advances take effect after your turn is completed.  It was specifically changed because of the chances that Germany could do Operation Sea Lion with Long Range Aircraft on round 1 forcing Russia to send fighters to England just on the off chance Germany would try it and that was too limiting on Germany.


    A44, you are correct in that bombers would not HAVE to be sent on SBR campaigns.  I tried to raise the point of their dual use a while ago, it was just ignored (as usual) so that people could focus on the little thread of the argument they wanted to discuss (the chance that attacker loses more money than defender.)

    There are a number of instances you would use your bombers elsewhere.

    1)  You are going to take Germany/Russia this round so why reduce your phat lewt?
    2)  The idiot put his fleet in range of yours and you can take out the Japanese/American/British fleet with minimal losses if you just for go hitting his industry this round
    3)  You have a chance to win the game by getting enough victory cities, but you need the bombers to ensure you’ll win (even if that means taking bombers as casualties.)

    There are probably more, but those are the three I can think of before coffee (and since it’s BC you know even a n00b could figure those out without any help outside of the rules pamphlet!)


  • the fact that the rules were changed to discourage a risky annoying strategy did not make it a net intelligent strategy, statistically.

    Germany spends 40 bucks to get long range aircraft = 77% chance
    Germany invades england with tank, inf, and your whole air force = 61% chance of win (or 75% if USSR didn’t take ukraine, which I consider foolish)

    So that’s a 46% chance of taking england on turn one given a good russian opening, or 57% otherwise.  In both cases, germany is more likely to lose more valuable troops which were already in position and is at net -10 income (+ their production was a turn delayed, which will cost against russia), while britain loses troops that were out of position and ends net -30 income (also a turn delayed).  It’s not a game changer unless UK is unlucky enough to fail to retake london.

    re: bombers, i agree they do have multiple uses and i actually enjoy building plenty as US, not just for SBR.  But my calculations in explaining how heavy bombers is not overpowered in attempting to bomb germany involved calculation for expected damage based on losses, not for net-IPC’s that it is costing the US.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    It’s an awesome strategy if it works. :P  Hell, there are plenty of days I have gone for the 50/50 or even the 30/70 shot at taking a capitol! (30% I win, 70% I lose) just because of the pay off.  It’s not just the +30 IPC for taking England, its’ the +30 IPC, the loss of the Royal Air Force, the two rounds with no builds (first round no builds, no retake, USA liberates, second round you collect but cannot build) maybe even a retake by Germany again!


  • it’s not 2 rounds of no builds.  you collect cash on turn one after you retake the capital on britain turn 1

    then us reinforces and germany cannot retake by any means.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @eumaies:

    it’s not 2 rounds of no builds.  you collect cash on turn one after you retake the capital on britain turn 1

    then us reinforces and germany cannot retake by any means.

    You are assuming you retake England with UK.  Why?

    I’m assuming you do not retake England with UK.  You have to best a defending infantry and defending armor with a tank and a battleship.  2/3rds of the time you have a 50/50 battle, the rest of the time you have worse odds.


  • ah, well if you don’t choose to lose your infantry than the initial invasion is much less likely to succeed.  because you lose the plane initially which reduces firpower in that invasion battle.  but i agree, if you accept reduced odds of winning the initial attack and greater airpower losses, thanin that circumstance uk is sub-50% of taking back and the risky invasion has paid off.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    According to Frood, and I think we’ve established his calculator as reliable, if your OOL is Fighters, Bombers, Infantry, Armor on attack, Germany has a 65% chance of winning leaving a fighter or bomber (because of the AA Gun) Infantry, Armor.

    That means England has less than a 50% chance to liberate and America will have to do the job.  To me this sounds preferable to the 87% chance of winning if you follow a normal OOL (except the fighters die before the tank so you can take the ground) because you’ve basically stopped England for a full two game turns.

    30 IPC will easily replace three of your fighters without digging into your normal income.  You can trim one of his battleships off just by using your SZ 14 fleet to attack it instead of the destroyer.


  • ah ok, assuming frood is better than the other calculator i was using (it looks more detailed), then you are correct.  in terms of the overall strategy (23% failed tech rolls) and your 65% quote that would make it almost exactly a 50/50 shot for either complete failure or success with 2 units with the strategy you describe.  UK having a <50% chance of taking it back does mitigate the strategy, however, in favor of making it a low-return strategy on average.

    I can definitely see why they nuked it in the rules since it basically gives a potentially inferior player a moderate chance of having a big advantage in the game.  Assuming you believe your skill to be equal or better than your opponent’s, it is a mistake to employ it since it’s like reducing your chance of actually winning the whole game, but i see why people do it.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Yea, I never said it was a good strategy, but it does give you the option of really decimating the allies early on.

Suggested Topics

  • 1
  • 16
  • 17
  • 6
  • 5
  • 10
  • 21
  • 150
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

33

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts