Driel310,
Germany won’t lose more than 20 ipc a turn and that’s only if she wants the maximum production in Germany which means 10 inf at the cheapest, so Germany will only start thinking about repairing for 20 ipc when she cashes 50 ipc or more.
In reality Germany will probably repair between 10-20 ipc a turn, depending on how much cash she has. Let’s say around 38 ipc on hand. That would mean repairing 17 ipc of damage and still buying 7 inf a turn. Not much, but don’t forget there is one country less fighting you on the land = UK.
True. Though I think it’s optimistic to believe Germany is earning 38 IPCs at turn. In this case, none of the Allies are doing anything right. A more realistic estimate would be ~25 IPCs a turn. That’s roughly 7 Inf a turn, which like you said, means Germany has to repair up to 17 IPCs per turn.
You send 5 bombers to Germany, expecting one gets shot down to AA. That’s 14 IPCs per turn. You avoid damage runoff this way (any damage beyond 20 is lost) and damage to the factory is residual, unless Germany pays to repair it. The cost is 12 IPCs per turn (that one UK bomber), though that expected number is actually less. 14 IPCs of damage per turn is half of Germany’s economy.
To create this bomber fleet UK has to invest in 5 bombers (60 IPCs / 3 turns), plus one extra to replace the bomber lost each turn. The UK also makes ~25 IPCs per turn, meaning once it’s set up it’s bomber fleet, it pockets about 16 IPCs per turn. That 16 IPCs could be used on another bomber for an Italian campaign.
So yes, UK is removed from the mainland, but (1) it deals a significant portion of damage to Germany’s wartime economy (2) it has enough money left over to start an Italian SBR campaign as well.
This is of course without taking tech into account (if Germany repairs 2 at 1 IPC bombing is hardly effective) plus Germany might also have an IC in France which means you need to bomb 32 damage each turn on France + Berlin to get the maximum. That’s 9 bombers… With UK income going down the drain each turn I am not sure UK can keep that air force flying.
Germany investing in tech to solve the SBR is generally not a good idea for reasons I’ve explained.
What if Germany counters by building a factory in France? In a vacuum, a France IC is a German misstep. A simple counter is for the UK is to drop this strategy for something more conventional and divert their fleet to Italy, where they can still deal damage.
Funcioneta,
If Japan goes to America instead Moscow, USA is tied to that fight so they cannot aid Africa or Europe. Japan will get enough money to make both american and asian campaigns or try a own SBR campaign over USA.
Answering SBRs with SBRs. Awesome idea :evil: I’ve also been experimenting with a Alaska strategy for Japan (not just for SBR but for KGF in general), though I believe it just creates a Western Canada/Alaska dead zone. I have not arrived at a conclusion to see which side benefits more.
On the other hand, a full on amphibious invasion of Western USA is a very BAD idea.
A little off topic, but: Has anyone found an India IC (for the UK) to be useful? Or do the Japanese take India too easily?
I’ve thought of a hybrid strategy to BoB titled BoR (Bombs Over Rome). It involves calculating the distance of a few airline routes, which I thought was quite “fun.”
It’s a bit difficult to explain, so let me put it in the most simplistic turns
1. First turn: UK builds a bomber and a IC in India.
2. Second turn: The UK bomber SBRs Berlin and lands in Ukraine (assuming it’s under Russian control), while simultaneously building 3 inf (9 IPCs) a turn in India.
3. Third turn: The UK bomber SBRs Rome and lands in the Caucasus.
4. Forth turn: The UK bomber and combined UK infantry force storm Burma. The UK bomber lands in Caucasus.
5. Fifth turn on: The UK bomber can continue to bomb Rome, create a Burma deadzone, or eventually bomb Berlin again going the Caucasus -> Gibraltar -> Berlin -> United Kingdom route. Also from its Caucasus airstrip the bomber can raid the Italian navy! :evil:
The best part is the bomber is always doing something active! The bad thing is this relies on several things happening, including Ukraine in Russian hands and that the Japanese don’t overrun India (which I fear after the first time BoR is employed, will ALWAYS happen).
But think of the frequent flier miles! Join the RAF, See the World! 8-)
Anyways food for thought…
@TG:
If Japan goes to America instead Moscow, USA is tied to that fight so they cannot aid Africa or Europe. Japan will get enough money to make both american and asian campaigns or try a own SBR campaign over USA.
Answering SBRs with SBRs. Awesome idea :evil: I’ve also been experimenting with a Alaska strategy for Japan (not just for SBR but for KGF in general), though I believe it just creates a Western Canada/Alaska dead zone. I have not arrived at a conclusion to see which side benefits more.
In Revised, the dead zone meant allies cannot reinforce Africa very much to fight against Japan and reduced USA to 35 IPCs (assuming soviets don’t defend China). I think this gives advantage to axis, and if you can take and hold wcan as Japan you can collect 55 IPCs easily. SBR on un-aa gunned Eusa … priceless …
Not sure how it will work in AA50 (USA gets 40 because of NO, but Japan get’s more than 60). I wish it will work well or I’m stuck to play allies if I want avoid KGF :|
TG Moses VI:
my analysis of this is much simpler than yours:
taking aside any strategic considerations, I do the following cost-benefit analysis:
The Net Benefit of SRB is: Expected Gain (IPCs taken from the enemy) - Expected Cost (cost of loosing the BB)
Expected Gain (EG) = Average Damage Yield by SBR * Probability of BB surviving the AA
In numbers: EG = (1+2+3+4+5+6)/6 x 5/6 = 2.92
Expected Cost (EC) = BB Cost * Probability of Being Shoot Down by AA
In numbers: EC = 12 * 1/6 = 2
So, in AA50: SRB Next Benefit is: 2.92 - 2 = 0.92
If you’re risk neutral, you should bomb
In Revised, the numbers for EC were: 15 * 1/6 = 2.5
Hence EG - EC = 2.92 - 2.5 = 0.42
So it was still a ‘rational’ choice, only that you’re expected gain was smaller
comments? thoughts? Am I missing something?
Yes, that’s another correct way of looking at it. It’s more similar to casino odds.
To add on these numbers, what is the expected gain of a bomber attacking the following units?
1 Bomber vs 1 Infantry = (4/6 * 3) - (2/6 * 12) = -2.0 IPCs
Bomber vs Battleship (2 hits) = (4/6 - 20) - (4/6 * 12) - (4/6 * 12) = -2.67 IPCs
Bomber vs Tank = (4/6 * 5) - (3/6 * 12) = -2.67 IPCs
Bomber vs Fighter = (4/6 * 10) - (4/6 * 12) = -1.33 IPCs
Bomber vs AA Gun (SBR) = +0.92 IPCs
Bomber vs Destroyer = (4/6 * 8) - (2/6 * 12) = +1.33 IPCs
Bomber vs Cruiser = (4/6 * 12) - (3/6 * 12) = +2.0 IPCs
Bomber vs Aircraft Carrier = (4/6 * 13) - (3/6 * 12) = +2.67 IPCs
Bomber vs Factory (without AA) = +3.5 IPCs
Bomber vs Transport = +7 IPCs
Whoever knew the two greatest fears of a bomber were attacking tanks and battleships – two of their favorite targets during the war? :wink:
This UK bomber only strategy implies a 2 player contest because I can’t imagine anyone sitting down for 4 hours and only making SBR dice rolls. yawn The game is supposed to be fun! If I’m UK I’m building a S. Africa, India, or Australia IC and defending expanding my empire! Axis and Allies is best played 1 player per nation in my opinion.
TG you need to review the changes for AA50 a bit more. Now when you purchase a tech dice you get to roll it every turn until you get the tech. I can not see why the US would not be involved in a SBR campaign as they now start with 2 bombers in '41 and 3 bombers in '42. There is also Italy to consider bombing back into the stone age. They make limited money and are the weakest Axis power.
And my personal take on SBRs is all that cost analysis is just an exercise for amusement. It does not take into consideration where the damage is done and how that affects an opponent.
Intriguing! Enjoying your stasticial analysis here.
However, there is a small fly in the ointment – in AA50 CVs defend at 2.
Bomber vs Aircraft Carrier = (4/6 * 13) - (2/6 * 12) = +4.67 IPCs
Makes them even more enticing.
There are two things I learned in Revised that I suspect are true in Anniversary as well.
1) She who controls the oceans, wins the game. Period. End of story. I don’t care if you have a billion infantry and I have 1 infantry, if I own the oceans, I win. Therefore, navy IS important. (my favorite trick in enhanced is to drop 2 or 3 submarines in the water every round with one of my nations until I dominate the oceans.)
Why is this true? Without a navy you cannot use any of your infantry offensively and, as we all know, turtle-ing as your only strategy is doomed to failure. Eventually the one controlling the oceans will control the mainland and out produce you.
2) She who has the biggest air force, tends to win the game. No idea why this is true. I suspect it is related to your ability to mass more firepower on your attacks without risking them to counter attack. It also is not ALWAYS true. Sure, if England does nothing but buy fighters for the entire game, they might have the biggest air force, but they also have no ability to land troops.
Now, if you assume both 1 and 2 above are true. Then it makes sense to use air power to establish command of the oceans early, followed by a slow build of of warships to maintain that power, then to use your air power on frivolous things like SBR damage.
a44bigdog,
I know of those changes. Believe me, if Germany wanted to unlock radar their odds would be a lot worst than 60 IPCs up front. Perhaps, you could provide a statistical statement of how many IPCs Germany would have to invest to unlock radar?
Bierwagen,
I did not know that. I wouldn’t say they nerfed the carrier. But you better hope you buy it with 2 fighters onboard.
Cmdr Jennifer,
Remember, A&A is a asymmetric game. I would agree with those two principles. However, it is the Allies powers as a Whole that enforce them. As long as USA can land infantry, the Allies are fine.
@Cmdr:
There are two things I learned in Revised that I suspect are true in Anniversary as well.
1) She who controls the oceans, wins the game. Period. End of story. I don’t care if you have a billion infantry and I have 1 infantry, if I own the oceans, I win. Therefore, navy IS important. (my favorite trick in enhanced is to drop 2 or 3 submarines in the water every round with one of my nations until I dominate the oceans.)
Why is this true? Without a navy you cannot use any of your infantry offensively and, as we all know, turtle-ing as your only strategy is doomed to failure. Eventually the one controlling the oceans will control the mainland and out produce you.
2) She who has the biggest air force, tends to win the game. No idea why this is true. I suspect it is related to your ability to mass more firepower on your attacks without risking them to counter attack. It also is not ALWAYS true. Sure, if England does nothing but buy fighters for the entire game, they might have the biggest air force, but they also have no ability to land troops.
Now, if you assume both 1 and 2 above are true. Then it makes sense to use air power to establish command of the oceans early, followed by a slow build of of warships to maintain that power, then to use your air power on frivolous things like SBR damage.
I agree !!!
Again all that statistical analysis is great if you get off on that stuff. I find it has very little relationship to actually playing the game. I am to lazy to go look at some of the SBR games I have won but I suspect in those my bombers never “paid” for themselves.
In line with what Jenn said, on paper 2 tanks are better that 1 fighter. However, in actual game situation you will be waiting for a long time for those to tanks to hit a ship.
I was rereading Black_Elk’s thread: Killing Fleets with Bombers
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12956.0
There’s a lot good information in that thread and it works well with BoB.
A bomber fleet not only allows the UK to wreck Germany’s industrial center, but it forces Italy to protect the Mediterranean. A bomber flying off from England can hit any tile in the Mediterranean as long as they land on the Stalingrad airstrip.
Of course the Italians can counter by building additional naval units in the Mediterranean (i.e. a carrier), but you do create an arms race. And unlike Naval Units which are useless (IPC wise) unless they’re fighting other naval units, UK bombers can just continue to SBR.
thats actually what i did sucessfully in my last game, had 3 bmb´s with Uk, took down Italys flet with that +2 figs, he didn´t see them properly. thats also a strategic thing with bombers, it´s hard if your not used to them on the board to see what can happen.
@TG:
A bomber fleet not only allows the UK to wreck Germany’s industrial center, but it forces Italy to protect the Mediterranean. A bomber flying off from England can hit any tile in the Mediterranean as long as they land on the Stalingrad airstrip.
The only problem with the Stalingrad airstrip is that it negates one of Russia’s NOs. Landing in Gibraltar is a better option. That is, if you can defend it.
@Cmdr:
There are two things I learned in Revised that I suspect are true in Anniversary as well.
1) She who controls the oceans, wins the game. Period. End of story. I don’t care if you have a billion infantry and I have 1 infantry, if I own the oceans, I win. Therefore, navy IS important. (my favorite trick in enhanced is to drop 2 or 3 submarines in the water every round with one of my nations until I dominate the oceans.)
Why is this true? Without a navy you cannot use any of your infantry offensively and, as we all know, turtle-ing as your only strategy is doomed to failure. Eventually the one controlling the oceans will control the mainland and out produce you.
2) She who has the biggest air force, tends to win the game. No idea why this is true. I suspect it is related to your ability to mass more firepower on your attacks without risking them to counter attack. It also is not ALWAYS true. Sure, if England does nothing but buy fighters for the entire game, they might have the biggest air force, but they also have no ability to land troops.
Now, if you assume both 1 and 2 above are true. Then it makes sense to use air power to establish command of the oceans early, followed by a slow build of of warships to maintain that power, then to use your air power on frivolous things like SBR damage.
You didn’t study under Don Rae, by any chance?
The only problem with the Stalingrad airstrip is that it negates one of Russia’s NOs. Landing in Gibraltar is a better option. That is, if you can defend it.
Dear Larry Harris,
Thank you for ruining this game.
PS: I want my $100 back.
Seriously, wasn’t the idea of NOs to add new strategies to the game, not curtail them?
thats actually what i did sucessfully in my last game, had 3 bmb´s with Uk, took down Italys flet with that +2 figs, he didn´t see them properly. thats also a strategic thing with bombers, it´s hard if your not used to them on the board to see what can happen.
- you can easily shift damage around the board.
Glorious. :-D
I’ve decided for my next game as the Allies, I’m going to bang on the table and make a big fuss about how Germany will feel the wrath of my bombers. Then after my sabre has been sufficiently rattled and the Italian player least expects it, I’m going to sneak attack his fleet in the Mediterranean! It’s great. He won’t even see it coming. It’ll be like Taranto all over again. :lol:
Every day I become more like Churchill.
I don’t want a refund. I just want to be consulted on the AA:50-enhanced version of the game where we fix all the bloody errors in this one!
@Cmdr:
I don’t want a refund. I just want to be consulted on the AA:50-enhanced version of the game where we fix all the bloody errors in this one!
Step one is not yet complete.
what is step one?
Identifying ALL the bloody errors, so that as each problem is fixed, it will not be in a vacuum.
Fixing 1 or two issues is easy.
Fixing 5 or more can be a difficult task as the interactions of the fixes must be taken into proper considersation.
@Cmdr:
There are two things I learned in Revised that I suspect are true in Anniversary as well.
1) She who controls the oceans, wins the game. Period. End of story. I don’t care if you have a billion infantry and I have 1 infantry, if I own the oceans, I win. Therefore, navy IS important. (my favorite trick in enhanced is to drop 2 or 3 submarines in the water every round with one of my nations until I dominate the oceans.)
Why is this true? Without a navy you cannot use any of your infantry offensively and, as we all know, turtle-ing as your only strategy is doomed to failure. Eventually the one controlling the oceans will control the mainland and out produce you.
2) She who has the biggest air force, tends to win the game. No idea why this is true. I suspect it is related to your ability to mass more firepower on your attacks without risking them to counter attack. It also is not ALWAYS true. Sure, if England does nothing but buy fighters for the entire game, they might have the biggest air force, but they also have no ability to land troops.
Now, if you assume both 1 and 2 above are true. Then it makes sense to use air power to establish command of the oceans early, followed by a slow build of of warships to maintain that power, then to use your air power on frivolous things like SBR damage.
You didn’t study under Don Rae, by any chance?
I seriously doubt it, since Don Rae was a 100% supporter of infantry, infantry yet even more infantry. And rightfully so if I made add.
If I read Jennifer correct she is advocating for Russia and Germany to buy ships/subs and air power…… :roll:
