• Is it worth trying the strategic bombing if the bomber(s) are not doing anything this turn?


  • @mrsoccerchessman:

    Is it worth trying the strategic bombing if the bomber(s) are not doing anything this turn?

    I say no. 3 ipc damage per bomber on average. Bombers are 15 ipc, 1 in 6 chance they get shot down. Average of 15/6 -2.5 ipc lost. Now these are averages. So if you were allowed to run 1,000s of SBRs, you would average a marginal gain of .5 ipc a bomber/turn. However, whenever only doing a handleful of SBRS with one bomber, you may only run one mission, and get shot down on the first try. Not worth it. I will do SBRs if I am at the end game against moscow or berlin, to wear down the enemy.


  • I don’t know - I’ve never really been into SBR, but my F2F buddy does them all the time.  In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever shot him down (obviously it’s just the luck of the dice).  But I can tell you that he surely hurts my budget each round!

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    If you get shot down, no.  If you do 6 damage to England before UK 1, yes.

    Depends on how risky you want to be.


  • :-)
    I find that it is both less risky to bomb troops in a battle that has no FlaK defending and a more productive mission if they kill 2 or 3 units, than a strat run where I may get 1 to 6 hits of their IPCs.  :wink:


  • The only time i would do it is a double up race to Moscow with Japan and Germany BOTH hitting Soviets and the game was a race to get Moscow or lose France. Its used only as the final push to break down Soviet economy. Other than that i never use it against Transports but nearly always use it against Naval targets and land targets.

    The OOB AA gun rules ruin the game, they should not get hit 1 out of 6… Thats ridiculous since you basically never have more than 1-3 bombers. Id either reduce them in cost, or reduce the AA


  • @Imperious:

    The OOB AA gun rules ruin the game, they should not get hit 1 out of 6… Thats ridiculous since you basically never have more than 1-3 bombers. Id either reduce them in cost, or reduce the AA

    Yeah, but the OOB rules also have economy-crushing Heavy Bombers and no territory turn limits, so bomber strategies exist.


  • If fighters are already plentiful for needed pitched battles and/or swaps, then yes, bomb their key capital even vs AA.
    On average a fighter should live 5 missions before being shot, and do 17.5 IPC damage. 6 less inf to beat is much more than the attack contribution of the bomber kept waiting for that final moment.
    Even better, this circumvents multi-attacker’s disadvantage, so, say, Germany can specialize on bombing Moscow (2 bombers every turn) and Japan assaults it better than if Germany sent a barely (in)sufficient siege/assault force.


  • A lot of folks write off SBR’s entirely because they only net an expected 5/12 IPC gain per raid.  Based on this analysis, it’s pretty much always better to send your bomber into combat if at all possible (if you save an infantry, that’s better than 7 bombing runs!) and maybe SBR if you have absolutely nothing else to do.

    However, the simple expected-value calculation misses an important point: Even if SBR’s end up essentially trading equal amounts of your money with the opponent’s in the long run, sometimes that’s advantageous–basically, when you’re a stronger power beating up on a weaker power.  If my Germans have an income of 40 and the Russians have an income of 20, would I trade 20 of my IPC’s for 20 of theirs?  Darn straight!  Heck, I’d probably trade 30 of mine for 20 of theirs!  Similarly, it can make sense for the USA to invest in strategic bombing raids on Germany.  Swapping equal numbers of American IPC’s for German IPC’s should make any Allied player’s mouth water.  America’s supply lines are so long that this is often the quickest way for them to start having an impact on Germany anyway.

    To sum up, there are several factors that can make SBR’s worthwhile despite the low expected net income gain:
    —Relative incomes (if you’re much richer than an opponent, losing money hurts you less)
    —Geography (if your supply lines are very long, SBR’s get you into the game faster)
    —Magister’s point about multi-attacker disadvantage is very important!  This is another reason the USA is a natural candidate to be the bombing experts.


  • OK with a UK/US division of labour to reduce multi-attacker’s disadvantage, but I’d do it the other way !
    England has a limit of 8 units production and often limited income too, so better they swap coasts and bomb (and a little inf+arty first strike doesn’t hurt either). US can gather the big assault army with 11 units per turn (4 transports x2 + 3 from Norway factory)
    Another good bombing opportunity is a new Japanese factory unprotected by AA. Averages only 2.5 IPC = (1+2+3+3+3+3)/6 with a limit of 3 IPC, but no risk.

  • 2007 AAR League

    This debate has been going on for sometime, with no resolution.  Both sides have excellent arguments.  I have had just as much success with SBR as not.  Combining SBR with Rockets can be devestating.  As to your specific question, if the bomber has nothing else to do, then I will almost always send it on SBR.

    Give SBR a try, see if you like it.  It really boils down to personal preference.


  • I think SBR’s are a viable option as an overall strategy. I don’t like the occasional SBR when my Bomber has no target that turn as that always seems to lead to an AA hit.

    Remember if you purchase bombers for an SBR campaign it is not carved in stone that they cannot participate in other attacks as needed.


  • If Germany bid a sub in sz 8 and took out the entire British navy (save the canadian tran) in the Atlantic then churning out bombers is probably a better strategy than trying to rebuild your navy to a strength that you can start making landings. Especially if there is a baltic AC as well. There would be an iron cross over Moscow before you could land in Norway  :oops:

    As always this all depends on what else is going on on the board.


  • @Petrucci08:

    If Germany bid a sub in sz 8 and took out the entire British navy (save the canadian tran) in the Atlantic then churning out bombers is probably a better strategy than trying to rebuild your navy to a strength that you can start making landings. Especially if there is a baltic AC as well. There would be an iron cross over Moscow before you could land in Norway  :oops:

    As always this all depends on what else is going on on the board.

    And where would the Germans get enough forces to break Russia in 2-3 turns? 1 AC on G1 and that’s only 26 IPCs left for ground purchases.
    Meanwhile UK and US build each 1 AC and by UK3 Brits are landing on France/Norway/Algeria, or even before, depending on how G leaves her planes.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I’ve seen some very successful SBR campaigns.  (Usually directed at me instead of from me) so it is not a worthless option.  However, notice I said they are campaigns, not a single bomber, once in a while, attacking a complex (except when the complex is undefended by AA fire.)

    Honestly, AARe is more conducive to SBR campaigns, but that’s not to say that Classic or Revised is anti-SBR campaigns.

    To me, it is a campaign if you are running 5 bombers against a single nation. (No, they do not have to be of the same nationality, just targeting the same nation.  For instance, if Germany has 3 bombers and Japan 2 bombers, it would be a campaign if they all bombed the USSR each round - in my opinion.)

  • 2007 AAR League

    @Cmdr:

    I’ve seen some very successful SBR campaigns.  (Usually directed at me instead of from me) so it is not a worthless option.  However, notice I said they are campaigns, not a single bomber, once in a while, attacking a complex (except when the complex is undefended by AA fire.)

    Honestly, AARe is more conducive to SBR campaigns, but that’s not to say that Classic or Revised is anti-SBR campaigns.

    To me, it is a campaign if you are running 5 bombers against a single nation. (No, they do not have to be of the same nationality, just targeting the same nation.  For instance, if Germany has 3 bombers and Japan 2 bombers, it would be a campaign if they all bombed the USSR each round - in my opinion.)

    I seem to recall a very effective campaign you ran against me, 5 subs off W. US and Heavy Bombers with LRA escort from Hawaii neutralizing my fighter\AA umbrella.  20IPC damage to US each round. It was brutal!


  • And where would the Germans get enough forces to break Russia in 2-3 turns? 1 AC on G1 and that’s only 26 IPCs left for ground purchases.
    Meanwhile UK and US build each 1 AC and by UK3 Brits are landing on France/Norway/Algeria, or even before, depending on how G leaves her planes.

    it would take more than 3 turns to build up a force capable of withstanding the German air/naval hit + enough men to start trading on the front.

    And I didn’t mean Russia would be fully destroyed, merely well on the way.

    Make an interesting test scenario. R1 standard Wrus/Ukr attacks. G1 standards + sz 2. then really starting on B1.

Suggested Topics

  • 6
  • 11
  • 97
  • 16
  • 15
  • 7
  • 24
  • 9
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

40

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts