Hi! I just figured that there already seem to be pretty good summaries of LHTR vs. the original Revised rulebook. LHTR seemed like the best comparison point since those transport rules seemed to revert largely back to the timing in Classic.
Strategic Bombing vs. Offensive Power
-
The Russia Infantry Building Machine is perhaps the single greatest benefit the Allies have in the early rounds of A&A. Many popular strategies relate to crippling this INF machine by whittling away at Russian territories as quickly as possible… getting that Russian build rate down from 8 to 3, 4 or 5 as quickly as possible.
Germany is often in a position to “need” its bomber in order to meet certain combat needs, especially UK Naval. Japan likewise relies heavilly on air power to “quick seize” territories by obliterating all enemy forces the first round in order to keep as many of their minimal land forces preserved for subsequent rounds as possible.
But what about simply “reserving” those initial 2 bombers for strategic bombing rather than offensive combat use?
For Japan it is pretty easy to do, especially if the US is not thretening in the Pacific at all. But Japan’s bomber is not in range until Round 2, allowing Russia 2 full builds before the first bomb falls.
For Germany, the temptation to use that bomber on other targets is strong. But their bomber is the only one that can hit on round 1.
Have any of you “reserved” your Axis bombers for exclusive use for strategic bombing against Russia for as long as those bombers last?
That first German bombing will cost Russia an Infantry build in R2. Combined bombing will cost Russia from 1 to 4 Infantry each round, as long as the bombers survive their less than 17% chance of destruction per use; a IPC damage level that is on average equivalent to Japan seizing SFA, Yakut and Novo.
Russia loses from 10% to 50% of their economic strength, IN ADDITION to territory losses to Japan (and perhaps Germany).
By the end of Round 3, Russia could have as little as 6 IPC’s, a mere 2 INF to defend against dual Germany/Japan incursions east and west. Average per round losses of dual bombing is 7 IPC’s, 2-3 INF.
Yes, taking that German bomber out of the equation against UK/US naval forces means certain death for all other German air forces by the end of Round 2, but the fighters should be able to hold off Allied navy so that forces are not landing in Karelia until at least UK3. But Russia’s build will have been reduced by 1 or 2 INF for their R2 build, and their R3 build could be as small as 3 INF.
While this will not be a quick enough reduction to allow Germany to walk in freely, Germany will be able to inflict massive damage to Russia in G3 (before allied land forces arrive); losses Russia cannot replace.
-
in general, i won’t engage in a strategic bombing campaign. the economics of the situation are relatively simple:
an aa gun hits a bomber one in every six times. this costs the axis 15ipcs in losses.
the remaining 5 times that the bomber gets through it averages 3.5ipc damage per round. so a bomber does 3.5ipc x 5 rounds = 17.5ipc damage before it gets shot down.
so, by bombing russia, the axis actually does make a 2.5ipc profit every five rounds per bomber (or a 0.5ipc profit each round per bomber, or 1ipc for two bombers, etc.)
there are, however, three major problems with this situation. firstly is the unpredictability of the dice. that bomber is as likely to get shot down on the first bombing run as it is on the sixth (or the twelfth, or twentieth, if it gets that far!). this means that an sbr plan is as likely to fail before it can really get off the ground (because of an early aa hit) as it is to fail later on.
secondly is the opportunity cost of using the bomber for sbr. that bomber could be used in other (conventional) attacks to create a greater probability that a territory is taken. it is often important to “ensure” small battles in order to tip the economic scales in your direction. for example, 2inf, 1ftr vs. 2inf will hold about 30% of the time if you intend to retreat your air unit if you’re outnumbered. add an extra bomber to that battle and the chance to hold goes down to 10%. consistently “ensuring” one extra battle every turn (by throwing in a bomber) could add more than 0.5ipc to your bank (and thus take it away from your enemy). i always try to figure out a better tactical use for my bombers before gambling with an sbr. if you want to work towards economic superiority make sure, above all else, that you take your opponent’s territory!
thirdly is the fact that bombers are possibly the most important unit in the game. at the very least they are the only units that can change the direction of the game completely (which almost always happens when heavy bombers are gained). i always try to keep on pace with my opponent’s number of bombers. if he buys one with usa i buy one with japan. this means that if he gets a lucky tech roll then i am ready to catch up with him quickly. i almost never risk my bombers in attacks where it is possible i will lose one, whereas i will often send 2ftr vs. 1inf or armor if i think it will give me a clear tactical advantage (say for instance the axis drop off a lone armor in egypt and i have no land units anywhere near). i am also willing to sacrifice a bomber to kill an opponent’s bomber, as long as i know i can build another one immediately. in a recent game i sent my american bomber against a lone japanese bomber on italian east africa, knowing that i could only land it unprotected in a territory that germany could strike. he thought that i wouldn’t trade my bomber for his, but i prepared for this by buying a bomber that round - instantly i had a 1 bomber advantage over japan. risking my bombers to aa gun for a marginal 0.5 ipc per round doesn’t seem to be worth the the probable tactical loss of having less bombers than my opponent.
some people think that the axis (especially japan) have more than enough air to ensure all ground attacks. sometimes this may be true, and then i might try an sbr. but, more often than not, with a well placed bid you can create more than enough opportunities to use ALL your airpower to ensure land battles.
ok…despite everything i have just written there are times when i will engage in an indiscriminate bombing war. most often this happens when russia has a brutal start and the axis are almost certain to take karelia anyways. early in the game (when every infantry counts) a 4-6ipc bombing raid can turn a 60% chance of taking karelia into an 80% chance. this is obviously a risk that the axis should take, especially with the japanese bomber. another instance i can think of might be if the allies neglect to build a navy on UK1. that extra turn advantage could isolate russia enough to make them vulnerable to an all-out sbr war. the germans won’t likely need their bomber that badly (the uk sea zone will be impenetrable on uk2, i can guarantee that!) so it might be ok to risk it to aa fire. still, i’d rather send it to africa to punish any british who might have survived GE1. the only other time i might try it is if i am losing badly. if i feel like i need everything to go in my direction in order to even have a chance to win i will increase the number of battles i do (including sbrs). if i don’t get the results i’m looking for then i haven’t really lost anything. if i do get what i’m hoping for then i’m that much closer to clawing my way back into the game.
that’s all i can think of now, but if anything else comes to me i’ll let you know.
-
I agree regarding the Germany bomber if we are discussing a single bomber flight to Russia. That thing is too important to blasting high dollar IPC’s of allied navy out of the water to send it against Russia (average 1 ship sunk per round of use for 8 IPC’s, instead of average 3.5 bombing). I simply view the UK fleet as a MUCH higher threat to Germany than I do 1 or 2 extra Russia INF. Heck, if you can sink UK’s navy long enough, Russia falls, period.
Japan obviously can free up a bomber to use on Russia pretty easilly by J2. But as a single bomber, it is not very effective… the risk of loss vs. return is simply not worth it.
I am just wondering if DOUBLING the SBR against Russia IS viable. With an average of 7 IPC’s destroyed (almost a third of Russia’s starting money, that has got to be devastating to Russia’s defense.
If Germany can;t free up that bomber… if sinking UK navy takes priority (and I think it does)… then what about an Asian Skies strategy… Japan as a bombing nation, building BOMBERS (and some land forces to keep their initial 2 tranny’s full each round if forces can;t be grabbed from islands) and taking the Russian INF Machine out of the game that way?
Japan could have 4 bombers on the board by the end of J2, and still be floating some land forces to Asia. Russia would be trading Japan dollar for dollar (on average, bomber cost vs. IPC’s lost). BUT, since those INF would be taken off the German front, it would be like Japan transfering 15 IPC each round to Germany for immediate use against Russia, instead of 4-6 rounds later when Japan land forces could arrive…
-
Even though Hamars reasoning is correct by the numbers, you might want to look at it another way:
- Russia is low on cash. Reducing their income by …say 3.5 IPCs … is reducing their income by 14.6 % of their base income
- Germany losing 3 IPCs takes a relative loss of 7.1%.
Even though the actual difference is only 0.5, it behaves -for theUSSR- as if (more than) one of their territories has been taken. Germany suffers about the same, yet the effect is by far not as crippling, as they also start with a high unit count, and can “afford” such a loss a bit better.
Did anyone ever try to play Germany where the bid was used to buy a second Bomber ?
-
The main cases to use SBR:
You have Heavies.
Your opponent has (1) low income, but a (2) ton of defensive units holed up in the capital, and (3) your seige forces are not sufficient to win the capital battle.Combining SBR and the trading of territories next to your opponents capital will allow the build-up of your seige forces to gain the eventual edge. By then, your income should be several times higher than the opponent you are about to kill off.
-
The main cases to use SBR:
You have Heavies.
Do you build anything EXCEPT bombers if you have heavy’s???
Let’s be honest, Heavy Bombers are so powerful that it is an almost assured game victory for whichever side gets them. And I have never seen a game last long enough after one side gets heavy’s for the other side to also get them.
Your opponent has (1) low income, but a (2) ton of defensive units holed up in the capital, and (3) your seige forces are not sufficient to win the capital battle.
Combining SBR and the trading of territories next to your opponents capital will allow the build-up of your seige forces to gain the eventual edge. By then, your income should be several times higher than the opponent you are about to kill off.
I still like using SBR’s to PREVENT my target from building up massive defensive forces. That is why as Japan I bomb Russia every chance I get… each run means less INF in Moscow upon my force’s arrival.
Of course it could also be that I just HATE siege warfare. I’ll press a battle against a strong oponent just to weaken those forces if I feel I can re-build faster than he can; rather than wait for me to build to overwhelm. That way, if one of my allies gets to a position to ALSO be able to strike, they face a weaker target. And if my allies don;t get a chance to strike, my nation that made the original suicide run will still be outbuilding the target and can move more forces in and take it anyway. Now, I have to be able to last long enough to do SOME damage… I won;t attack with a fighter and 3 INF against 30 INF. But give me 7 INF, a couple of tanks, and several fighters on 30 INF, and I’ll blast in, inflict damage, and retreat; then do it all again as more cannon fodder arrives at the front.
Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
Suggested Topics
