Convoy disruption or bombing raids



  • Which option do you feel is better for taking away money time and resources from the enemy?



  • It depends on the enemy. If you’re fighting against Russia, then bombing raids are better. If you’re fighting against Japan, then Convoy disruption works better.



  • @ChocolatePancake:

    It depends on the enemy. If you’re fighting against Russia, then bombing raids are better. If you’re fighting against Japan, then Convoy disruption works better.

    Precisely.  Whereas for UK both are quite effective.


  • 2017 2016

    No need to repair if you disrupt and conquer.
    So,
    Convoy disrupt is better against Italy.



  • I think overall convoy disruptions hurt the economy more (obviously not for some powers like Russia) because instead of forcing the IPCs to be spent repairing damage they are never given to the opponent. This mean the opponent can’t just choose to ignore the damage and spend the IPCs elsewhere. Also convoy does not hurt you if you conquer the terriotry and there is no risk of losing a unit.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016

    Agree with all the previous comments.


  • 2018 2017

    Both are really good.  However, SBR has limited returns with a built in risk of being shot down.  One thing that some of the odds calculations I’ve seen here don’t take into account is the upper limit on damage for bases and MiCs which would limit the value of rolling your 5s and 6s since the surplus damage would be lost (max limit 6).  When you take this into account, and the fact that a SBRing bomber cant strike elsewhere, and also that you may well capture the MiC (esp Bombay or Leningrad) already damaged and have to repair it as the captor, and the whole thing can be seen as having limited utility with one caveat.  If the SBR is used to consistently overwhelm one enemy (Russia), all at once and turn after turn, it is devastating because they cannot recover.  Then it truly is “strategic” because it leads to their national defeat rather than penny packets of damage.

    The convoy thing is obviously awesome, but it relies on having some form of naval+air+sub supremacy already.  This is probably the weakness to the sub strat that YG and we were discussing last week;  you cant really even get to the convoy spaces, much less sit on them, unless you have already driven his fleets away or destroyed them.  so, its not really something you can apply as a “strategy” because your primary strategy has to be control of the seas (rather than dividing your forces up to damage his convoys.

    The key to both is using them in combination to overwhelm the enemy, not losing 1 bomber or 1 sub at a time or doing 2-3 of damage incrementally.



  • I think you had some very good points there taam, however the bombings on India and Russia mean nothing to Germany and Japan in the long run, once captured those 2 will be making enough to easily pay off 6 IPC to build there, the NO they gain and the IPC from the territory will pay it off by itself, whereas UK Pac and Russia need every blamed dollar they have.


  • 2015 '14

    most nations, especially US and Italy should always strive go have at least one bomber threatening to deactivate an airbase or naval base.

    US bomber usually aim for WGR AB while Italian bombers often have an eye on the Gibraltar Naval base (to leave US with only 2 space movement next turn) or AB London in case there is a fleet in 110 which depends on fighters scrambling from London.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

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

29
Online

13.6k
Users

34.0k
Topics

1.3m
Posts