good questions.
America can’t bomb on turn 1, you can’t reach germany. On turn 2, only 1 bomber reaches, on US turn 3, your first “new” batch of bombers has arrived.
I wouldn’t waste money on tech that early, but that was the original poster’s idea. I would perhaps build an extra bomber on US turn 2, and then spend less on bombers and more on tech later if I were attempting this. Similar overall dynamics, though.
I basically agree, hence my post. But for the record heavy bombers is worthwhile… you double your damage without doubling the number of AA guns fired at you, I just don’t think it’s broken.
Your argument is somewhat weak here – obviously Russia and UK have to consider japan, whether sooner or later. And also, germany is really going to be making more than 40 for the first few turns, which makes my estimates conservative.
By USA 2, in your scenario, the allies would have bombed with 3uk bombers and 1 us bomber on that turn. On USA3, that would increase. in any case, no one is particularly concerned that regular bombers are “unbeatable” – i personally would never waste UK resources exclusively on bombers when they are actually in much closer range to attack germany directly.
More to the point, the general case for heavy bombers is overstated by many because they fail to consider the opportunity cost. If i shell out $90 on 4 bombers + tech, I could instead have, in a simple example, 9 US fighters. These fighters would cause significant damage on each turn in conjunction with land attacks. They could easily do more than 20 damage per turn in killing german armor and infantry.
So I just don’t agree with the overall “unbeatable” storyline.
man usa is all bombers i feel a bit wacked becaus ei forget ground forces i am sorry……
That’s my point, what makes it viable is over-whelming them with bombers.
1 Heavy Bomber shot down by AA Gun is -2d6 in damage.
it is doubly likely that a heavy bomber will be shot down than two regular bombers will be shot down.
1 Bomber shot down by AA Gun is -1d6
Therefore, it is doubly beneficial to use two bombers instead of one bomber.
That said, Heavy Bombers do have their use (original rules that htey get 2d6, and can score two hits) because you can obliterate fleets.
Also, Japan can be safely ignored for 5 game turns before having to deal with them. In 5 turns, Russia should be sitting on Berlin’s doorstep if you got slightly lucky on your bombing runs. By then, you should be able to replace Russian units with American and British units and send them back towards Japan. (Japan’s earning 50, Russia’s earning -8 for lost territories, + 14 for conquered territories, so 30 IPC enough to stop Japan’s advance.)
Um… all you need to do as allies = make russia make infantry, usa make bombers and some men tostop japans success in asia/pacific and great britian to be slowing the axis by doing things that the axis would not like (help africa help india mass bombers to kill germany mass fleet)
There is no such thing as an “Unbeatable Allied strategy” in the Revised game, and if there is one, it certainly doesn’t involve purchasing bombers.
The only time you should ever even think about buying a new bomber is when the game is so far skewed in favor of one side already, that it really doesn’t matter what you buy anyway. Veteran players avoid SBR like the plague, and will only risk a bomber against an AA gun, if it has absolutely nothing else to do that round.
Rolling for Heavy Bombers is considered bad form by most players, because it is widely acknowledged that this particular tech is hopelessly broken under the standard Revised rules (and not much better under the LHTR rules.) Nobody who is serious about the game will respect a strategy built around strategic bombing. Its too unpredictable.
I’m not sure how you can say that an unbeatable allied strategy (OOB) would certainly not include bombers, but then admit that heavy bombers (OOB) are overpowered. I believe I have seen several ‘serious’ players around here mention how broken a US strat bombing campaign is without LHTR. I would consider myself decently ‘serious’ and was recently discussing with Jennifer (who I would guess also considers herself decently ‘serious’) an Axis strategic bombing strategy against Russia in the Most Surprising First round purchases thread, even under LHTR bombing rules. a44bigdog tested it and reported that it was fairly viable.
And on top of all that people have been expressing their fear (for weeks, if not months) of overpowered bombing campaigns in the AA50 board because bomber cost was dropped to 12, plus the fright that heavy bombers will once again be overpowered - despite random techs, AND that rockets could be game-breaking - also despite random techs. Now, I’m not saying those fears will be correct, they may they may not, but the fact that they are there in significant amounts tells me that people don’t consider bombing ‘too unpredictable’ for ‘serious’ consideration.
I understand and agree that bombing is less predictable than large-scale battles involving far more die, but I don’t see how you can so lightly dismiss bombing as a whole the way you did, especially in the hands of the US under OOB rules.
lots of interesting arguments here…
Jennifer, with regards to bombers and aa guns, the heavy bomber does an average of 5.83 when counting the 1 aa shot, the 2 regular bombers do a total of 5.93, on average. So it’s basically a wash on damage caused, and the expected “rebuild cost” to the single heavy bomber run is -2.5, while the rebuild cost of dual bomber run is -4.6 to aa fire. But good point on the other 2-shot uses of heavy bombers to make them somewhat useful.
Most importantly, I think Japan can absolutely threaten russia before turn 5 if left relatively unnopposed, and 3 turns of full german production are all they need to punish russia and keep then keep their front lines from collapsing. An efficient Japan should be threatening moscow and/or killing russian troops adjacent to moscow by turn 4. This drains resources from any russian effort to completely pwn germany a reap the rewards.
Black Elk, I totally agree with the sentiment that building a “strategy” that relies totally for success on a highly random tech research is kind of bad form - at least that’s why I avoid it. But I think as 03321 points out if you could make the argument that some cookie cutter bomber strategy gives you a >50% chance of winning the game, that would be an “overpowered” thing to be concerned with. As I’ve tried to argue, I don’t see the over-powered argument carrying much weight.
I do think building some bombers with the US is not a bad idea at all, though. NOT for bombing raids, which are risky, but for strategic coordination with land troops all over the land and sea. It’s great to have 6-movement air support to supplement a limited # of US troops, especially for out-of-sequence attacks that screw germany when russia can take advantage of holes the us creates in their lines.
Rolling for Heavies under the ‘Out of Box’ rules in order to cripple Germany with bombing runs is just weak sauce gameplay. It’s lame in the same way that rolling for Long Range Aircraft with Germany in the first round in order to take London is lame. It’s a cheap shot win.
The Out of Box Technologies in Revised are totally broken if left unmodified, we all know this already and even the designer admitted it when he put out special tournament rules to address the problem. That’s all I meant went I said no ‘serious’ players are going to respect such a strategy. The only way to play the game with the OOB rules, is to play it without technology advances.
I would still council against bomber purchases, even in LHTR rules though. It might work on occasion, but losing a bomber to AA fire sucks it hard. All it takes is a single 1, and you’re screwed. I think you’re always better off with 5 inf, or some tanks, or a transport, or a fighter. Only strat bomb when you can’t find something else to do with your bombers. You will win more games than you lose, and those games will also be more satisfying for both players.
:)
Hypothetically there may be unbeatable strats, but this is very unlikely because many players have been trying all sorts of strats.
Bombers are almost never bought by experienced players, generally speaken. Same goes for DD’s and BB’s.
My point was that with 2 bombers attacking Germany you have a much better chance of doing 1d6 damage than if you had one bomber attacking Germany.
To defend itself from all damage, Germany would need to get 2 AA Hits against 2 Bombers. That’s (1/6)*(1/6) or 1/36 which is ~ 3% chance of occurring.
To defend itself form all damage, Germany would need to get 1 AA Hit against 1 Heavy Bomber. That’s (1/6) or ~ 17% chance of occurring.
Which is more likely to occur? 3% to shoot down two bombers resulting in 0 IPC damage, or 17% to shoot down one heavy bomber resulting in 0 IPC damage? Obviously a 17% chance is more likely to occur than a 3% chance. Therefore, the odds of doing damage to Germany is greater if you have two normal bombers vs one heavy bomber.
And that is what I was trying to get at.
There is no such thing as an “Unbeatable Allied strategy” in the Revised game, and if there is one, it certainly doesn’t involve purchasing bombers.
The only time you should ever even think about buying a new bomber is when the game is so far skewed in favor of one side already, that it really doesn’t matter what you buy anyway. Veteran players avoid SBR like the plague, and will only risk a bomber against an AA gun, if it has absolutely nothing else to do that round.
Rolling for Heavy Bombers is considered bad form by most players, because it is widely acknowledged that this particular tech is hopelessly broken under the standard Revised rules (and not much better under the LHTR rules.) Nobody who is serious about the game will respect a strategy built around strategic bombing. Its too unpredictable.
Serious player tactic? No.
Incredibly Broken under OOB? Yes.
We all knew this before the game was even released on the old AH boards.
except, squirecam, i’ve never seen it tried successfully against me in the online gaming environment like gametableonline, so I’m not convinced it’s broken…
Jen, I see what you’re driving at, certainty vs average result.
Black Elk, with regards to the london attack on turn 1 with germany, i agree it’s kind of lame but the important thing is that it usually is not worth doing. If it was, there really would have to be a slight fix to the game or inferior players would try it every time in the hopes for a 51% chance at beating a a more skilled opponent.
If you actually do the math of expected values and all possible outcomes, including IPC’s lost in the battle on both sides, money stolen by germany, tech chance of success, and likelihood that UK takes it back on their turn (with canadian forces), it’s actually a net loss for germany, in many cases even if it succeeds. They can take UK’s capital and still lose so much tech-money and planes doing it that it’s not even a victory. So overall i think it’s a silly but not overpowered approach.
except, squirecam, i’ve never seen it tried successfully against me in the online gaming environment like gametableonline, so I’m not convinced it’s broken…
Jen, I see what you’re driving at, certainty vs average result.
Black Elk, with regards to the london attack on turn 1 with germany, i agree it’s kind of lame but the important thing is that it usually is not worth doing. If it was, there really would have to be a slight fix to the game or inferior players would try it every time in the hopes for a 51% chance at beating a a more skilled opponent.
If you actually do the math of expected values and all possible outcomes, including IPC’s lost in the battle on both sides, money stolen by germany, tech chance of success, and likelihood that UK takes it back on their turn (with canadian forces), it’s actually a net loss for germany, in many cases even if it succeeds. They can take UK’s capital and still lose so much tech-money and planes doing it that it’s not even a victory. So overall i think it’s a silly but not overpowered approach.
except, squirecam, i’ve never seen it tried successfully against me in the online gaming environment like gametableonline, so I’m not convinced it’s broken…
I dont know a serious top level player at Gencon or Origins that would use this strategy.
I suspect the same of the top PBEM as well, but cant speak to them. I would think though that anyone at GTO or PBEM who plays this way game after game cant win any other way. Its a boring, pathetic “strategy”.
For the germans, they can enver succed normally but they can take more damage from there oppenents because go all out on g1 then great britian will be weaker then normal and will have an easier time to take russia while the allies do some reapairs.
The western allies will be sending supplies expecially usa and if this all goes well asia is axis land now
except, squirecam, i’ve never seen it tried successfully against me in the online gaming environment like gametableonline, so I’m not convinced it’s broken… (edit: pathetic yes, broken no)
Jen, I see what you’re driving at, certainty vs average result.
Black Elk, with regards to the london attack on turn 1 with germany, i agree it’s kind of lame but the important thing is that it usually is not worth doing. If it was, there really would have to be a slight fix to the game or inferior players would try it every time in the hopes for a 51% chance at beating a a more skilled opponent.
If you actually do the math of expected values and all possible outcomes, including IPC’s lost in the battle on both sides, money stolen by germany, tech chance of success, and likelihood that UK takes it back on their turn (with canadian forces), it’s actually a net loss for germany, in many cases even if it succeeds. They can take UK’s capital and still lose so much tech-money and planes doing it that it’s not even a victory. So overall i think it’s a silly but not overpowered approach.
I agree operation sealion wait for that was germanies problem not ready thoguht the brits would quite
I’m a pretty laid back player, not nearly as cutthroat as others in my gaming group, so I’ll be a little more flexible with tech rules than some people I know. For example, my house rule OOB is No Tech until round 4 or later, which preserves technology advances more as a feature of the endgame (either for the coup de grace, or as a desperation move to attempt some kind of recovery for the underdog.) Still, its very rare to see tech rolls happening with experienced players, because most of us recognize that rolling for tech essentially breaks the game.
The problem with Tech strategies is that, if you fail to roll properly, then the game is usually over right there; and even if you do succeed, the effect is often the same, forcing a rapid conclusion to the game. So I feel, if you’re rolling for tech in the first three rounds of play, its like a slap in the face to your opponent. Sort of like saying “I don’t care enough about this game to take it seriously, so here’s a wild gamble to make sure it ends sooner rather than later.”
I have a similar attitude towards the purchase of new Bombers: they’re a slap in the face to your enemy. Its like saying “Hey, I don’t respect you’re abilities as an opponent, so I’m just going to blow these 15 ipcs on another bomber, since I know you won’t be able to counter it properly anyways.”
Tech rolls and SBR strategies are more likely to push the game in an unhappy direction, where one person leaves feeling bitter and probably less inclined to play against you next time. You’re better off treating your opponent the same way you’d want to be treated (e.g. not exploited on account of some broken gameplay mechanic) and not only will you find that your games are more entertaining, but you’ll also learn more about the underlying patterns in the process.
:)
Yeah I totally agree buying techs early is not something I would ever do in a serious game as a matter of form for the reasons you described. And that late techs have some redeeming quality because they can be a) something you set up intentionally as a backup option; and b) a chance at a last ditch shot at winning or surviving when you know you’re beat. To that end, they’re not bad.
I’m a pretty laid back player, not nearly as cutthroat as others in my gaming group, so I’ll be a little more flexible with tech rules than some people I know. For example, my house rule OOB is No Tech until round 4 or later, which preserves technology advances more as a feature of the endgame (either for the coup de grace, or as a desperation move to attempt some kind of recovery for the underdog.) Still, its very rare to see tech rolls happening with experienced players, because most of us recognize that rolling for tech essentially breaks the game.
The problem with Tech strategies is that, if you fail to roll properly, then the game is usually over right there; and even if you do succeed, the effect is often the same, forcing a rapid conclusion to the game. So I feel, if you’re rolling for tech in the first three rounds of play, its like a slap in the face to your opponent. Sort of like saying “I don’t care enough about this game to take it seriously, so here’s a wild gamble to make sure it ends sooner rather than later.”
I have a similar attitude towards the purchase of new Bombers: they’re a slap in the face to your enemy. Its like saying “Hey, I don’t respect you’re abilities as an opponent, so I’m just going to blow these 15 ipcs on another bomber, since I know you won’t be able to counter it properly anyways.”
Tech rolls and SBR strategies are more likely to push the game in an unhappy direction, where one person leaves feeling bitter and probably less inclined to play against you next time. You’re better off treating your opponent the same way you’d want to be treated (e.g. not exploited on account of some broken gameplay mechanic) and not only will you find that your games are more entertaining, but you’ll also learn more about the underlying patterns in the process.
:)
Tech after 4 turns wonderful idea (love you) that is an awesome hous rule right there it stops some countries/ego’s (mostly ego’s) using tech (aka united states of america)
