Posts made by Granada

Bunny, here you go again.

We all know the criticism, all I say is that when it works, it really can work beautifully. Of course, Allies were blessed with some kind dice early on, of course the Axis game was suboptimal to say the least because Germany really should not be sinking IPCs in the water, but it does not diminish my joy of having Russian tanks in Berlin R4. Priceless.

On balance, I have to say the only recent time when I felt I was thouroughly outplayed, the guy, apperantly an old Revised Pro at the end of the game told me the only mistake I made was going Norway R1 since “all the senior players agree, it is way too risky”.  I think the guy has meant it as a flatter but in fact he was just adding an insult to an injury.

So OK, I admit for the best players playing against the best players NG might not be the optimal way, but I know as you know, that I am not going to beat the best anyway on the standard dice, so why not give it a shot with the edgy sharp opening, eh?

We have talked a lot about the cases when NG does not or might not work. Let me for once tell you a story of how it looks when it actually works, a story of a perfect Norwegian gambit I would say. A Norwegian Gambit when you enter Berlin with russian tanks on R4  :mrgreen:.

You do everything as usual in R1, you get good dice, so you leave 6inf, 2 art, 3 tnk on WR, you have 3 units left on Norway, you have 2 infs and the lame fig on Kar and 6 units on cauc.

Germany takes AE, takes Kar, builds defensively only ground units and does not kill SZ1, but uses the sub on SZ 13, thus preserving all subs (cru does not hit) and all 5 figs.

UK takes back AE and luckily with all 3 infs surviving, sinks SZ 59, kills the SZ5 trannie, and builds AC, dd, trn, hence having 3 trns on R1 on SZ8: not bad really. The figs land on WR, the Indian Ocean fig plus the bmb land on Belgian congo.

Japy does some ussual shimy shumy as she usually does on China and Pearl, builds an IC and something else.

US builds 3 trns, AC and inf plus art, thus having 6 units to move off EUS, plus four on UK with the trns and cru on SZ8. Lands 2 figs on UK AC SZ8. Bmb kills the dd SZ7.

Russia R2 builds 3infs and 4 tnks, because I really love having 10 R tanks on R2 and story of this game will show you why.

G2 is a major mistake since the guy really does not feel like losing the med fleet so he builds an AC and fortifies Libya like Kaddafi.

He gets KAr, bel and ukr but just, and fortifies WEU.

UK is cold as ice and does not move anywhere from SZ8, build 3 more trannies and ground units, so it has 6 full trannies to unload R3. And moves all air to cauc. Retreats 2 units from AE leaving there just one, and keeping 3 on Kenya (one is the original SA guy) and 2 in India, with 2 on the aussie trannie in SZ 30.

J goes west with its ships which is really interesting, it tooks Hawaii, bury, sink, and gets some more guys to FIC, to invade india, where the 2 annoying gurkhas were able to keep it for her majesty on UK1 and UK2 really.

US2 builds 2 more trannies /so it has 8 o them which is all it needs really/ and 7 ground units in order to have 8 units ready to be shipped off Eastern Canada from R3 on (one of the 8 being the AA gun from EUS).

R3 Russia is having real feast since Germany is fighting for Med like a fire engine going to a wrong fire. So it takes Karelia, with 7 infs and 10 tnks, it takes bel and ukr too.

Germany on R3 makes another real bad decision because some mistakes tend to produce more mistakes and builds another AC on med. The guy does not want to lose the ships including the AC he has build the previous round. So it ends with trying but not taking UKR, trying but not taking bel, leaving one guy on EE, and having BB, 2 ACs, 3 subs and 4 figs off Italy, but only 5 inf, 1 bmb and  2 figs on Berlin. Impressive. Just for the record: Germany takes AE with three units.

UK uses its trannie that on R1 moved the guy from NZ to Aus, and on R2 moved 2 guys od Aus to SZ30 to move the 2  infs to AE where they merge with 3 infs from Italian East Africa (2 retreated from AE, 1 came from Kenya) and since there are 4 planes from cauc, they kill all three Ger units on AE with not a single hit back, thus taking AE with 5 infs. UK also moves everything it can to Norway, setting up the fleet SZ3. The important thing is the US figs move on board of the UKs AC.

Japs come with really strong fleet to South Atlantic, take india, Sink and yakut, but they are nowhere near anything important really.

US kills the Gerrys EE guy with bmb and 2 figs off the Uk AC SZ3. Just for the record, the Gerry did not strike back. They move the fleet to SZ 3 too and all UK units to Norway, 4 trannies are there at SZ 3, 4 others are at SZ1 with the bb, and there are 8 ground units on ECanada, there are also 3 infs and 4 tnks at WUS to keep the japs honest, and 4 infs on EUS.

Round 4: Russia attacks Berlin with 10 tanks taking it 5 tanks remaining. Russian also take balkans. Although Gerrys were able to retake it, Axis player resigns before the round ends. It is obvious Allies would prevail not before too long.

I really dont see all inf buy working as a good strategy against succesful Norwegian gambit. If allies set up in Karelia in time, the infantry will never come to threaten russia at all. And with Germany on -40 and UK/US pumping 16 units to Europe a round it is only a matter of time before Allies get Berlin because Germany will not stay competitive in the arms race.

On the other hand buying all inf Germany can be a powerful offensive move if you see Allies go after Japan. I than ussually buy all inf on G2, G3 moving that East and building all tanks, R4 moving all that infantry and tanks to UKR and building some more tanks, R5 taking cauc, moving the tanks from Berlin to Ukr, building bmbs, R6 taking Moscow.

It worked for me so perfectly against last KJF attempt applied on me, that I took moscow with 21 tanks remaining. But this you will not be able to do if Russia is not wasting its units on skirmishes with Japan in Far East and if US/UK set up themselves on Norway/WEU R3.

@special:

Edit: that’s an odd situation, and a lot of American IC’s…

Well, the fact it is an odd situation made me to start this discussion. 

I have built all these ICs making myself ready for a long fight, and being able to produce units where I really need them. I think I had a good chance to develop a real pressure on FIC/japan, but as we left it I have not really checked.

In TripleA. It is a TripleA file.

@Paulzy:

After a fresh look at the save, maybe Axis should have built a couple Jap factories in Africa and began pumping out troops and/or waited a couple rounds saveing IPC’s until Jap could have dumped a much larger fleet in the pac while Germany built up?

I also cannot stop thinking of the game  :-D.

After ckecking the file I think Japan would get under severe pressure in the coming rounds having to defend both Japan and FIC. And actually there would be some options in India too. US build next round would be 3trns and tnk Borneo, 2inf and tnk philippines, 2bmb EIC, moving the fleet next to borneo. Thus US would be threatening the next round to hit either FIC or Jap with 4inf, 2tnk, 3figs, 3bbs, 10bmbs (8 on jap). It would not be entirely easy to defend both. Or US could have set up at India, threatening to produce there 3 UK units before the next jap move. It could have been difficult for jap to hit India then without exposing FIC. If US would get India and FIC, I think Allies may get the upper hand again. But should those threats fail I think Axis would prevail soon after this.

Sorry, just noticed the original save of the game was not correct. Now there is the right one. Apologies to the two users, who have downloaded it already  :roll:

I had a very inetersting game with Paulzy the other night and I thought I would ask for a feedback from other players who might have experience with the situation that evolved in our game.

I was Allies and since it was not a league game and I really like playing Paulzy I decided I would try something special. Of course I did my standard Norwegian move R1 but I decided to go after Japan. The idea was to build US IC on Alaska on R1 and UK IC on India R2. The India IC worked very well in the early stages, while Japan made a move to get the Alaska IC which it did, but it really slowed her and got under pressure in the middle game.

The Russians were able to keep things more or less under control on the European front for quite a long time. UK managed to sink the Germany med fleet and contested succesfully Africa with Germans in the early stages and even managed to sink half of the Japanese ships off FIC. The US was producing bbs, trans and bmbs. Many bmbs.

There were some substantial tactical mistakes on both sides during the game I would say but Paulzy is an outstanding player so gradually Axis was gaining ground and Japan managed to get hold of India after a little bit of unkind dice. Japan got most of Africa and Germans started to push Russia really hard. At the other hand UK was starting to develop some pressure on Germany too, holding Nor, and trading EE and WEU.

At the same time US was a monster in Pacific with fleet of 2 loaded ACs, 3bbs, trns, dd, sub and 8bmbs. It took all three juicy islands.

R8 Russia went for straffing stack of 18 G tanks on WR which proved to be futile since Moscow than fell on German move. It was clear there is no way of retaking mosc any time soon and it was only a matter of short time UK would be pushed out of Europe.

Axis was up on production. Germany 40+, Japan around 50, UK -30, US 50 +. But Allies hold 4 VCs and was not going to lose any of them any time soon (London, Manilla, LA, NY). US just sunk very expensive Japanese naval build and was in a complete control of PAcific and Indian Ocean with ICs on all three islands and 8subs in the adjacent SZs and the 8 bmbs in Philipenes. There was no question of Japan getting back on the water in the game.

Surely UK would get soon under pressure from Germany, but had a decent Atlantic fleet and could retake Africa with the aid of US really soon thus getting Japan back under 40, while staying competitive or at least being able to hold its own.

And I felt that if the US had managed to set up a foothold on Asia mainland or even break Japan hold of FIC (pretty fortified at the time) and India it could still turn the game around. I thought that could still be the turning point of the game.

We felt the game would drag for a very long time before one of us (probably Axis for that matter) getting 9 VCs and we decided call it a draw.

Has anybody ever played the endgame US/UK vs Germany/Japan and won?

connection_lost_on_X_14_at_02_46.tsvg

Can anybody please explain to me, why was the poll I posted on where people do play online removed? Did I break any rules of the forum? :?

After my first gaming experiences at GTO I can see the charms of playing there, but I think there are also many disadvantages. But since my experience playing there is really only slim, maybe I am missing something. So please correct me if I am wrong.

GTO:

Advantages:
1. No need to bother with setting up the hosting
2. Much more players
3. AAA players play only Spring 1942 or Revised, no BigWorlds, NWO etc.
4. Keeps your basic personal stats
5. Has functioning and competitive league
6. Time control

Disadvantages:
1. You can play only after you pay GTO coins, which costs you money
2. You can save the game only to the PBEM format whch costs you more money
3. No chance to observe other games when they are played /but I was told they work on it/
4. No battle calc, no complete picture of the game (no TUV statistics), less user friendly interface
5. Keeps personal statistics, but not precisely enough (you cannot see who did you play)
6. Time control
7. No edit option to fix or bypass the bugs

TripleA

Advantages:

1. Open source for free
2. The old bunch of the nice guys
3. When you get bored with spring 1942, you can play AA50 or some of the special maps for a change
4. Very good interface, keeps control of the stats during game
5. You can easily save and you can watch other players’ games
6. It has the kind edit mode
7. Sometimes you can play Hobbes here 

Disadvantages:

1. Really hard to get a V4 game sometimes
2. Limited number of oponents
3. No personal stats at all
4. The league is not working if someone so mediocre as I can lead it  after 20 + games in 6 months :mrgreen:
5. Not entirely easy to host a game
6. Not that much challenging oposition (I think Hobbes must have hit really something extreme when he lost his first 2 games, since I am 4-0 at GTO after four games, taking Moscow R2 in the last one :roll:)

Well, please those lists are just from a top of my mind, please correct me, vote and discuss! I would be esspecially interested in ideas what can be done to get more people playing at TripleA because I sort of love it there and after a few experiences at GTO I am affraid I might get seduced by the marvellously easy way you get a game there.

Well, you have to also see the prize Gerrys pay. I am inclined to say that if WR is the only attack they do I am an happy Allied player as long as I can destroy their remaining units on russian 2. I think I am over 50 % against attack on WR, even if Germany suceeded. The game basically turns into a slugfest then.

Gerrys are out of water, out of Africa, will never see Norway again, while the UK/US are all over it R3/4

But I really do not want to go into all the details again, its in the thread.

I originally came just to confess that I am registered on GTO. Played my first game, won with axis. It was a joy, since guy tried to KJF me and although he had sunk my complete japanese fleet R2 (had 9% to succeed, went for it and won), I got Mosocw R5, London R7 and the game was over.

Since there is no battle calc (at least i did not notice) and no sophisticated stats (TUV) the game feels much more like the playing experience at a real table. It also really seems there is much easier to find someone to play against then at TripleA, which is a pity since i really like the interface more and the community is great. I also noticed they have a league there, that looks much more competitive than the one there is at TripleA. Does anybody have any experience with that?

@Zhukov44:

I agree the $ to activate 42 for GTO is well worth it if you are a fan of the game.  Since their ad is on the back of the aa42 box, new 42 players are registering there every day.  But keep in mind that a long good game will usually either start or be converted to a PBE game and that costs something like 25 cents a game.

ROCmonster my main criticism of GTO is that they don’t respond fast enough to user-suggested improvements.  TripleA’s open-source model seems to fix bugs and make improvements far quicker than GTO’s pay model.  And there are other issues.  But all those problems noted, GTO is a wonderful community of gamers and tons of fun, and the owners and operators are genuinely good people.

Interesting that you don’t recommend Norway in low luck Hobbes.  Do you recommend it in dice?  It’s been a while since I played the game so I have no idea whether wr/nor or ukr/wr is more popular these days–opinion among experts seemed split right down the middle when I stopped playing 42.

GCar…if you’re reading this, which opening is currently favored in the ladder league?

Most of my Axis losses (that didn’t happen against Hobbes) have been against a Norway R1, but that in itself doesn’t prove anything.

While I see Hobbes has renamed Norwegian Gambit to a Norwegian Gamble  i am still unconvinced. In spite of ocassional losses I feel it serves me well, my last league win was with NG. I do not play low luck so I cannot tell how it works there, but i n dice I feel Germany gambles more with the G1 WR attack then Russia.

Well, I will give GTO second thought, but I really like how tripleA works. Since you have stopped playing V4, what are you playing these days, Zhuk?

well, the debate is ongoing and you can see the issues you touch discussed in the link provided in my previous post.

Concerning the GTO, is there any way to get around their 160 coins? Is there lowluck option there? I never play lowluck, but i am just curious. I think I am not going to pay this when the soft looks to me less user friendly then TripleA. Do you ever play there?

@Advosan:

@MrMalachiCrunch:

England can also build a bomber on UK1 and position a fighter and bomber in FEq after using them to counter attack Egy.

The new bomber has to land in Trj, so obviously, take it as a casualty.  2 bombers and a fighter ought to end the german fun in the Med.

You can also put both brit fighters from eng in Wru, they too can reach where the german fleet will probably be in S15.  They would have to also land in Trj, if Japan has positioned herself well, Trj might be subject to 2 land unit, BB and air supported attack by the japs.

British air units in Cau are a great way to keep the Japs honest and forcing them to go in Sz34 with much force if at all.

Indeed,Uk2 ftr and bmb can do the job just as well.But I still haven t found a way to prevent the G2 landing.Only a risky Uk1 ftr+bmb,but it is soo risky…If only Uk had a sub in the Med!!

There are only two ways to sink the German bb in med before R2. The risky UK fig plus bmb operation that may terribly backfire, or the Russian figs plus subs if you buy them. Hence most people learn to live with the second round german landing and try to prevent only the third round landing: well organized UK or US air will do.

@Hobbes:

Decided to try GTO today. Already played 2 games and lost both!

Are you fracking kidding me?  Who are the players there? Caspian Sub reincarnated or what?

@bongaroo:

Sorry for the thread necromancy but I am very interested in spicing things up with my usual axis and allies opponent and giving the Norweigan Gambit a try.

Since this was discussed have any solid conclusions been drawn?  If R1 is a two fighter attack with all the available infantry and the arm, what other attacks are being used?  How is Caucasus protected?

You can find the whole debate here:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=23001.0

While I think the majority of people tend to come to the conclusion that NG is a too risky opening, I still use and still consider it the best option for Russia.

I have not been playing for quite some time, hence I can hardly say what are the latest trends. All I know is that I have won several games for Allies with a strategy of US going full speed after Japan, while UK and Russia where dealing with Germany and slightly pushing japans in asia just no to let them have some cheap gains. Lately I have used the Pacific strategy practically always when I saw japan screwing something R1. If you ask me whether I consider skipping Pearl a case of “screwing something”, my intituitive answer would be yes, even if the price was the inf stack on bury, but since I know Hobbes is using this move too, I am gladly willing to admit I might be just wrong on this first I would have to see more evidence.

There are two possible approaches: 1. US IC on sinkiang R1 and UK IC on India R2, the rest to the naval builds with US. This is only wise if japan cannot attack sinkiang R2 of course. 2. US combined naval and air build, based an ACs figs, some submarines and bombers, this buy gives you best punch/count/skew ratio per your money and allows you to threaten japanese ships very early.

The integral part of both strategies is that UK manages to hold Africa, since UK has the most vital role as the balancing factor that on one hand assists russia to withstand the pressure on the other hand adds this tiny bit that helps to tip the ballance to the allies just in time in the Asia/Pacific. For this it needs the africa ipcs and deny them to the Germans.

Maybe it is just my ignorance but based on my exprience I would say this startegy is easier and safer way to win than classic KGF unless Japan does everything right on R1.

I decide what i will do after J1. More and more I am leaning to go Pacific with US which actually leads to a split strategy of sorts.

For me it has two main lines. The first one includes ICs on sink and India (build only R2 or even later), the other one is purely naval and air builds with US. I decide which one I will go according to the specific weaknesses of Japan. In general I consider the strategy including the ICs more promising and more universal but if Japan has really screwed the J1 on sea, I may go full speed after its fleet.

The pattern of the games is ussually as follows: Russia fights a defensive fight with Germany. US fights an offensive fight with Japan. UK first task is to controll Africa and then to assist both Russia and US. If executed well it leads to Japan being not killed but broken while Germany is still too far from Moscow.

But I do play KGF often and I cannot see any shame in this. I invite anybody who considers that an embarassingly easy way to win to demonstrate that against an expert Axis player like Bas or Hobbes. 

@brokev03:

Good idea comparing it to the other common way of protecting SZ5:

Norwegian gambit w/1FIG –> successful? --Yes–> G can take Egypt easily, not SZ5
                                                         _No__–> G comfortably takes Egypt and SZ5

FIG to Egypt –> force G to choose –—> take Egypt easily, SZ5 impossible
                                                 _–> take SZ5 comfortably, avoid Egypt
                                                  _–>take both, but G risks catastrophe

In the case G does try for both, the best it can muster is 63% win in LL and 52% in dice, both of which carry a 6% chance of losing the BB.

Also remember, failure to take Egypt almost guarantees a sunk German BB on UK1 (in my book at least), as Suez is open and/or there is another UK FIG hanging around (G going for Trans Jordan doesn’t save it of this fate).

I don’t know, maybe it’s playing risky to put a Russian FIG in harm’s way, but Russia can build another?  And the potential gain for Allies is very large.  What I would be interested to know is as an Axis player, what would your response be to an extra FIG in Egypt?

Edit: by SZ5 you mean SZ2 I think.

There is one more thing to add to the analyzes, and that is the way Russia fights went on R1. Approximately every fourth game Russia would have some serious problems either on WR or UKR. Either it will suffer exceptionally high loses taking WR, or it might not take ukraine (this would happen approx. every fifth game unless Russia is willing to take the last hit on the second fig). So please note that the likelihood of failed ukraine is about as high as the likelihood of failing the Norway cancelling the assumed advantage of AE gambit exactly the same way.

My answer as the Germany player would differ according to the outcome of R1. In cases Russia came weak I might go full speed after it ignoring Egypt. In cases it comes stronger I would perhaps bite the bullet and ignored SZ2 and went for the juicy prize in AE.

I have seen people taking AES heavy only R2 and I think it is viable option too. You would use the bb to go SZ13, took Gibraltar, killed SZ2, build some heavy air stationed 3-4 figs on SEU. Allies are UK bb down, cannot use SZ8 for building and if they try to fortify AES with everything they have, they would still most likely lose it R2. As AES is succesfully countered on UK1 most of the times it would not slow Germans down. I know it opens some other interesting options for uk, especially in Asia but at least you have not caused Germans the problems you were hoping for.

Now why I would not prefer this opening to Norwegian Gambit. Two reasons:

1. As much as I’d enjoy playing against the 50 % unlucky players who failed AES while attempting for SZ2 at the same time, I’d really hate to play against the 50 % of lucky players who would kill SZ2 and AES at the same time. And I really don’t want to live with that flip of a coin situation after R1. On a top of that if I have decided I want to preserve the UK BB SZ2 i really do not want to give Germans the choice.

2. I like my Russian tanks. One of the reasons I am not doing Ukraine is I really hate losing three of my starting tanks. And ukr can be most of the times retaken just with some inf supported by one fig, so you have traded three of your starting tanks for a tnk and a fig while in NG only one tnk goes to trades and many times it will do a great job for you defending Norway where Germany can send only 2 ground units.

@LMD:

If you send the Russian fighter to Egypt, then the most Russia has to take Ukraine is 3 inf, 3 tanks and 1 fighter, against G’s 3 inf, 1 tank and 1 fighter.  If R fails in Ukraine, the surviving G fighter now supports the Egy attack, basically ensuring the lost of the R fighter and maybe also allowing G to use the bomber in SZ 2.  Seems too risky … or does R still have high probability of taking Ukraine without the extra fighter?

I was just going to write the same post. It feels a bit akward to lose the russian fig without even using it. You most likely save SZ2 – which I adore, no doubt – but you have taken ukr more lightly and with higher a risk of failure. Moreover there is the risk you run into someone who decides to take his chance and kills both SZ2 and AES. You than stand empty-handed and the R fig down after R1.

Stratbombing looks really cool on the first sight. Only I have not seen it worked. I actually have based the post on my personal experience. I have played many players who stratbombed me and almost all of them complained bad luck in the process. I recalled the old CaspSub paper and decided to check out whether what they say was still relevant for Spring 1942.

And my conclusion was that “bad luck” is nothing that happens to a stratbombing player but something he should expect, bad luck is what stratbombing brings. If you are happy with 0.5 damage inflicted per a raid, than you better think twice about what are the damages you are not inflicting because of strat bombing.

As for the build of bmbs on WUS, I cannot see a calm Japanese player to be forced into buying anything, maybe a dd just to remove even the faintest hope of succes. 4bmbs would stand just 28 % chance of winning against bb, AC, 2 figs; with a dd it drops to 8 % (assuming the first dd killed the sub, in case the sub has retreated there is even less need for building an extra dd). And some people buy two dds J1 anyway. So the southern fleet would not be even necassary to add to the forces on the japanese sea on turn 2, and they can make it there usually turn 3 leaving any air attack on japanese fleet all but impossible.

@HolKann:

@Granada:

Sorry, I think my logic is correct here, since while the first bmb dies on the 3rd-4th roll of dice, it will take 6 more rolls to get you to the 3rd-4th roll of the second half dozen of rolls. Of course, we work with averages because average is what is likely to happen most often: there is no mean when rolling a dice; and it is exactly between the 3rd and 4th roll when the cummulative likelihood you roll 1 exceeds 50 %.

Mathematics doesn’t agree:
“average” != “what is most likely to happen”. What is most likely to happen is an event with the biggest chance, given a set of events and a probability function over the events. For instance, let’s take the set of chances of a bomber dieing in raid N. For N=1, this is 1/6. For N=2, this is 5/6 (not dieing raid 1) * 1/6 (dieing raid 2). For N=3, it is 5/65/61/6. So the chance of dieing in raid N = 5/6^(N-1)*1/6 = the probability function. Dieing in raid 4 has a chance of 9.6%. As told, dieing in raid 1 has a chance of 16.7%. So according to your own definition (“most likely to happen”), it should be the first turn, which contradicts your conclusion of 3rd/4th turn.
Ofcourse, you can use other sets of events. I’ll indulge you, and define the set you mean, which is cumulative: chance of getting shot down before raid 5, and chance of getting shot down on or after raid 5. Not getting shot down before raid 5=(5/6)^4=48%. Chances of getting shot down before raid 5 = chances of opposite = 1-48% = 52%. The result we can extrapolate is it is more probable to get shot before the 5th raid than after the 4th raid. But also: it is almost equally likely to get killed before the 5th raid as after the 4th raid (52%~=48%). Anyway, this is probably what you mean with “between 3rd and 4th”, only it should be “between 4th and 5th”.
The problem with this definition of the set of events however is that it doesn’t tell you at what raid the bomber will probably die (you need my first definition of the set to do this). It only tells you before or after what raid the bomber will probably die. Which is utterly pointless in the purpose of determining average damage. As is the first definition too…

Fair enough. I have suspected there was a catch in my primitive math and thanks for correcting that. I am sure there must be a way how to count in such a sophisticated way what is the relative damage the bomber causes before dying. I am pretty sure the balance stays negative but definitely less then 3.5, so the burden on the bomber is lower, perhaps much lower, could be around 1 IPC, I guess.

@HolKann:

Anyway, enough chit-chat, strategy talk.

USA 1: buy 3 bmr. Gives 4 bmr total. After that, buy 2/3 of a bmr every round. This way you’ll always have 4 bmrs pounding Germany from round 3 upwards.
Germany has an income of about 40. Let’s assume it needs 10 units each turn. So its best bet is to only repair Germany fully, giving you 20 IPC’s a turn to shoot at. With 4 bmrs, this will seldomly (=in less than 1.5% of cases) be overkill (chances of getting >20 are (5/6)^4 -getting past AA with 4 bmrs- * 2.7% -throwing 21 or more, see http://anydice.com/-  < ~1.5%).

Using this strat, your land troops arrive one turn later, with 1 inf 1 arm (=8 IPC’s = 2/3 of a bmr) less each turn. This is the drawback.
What do you get in return? From turn 4 onwards (3rd turn you’re shooting at Italy, which doesn’t get repaired) Germany is denied 12 IPC’s worth of units, or 4 infantry. You always have 4 bmrs to support an invasion. You need less transports (remember, 1 less inf+arm means less units to shuttle). You start hindering Germany from turn 3, which is faster than you can do with any newly built land army + fleet (the invasion of Africa is done with the starting army + fleet). Lastly, Germany cannot use Italy as a building point (for instance to build fleet or troops for Africa).

The initial investment is high (3 bmr turn 1, 1 bmr turn 2 etc.), but what strategy with USA hasn’t got a high initial investment? After this investment you trade 8 IPC’s for 12 IPC’s each turn. It is a decent trade-off, possible in 1942 because bmrs are cheaper. Can you show me a strategy with US that trades IPC’s faster?

All I am saying it is a “prayer” based method, not a strategy.

It is not a prayer, but a decent strat, the quickest one I know to trade American IPC’s with Germany. I hope my point is more clear now.

I am glad you have come to these specifics, because I say this strategy is doomed to fail unless you are exceptionally lucky, and maybe even in such a case.

1. You cannot assume Germany needs 10 units a round. It may easily build a fig a round and less inf/tnk.

2. It will always use up its capacity on SEU, so it will only repair to 3-5 production capacity on Germany.

3. Thus you would be sending 4 bmbs on 13-15 pray, reducing your 0.9 damage per raid to about 0.7.

4. US is not loosing just tnk/inf, it is not that easy.

Let us look at the proceedings more closely:

R1. US builds 3bmb and 2 inf most likely, collects 40. R2 US builds bmb, AC, 2trn, collects 38. R3 US builds a bmb, 2trn 4inf, collects 38. R4 US builds a bmb, trn, art, 5 inf, collects 38. R5 (first round when it can likely safely not build a bmb and a trn, since it has 8 already) so it builds 4tnk, 4inf and 2 extra inf, collects 38. R6 US builds bmb, moves 8 units EC, 4trn SZ 1, merges fleets SZ6, may try to offload on Norway which has been trading or taken already. But then it comes to get really interesting.

What if Germans seeing the strategy try to make the most of it and after an all inf buy R2, from R3 on they build a fig a round. If they have build a bmb on R1 which many people including myself usually do and they lost 2 figs R1 they will have 2 bmb plus 8 fig on R6. If US leaves something on SZ 2 to protect the transit to UK (and it must be the bb plus a dd to be safe), the Allies can only move SZ 3/6 with 2 AC, 4 fig, dd, cru (if UK bb died R1, build AC, 2 dds R1 and lost none ). This would get killed.

OK, UK can build more ships and figs for cover. But than if the Japan air has been flown in it fixes your fleet on one spot unless the US decides to invest more on ships.

So here is the choice. With your strategy you get your first regular offload with a good punch (4tnk, 4 inf) on Norway R8, and you will have a stack able to present a threat on Germany R11 the earliest. Or you will protect your ships so that they can manouver seperately and thus get to the very best SZ5. But then you will most likely not be coming with 8 units a round, but rather with 6 units a round, thus most likely bringing Germany into a danger even later.  And we are not taliking about US trying to contest Africa or doing anything in Pacific, so after it will lose Hawaii (around R6), it can even be on 37 for a few rounds.

cause for all that chit-chat it is neither the air, nor the ships that win the war. Infantry and tanks do. US needs tanks in Europe and cannot afford them with the bombing strategy.

Now what is going on in the bombed Germany for all that time? It uses approx. 10 IPCs a round to offset the bombing, stacks KAR if feasible to deter any early NOR landings, otherwise trades it together with bel and ukr, stacks WEU with plenty of air, keeps just enough on ger, sends a couple of inf on ee for trades every round. Produces 6 on SEU, 2-5 on Germany and most likely never drops under 40 in income unless it is too late for Allies to exploit.

While Japan is round by round making sure that R and UK income drops steadily while building up (and building up infantry and tanks for that matter) to take Mosc.

Thank you, come again.

@HolKann:

@Granada:

Moreover there is another important factor coming into play omitted in the CS analyzes. The truth is that your first bmb is killed on average on the 3rd to 4th roll of dice for the AA gun and on every sixth roll only from then on.

If we follow your reasoning, every bomber built will fall after 3/4 bombing raids, because there is no inherent dice difference between the starting bomber and the newly built bombers. The former is, ofcourse, a false statement.

Sorry, I think my logic is correct here, since while the first bmb dies on the 3rd-4th roll of dice, it will take 6 more rolls to get you to the 3rd-4th roll of the second half dozen of rolls. Of course, we work with averages because average is what is likely to happen most often: there is no mean when rolling a dice; and it is exactly between the 3rd and 4th roll when the cummulative likelihood you roll 1 exceeds 50 %.

@HolKann:

The only thing I’d like to add that USA executing a bombing campaign against Germany -buy 3 bmrs the first few turns to bomb the greycoats back to the stone age- is a viable strategy: it is a swift way to use American IPC’s to hamper Germany’s war effort. It’s faster than stacking up in UK and invading Europe mid-game. It’s about trying to fully utilize USA’s IPC’s, which often is not trivial to do.

Lets say you buy 3bmbs first 2 rounds with US and then 1 bmb a round to replenish what was lost. it means US is every round 2 units lighter in what it sends to europe and starts to come there 2rounds later; getting there with first 6 units only R6 or 7.

The three bombers build R1, hit Germany R3 for the first time and start to be effective R4, inflicting 17.5 damage a round. So what does Germany seeing this coming do? First of all he would definitely produce all inf for rounds 2 and 3, so that he can switch to tanks and air when the limit on production comes in place.

Second, he would repair always in such a way to have only 1 production on SEU and the rest on Germany. Lets say Germany that has 12 damage on Berlin and 7 on Rome and 42 IPCs decides to repair 2 on Rome and 9 on Berlin. It has 31 IPCs for 8 production, so produces 3tnk, art and 4inf.

Now it really gets interesting. You have 6 US bmbs and 7 possible damages in SEU while 17 on Berlin. Most likely you would send 1-2 bmb SEU, 4-5 Germany. But what we see here is that the bombers cannot inflict the maximum statistical damage since if they are lucky enough to roll all 5-6, they still can only inflict maximum 7 and 17 damage. This in fact reduces the effectivity of strat bombing even further (and CS policy paper deals with that aspect too).

You may still think this is a good thing to do, because you do not know how to make the US dollars felt in Europe in time. CS paper calls that transfer of dollars. They can understand it, I can understand it too, but it still does not make me think this is an effective strategy.

In the aforementioned example sending 4 bombers on Germany means that they do not inflict the average 3,5, but all the cases when they would inflict combined damage exceeding the limit of 17 are cut just to that number (right, all the 18s, 19s, 20s, 21s, 22s, 23s and 24s would come as 17s only).  I am too lazy to count what that does with the average damage, but it will be reduced to something like 0.7 damage per raid and a bmb.

In SEU where the 2 bmbs are capped with the limit of 7 the situation is even worse. In this case the effectivity of the raid drops almost exactly to 3, so you inflict a damage of 0.5 IPC with the raid. And you would not help yourself much by sending only one bmb SEU, and five Germany because then you are grossly overdoing Germany instead.

The best way to stay cost effective perhaps would be sending just one bomber bellow the maximum damage (1 SEU, 2 Germany), but then hey, why did you build all those bombers at the first place.

I am not saying it cannot ever work. All I am saying it is a “prayer” based method, not a strategy.

There is a great old policy paper of the famous Caspian Sub Crew called “The Civilians Bellow” analyzing strat-bombing for the Revised edition. Their conclusion was that strat-bombing was a counter-productive strategy. But how about with the changes of rules in the Spring 1942 (V4 edition)?

Although the math has changed clearly a bit in favour of strat-bombing because of the lower price of the bombers in Spring 1942 (they now cost 12 IPCs as opposed to the 15 IPCs in revised), another change of rules (not hitting the pay-check directly but reducing the production capacity of the industrial complex) favours the object of bombing.

Let us look closely on the math of the SBRs as provided by CS Sub.

You inflict an average damage of 3.5 production capacity (1+2+3+4+5+6/6).

But the AA gun changes the math significantly. It will kill the bomber on average every six rounds. So it has to be included in the costs of the raid. 12 IPCs / 6 raids, makes it for 2IPCs per SBR.

On a top of that since the bomber gets hit periodically it completes only 5 raids, so you get 3.5 damage only 5 of six times, which makes it for 2.9 damage on average. Thus a strat bombing raid inflicts an average 0.9 damage.

Moreover there is another important factor coming into play omitted in the CS analyzes. The truth is that your first bmb is killed on average on the 3rd to 4th roll of dice for the AA gun and on every sixth roll only from then on.

So your starting bmb dies after inflicting an average damage of 8,75 (dies on the 3rd or the 4th roll of dice which makes for the 7+10,5/2 damage). So you actually lose 3.25 IPCs value on that bomber, while only every following bomber will start to bring you back this loss by inflicting the 0.9 damage per raid.

While this still might not look that bad, further analyzes shows it is seldom a smart effort. Because it is not direct damage on IPCs what you inflict as it was in the Revised edition, it is only a burden on the production capacity.

For example if the strategy is used against Germany, as we see most of the times, it is usually not before the third raid Germany needs to spend the first IPC on repairing since it can produce units on SEU. So usually, only when the first bomber is gone, the strategy starts to bring effects. The sheer fact that the first two raids are most likely in vane and that Germany can tune its reparations so that it exactly matches what it is going to produce, makes out of the SBR against Germany a total non-strategy.

You lose 3.5 IPCs value on each of your starting bombers. And you start to bother Germany only after you reduce its combined producing capacity under 11. So that is 7 IPCs to include as a burden on your SBR strategy on the lost bombers and 6 IPCs on the German production, Germany does not use really. That makes it 13. You divide that with 0.9 and you find that strat bombing Germany becomes a cost effective enterprise only after the raid number 15!

Now let us look on the other aspect of the strat bombing. To quote the insuperable Caspian Sub: “So if we know we’re not getting a lot of value for that bomber on an SBR, how does it compare to the other things we could do with that bomber? Great question. I’m glad I asked.“

I am not going to reproduce the elegant analyzes showing that the bmbs inflict much more damage against ground units then they do in sbrs. (Basically as they kill 2 inf out of every 3 attempts they do 2 IPCs damage on any roll of a dice against an infantry, provided no AA gun is present).

Moreover you might also need the bombers in the later stages of the game when they really can prove to be absolutely crucial in 1-2-3 attacks that can decide close games. They are a great deterrent too. Their reach is immense and can hinder movement of trannies or give support to the most surprising attacks on the far away places of the map.

And every bomber you have built to be inflicting this lousy 0.9 damage has cost you also 4 infs you have not build. Now if you do SBRs while you have not killed the med fleet or have not taken Norway you are chasing 0.9 damages and letting Germans freely collect many IPCs in Africa or Norway…

If you do not totally compromise on building inf and navy, you are not going to be able to start performing 2 sbrs a round earlier then R3. It means you are getting the SBR campaign against Germany on the sum of zero only on R10.

It might make more sense to stratbomb UK with Germany when it is on tight budget since it really needs to use up both its production capacity and all income to be effective in Europe. Still it remains the 0.9 damage, and all the opportunities lost: reducing your air power against the allied fleet, reducing your punch in trading with russia.

The conclusion: as a rule, do not strat-bomb.

There are few exceptions to the rule. Bomb if there is no aa gun and no better target. Bomb UK if you are turteling with Germany and have no better use for the bombers. Bomb Japan after successful Contain Japan First. US is above 50, buys bmb a round in range and 3-4 bmbs a round should make it sure Japan has not a remotest dream of recovering while you can rush everything you have with the US against Germans.

I cannot resist quoting the last exception in the list of Caspian Sub: “And lastly there is Sweet Mother Luck (the unStrategy). Some guys like to take their chances. If the AA guns are cold, you can rock a paycheck pretty badly. But this isn’t exactly a ‘strategy’; it is more of a prayer.“

To wrap it up: because the changes to the rules in the Spring 1942 (cheaper bombers, indirect damages) tend to balance themselves, the Caspian Sub conclusion still holds in my opinion: „Although there are a few instances where SBRs are useful, you’re better off saving your bombers for military engagements. Leave the civilians alone“.

I see, thanks for correcting me. I do not have the game here with me, and I could not find the rules on the net so that I could not double check.