• I don’t get why people do SBRs. I mean, it dos not really do anything except lose some I.P.C.

  • Sponsor


    I don’t get why people do SBRs. I mean, it dos not really do anything except lose some I.P.C.

    That’s huge to some.

  • Well if you max out then the player has to pay to build units. Say to Russia. If Moscow gets bombed for 20 points. Now Russia has to pay 11 to even build one unit, much less more infantry. Say Russia has 30 well now it has 19 if it wants to build only 1 unit.

  • I can tell you that at least in the games we’ve played it has made a huge difference at crucial moments, playing a big part in helping to turn the tide of the war. For the Axis, being able to do an SBR on the UK or India is almost necessary to facilitate their capture - more IPCs spent on repairs to ICs means less infantry available for home defense. Same idea applies to a Russian invasion, especially once you get close to Moscow. On the other side, it can cause Germany to have fewer units at hand during an Operation Barbarossa, and it’s useful for the U.S. to use on Japan as well. To those powers starting off with relatively weak economies, such as Italy and ANZAC, being victim to a successful SBR is often the second to last nail in the coffin for them.

    Notice that I’ve just been referring to SBRs on ICs. To be honest with you, in my personal experience I haven’t had many instances in which I would rather dedicate one of my stat or tact bombers to a SBR on a sea or air base instead of using it in general combat. At most, you can do 6 points of damage to a base, and since they are considered operational at up to 2 points of damage, you can only hope to make your opponent pay 4 IPC per turn to get them back up and running.

    So, at least in my mind, SBRs are definitely worth it if you are using them on ICs, and are most effective on major ICs. However, when considering using them to hit bases it’s probably more worth your while to commit the rest of your strat and tact bombers to general combat. That’s my 2 cents.

  • I do agree. But you should br able to do Bombing raids on there units too so you could not only could lose I.P.C, but tanks and infantry.

  • It works when the other side is low on money and is facing imminent attack and needs to build infantry out of one particular IC (e.g. a capitol).

  • Sponsor

    Bombing raids on Lenningrad and the Ukraine will go along way when you begin your push toward Moscow.

  • IMHO I think SBRs are valuable when you want to make a final push, and you want the least amount of ground forces there as possible. In general SBRs are extremely imbalanced from an economical point of view. If any AA guns hit your bombers, you immediately lose 12 IPCs worth of valuable and versatile equipment. What I think should be the rule is that if your bomber is hit, it should not be able to participate in that SBR, not get destroyed. In reality the only thing that could destroy an entire bomber wing was a fighter squadron, AA guns could not kill 150+ bombers, especially as their positions were being destroyed by the bombs themselves. Maybe to reflect this, interceptors should be able to fire at a 2 instead of a 1.

  • I actually like SBR’ing the airbase on the UK.

    Why? Well, say you don’t hit 110 G1 but instead put 6 damage on the airbase and some on the IC. Do the carrier, 2 transport build and UK will sometimes freak out and forget to repair the airbase, meaning that G2 you don’t need to send nearly as many units at the fleet.

  • im actually scratching my head as to why wouldnt someone do SBR

  • '10


    I do agree. But you should br able to do Bombing raids on there units too so you could not only could lose I.P.C, but tanks and infantry.

    You can. It’s called attacking or strafing.

  • I think what he means is a “Strategic Unit Raid” where the units don’t get to fire back.

    Perhaps strats on a 1? With AA fire, it’s not close to worth it, but without AA…

  • People do it because the defence die of 1 is much less than the 2, 3 and 4s you’d otherwise be faced with
    Therefore the less ‘IPC’ gain compared to taking out units with your bombers is offset by the lower risk to them as well.

    Therefore you can hit the enemy even while the front is moving.

  • '12

    The difference with SBRs is that you are attacking future production versus pieces already on the board ready to do something.

    You shouldn’t be doing SBRs because your bombers only face a 1 each when attacking  an IC with an AA versus attacking land pieces unsupported by ground troops.  You do an SBR when there is really nothing for your bombers to do and they are not taken out of position by doing the SBR, and potential losses won’t dramatically affect your next move.  If you really really need both bombers for next rounds attack on a navy that is threatening you, then maybe you don’t risk losing a bomber in an SBR due to the fact it will prevent the planned next round attack on the said navy.

Suggested Topics

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