• '12

    Attrition via shore bombardment can work I guess in some situations, it seems the situation Gargantua cited is probably one of the best times to use this.  In particular, you use the equipment you have and is more predictable than AA shots and SBRs, escort fighters can change the dynamics drastically, I rarely use that rule.

    Shore bombardment via Inf+Art supported by 2 CC gives a punch of 10, statistically killing 1 2/3 units, assuming infantry about 5 IPC for the consumption of 7 IPC.  That would not make a great strategic goal from the outset in a ‘general’ setting but at Gargantua’s stage of the game and what it is going to force in a few rounds is a great tactical effort in this local theatre.

    Using SBRs gives you a ratio of 12 to 17.5 on average against an AA protected target versus 7 to 5.  You do more economic damage with SBRs than shore bombardment.  Of course the defense to SBRs is to just build elsewhere if you can or build every other round which will reduce the per turn average of what your bombers can do.  Having them sit there for a round waiting for an IC to be repaired to bomb is like money not earning interest whereas shore bombardments keep chipping away.  Of course bombers cannot defend fleets either.

  • bombers just sitting there??  what game are you playing?

    Won a game of anniversary Friday because my opponent was dead set on SBRing me.  He sent his Russian bomber against Italy because it didn’t have an aa gun.  I told him he should have sent it against finland, killing 6ipcs of inf and capturing 2 ipcs.  Ground attacks are ALWAYS better than SBR because you can make money /and/ kill units.

  • '12

    I play spring 42 a fair bit as the axis, that is what game I play.  Bombers can always be used as long as your opponent co-operates and leaves lots of targets around to be smoked my your mass of bombers.  I however do my best not to co-operate with the strategy of my opponent.  I will stack some territories so carefully that you would gut your self amphibious assaulting them.  While other territories are left wide open to dead zone and have very few infantry sitting there to be amphibious assaulted supported by battleship/cruiser shots double supported by fleet defense fighters and triple supported with bombers.   When I see 3 infantry in a dead zone I attack with 2 usually and maybe 3 and lots of air power so I leave little behind for the bombers to attrit.

    So, the allies have tried SBR ing me to death as Germany and went heavy investment in bombers.  At times I faced both Germany and Southern Europe with close to max damage on the ICs but was in a fine defensive posture otherwise.  So rather than take the damage from Ger from 19 damage to 3 so I could build 7 infantry I build NOTHING that round and don’t leave lots of targets around for the 8-9 allied bombers tasked with SBR’ing the snot out of Germany.  So therefore they sit idle until the next round when I spend 19 to repair Germany and purchase 10 tanks.

    I agree, ground attacks that bombers will make a difference on are a better use of the bomber than an SBR.  So, you want to take a deadzone territory from Germany, you have a battleship shot, a cruiser shot, the 4 fighters sitting on the carriers and you are landing 3 Infantry to kill 2.  Do you think those bombers are going to get the battle over that much quicker so it saves you money in the form of fewer casualties?

    Sure, if you forgo an attack of 3 infantry on 2 to capture a territory worth 2 because you would rather not use the 3 infantry at all and the bomber only to net you an average of 3.5 on an undefended IC you have made a rather poor choice.  Is this typical of the opponents you play that a single 1 bomber attack on the wrong target won you the game based on the difference of a few IPC?

  • Well, Cruisers did support other ships in World War 2, so maybe they can support other ships on offense like this:

    Cruiser + transport = Transport attacks @ 1

    Cruiser + Destroyer = Destroyer attack @ 3

    Cruiser + Aircraft carrier = Aircraft carrier attacks @ 1

  • '12

    Pairing a cruiser and a destroyer and upgrading the destroyer to an attack of 3 or even on defense of 3 sounds pretty reasonable, but no both.

    Don’t carriers already attack on a 1?

    I don’t think you want to have transports involved in combat in any way.

  • For the naval unit paring idea I would suggest just the CV/CA paring.  Basically this would give players incentive to build CV fleets with CA’s in support, or BB/dd fleets for amphib assaults.  There’s a good chance however that this rule change would promote CA purchases on a 1-1 ratio with carriers.

    USN abbreviations: DD-destroyer
    CA-heavy crusier

  • Just to stop the confusion

    DD = destroyer

    CG = Cruiser
    CC = Cruiser

    CV = Aircraft Carrier

    AC = Nothing in A&A
    CA = Nothing in A&A


  • LOL

  • @Gargantua:

    Here’s a question,

    How often do people REALLY buy Battleships?  maybe, once or two a game, as Japan or USA?

    I certainly don’t think I’ve ever seen a player in a normal game have more than 4.

    Perhaps Battleships are overpriced?

    And maybe you should also consider, that Cruisers aren’t overpriced, but that subs, destroyers, fighters, and bombers. are _under_priced?


    I play against a lot of players who have less experience, and they like to buy a bunch of battleships as the United States. As Japan, I tend to avoid the American fleets as much as possible. As the Germans and Italians, it is much more difficult to avoid the American fleet. What’s the best defense against BBs?

    Another house rule for cruisers is adding torpedoes, allowing them a surprise attack much like subs. During WW2 there were a fair amount of cruisers with torpedo capabilities.

  • Battleships can be a good buy when you need alot of defence produced at a small industrial complex.

  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    a few subs and AIR POWER will make mince meat of a battleship fleet in seconds.  Whilst giving you the maximum effectiveness on both land and sea, and the longer reaching  arm.

    The burden of defence will rest on your enemy.  NOT you.  The battleship’s weakness is it’s range.

  • Battleships are sitting ducks without the proper # of supporting units to take the hits for it so the BB can be around long enough to get those hits you need it to roll.

  • '12

    The whole reason people buy battleships is to take the hits.  60 IPC to get 3 fours fighting for you is a losing strategy.

  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Battleships are good for STRAFING attacks, an Axis and Allies naval tactic, not used often enough.

  • '12

    While I agree that Strafing attacks are not used often enough, it does require a willing enemy.  You really only should get one strafing attack.  Your enemy moves to within 3 spaces, can’t strafe yet, next round 2 spaces with a blocking destroyer between or next door.  The enemy fleet should never be there if it can’t take a strafe then attack.  This alone probably delays the attacker 1+ rounds, in of itself perhaps enough to justify a heavy investment in battleships.  However, during the BB buildup, unless that strafe tactic is working for you round after round the CV+Ftr builds might be better.

    Gotta love all the scenarios where this works better than that except for this!

  • 2022 '15 '11 '10 Official Q&A Moderator

    Less talk
    More gaming

  • TripleA '12

    Hey guys, what exactly is a strafing attack? Many thanks.

  • Customizer


    Hey guys, what exactly is a strafing attack? Many thanks.

    From what I understand, it’s basically you having a fleet in home waters with a functional naval base and the enemy moves his fleet one space from you. You take your fleet and hit his fleet for just one quick round of combat, then retreat to the safety of your naval base and scramble fighters. With any luck, you will cause more damage to his fleet than to yours, plus his fleet is far away from a naval base so his capital ships can’t be repaired as easily, while yours can. Hopefully, most of the hits you suffer will be the 1st hit on your battleships which can be repaired at your naval base. Even if all you do is cause the first hit on his battleships, it’s harder for him to get repaired as his naval base is far away.
    I think this only usually happens in cases where you might throw out a blocker for the enemy fleet to deal with before they can attack your main fleet. For Example: the US Navy coming from the base in Hawaii to attack the Japanese Navy in SZ 6. If Japan throws a destroyer out to SZ 16, the US fleet will have to stop to deal with that first and be stuck in SZ 16, allowing the Japanese fleet to “strafe” it. I can’t really think of any other place that might work.

  • Strafing is anytime you attack but don’t intend to roll more than 1 or maybe 2 rounds of dice.  The intention is not to win the territory but to cause damage to the opposing side without losing your own valuable units.  In a naval strafe you might inflict losses on the other side but you absorb any hits with battleships or carriers.  Strafing is tricky when there are only a few units on either side so naval strafing is a rare phenomenon probably best left to the experts.  It could work well if you can retreat next to an airbase for protection while your damaged capital ships are still vulnerable, and a naval base to repair them at the start of your next turn.  J6 would be a good example.

    Another time to strafe is when you are attacking from two or more territories and you want to retreat all the attacking forces to one of them.  For example on G1 some people will attack Yugoslavia from Southern Germany and Romania for 1 round of dice and then retreat everything to Romania, effectively moving the Southern Germany infantry units 2 territories.  Sometimes you might even go so far as to attack with 1 less unit than the defender has to make absolutely sure that you don’t get “lucky” and actually take the territory when all you really want is the mobility.  It can be a very useful tactic when playing Russia.

  • I would say you can have as many rounds of dice throwing as needed, just so long as you don’t conquer the square.  It can be the only way to hold on to Moscow sometimes, to straffe that major German stack that just moved next to moscow.

  • @JimmyHat:

    It can be the only way to hold on to Moscow sometimes, to straffe that major German stack that just moved next to moscow.

    Always fun, that one.  You lose 10 Infantry, replace it with 10.  They lose 9 infantry.  Whoops, theres a nice swing in odds.

  • and sometimes you can use it to get your men from South Ukraine or wherever back to Moscow in a pinch

  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Typically you can use strafes in situations where you face a coordinated attack from several locations.

    You are able to obliterate a medium opposing stack, whilst maintaing the position you want, and preventing your opponent from succeeding in his plan.

    Alot of people don’t account for the fact that you might attack them, only to retreat.

    The strafe is also an excellent tool to use, when you plan on building into your force anyways, and even more so, when after the said attack, many of your units previously tipped, will be healed by your next turn.

    Suddenly your opponent went from having a superior navy on his turn, to having a damaged, and inferior navy, out of position, facing off against a superior strike force.

    By the old rules, when battleships healed at the end of a combat round, this was particularily devestating.  If you managed to muster 4 to 6 battleships, and you found ways to hold on to the initiative, you were practically invincible.

  • Gargantua is right–in 1942 BB’s were THE unit–not only for strafing but for general attacks.

    Regarding strafing, I know I don’t take it into account enough. It can be useful in certain situations.

  • Customizer

    lets say you’ve destroyed the German navy

    you want to add defense to your fleet

    but buying a destroyer is useless because the anti sub ability does nothing for you

    buying a BB is not good because you don’t want to spend 20 or more on a giant unit, you only want a little bit more protection. (does anyone actually BBs anymore btw? i’ve never seen a purchase except by new players)

    so you buy a cruiser, since you get a little more defense against air attacks, and you get that free bombardment

    I do this with the atlantic fleets for UK and USA all the time, and I expect this to be no different whether AA50 or Global or Europe

    I would never price them at 10 as that is way too cheap, and giving +1 move is too big of an advantage. 
    A mass of cheaper units should always beat a mass of more expensive units, and I’ve held this as a A&A principal, so Destroyers should always be the “better” buy compared with cruisers, and cruisers should be roughly equal to BBs.

    I will always still buy them at 12, and I think the perfect price would be 11.5, so I am ok with 11 or 12.

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys