• Hello all

    I have enjoyed reading all your posts on this game the last week and respect your opinions so I was wondering if anyone has tried this strategy. Anyway here it is I have only played once and with two noobs but I think this could work.

    Germany’s opening move is to make as much damage on the GB as possible without losing its bomber. Building standard army builds to focus on Russia. Africa will be feed with only 1 tank and 1 art from southern Europe. The key for German is to delay the allies as many terms then make hit and runs with German army to wittel away his “meat shield” so that once both Japan and Germany start bombing Caucus and Russia each turn he will not be able to feed his army.

    Japan is focusing on attacking the Russian stack in Asia. So it will hit singawe prepare for a major attack into northern Asia. Then cannibalize the Japanese islands for an attack on India. So this should provide Japan with a base to launch bombers in a few turns.

    So basically the strategy calls for more money into airforce to crible Russia economy and make it easier to roll across asia.

    Has anyone tried this and to what success? Thanks to those that reply.

  • As discussed elsewjere, sustained SBR is simply not cost effective over the long run (at least not without technology).

    The cost of BOM lost to AA and the damage done by SBR is so close to even when averaged out over several turns, that it simply is not a viable strat.  Basically, the nation bombed, on average, loses little more income than the bomber spent (and lost) on bombers that get shot down.

    SBR’s are a good way to weaken an enemy the round before a land assault… you decrease the enemy build the round before you are going to hit them.

    Other than that, they are simply not cost effective on average, and are as likely to be economically catastrophic to the nation doing the bombing as they are to the nation being bombed.

  • I agree with everything uou said except you are looking at it as purely a economic stand point. I know that this will cause the axis a little less streaking force on the ground but they will also be able to cripple the Russian defences through limiting there builds and counter attacking ability. So I was thinking in a few turn you could limit the russian player to around 18 dollars then have them being bombed each turn of the axis. This will cause the player to be focused on in able to counter attack. Once this happens you can switch to more German tanks which would also increase youir counter attack in the west and your mobility and attack in the East.

    I think this stragey will force the allies hand and it will allow the axis to build less infanty which along with the money taken from the allies will make the bombers viable. It adds more luck I will agree but I think it could pay off.

    Isn’t this a game of the axis forcing the game and allies wanting to lengthen it and use their IPC advantage? If that is so they don’t you agree that even if it is not economically the most viable it is benifical to target the allies country you are wishign to kill?

    Thanks for your response and I hope my reply has added something of value.


  • If you use your bomber SOLEY for SBR, then it doesn’t yield a great net bonus.

  • If you use your bomber SOLEY for SBR, then it doesn’t yield a great net bonus.

    The idea is to focus on the Russia production and keep him under 10 dollars after turn 3. Which will provide Germany with the need for less infantry and more tanks.

    The question that must be answered in this strategy can Germany support the airforce and maintain the eastward push? Can Japan put that much money into Airforce and still keep a lot of pressure on the Allies?

    I think this is possible but I have not played it and am itching to try it.

    This will leave Japan open to an IC in India and a IC America Asia.

    Once I play a game like this I will let you guys know how it turns out.


  • But you can;t take the economics out of it.

    Realizing that SBR’s over time are basically a wash in terms of money… money destroyed by bombing and money destroyed by bombers shot down, what you are doing when you SBR long term is sacrifice your own production in equal amounts to destroy enemy production.  To trash Russia’s income of 24 IPC per turn (actually they are about 28-29 for the first couple of rounds…) you are losing about the same IPC’s for the Axis.  And since Japan is not in range to SBR for a few turns (even if they AF transfer to German territories, they have to build first, then move, then they can finally bomb on the third round), you have a net loss of 24 IPC to Germany’s income in the early rounds.  That leaves Germany only 25 or so to counter the 72 IPC’s of the US and UK…

    Deep kimchee…

  • Thanks for the response switch I enjoy your throught out replies.

    I never meant to take it out and I am doing a Economcis Major at school so I was taking that into effect. SBR is targeted economic pain on the Russians so I think even if it does not pay off dollar for dollar it might still be the best use of your money. I have only played once and am talking out of my ass. If you did the 2 bomber and 3 infanty this could cause the allies to build naval protection which you are really going after Russian production.

    So it would boil down to G1 they do 1 SBR adn the following turns you will be able to do 3 per turn. Replacing the bombers if need be I guess. Subsequent turns build max infanty to replenish your starved Russian front.

    Japan can start boming on their 3rd turn. Normal build and stategies will be done and build one bomber on turn 2. Then wait tell turn 4 to build the next one. Your stagging grounds will be south east russian place and China.

    That is what I’m going to try I think it might work if you can lengthen the game long enough.

    Switch I was wondering if you saw the build for Germany what would your opening Russian build be and why?


  • I would have to agree with NCS here… I know it was a while ago,. but way back someone posted a thread about the viability of UK going on an all-out SBR of Germany (i.e. building nothing but bombers and just launching non-stop bombing raids every turn) with the end goal of keeping Germany with enough losses that they would not be able to mount any kind of attack on Russia and eventually the US would be able to come in there and whack-a-mole the Germany forces in WEu.

    I know it sounds like a sound strategy (after all, it has its precedence in history) but the reality was shown to be otherwise.

    There’s nothing wrong with an SBR here or there, for example if you can knock out just enough to prevent the opponent from buying 7 INF instead of 6 or 3 ARM instead of 2; this is fine. But especially as Germany there are a LOT better things you can do with your money early in the game than SBR.

  • 2007 AAR League

    If you’re playing by LHTR (Larry Harris Tournament Rules) SBR as a strategy becomes even less attractive.

    Total losses by all bombers can not exceed the territory’s IPC value, under the old rules the limit was per bomber/dice.

    Heavy bombers still roll 2 dice but you take the highest of the 2 and add 1 (reducing their damage from 2-12 IPC to 2-7 IPC).

    Plus bombers are expensive 1 bmb=5 Inf=3 Tanks.  BTW is it just me or does everyone think bombers are overpriced?

  • I never saw a really strong argument for a UK BOM force.  But I HAVE seen, mostly in Classic, a USA devotion to Bombers.

    In Revised, I guess it woulod be 2 BOM a turn, and the rest as forces to be sent via existing TRN’s to keep Africa secure so that UK can focus on Germany (and to provide an LZ for SBR’s of Southern).  USA sends their BOM’s to Germany and destroys the max 16 IPC per turn, dropping Germany into the mid to lower 20’s for production (perhaps lower if Russia has been played well).  That is enough to let UK and Russia slowly squeeze the snot out of Germany.

    The risk of course is that UK alone against Germany in the water means that Germany is a constant threat to UK’s navy for several turns longer than normal.  And those several turns may just be enough to take Russia out of the picture against Germany as they have to turn and face Japan…

  • BTW is it just me or does everyone think bombers are overpriced?

    Well, I haven’t done a cost/ dmg analysis on them (I’m sure someone has or could) but I usually don’t buy bombers unless I’m winning and want to provide for that little extra push that having an attack of 4 can do in a battle. I mean, as the Allies most attacks you can use a BB for the support on an amphib and it gives you the no return fire (against Germany, Russia is a non-issue because they aren’t buying any bombers). Probably the most sense would be using bombers as Japan to lend extra support while attacking Russia.

    So the point of that paragraph I suppose is that I don’t know that I would buy bombers even if they reduced the price, unless they reduced them to the point of fighters or something…

  • 2007 AAR League

    If bombers were reduced in price to say 13 IPC’s it would ruin the game.

    Germany, on it’s first turn, would be able to buy 3 bombers, go hog wild attacking every possible Russian ground unit in sight and immediately begin a crippling SBR campaign against Russia with Japan doing the same from the other side. The allies couldn’t respond in kind because Germany would be making a such a huge bankroll from owning Europe and any American bomber produced on US 1 wouldn’t be able to SBR Germany until turn 3. Germany would have 2 full turns of income (minus the UK SBR’s) while Russia would be making $0 after turn 2. Two turns of German income is more than enough to replace initial bomber losses, build a Russia attack force, and build enough units to hold off the allies until Russia falls. Plus, with Germany making $40+ the allies couldn’t fully bomb Germany to $0 every turn.

    If you reduced it to 14 IPC’s then the US could build 3 bombers on the first turn and Germany would be screwed.

  • I think the strategy might be viable if you use your bombers for other things as well, deterring allied naval forces, etc.

  • Moderator


    (I’m taking from my A&A Classic Experience)
    I think you can get away with additional bombers with both UK and US.  I don’t mean go crazy with them, but pending G1 purchases and moves, it certainly seems feasible to me to pull a UK bomber (Classic) strat.

    Maybe you buy a bom in UK 1 and UK 2, the purpose of which is not to SBR Germany or Japan, but to be able to a great reach and even deter an Afr landing.

    It is a little different in Revised since Japan has more air and a beefed up navy, but nevertheless, with 2-3 boms on the board you might be able to deter quite a bit of movement, esp when it comes to Afr.

    I’ve only been the Allies once, so I’m not sure how well it could work, but definitely works in Classic.

    Then of course if you see “hey G may fall in 2-3 rds if…” you can bust out a SBR or 2 to weaken at the right time.

    I agree with those that say prolonged SBR’s or SBR’s from the start might not be that great, but if you time them right, then it could be worth while.


    Oops, I totally didn’t pay attention the thread topic and was answering the question from the UK pov.

  • Moderator

    To answer the question, I think targeted SBR’s by the Axis on Russia are the best.

    Wait till you get Japan going and once you appraoch the Eastern Boarder of Moscow and Russia is earning low 20’s, then do a double shot with Ger and Japan and maybe you can cost the Russians a few inf at a crucial point.

    I don’t think early SBR’s are that great since there is plenty of time for the losses to be made up in the form of a favorable roll here or there when trading territories.

  • Pretty much concurs with my analysis there Darth…

    SBR at critical times to reduce builds before major attacks… or as you put it, once Japan is in play on Russia (which means Japan is close to Russia).

    Earlier attacks not only are easier to make up for in the long run, they are also likely to cost you bombers (that are not often replaced) before they can be used for the main offensive.

  • Moderator

    I’m not a big fan of SBR’s to begin with though, I’ve been permanently scarred by the Classic CD game where aa guns hit at like 50% or greater.  :-D

  • LOL, I just played a CDR game last night… every battle was skewed to the PC… MASSIVELY.

    I think that the AI inflates its dice in an effort to compensate for the weak strategy programmed into the AI…

  • SBR is a bad idea, especially when you play on that gay a** daak dice server.  For some reason I always get my bomber shot down either by my 1st SBR run or by my 2nd.  In order for SBR to be really effective, you need more than 1 bomber and HB researched.  Or you can just have a house rule in which if you get 3 sixes in a research roll, you can “nuke” someone (which in a nutshell is smashing the board game with your fist!)  :lol:

  • I think I have seen the light and SBR is not bad at the right time for the Axis but it cant be the goal of your attack. The ability that it will stop Russia’s counter attack though is too valueable to not take advantage of before your main Russia assault.

    This might not be the right place but is there a place to play A & A online?

    Thanks Rhineland

Suggested Topics

  • 1
  • 4
  • 36
  • 4
  • 15
  • 107
  • 1
  • 17
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures