Unbeatable Allied Strategy

[eumaies]

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.

[Black_Elk]

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.

:)

[Lucifer]

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.

[Jennifer]

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.

[squirecam]

@Black_Elk:

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.

[eumaies]

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.

[eumaies]

@eumaies:

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.

[squirecam]

@eumaies:

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”.

[italiansarecoming]

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

[eumaies]

@eumaies:

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.

[italiansarecoming]

I agree operation sealion wait for that was germanies problem not ready thoguht the brits would quite

[Black_Elk]

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.

:)

[eumaies]

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.

[italiansarecoming]

@Black_Elk:

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)

[Lucifer]

Usually, but not always, if you loose a capital in AAR, you lost the game. there are sometimes this rule does not apply, if a capital falls on both sides, other factors will determine the outcome.

So if Germany spends all money on LRA G1 and gets it, Germany still need some luck to capture London, although odds are about 51%?, but if London is taken, and both players are not n00bs, allies will almost certain lose the game.

[eumaies]

Actually, Subotai, that’s not true.

If germany spend $40 to get LRA, then takes UK after losing almost it’s entire air force (which is typical), then you’ve just completely blown your wad and russia is about to kill you.

Meanwhile the british battleship and 1 tank from eastern europe retake the UK capital on their turn, which allows the UK to collect money again.  US can reinforce on their turn.

The only way you get a significant edge is if the UK is unlucky enough to fail to re-take britain.  Otherwise, even with the $30 stolen, germany still hasn’t made really big gains.

[Lucifer]

We can try it if you want, I can host TripleA, we then would have to agree that if I (as axis) fail to get long range G1, then we have to restart the game. Also, if I fail to take London, then I lost the game, obviously. About 50% of such games will be lost.
But the premise for my statements is: all things being equal, so with Germany getting long range, then tech is on, and of course, if US gets heavy bombers pretty soon, then that factor comes into play, and will bring Germany down.

But if we assume a game with only Germany gets any tech, and that is long range, and Germany captures London G1, then allies will lose the game most times, even if it is very easy for UK or US to recapture London.

[eumaies]

yeah i’d be happy to simulate it - i’m “bmaster” on gametableonline.  but the math and situation are pretty obvious.  assuming the UK battleship hits and the uk takes london back, neither germany nor britain produces any troops on turn 1, and on turn 2 germany gets an extra $30 and in return has no air force to speak of (though they did kill the small uk air force).  No reason for it to be that hard for the allies.

[a44bigdog]

A word on SBR campaigns from someone who has actually played them out with both powers.

First off forget all that math junk. Axis and Allies is not won by who lost more or less. In other words 15 IPCs lost for a bomber shot down may not be equal to 15 IPCs spent by your target.

Second. Hoard your bombers. If going an all SBR Allied campaign in US 3 when you could have 3 bombers hit Germany only use 2. I have found it is much more important to keep up sustained pressure than inflicting maximum damage on one round. Always maintain a reserve of bombers even if this means over building.

Third and probably the one everyone misses about SBRs. Just because you have embarked on an SBR campaign you do not have to bomb every round. Note what I said about sustained pressure above. However I have found there will be rounds where your 5 or 6 Bombers can be much more devastating in battles than bombing and knowing when to commit them to such is critical.

[Lucifer]

Unfortunately we cannot try this at gametable, because it doesnt support bids.