Define “somewhat successful”.
Posts made by uffishbongo
RE: A Russian Hypothetical
Re the 1 art 4 tank purchase on R1, it looks really unbalanced. But, if you move the inf in Eve+Kaz+Nov west on your first turn, you basically get 6 inf free, so it becomes a 6 inf 1 art 4 tanks purchase, which doesn’t look quite as unreasonable. I still gravitate toward either 4 inf 3 art or 3 inf 3 tanks, but I wouldn’t rule out 1 art 4 tanks.
RE: Strategic Bombing?
A lot of folks write off SBR’s entirely because they only net an expected 5/12 IPC gain per raid. Based on this analysis, it’s pretty much always better to send your bomber into combat if at all possible (if you save an infantry, that’s better than 7 bombing runs!) and maybe SBR if you have absolutely nothing else to do.
However, the simple expected-value calculation misses an important point: Even if SBR’s end up essentially trading equal amounts of your money with the opponent’s in the long run, sometimes that’s advantageous–basically, when you’re a stronger power beating up on a weaker power. If my Germans have an income of 40 and the Russians have an income of 20, would I trade 20 of my IPC’s for 20 of theirs? Darn straight! Heck, I’d probably trade 30 of mine for 20 of theirs! Similarly, it can make sense for the USA to invest in strategic bombing raids on Germany. Swapping equal numbers of American IPC’s for German IPC’s should make any Allied player’s mouth water. America’s supply lines are so long that this is often the quickest way for them to start having an impact on Germany anyway.
To sum up, there are several factors that can make SBR’s worthwhile despite the low expected net income gain:
—Relative incomes (if you’re much richer than an opponent, losing money hurts you less)
—Geography (if your supply lines are very long, SBR’s get you into the game faster)
—Magister’s point about multi-attacker disadvantage is very important! This is another reason the USA is a natural candidate to be the bombing experts.