Strategic Bombing Raids in Revised…..completely pointless

Yes, 2-3 bombers can be effective either against Russia, or Germany.
But I think it’s most effective if this is done by ONE power only - the one that isn’t sending the main land force. That main land force is much better served within same expense of 15 IPC by extra 5 inf, later 1inf 3art, later 3tnk, then 1ftr 1tnk and last 1bmb - as builds converge and march to the moment of final assault.

I’ve seen Russia being threatened more by Germany - then Japan must bomb more. Or by Japan - then Germans support by bombing (if their own survival isn’t more important). Similarly, US can bring the main troops against Germany with UK to bomb and swap flanks, or the reverse.
Just sending the starting bomber of the ‘land mass power’ to bomb until downed by AA - no problem with that - IF naval threat or land swap functions aren’t needed more. Its damage done until lost (17.5 IPC ~ 6 inf less to enemy) are much less than its effects in the final assault, and just waiting until them.

I actually am a fan of SBR.

In my opinion, it would be a game opening strategy to use your bombers to raid. It is simply that when it will be time to go for the homerun, you will need your bombers dices.
You also have to consider that usuall, rich factions that would consider bombing first (USA,GER) usually don’t have a target on 1 turn sbr (except for London…).
This means you will start carpet bombing at least on turn 2.

I also am somehow convinced that you must not throw in too many bombers in such an operation…
when you have a whole lot of bombers you always seem too loose more thant if you had sent only 1-2…

but bombing a poor faction is the best way to set the way, going in for the kill.

SBRs are a great strategy.  It is true that the evaluations done are too narrow and miss the overall effect on the game. You cant just look at the cost/benefit for the individual bomber.  You MUST look at the big picture.  Especially when the cost is affordable to the attacker, and not to the defender.  On top of that, you have the secondary and more powerful effect -this is why you do this attack, of reducing enemy troop numbers in the future.  Less defense means less of your valuable troops at risk.  And your troops are the ones that usually have to be shuttled half way across the board before they die, so this is REALLY valuable for you (usually US or Japan).

As Allies, I go full out with the UK to bomb the crap out of Germany.  And no, I do not wait until the end game either, this starts from turn one.  If playing with tech, I will take the risks to get rockets, UK can afford it.  Usually two or three dice a turn till I get them.  Then you get a free attack.  Build an extra AA and dump it into Norway soon as you can, and now you have two free attacks. This is generally better than going for heavy bombers unless you are really going to go overboard with the number of planes.  Otherwise I build my bombers up to two or three and nail Germany each and every round.  For the rest of UKs money, I build up a fleet of three or four trannies depending on economics and start shuttling men into Norway.

I have found this to be a very effective use of the UKs funds, and it is now up to the US to mass troop pressure on W.Eur and keep Africa clean.  But with all the thumping (you can easily reduce Germany to around 20 bucks a turn by R3) from UK as well as Russia hammering their front, the US can usually crack into those sweet 6 ipc territories fairly early.  Germany is simply forced to turtle, which is the absolute must have point in any KGF strategy.  The US can send a bomber or two as well and really add to the pain, provided they arent using them elsewhere and are buying the necessary land troops first.

For Axis playing, I will slowly build up a bomber force with Japan and begin bleeding Russia dry as soon as those bombers arent needed elsewhere…usually by J3.  Russia really, really cannot afford this and it counters the UK bombing as now UK will need to insure enough troops to defend Moscow.  I dont go for tech here, the axis simply cannot afford the cash unless the allies play really poorly, in which case Rockets are sweet for the germans, but lets face it, most games you just cant waste those precious ICs like that.

At any rate, we played both classic and now revised for years in my gaming circle, and for years nobody really focused on bombing too much.  It just felt too painful to lose that bomber…  But now I have seen the light and I must say, an effective bombing campaign is absolutely game changing.  The effect is just so profound after a few turns.  The key point tho, to any SBR campaign, is to do it overwhelmingly.  You cannot halfass here, you MUST bomb the living bejeezus out of the other country, or the risk is simply not worth it.

Ok so just checked out the tourney rules with limited SBR and we decided to invoke them in our games, as yeah, otherwise it is too overwhelming a strategy.

Still, having just borne the brunt of it as the Germans, I can say that its still a good option on top of everything else they are doing.  Really just hitting Berlin with two bombers a turn each country can take the puff right out of any german balloons.

The worst part of it was, I never shot any of his SBR bombers down, whereas he nailed me three times.  Blood begins to boil.

Well to be honest using numerous Sbr´s are a desperate tactic at best.

You use it when you really, really need to make it happend. Otherwise it´s just to risky. (imho)

to jeffdestoyer and daggaz –

first off my comments assume Terr turn limits for SBRs. Yes Sbrs can be effective on Russia, but i feel only in the end game. They can be effective early too, but i think that for it to be, its dependent on good dice. I will make some of the points I have made in other threads on the topic of SBRing Russia. Daggaz, u said that if u are aggressive with russia, they will have 24 ipc production, and u can reduce that with an SBR campaign. But an SBR approach on Russia is NOT free of cost. There have been claims by other posters on this forum that bomber bought by Japan and Germany are absolutely free of cost. As if they could buy all they wanted with no repercussion. this of course is hog wash. When you buy a 15 ipc bomber with germnay or japan, you are sacrificing the opportunity cost that 15 ipc could buy you. So when you buy axis bombers, you pass on buying axis ground units that battle russia on the fronts. And you aren’t as aggressive as you may have been otherwise. Yes, the idea of a bomber purchase is that it will pay for itself by eliminating more Russian units in future turns. An investment you hope pays of in the future, (and doesn’t get shot down the very first SBR!!). However, you sacrifice some position and leverage early with ground troop strength, you get this bomber. And it isn’t always clear how much that costs you.

SBR arent really useless even though u can normally only hit for like 12 it doesnt matter because its a pretty low risk that youll get taken down 1/6 so for me the risk is worth it when doing to germany or russia

Personally, I found that the SBR in the 2nd edition was way too overpowered.  The new heavy bomber, as well as the IPC limit to bombing, forces players to do more inspired plays.

Strategic bombing is something I will do when I don’t have any good moves or surprises to make with my bombers.  It’s just such a yawn move

@a44bigdog:

While statistically they should be about a break even proposition I find they are not. For example on paper, an Axis SBR campaign using 3 bombers per turn should do 15 IPCs damage per turn to Russia.

If none of the bombers are shot down, they will destroy an average of 10-11 IPCs per turn, not 15.  Where did you get 15?  If BOTH Axis powers did this simultaneously, it would be an average of 21 per turn, except statistically you’ll lose one.  That drops IPC damage down to 18-19.

I think I see your mistake.  The average roll of a six sided die is 3.5, not 3.  A bomber doing SBR will statistically destroy 18.5 IPCs before it’s shot down.

@Krieghund:

It’s true that SBRs are nearly a break-even proposition.  However, if they weren’t, they’d dominate the game.

The whole point of SBRs is inflicting damage that the enemy can’t afford.  The US is the only country that can really afford an SBR campaign, simply because it can afford the losses, while Germany can’t.  The US sacrifices its own income to suppress Germany’s so that the UK and USSR can take advantage of its weakened state.  This is not really pointless.

If SBRs were a money-making proposition, there’s no way that the Axis could survive, since they start off economically inferior to the Allies.  The Allies could simply build a few bombers to SBR with, then devote the rest of their income to defense.  Eventually, the combined toll of the bombings would render the Axis powers bankrupt, then the Allies could move in for the kill.  Doesn’t sound like a very fun game, does it?

The strategy you’re describing sounds perfectly viable to me.