Are bombers broken? : Axis bombers lead to allied dismay.

[JamesAleman]

@BJCard:

Well, I see how mass bombers can be useful but I have a few comments to respond-

1.  The Allies can mass a Navy off Gibraltar, if they have an airbase in Gibraltar and own Morocco;  The Germans would have to attack with just bombers;  Fine by me, I’ll trade destroyers for bombers.   How would fighters/tac bombers reach?  Did Germany buy a carrier or attack Spain?
Three destroyers cost 24 dollars and hit one 12 dollar bomber….Do the math, with 18 bombers I hit 12 pieces the first turn…With 21 bombers I hit 14 pieces, with 24 bombers I hit 16 pieces…If they were all destroyers I still win in dollars, but typically fighters and carriers die too, add up the money lost for both sides and the turns USA/UK spent amassing that navy.

2.  If those bombers are in Italy to counter the Gibraltar navy, than they are not strategic bombing Moscow that turn.
False, You can strategic bomb russia from S. Italy and land in Bryansk. After turn 5, you seldom need more than 3 bombers to add to the damage still left on them. Andy spelled it out as well, Russia is not collecting enough to repair all 20. They typically repair 15 and build 5 units, or save money a turn.

3.  AA guns take hits and can target air units.  By no means would I buy a lot of them, but a few may help more than hurt.
If aaguns fired each round like infantry do, I might buy them. Against land strafes I prefer 12 infantry over 12 aaguns. Before the 12 infantry die on round 1 they will take 4 bombers with them, the 12 aaguns will only take 2 bombers….(if averages are used to make this point…anyone could hit better if they got lucky, and its easier to get lucky with 2s than 1s.

4.  Is 47 German units in Bryansk a conservative estimate?  Is Russia countering when possible, falling back when not?  
44 units: 11 inf from Germany, 3 art,3aaguns from Germany, 3 infantry from Poland, 2 infantry from Denmark (transported turn1), 3 armor from Yugo, typically 3-4 infantry survive Yugo, 2 artillery from yugo turn 1, 6 armor,4 mech from France turn 1, 2inf Slovakia, and 1 inf from Romania as other activates bulgaria. So that is 43-44 land units depending on how many hits are suffered on Yugoslavia…turn 4 in Bryansk, turn 5 if delayed by russia. Add 10 starting slow moving air units, 2 starting bombers, and 4 bomber builds (ac, bmbr; 5 bomber, 4 bomber, 4 bomber)=16 bombers able to hit Moscow turn 5 only 12 can land as casualties on Bry since itally took it with 2inf,2art,2aaguns,arm-N.italy, 2inf,arm-Albania; 2 mech built turn 1, 4 mech built turn 2. All other builds for whatever you feel like. That equals: 43German land+10slow air+12bombers+16 italian land**=81 pieces** on Bryansk turn 4. I forgot the 2 Italian and 3 German aaguns in my earlier post.

5.  If Italy is supplying that much to Russia - which I did not take into account with your initial post- than they have lost Africa and a UK Mid East Strategy is even more viable.  That is, minor ICs in Egypt and Iraq (or Persia).

Itally provides 6 mech, 2 aaguns, 4inf, 2 art, 2 armor (all but mech are starting units in NItaly and Albania, Navy and rest of land forces contest Med for fun, Egypt is secondary target with turn 3 and later builds.

6.  I’d have to look at the map again, but I don’t think bombers in range of strategic bombing Moscow are in range of hitting any Western Navy (outside the baltic and western med), therefore the Allies would have a turn to get out of range.

True, I keep my bombers in Bryansk turn 4….after that you better set sail ;)

7.  The point of retreating to Moscow is to keep Russia in the game as long as possible.  If you lose the bulk of the Russian Army too early the UK/US does not have the time to get help there.

True, but my point is you keep moscow and surrender your factories without firing a shot in most cases. I will park on your border and shake hands with the Norther Japanese when they arrive, Japan or Germany can bomb you when you get uppity and try to build on your capital.   :roll:

8.  What is Japan doing?  Full on Russia?  When does the US get attacked?

Japan is doing 2 things: China and Northern Russia…They lock down around 30 Indian land troops if India builds infantry with a bombing campaign, if italy( I mean India) builds air units, they capture India with a bomber and slow air strike from Yunnan and the 3 transports from sea in the starting Japanese Navy.

I once hit Indias stack in shan state (38 pieces) (they got tired of sitting in India which had 2 subs off its cost and 20 damage markers) with 14 bombers, 14 fight/tac, and 5 mech,4inf, 2art. lol I killed them in 2 rounds and lost zero bomber units.

9.  Please don’t take my posts as any sort of personal attack, I really want to know more about what you are doing.  When you can play by forum against an experienced allied player it would be very helpful.

Not at all, I like input, I also do not mean to sound like I am upset or defensive, I believe I am answering as detailed as I can from memory. I will post games on the forums once I get used to Forum Triple A play, I am an old Battlemap player and need to get versed in the Triple A posting technique.

[ChocolatePancake]

Why are you counting AA guns in your unit totals? They can’t help you attack Moscow.

[Derek]

bring back the classic AA gun

[JamesAleman]

@ChocolatePancake:

Why are you counting AA guns in your unit totals? They can’t help you attack Moscow.

They defend against a Russian counter attack, which is what I was answering to.

[Auswanderersland]

@Uncrustable:

bring back the classic AA gun

hehe, it would stop this strat fairly well…/agree

[Derek]

@Auswanderersland:

@Uncrustable:

bring back the classic AA gun

hehe, it would stop this strat fairly well…/agree

I dont think i will ever get over the ‘AA gun duct tape’ that G40 recieved during the alpha phase, and the broken AA guns we have now…

Also bringing back classic AA means rolling for AA ‘flyovers’ during combat move…
Bomber strat nullified

[Auswanderersland]

@Gargantua:

This problem dates back to anniversary.

Bombers provide so much of what’s called “threat projection” that en mass they are impossible to stop.

It’s one thing to face your stack off against another stack, or your navy vs some enemy planes.

But when you have to calculate that your stack could get smashed, and your navy could get smashed, and your capital could get smashed, you have to reel back across the board, or face certain death.

It’s not what you actually do with the bombers that counts, so much as what you -could- do.

Give this man a dollar!  That is exactly the problem I face when JJ plays this strat.  I make my moves based on what he “could” do to me.  We are throwin around the idea of giving several soft targets where Germany would be forced to “pull the trigger” and commit the bombers, but I simply haven’t figured out a way to wipe out enough bombers or a queen gambit to force him to lose the game from it.

[JamesAleman]

@Uncrustable:

@Auswanderersland:

@Uncrustable:

bring back the classic AA gun

hehe, it would stop this strat fairly well…/agree

I dont think i will ever get over the ‘AA gun duct tape’ that G40 recieved during the alpha phase, and the broken AA guns we have now…

Also bringing back classic AA means rolling for AA ‘flyovers’ during combat move…
Bomber strat nullified

I wish they would have given UK more infantry if they were set on removing the Sea Lion option from your toolbelt….(I’m not happy there either).

Buy making them “casualties” to “balance” UK resulted in this:
Now you the attacker select your aagun fire, of if you have cheaper (starting unit) fighters, you never have to take off the bomber which is +2 to damage (seriously, not sure why you need bonus damage for a piece that only costs 12 IPCs, so I now need 5 instead of 7 bombers to deliver the 20 IPC max assuming 1 bomber is shot down each raid…12 IPCs for 20 damage bombers are too cheap.

Due to low cost, bombers trump navies in terms of cost of pieces lost per engagement when you have enough to end the battle in one combat round the defender will miss with 30 percent of his units on average.

So lets look at just defending fighters vs attacking bombers as most navies use carrier based planes to defend themselves.

12 defending fighters will miss 4 times, killing 8 of the 18 bombers needed to hit 12 planes. 1210=120, 812=96. So even when planes are cheaper than bombers, you still come out ahead when your bombers stack is large enough for a 1 combat round “1 shot”. Now add in the costs of carriers, and as long as you have enough hits to sink them (as they need 2 hits) the math gets better as long as average dice are rolled, for those low luck players (which I will never be) a bomber strategy is even better as you won’t face larger than expected losses.

Lets look at this US navy: 1,trn,1 dd, 5 carriers, 10 planes. I need 21 hits to remove that navy in 1 combat round which you can do with 32 bombers (the Most I have seen in a live game is 27 (because that game ended round 7 with 8 European cities)). The single transport is assumed to be there or the navy is toothless for taking land)
That navy costs 7+8+80+120=225 IPCs, 32 bombers=32*12=384 IPCs (or less than 8 German turns of production at 4 bombers a turn)
To sink that 225 IPC navy will cost you 2 bombers for the dd and carriers and round up to 7 bombers for 10 fighters…9 bombers costs 108 IPCs.
Note, how often does the US only send 1 transport to capture Berlin…add in the cost of more transports and their troops cheapest is 13 IPCs for each 2 infantry…that gives Germany the time to gets its bombers. And if those transports are sunk, the cost for allies rises.

The only barrier is the start up time to get 32 bombers…note, you can cheat. Here is how:
Can’t get 32 bombers? build 24 bombers and 8 subs, you now hit 14-15 times instead of 21 so you lose 1 bomber turn 1, and the surviving 7 fighters will kill 5 bombers if they get lucky round 2…so 6 bombers and 8 subs costs: 120 Ipcs for the 225 IPCS USA just lost.

The bomber strategy gives you speed early game, and mid game with your increased production you simply produce your support units to preserve your bomber investment…this means march into Russia, pause and build infantry out of captured Russian factories…when Europe faces invasion begin producing cheap subs as fodder in the safety of z113-z115 as air units cannot strike them and Italy can clear blocking Destroyers. With a large enough bomber stack and sufficient mech infantry, Moscow falls without bomber losses, then lands in range of allied fleet in the Atlantic/Med. Now your subs assure fewer Bomber losses when removing the allied navy…Too late, they already landed…once again a few staged mech, with that preserved bomber stack simply clear the board of that navy’s land forces.

Desperate? 32 bombers will remove 21 infantry for a cost of 7 bombers…63 IPCs for infantry (plus 77 IPCs for the 11 transports to deliver them) in exchange for 84 IPCs. Now they need more transports and men to follow up, or it takes 2 turns to refill giving you time to build the supporting land units.

Insult to injury…if allies go Europe first, Japanese bombers will be in theater able to strike by turn 6…so Germany can soften up the navy going 1 round if it is too big, and Japan finishes off damaged carriers whose planes have landed elsewhere at a rate of 3 carriers per Japanese bomber lost. (turn 3 land 7 bombers in Kweichow, turn 4 land in German occupied Ukraine, turn 5 land in S.Italy or W.Germany then add 3 bombers a turn). If they went Europe first, Japan will likely end the game by round 11 at the latest even sending just 3 bombers a turn to Europe.

[Auswanderersland]

Operation dark sky has begun with ghr2, I would play more than one game at a time, but I simply have too much crap in my life to play more than one game at a time and to really play it and think about the moves.

I hope others begin to experiment with this strat and give us feedback.  I am curious to see if the community comes to the same conclusion or if there is a counter and I just noobed it.

[allweneedislove]

JamesAleman and i have just started a game.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=31303

[JamesAleman]

Thank you for playing me, I look forward to seeing what you do.

I am not saying this is an automatic win, I will be pleased if you defeat me, so that this doesn’t “break” the game.

If it does, I sure hope they pick me as an “out of the box” play tester seeing as Andy and I introduced Operation Hollywood back in the 2004 Revised game, and I feel Krieg may have used my early questions about Canada and KAF questions to influence the Alpha rule that permitted USA to enter the war if axis control any of Canada. I know I also tossed the separate board VC conditions out there in response to people throwing all their weight on one board. (not saying I was the only one or the first to mention it, but that too was in later Alpha rules.)

Prior to that Canadian rule change, it was possible for Germany to secure Alberta turn 3 (with a tank you took Alaska and British Columbia, turn 4 lol), land the Japanese air force there turn 3 (when launched from Soviet Far East-taken turn 1-air base and air force placed turn 2), then build a German air base turn 4 and land all of Japan’s planes in German controlled Eire turn 4. From Alberta they could clear the capital or under defended East and West coast fleets. Either way, you had the whole Japanese air force on the Europe map to strafe London, attack USA, or delay allied navy in the Atlantic as a variant move.

[BJCard]

You need to look at the money you are spending as well;

For example, you have 12 bombers at a cost of 144 IPCs;  The Allies have 18 DDs at a cost of 144 IPCs;  The bombers only have a 33% chance of winning!

If it was a mixed fleet-

2 CV
4 Ftr
2 Cruisers
6 DDs
(144 IPCs)

Its even worse for the bombers- only a 23% chance of winning.

We can go bigger if you want - in your example of 32 Bombers - 384 IPCs

32 Bombers vs. 48 DDs - Bombers have a 27% chance of winning.

But- no one buys that many DDs;  Lets try a mixed navy:

6 CVs
12 Ftrs
6 Cruisers
12 DDs
(384 IPCs)

The bombers lose pretty bad here too - 14% chance of winning.

These are all done by the Triplea calculator.  So, an equal amount of IPCs spent on Navy and bombers end badly for the bombers.  I do agree the bombers give great flexibility, but I think the Allies can create a Navy to withstand it if they spend IPC for IPC.  The Allies also need to be fairly aggressive (as much as they can be) because when Germany has that kind of air power, they have no land power.

The Allies could afford to drop a few of those DDs for Transports to get troops to Europe/Africa.  Germany would be suicidal to throw away all those bombers to attempt to kill the Allied Navy.

[JamesAleman]

You are assuming you can spend IPC for IPC and that also assumes if you do, you are ignoring Japan. You also need to produce transports and men at some point. You are also not including the “free” IPCs that Germany and Japan have when compared to USA in terms of starting pieces. Thats 5 fighters, 5 tacticals, 2 bombers, bb, cv, ca, 1-2 subs, vs likely zero US starting pieces since ignoring Japan is not advisable turn 1. Lets not mention the Japanese navy of 2bb,2ca,3cv,4dd,2subs and 11fighters, 8 tacticals, and 2 bombers in free pieces when compared with USA’s bb,3ca,cv,3dd,2sub,6fighters,tactical, and bomber. I always see most of the starting USA go towards Japan.

And the biggest thing is this, you never attack with bombers, unless you have enough to ensure 1 combat round, never, ever, ever unless the second round is low hits and the mission requires a “non optimum” strike.

Therefor I will not attack unless I will win and win in only 1 combat round. To do so, risks too much of your bomber force and is a desperate move.

Remember USA is fighting a two front war, they cannot match German bomber builds, without ignoring Japan slightly, and Even though Germany has 3 fronts, these bombers cover all three, so I take turns, first I capture moscow, then I capture London, then I’ll sink the fleet. Or I capture London, then Moscow, then fleet. Or I go fleet, London, then Moscow…etc. Normally axis forces are slow moving land units committed to one theater. The bombers (when preserved by starting fodder) are free to redeploy each turn after they complete there task at hand.

Each round the bomber stack grows, the threat to all three fronts grows…London must balance pressure on navy, London, and Egypt. Moscow must balance pressure on land force, bombing, and protecting its production by leaving men in the rear or falling back to the capital. USA must balance bomber forces by Japan and Germany, and still prevent Japan from getting to 60+ IPCs while containing Germany.

So yes, IPC for IPC bombers come up short, but my whole point has been Germany and Japan start with too many “free” pieces that the bomber concept creates a “shortcut” for you production to skew a normal timeline and shave turns off of a game. I literally captured Moscow on turn 5 (I should have survived with a tank and 7 bombers, but I still had a tank and 3 bombers (fighters were in africa and that was a mistake) And that was because I was not patient. If I advance over the Russian factories my task is complete, Russia is gimped, I outproduce their fodder with my own and my bombers move to S. Italy to Threaten London and Egypt while I wait for “good weather”. The speed of the bombers is why with this map and this starting set up, the game is perhaps broken.

Each bomber built in W.Germany can hit Moscow the following turn and land in Bryansk or any of the other 4 territories surrounding Moscow. Same if staged in Southern Italy…but what is killer, is even 12 bombers defending at 1’s prevents your starting pieces from being counter attacked (because the 14 Italian land units and 3 planes take the soil to land German air on), Yes you won’t remove bombers the first combat round, but they will give you 2 more hits…and force your opponent to think twice, at some point you will take off bombers to keep the 10 fighters/tacticals rolling 3’s and 4’s more times…I know defending with bombers is not wise, but on a stack that consists of 81 pieces…it will work and it breaks the battle calculator cause it will tell the ally they will lose since it takes off bombers 1st round…calling into doubt the battle calculator and the opponents psychology.

[Derek]

Yeah I think BJcard missed the point

Germany should, I assume, and you did talk about it, be purchasing submarines and infantry whenever starting forces get too low, and/or an objective is near

Again I think this more shows the deficiency of AAA rather than the strength of bombers, but that’s just me

[BJCard]

@JamesAleman:

You are assuming you can spend IPC for IPC and that also assumes if you do, you are ignoring Japan. You also need to produce transports and men at some point. You are also not including the “free” IPCs that Germany and Japan have when compared to USA in terms of starting pieces. Thats 5 fighters, 5 tacticals, 2 bombers, bb, cv, ca, 1-2 subs, vs likely zero US starting pieces since ignoring Japan is not advisable turn 1. Lets not mention the Japanese navy of 2bb,2ca,3cv,4dd,2subs and 11fighters, 8 tacticals, and 2 bombers in free pieces when compared with USA’s bb,3ca,cv,3dd,2sub,6fighters,tactical, and bomber. I always see most of the starting USA go towards Japan.

And the biggest thing is this, you never attack with bombers, unless you have enough to ensure 1 combat round, never, ever, ever unless the second round is low hits and the mission requires a “non optimum” strike.

Therefor I will not attack unless I will win and win in only 1 combat round. To do so, risks too much of your bomber force and is a desperate move.

Remember USA is fighting a two front war, they cannot match German bomber builds, without ignoring Japan slightly, and Even though Germany has 3 fronts, these bombers cover all three, so I take turns, first I capture moscow, then I capture London, then I’ll sink the fleet. Or I capture London, then Moscow, then fleet. Or I go fleet, London, then Moscow…etc. Normally axis forces are slow moving land units committed to one theater. The bombers (when preserved by starting fodder) are free to redeploy each turn after they complete there task at hand.

Each round the bomber stack grows, the threat to all three fronts grows…London must balance pressure on navy, London, and Egypt. Moscow must balance pressure on land force, bombing, and protecting its production by leaving men in the rear or falling back to the capital. USA must balance bomber forces by Japan and Germany, and still prevent Japan from getting to 60+ IPCs while containing Germany.

So yes, IPC for IPC bombers come up short, but my whole point has been Germany and Japan start with too many “free” pieces that the bomber concept creates a “shortcut” for you production to skew a normal timeline and shave turns off of a game. I literally captured Moscow on turn 5 (I should have survived with a tank and 7 bombers, but I still had a tank and 3 bombers (fighters were in africa and that was a mistake) And that was because I was not patient. If I advance over the Russian factories my task is complete, Russia is gimped, I outproduce their fodder with my own and my bombers move to S. Italy to Threaten London and Egypt while I wait for “good weather”. The speed of the bombers is why with this map and this starting set up, the game is perhaps broken.

Each bomber built in W.Germany can hit Moscow the following turn and land in Bryansk or any of the other 4 territories surrounding Moscow. Same if staged in Southern Italy…but what is killer, is even 12 bombers defending at 1’s prevents your starting pieces from being counter attacked (because the 14 Italian land units and 3 planes take the soil to land German air on), Yes you won’t remove bombers the first combat round, but they will give you 2 more hits…and force your opponent to think twice, at some point you will take off bombers to keep the 10 fighters/tacticals rolling 3’s and 4’s more times…I know defending with bombers is not wise, but on a stack that consists of 81 pieces…it will work and it breaks the battle calculator cause it will tell the ally they will lose since it takes off bombers 1st round…calling into doubt the battle calculator and the opponents psychology.

No, I get the fact that you wouldn’t attack with your bombers unless you will win in one round.  Your bombers cannot attack everywhere- even if they threaten plenty of places.  It will take a while to build up a large enough bomber force, so the Allies can have a formidable Navy by then.  With Italy supplying a turn or so of IPCs to land units, the UK owns the Med/Africa.  Have you tried an Allied Mid East Strat?

You have both England and the US building a fleet- not hard to match what Germany is building in Bombers every turn, and have the US build in the Pacific.  If Germany is buying 4 bombers/round, then that’s only 48 IPCs that both England and the US have to match (or 16 attack ‘pips’ to defend)  When your bombers are in Bryansk, there’s no threat from them against Allied Navies.  Additionally, depending on the German and Russian play it will be hard to hold Bryansk by turn 4- Even on turn 5 your bombers will be vulnerable with no German land backup.  I have this image of the German army in the east with no land forces west of Poland, only bombers (when they aren’t in bryansk).

You don’t have to beat Japan, just prevent them from winning (Prevent Australia and Hawaii loss), if you are playing a KGF game.  It doesn’t seem like Japan is going for the win if they are fighting Russia anyway- looks like they are trying to help Germany win on the Europe side.  Germany will have little land units due to all the bomber purchases;  I kind of shudder to think how easily Allied troops can get to Berlin with little land troops there.

Of course as I say all of this, I do acknowledge that this game is skewed Axis already, so the bomber strat may be working because of this.  Just trying to play devil’s advocate.  I am very interested to see how your forum games go.

[BJCard]

@Uncrustable:

Yeah I think BJcard missed the point

Germany should, I assume, and you did talk about it, be purchasing submarines and infantry whenever starting forces get too low, and/or an objective is near

Again I think this more shows the deficiency of AAA rather than the strength of bombers, but that’s just me

That’s not really what he said, at least what I got out of it, he was talking about 30+ German Bombers.  You cannot buy bombers, submarines, and land forces and reach a number like 30 bombers without playing 10+ rounds.

[JamesAleman]

The 30 bombers was a hypothetical meant to demonstrate the hitting power of that many bombers as an example. In my games I seldom exceed 20 bombers, because I do build a few units each round….4 bomber=48 if you are in the 50’s I build a mech or two, Once I have Russian factories I switch to 36 ipcs a turn for 9 mech…that leaves maybe 1 bomber a turn or a couple of subs if needed.

[BJCard]

Ok, fair enough. So it is a bit of a balanced build, just a bomber or two per round?

[JamesAleman]

First 4 rounds all bombers and 1 carrier….later a bomber or two plus a few mech as needed

[elevenjerk]

Sounds very devastating:)

I actually believe the game is broken because of the VC conditions.  When you render one entire side of the board irrelevant, what is the point in playing Global?  I think the victory conditions should be that axis or allies win when the other surrenders.  People will argue that it would make the game too long.  I say, play something else.  I think the best part about this game is the scenarios that arise late in the game.  You have to play on instinct and strategy on the fly at that point.

Just my 2 cents though it may not even be worth that much:)