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


  • Thank you for your interest. Let me explain the erratic play in the first test game:

    I am illustrating concepts discussed in this thread, all in this 1 game, thus it is erratic.

    1. bombers can easily change theater in 1 turn:
          I placed 3 German bomers in Asia and as predicted allies were forced to place 5+ ships on the altar of sacrifice to the bombers which never needed to fire a shot or be used, just to block for the allied navy in the Pacific. Japan could have air strafed those 5 destroyers at a cost of 2 or 3 fighters. Japan sent bombers to moscow then went back to asia….quick redelpoyment, not necessary this game but done to illustrate it.

    2. German bombers are over powered: I abandoned Africa with Italy and kept Japan small to show Berlin can win without help…(except the italian can opener and turn 1 builds) Imagine if you play Japan and I was Germany…point made

    3. Russia will fall turn 5 if they try to build and defend their factories. Point made. I walked past factory defenders and mopped them up later.

    4. Bombers force non conventional play, Moscow tried conventional, it failed, USA went bombers. Point made

    5. Allies cant build a fleet large enough to hold against bombers and still threaten major landings…Germany can choose to engage navy or landings.  Allied navy will vacate or die in next 3 rounds see Novgorod air force and three more 5 bomber builds…pending… point made and being made

    6)based in W.Germany/S.Italy I threaten all points…point made. He must defend London, navy and Egypt.

    1. air can clear land and land can occupy empty zones…pending…Japan and Italy vs China.

    I ate my words predicting turn 9 win, Japan could not take Egypt turn 8. Concept shown, but failed this game.

    Now, I warned my gracious volunteer of my intentions and strategy, It is hard to prepare your first time…Will you do better? Maybe, but I have not shown the other defenses this has beaten.

    My goal is to build 4 more times, then assault the weaker (or maybe both): London and Egypt for the win…What is that? turn 10-11?
    I have enough land units heading to Egypt. I want 12-14 more bombers for the final assault. I will likely build 2 more carriers then 6 transports as well…wait and see.


  • @wheatbeer:

    I would like to see how this strategy plays out. James and Auswanderersland, are either of you interested in starting another test game?

    love too, but unlike JJ, I am only comfortable playing 1 game at a time.  Sometimes 2 if its a weekend game or something like that.  I am sure JJ and/or myself will be available soon enough.

    And for anyone else out there, I am willing to play Allies -no bid- for my counter ideas.  Allweneedislove gave me a few insights watching his game.  He did some things I hadn’t considered viable, however, he is giving me ideas.


  • I too have difficulty seeing the entire board on TripleA.  F2f can’t be beat.  Amen.  But if your best buddy lives 90 miles away…then there is TripleA!

    I use the battlemap skin at 65-75%.  It allows you to see quite a bit of the map for death from above.

    The thing you really need to watch for is bombers leaving america(or entering).  It is tough to see the wrap around sometimes, but if you are cognizant of it, you won’t miss it.  The last area I always forgot to scroll over is Africa-South America-New Zealand…you can do some crazy stuff down there to redeploy bombers, ships, etc.

    Hope that helps, and I am glad the community is helping trying to find a counter to this.  Any help is appreciated.


  • @AK_Grown:

    @Auswanderersland:

    /agree.  I am hoping someone helps me with this.  IDK, JJ is currently having his way with allweneedislove.  Allweneedislove is doing better than I the first time I played against this strat, but then he has the advantage of knowing what is coming.  IDK, I advertised for a player to play a game so hopefully someone will pipe up.

    My Saturday group is going to try this and see how it works out.  We have a guy who claims Allies cannot lose at all no matter the strategy, so I’m going to try it on him.

    Details on the game!!!


  • This is a post from Gamerman01 from Allweneedislove VS JJ’s game.

    "As far as playing you(JamesAleman), I am mildly interested, but trying to focus my A&A time on league games
    I don’t doubt that buying bombers is very effective for Germany, and I wouldn’t enjoy facing them
    The large increase in territories over previous versions of A&A makes movement even more valuable than it was before.  Also, before Anniversary, bombers cost 15 and now they are only 12, as you have also pointed out.  The +2 bombing damage is also nasty.  And the tactic of mostly bombers is sneaky because most players are used to not worrying too much about all air because traditionally, all air strikes against ground (and air) forces is a bad trade.  Traditionally.  When incomes were around 20-30, fighters cost 12, and bombers cost 15.  And you could get increased production and produce men for 2 IPC’s each.  You know, for those of us who have been playing for 20+ years, the things we learned from Classic still stick with us, I think, and sometimes to our detriment.

    Now you have 12 IPC bombers that can often fly 7 spaces instead of 6.  You have transports that are auto-kill, so you’re not losing 15 IPC bombers to ace rolls, with the defender’s transports sometimes even surviving.
    Perhaps you have found an exploit to Larry’s rule changes (I think on multiple occasions our revered game designer has failed to accurately anticipate all the ramifications of his changes - Global 1940 is Exhibit A) and bombers are too cheap.

    After all, when you play tech there are also 2 technologies that boost their capabilities even further.  (Thank goodness Larry finally saw the light and reduced LRA to +1, as I used to house rule it in AA50)

    Sorry, this is in a game thread - I’ll quit now."
    -Gamerman01

    It appears that he understands why its a nasty strat and he pretty much summarized it for us in a nutshell but what got me is this comment:

    “You know, for those of us who have been playing for 20+ years, the things we learned from Classic still stick with us, I think, and sometimes to our detriment.”

    This is the truth.  Operation Hollywood.  Crush Europe/Ignore Japan.  I remember when Dennis and I devised the original 1984 game counter to Germany by building the british Carrier and landing US planes on it.  JJ added on the Russia Norway crush with the tanks.  We all went to Gencon and mopped up everyone at that tournament.  Unfortunately, I got beat by a ten year old who could only roll ones.  I swear to God, he only rolled ones…/facepalm.  Then I went to sea for a very long time.  Punishment I suppose.

    Regardless, JJ and I make a point to challenge each other with crazy crap.  When we tried the bomber idea(with the allies) against Alsch91, it was a bit of a hail mary.  I mean we were playin the allies and it was dicey…I mean crazy dicey, and without a doubt one of my favorite games.  What floored me was Alsch91’s inhuman response time.  He would make a move literally within an hour of our post.  JJ and I would hash it out over a day or 2 trying to figure out how to put the hurt on.  But if you really want to view a great game…it is there, I will post it if I find that thing.

    I think the comment is insightful because we are all guilty of getting struck in a rut, but kudos to Allweneedislove…he may have provided insight to delaying…maybe stopping the German bombers.  Just needed a fresh angle to see some play I had neglected to see.


  • BTW,  the next year at Gencon…surprise! They all used the allied strat against us(I was at sea for that one)…and then at the next we went too…a few years later(I think I went to this one), they had implemented the bid system to fix the slight weight toward the Allies.


  • JJ and I considered going to Gencon with this strat to decimate the AxisandAllies 10yr olds for great vengeance! But neither of us are available.

    /sad panda


  • @Auswanderersland:

    JJ and I considered going to Gencon with this strat to decimate the AxisandAllies 10yr olds for great vengeance! But neither of us are available.

    /sad panda

    It’s ok Andy, they would be 30years old by now (1993-Milwaukee). Remember that tournament (when I advised the four of us to form two teams to shield us from dice-and you and Joel got knocked out after turn 1…lol) when I had more Japanese tanks on the board than Russian infantry, Dan’s Berlin was about to capture Russia and my Japanese were certainly going to capture if he survided, and the Judge called it for the allies, because he said “Japan Doesn’t have enough infantry”…6 tanks a round being placed, one more game turn and we were plundering Russia, and Japan didn’t have enough infantry on the board…Or the second year at Gen Con when we Got picked to play that “extra round” instead of advance to the finals, because of the odd number of teams, everyone was asleep for that midnight game, and I had to shove all the pieces while you guys snored…Dice will get you every time…

  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Hmm…

    I find this thread particularly interesting - in regards to bombers.

    We had this same discussion 5 years ago.

    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=13763.0;


  • @Gargantua:

    Hmm…

    I find this thread particularly interesting - in regards to bombers.

    We had this same discussion 5 years ago.

    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=13763.0;

    Thanks, good info on bombing and supplementing forces; but I don’t see a reference to German bomber builds as a main unit or strategy.


  • Why go straight to 15ipc before trying 13 or 14 first?


  • @Uncrustable:

    Why go straight to 15ipc before trying 13 or 14 first?

    Because it used to be 15 before I guess. I agree that if it comes to that, it should be adjusted to 13 or 14 first and not jump the gun.


  • ive used to play revised alot, and still do occasionally on GTO, bombers are almost never purchased at 15 IPC, way overpriced
    maybe 12 is too cheap, maybe not and AA guns just need some adjustment,

    i personally like bombers at 12, they are purchased in almost every game, but so are fighters and, in G40, tac bombers
    lets not get hasty and talk about nerfing bombers into nonexistence

    giving bombers +2 to dice in SBR is necessary to give reason to buy and use strat bombers over tac bombers, and it wouldnt make sense if tac bombers did the same average damage to facilities as strat bombers…
    maybe only give +1 to strat bombers and a -1 to tac bombers (with 1 being the low cap, that is if you roll a 1 you do 1 damage with tac bomber)


  • @Uncrustable:

    ive used to play revised alot, and still do occasionally on GTO, bombers are almost never purchased at 15 IPC, way overpriced
    maybe 12 is too cheap, maybe not and AA guns just need some adjustment,

    i personally like bombers at 12, they are purchased in almost every game, but so are fighters and, in G40, tac bombers
    lets not get hasty and talk about nerfing bombers into nonexistence

    giving bombers +2 to dice in SBR is necessary to give reason to buy and use strat bombers over tac bombers, and it wouldnt make sense if tac bombers did the same average damage to facilities as strat bombers…
    maybe only give +1 to strat bombers and a -1 to tac bombers (with 1 being the low cap, that is if you roll a 1 you do 1 damage with tac bomber)

    Its too early to talk about changes, first, lets play 12 or more games with this strategy, if the axis fail to lose, then consider changes such as IPC cost of bombers. Until then please be patient. I currently am playing 3 games, and I can maintain 3 games for a while by July I hope to have 6 or more games complete, with this first exhibition game being poorly managed to show the potential of Germany just by itself.

    First test game:
    Currently, I am matching USA with Germany in IPCs, however, the rest of the world is contributing towards the allies. Therefor, continued bomber builds are not likely during the end game, as I need to force the issue within the next 5 turns using fighters and ground troops…if I can’t, we’ll see if Japan needs to contribute on their side. Italy is at 24, while being convoyed for up to 10, if that is lifted and they get the +5 NO for no surface warships they will make a strong difference at 29 IPCs. I may get a chance to do a neutral crush (to drive them back into Egypt) as well if time permits. Even with a poorly played Japan and Italy, this is a very close game. Axis float at 7 cities out of 11 on the Europe side. Japan is weak, but not out if they return to home waters and redeploy that should take a minimum of 4 turns to become a threat. We’ll see if the allies remove them permanently.

    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=31303.new#new

  • '17 '16 '13 '12

    In this game James is referencing, I feel a well planned J1 would have done more damage. The Axis don’t stand a chance to take Egypt in the game and are greatly overpowered economically.


  • @Omega1759:

    In this game James is referencing, I feel a well planned J1 would have done more damage. The Axis don’t stand a chance to take Egypt in the game and are greatly overpowered economically.

    I didn’t want a strong Japan to win this game early, that wouldn’t prove the over powered nature of the air strategy. If Berlin can win while being “outproduced” on the Europe board by itself, it proves that the air campaign is broken. Berlin only has to outproduce Anzac and India to take Egypt, their remaining money is available to take London. Wait and see, in 4-7 turns we’ll know the answer. The allies are not in danger of winning on the Europe board, so Germany has time. They are 1 city away, if London or Egypt falls, that’s the game. Stay tuned. I am demonstrating that Economics are irrelevant unless you outproduce them 2 units to their 1 to have sufficient garrisons to defend both cities. They do not, at this time, have that much of a lead on Germany Economically.

  • '17 '16 '13 '12

    I can’t see London fall either with a solid UK income and the volume of US navy around, but I’m still watching!  :-D

  • '17 '16

    @Uncrustable:

    ive used to play revised alot, and still do occasionally on GTO, bombers are almost never purchased at 15 IPC, way overpriced
    maybe 12 is too cheap, maybe not and AA guns just need some adjustment, I Agree.
    i personally like bombers at 12, they are purchased in almost every game, but so are fighters and, in G40, tac bombers
    lets not get hasty and talk about nerfing bombers into nonexistence. I Agree.

    giving bombers +2 to dice in SBR is necessary to give reason to buy and use strat bombers over tac bombers, and it wouldnt make sense if tac bombers did the same average damage to facilities as strat bombers… I Agree.
    maybe only give +1 to strat bombers and a -1 to tac bombers (with 1 being the low cap, that is if you roll a 1 you do 1 damage with tac bomber)

    If Bombers need to be fix, I don’t think the main problem is in SBR. Because no matter the number, in each turn of SBR, every Bmbs is at risk 1/6 to be destroy by an AA.
    I don’t see why this specific aspect has a problem. The AA is at his strongest on the board.
    It is more about the escort and interception rules.
    And much more serious problem about projection of power in regular combat.
    How AAA and Inf or AAA + fighters+ Inf can be a good defensive counter-measure?


  • Just started reading this thread from the beginning.  Interesting idea, and it sounds plausible.  I’ve often thought strategic bombers should be reduced to an attack value of 1 in naval battles, for the sake of realism and historical accuracy mostly.  But, after reading this, something like that might be necessary just to keep bombers from completely taking over the game.

    I guess my problem is that focus too much on what would be historically realistic, which is probably why I frequently lose to strategies that involve something weird.  Building nothing but one type of unit would be included in my definition of “weird.”  Personally, I’m fond of gearing limits, similar to what you see in World in Flames, if anyone has ever played that.  Basically, you’d have to keep track of what you built on the previous turn, and could only build two more of a given type of unit than you did last turn.  I’d probably simplify it to three categories:  air units, land units, and naval units.  So, if you built two ships last turn, you could build four this turn, and six the next turn.  If you built no planes last turn, you could build two this turn.  So you couldn’t build all ships one turn, and then immediately reconfigure your production system to build all infantry the next.  But that’s probably way too much bookkeeping for a beer and pretzels game like A&A.

    Also, I want to experiment with factory output.  Instead of a specific number of units, maybe make minor ICs produce units whose cost equals 6 times the printed value of the territory in which they are located.  Major ICs would produce 10 times the value.  Okay, I’ll stop going off-topic now.  I can’t help it.  It’s a medical condition.  :-D


  • @almashir:

    Okay, I’ll stop going off-topic now.  I can’t help it.  It’s a medical condition.   :-D

    Damn, now i can’t discriminate against you because it’s a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Suggested Topics

  • 33
  • 3
  • 8
  • 5
  • 66
  • 66
  • 33
  • 6
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

34

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts