• @Cmdr:

    Not to mention, that British bomber is the most important piece on the board in my opinion,

    Blasphemy!

    Every good player knows that the Russian ftrs are the most important pieces in the game.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @axis_roll:

    @Cmdr:

    Not to mention, that British bomber is the most important piece on the board in my opinion,

    Blasphemy!

    Every good player knows that the Russian ftrs are the most important pieces in the game.

    No, because there are two of them but only one British bomber.  That means the British bomber is more important because each of the Russian fighters has importance.

    The second is one Russian fighter, and third most important is the third Russian fighter.


  • UK bomber is more important because if you lose it, it’s lost for all the game. How many bombers purchase the people for UK? I have seen some for germans, japaneses, USA and one time even one for soviets  :-o  , but I have to see one bomber purchased for UK.

    Then, buying a fig for soviets is not so rare.


  • @Funcioneta:

    UK bomber is more important because if you lose it, it’s lost for all the game. How many bombers purchase the people for UK? I have seen some for germans, japaneses, USA and one time even one for soviets  :-o  , but I have to see one bomber purchased for UK.

    Then, buying a fig for soviets is not so rare.

    To me, your post PROVES how important that piece is.  In what way?

    The russian fighters are so important, they get REPLACED if lost.  The UK bomber, however, is not replaced… it’s EXPENDABLE.


  • Jen I am not trying to pick a fight I just want to understand your point of view.

    Why is the UK BMR more important then the one in the US or (more so in my opinion) Japan?

    Japan is also an island nation that could benifit from this long range unit.  Also Japan has a lower starting income then the UK making it harder to replace if the player chose to do so.

    LT


  • I use “intensively” the UK Bomber and I do not feel “lost” when it is downed. I agree with allies_fly, it is an expendable units. Losing even a wing of one Russia fighter is a much grater dramatic situation!

    Moreover in many games I bought up to 2 bombers (for a total of three) with UK. In a game after having destroyed the German fleet with them I used the bombers for SBR the Germany, and luckily they were never shot down, but if they were I have not given up, for sure. Usually I do not attack baltic fleet in UK1, if it stay at home, and prefer to add some bomber to the RAF, for attacking in UK3 or UK4. I think that RAF is, complexively, the more inportant force for UK.

    I think that other single UK units are more important than the bomber. The BB for example. The Indian AC. (The Indian AAG.  :-D)

    Nonetheless, I do not commit bomber in battle, like AE counter, were it can only land in dangerous places. One thing is to consider expendable a unit another thing is to leave it exposed to attack, poorly defended and without obtaining nothing in exchange.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    My opinion is that the British Bomber is the most important for a number of reasons.

    1)  It is a very vital and functional piece of equipment for the British Empire.  It has any number of uses in the first round of the game and gives range and punch to the British navy and army in subsequent rounds.

    1a) It can be used to liberate Egypt and secure Africa
    1b) It can be used to SBR Germany limiting their production on round 2
    1c) It can be stationed in Novosibirsk to threaten the Japanese fleet almost forcing them to hold back some warships in SZ 60
    1d) It can be used to sink the German Baltic Fleet
    1e) It can be used to liberate India on UK 2
    1f) It can be used to sink the Germans if they move their fleet west to Gibraltar

    Etc.

    2)  It is very expensive to replace, especially for England.

    2a) England normally loses Africa for a good portion of the game, and they lose Australia, India, Madagascar and New Zealand as well as possibly Persia and Trans-Jordan too. This means England’s hoping to earn in the mid to high teens.  A bomber costs almost that entire pay check.
    2b) Russian fighters only cost 10 IPC and Russia can expect to be earning in the mid to upper 20s for much of the game. (This explains why almost every game results in a Russian air force of 3 or 4 fighters before the end of the game.)  Therefore it is significantly easier to replace Russian fighter losses than it is British Bombers.
    2c) Americans are wealthy.  Even if all their outlying territories are conquered, America is still earning 28 IPC meaning they can still build at least one bomber and have money left for navy or ground forces.  But most likely, America’s earning in the upper 30s and can easily build two bombers a round if they so chose.


    Therefore, I have determined, in my opinion, that the most important piece on the board is the British Bomber for two main reasons:  1) It is too expensive to replace given England’s finances.  2)  It is too valuable in extending the power of the British empire and in slowing down Japanese and German expansion.

    Note, this is just my opinion.  If you, personally, feel that the Russian fighters are more important, then that is great!  I am not going to force my opinion on you, your playing style is probably not the same as mine.  After all, how many of you purchase 2 bombers on UK 1 and 2 Bombers on USA 1?  Probably not many.  And if you did, then your valuation of the British bomber may not be as high.  Heck, if you routinely end up with England owning all of Africa and W. Europe and Norway you may feel the British Bomber is much more expendable than the Russian fighters (maybe even more than a Russian tank) as well.

    I cannot read your mind and I do not have the drive to go investigate every game you’ve ever played - even if I had the ability.  All I can say is, in my personal and humble opinion, the British bomber has been the most valuable unit for my strategies as the allies and, as the axis, I generally go out of my way to kill that bomber as fast and soon as possible.


  • I must agree with Jen here. Losing the UK bomber is the main reason for not attacking baltic fleet in UK1. Sometimes I don’t counter Egypt simply because I can lose the bomber (and that is more than a round of whole Afrika IPCs).

    That Jen and I are saying is that is more painful losing the UK bomber than one soviet fig. Thinking more on the soviet figs, sometimes simply I prefer buy 1 or 2 art for trading territories instead the 3rd fig, or even the 2nd lost soviet fig. A UK art cannot solve the lose of the UK bomber, especially if you go against Japan (and here, UK bomber is veeeery good, trading red territories with Germany/Japan, trading FIC, taking E. Indies supporting the aussies or even killing any unprotected Japan trannie if I have a fig as cannon fodder).


  • I think more highly of the UK BMR now then I did before I read this but I still value Japan’s BMR for the same reason.

    It can also swing from one front to another, to another.  It can easily meet up with Japan’s front lines or intimidate a US navy all on the same turn.

    I do have to agree with you that Russia’s FTR’s can be replaced, but they do mean a lot to Russia.

    LT

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Yes, I concur, the Russian fighters are very valuable.  If I gave the impression that they were expendable I apologize.

    As for Japan’s bomber, I agree it is also extremely valuable.  However, with an income in the 40s to 60s, they can more readily replace a bomber than England can.  Granted, it’s better if they do not have too! ^_^


  • Yea, I have seen 2 or even 3 bombers for Japan, based at buryatia, menacing both soviets and Pacific fleet. It’s easier for Japan than for UK replace the bombers.


  • @Cmdr:

    My opinion is that the British Bomber is the most important for a number of reasons.

    1a) It can be used to liberate Egypt and secure Africa
    1b) It can be used to SBR Germany limiting their production on round 2

    Ok. Umm im seeing some circular logic here. We arrived at your proclaimation that the UK bomber was the most important piece in the game when discussing whether or not the UK should counter egypt with it. You said you wouldnt because of the risk to the bomber. And here, in your proof of how valuable the bomber is, your first reason is this counter that you are argueing against!   :?

    Also, the very second reason for how valuable the bomber is, is a r1 SBR on germany? Do people do that with UK, a r1 SBR? I cant imagine a piece being very valuable when the BEST option on the first round to SBR. SBR is a marginal positive return at best. I think that the Russian fighter, which save russian infantry in trading territories, is so far more valuable than any conceivable SBR,. that its not even funny. But we all have are own opinions.

    Also, i havent played a game yet where i saw 4 russian fighters, and less then the norm to see 3.

    Also, I do agree the UK bomber is quite valuable in the early rounds, but i think the value of this piece diminishes in later rounds, where as the russian fighter may be just as valuable, if not more, than the uk bomber in early rounds, and INCREASES value in later rounds as the japanese approach, and there are more territories to swap.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    No, I said I would not use the bomber to liberate Egypt if it was at risk of destruction on the subsequent turn.

    If Germany had only one fighter in Libya that could reach it, then it is not at risk. (UK Fighter, UK Bomber defending against GER Fighter SHOULD result in the loss of both the attacking and defending fighter and the bomber remaining undamaged.  Should being the operative word here.)


  • The value of the UK bomb is related to the missions that he may accomplish.
    The possible task for UK bmbr in UK1-UK2 are for the great part task that exposes the bomber to be downed or be leaved out of position for sequent attack or in exposed site. Usually valuable unit are not send in missions with high possibility of being lost.

    Russian fighter are never exposed to comparable risks.

    The UK BB usually is not placed in dangerous situation. UK players usually buys other ships as cannon fodder for avoiding the loss of the BB before commiting the UK fleet to sea zone under threat of Luftwaffe.

    Indian Ocean AC is often retreated to UK, being useless for 4 turns because is such a valuable unit (together wih its escort) when it reach Europe, that UK player prefer to wait 4 full turn before using it.

    UK bomber, instead may be sent to SBR Germany, a good 16,66% of being downed. Or used in AE with high riskof being destroyed in G2. This lead to a consideration: is it more valuble a unit that may be emplyed in mission with high possibility to die or units that are used carefully and always covered by other units?

    IMHO it is more simple to win with the BB and without the bmb than with the bmb without the BB.

    However each one of us owns his personal feeling about the value and the task of the units.


  • @Cmdr:

    No, I said I would not use the bomber to liberate Egypt if it was at risk of destruction on the subsequent turn.

    If Germany had only one fighter in Libya that could reach it, then it is not at risk. (UK Fighter, UK Bomber defending against GER Fighter SHOULD result in the loss of both the attacking and defending fighter and the bomber remaining undamaged.  Should being the operative word here.)

    I think we would both agree that one german fighter in Libya is a rarity,and should not be counted on. Usually, you have to deal with one fighter and one bomber. So this should not be reason 1a for how valuable the UK bomber is, since is is a rare case.

    I personally would accept a german attack of one bomber and one fighter, vs my one UK bomber one UK fighter. I feel that the German AF is more valuable than the UK AF. That attack puts the german fighter and bomber at risk, 48% of the time they both are lost. 86% just the fighter is lost. Not to mention, unless germany purchased AF r1, they just used a 1/3 of their air power on that attack, which means they arent using it to trade eastern front terr, threaten allied shipping, or defend WE.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I dunno about it being a rarity.  Generally I only have the one fighter in Libya because my bid went to Libya and I kept the bomber for something else.

    But yes, there is a good possibility of 1 fighter, 1 bomber in Libya or even 2 Fighters, Bomber in Libya.  In which case, the risk to the English bomber is significant and I would use the British bomber for another action. (Clearing SZ 5 maybe, or just flying it to Novosibirsk to attack Japan if the opportunity presented.)


  • @Cmdr:

    I dunno about it being a rarity.  Generally I only have the one fighter in Libya because my bid went to Libya and I kept the bomber for something else.

    But yes, there is a good possibility of 1 fighter, 1 bomber in Libya or even 2 Fighters, Bomber in Libya.  In which case, the risk to the English bomber is significant and I would use the British bomber for another action. (Clearing SZ 5 maybe, or just flying it to Novosibirsk to attack Japan if the opportunity presented.)

    Romulus makes a very good point about the value of the UK bomber. If it is so valuable, why expose it to so much risk. The sz 5 attack for example. There is a 1 in 4 chance the bomber is lost in that attack. 1 in 6 it is lost in a SBR. Would you attack sz5 or SBR berlin with the russian fighter? no way, wouldnt even conceive of it would you? That in itself suggest the russian fighter is more valuable.


  • Well said AxisOfEvil! You got the point I try to expose.

    Valuable unite are carefully watched not sent to where they can die. And if the only things they can do are risky then we have  the following situation: sending the unit to the mission risking the lost, because is not valuable, or keep it at home doing nothing… doing nothing? What kind of valuable unit is valuable if doing nothing?

  • 2007 AAR League

    @Cmdr:

    My opinion is that the British Bomber is the most important for a number of reasons.

    1)  It is a very vital and functional piece of equipment for the British Empire.  It has any number of uses in the first round of the game and gives range and punch to the British navy and army in subsequent rounds.

    1a) It can be used to liberate Egypt and secure Africa
    1b) It can be used to SBR Germany limiting their production on round 2
    1c) It can be stationed in Novosibirsk to threaten the Japanese fleet almost forcing them to hold back some warships in SZ 60
    1d) It can be used to sink the German Baltic Fleet
    1e) It can be used to liberate India on UK 2
    1f) It can be used to sink the Germans if they move their fleet west to Gibraltar

    Options a,c, and e disappear rather quickly. Consider yourself lucky if any of them are available after UK 2.

    The US is much better suited to perform option d.

    Who does option f?  :? And if you mean the fleet unification then the German fleet is usually unified and gone before the Allies can build up enough navy to make the UK bomber effective in this role.

    And option b is my favorite. If the bomber is so very important to you then exactly why would you be willing to risk it’s destruction to AA just to knock Germany’s massive income down an infantry or two?

    @Cmdr:

    1. It is too expensive to replace given England’s finances.  2)  It is too valuable in extending the power of the British empire and in slowing down Japanese and German expansion.

    These two statements I agree with. But not for the same reasons.

    Regarding 1): It IS far too expensive to replace the UK bomber. But, not because of it’s value. It’s because it isn’t necessary. When the UK builds more aircraft, and it usually does, it will be fighters simply because the bombers range isn’t needed in Europe, the fighter’s defensive ability IS needed in Europe, and Japan won’t be leaving undefended TP’s out for the bomber to pick off.

    Regarding 2) This is true. Which is exactly why you don’t use it for SBR’s early in the game. But this doesn’t last either.

    The fact is, the UK bomber is extremely valuable in the first 2 to 4 rounds. However, once the UK infantry in Africa and Asia are gone, it’s value rapidly diminishes and it becomes nothing more than a poorly defending, long range fighter. On the other hand, the Russian fighters retain their high value throughout the entire game and I’d much rather let the UK bomber be destroyed than have to replace a destroyed Russian fighter.


  • Well i certainly know one thing, i would never dream of a SBR mission with the most VALUABLE piece in the game. But i do SBR with the uk bomber sometimes.

Suggested Topics

  • 8
  • 12
  • 5
  • 22
  • 42
  • 13
  • 11
  • 10
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

37

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts