ShadowHawk, you miss the value proposition for strategic bombing. Let’s look at a hypothetical attack on India with slightly realistic troop compositions:
Japan: 20 infantry, 4 art, 10 fighters, 2 bombers (36 units with 70 Attack strength)
India: 31 infantry, 2 fighters (33 units with 70 defense strength)
Odds of Japan victory: 68% (-21 TUV swing)
Take away one Japanese bomber and you get a 50% chance of Japanese victory (-41 TUV swing)
Take away two India infantry and you get an 84% chance of Japanese victory (+5 TUV swing)
One Japanese bomber gave somewhat similar benefit as the 2 India infantry units. The chance of the bomber getting shot down is 1/6 while the chance of doing 5.5 PUs of damage is 5/6. Things are a bit more complicated since you need 2 bomb hits to do meaningful damage and after that every round of bombing is hurting Indian production. Still that gives about a 2:1 chance that you are hurting India more than you are hurting Japan. I will take those odds every game, assuming that you don’t have something else critical to do with the Japanese air force. Do a bunch of small battles with a 2:1 chance of favorable outcome and the game will start swinging more towards your favor. You can’t be completely risk adverse and do will in G40. Worrying too much about potential 1/36 outcomes like having both bombers getting shot down will guarantee failure. Total turtling in the game guarantees failure. Even Russia needs to look at chance to make smart exchanges, like attacking a lone Axis infantry unit with one Russian infantry + plane support.
Strategic bombing of Moscow is a game changing event. Effectively losing 5 Russian infantry for a 2/3rds chance of losing 1 German bomber is a great trade for the Axis. Sometimes the Axis can’t do the bomb runs because the planes are needed to ward off Allied invaders. Sometimes the Allies stack a large number of UK fighters in Moscow and you can’t bomb. Otherwise you would be a fool not to bomb.
Likewise, bombing of Germany-captured Eastern European factories with UK or US bombers is a huge advantage for the Allies. Minor factories are wonderful targets since one bomber can discourage future production. I do draw the line with bombing of Western European factories. I find that Germany has enough manufacturing flexibility to make it less impactful.
Another situation that I run into all of the time is attacking a lone destroyer that is used to ship block between the Allied and Japanese forces. If I bring a bunch of planes, I have a 1/3rd chance of losing a 10 PU fighter. If I bring a sub with the planes, I will essentially guarantee that sub will die the next round when the Allies again ship block with a destroyer. The math works out so using just the planes is about 50% better change of PUs than using a sub as cheap fodder along with the planes. Take a bunch of small risks with favorable odds; it can often change the outcome of the game to your eventual victory.
In regards to Scandinavia, I rarely see a good German player succumb to a Russian attack there except after Sea Lion openings with large number of planes shot down over London. Usually the German infantry with plane support will stop the advance. You have 7 infantry and 10-16 planes in the attack. You need closer to 20 ground units to discourage the German attack; the units cannot easily reposition from Finland once you go that far, and there is no way that your remaining Russians can do anything but turtle down in Moscow. At that point, the Germans can swing their fast movers up into Scandinavia and decimate the Russian invaders.