Axis SBR Campaign

[eatenbyagrue]

@a44bigdog:

eatenbyargue, are you doing it as I lined out in the first post? That is the best way I have found to conduct an Axis SBR campaign through quite a bit of testing. Germany is not that much shorter on land units than normal. Not bombing Moscow because of additional AA fire is a mistake, only bombing Caucasus will not eliminate enough of Russia’s income. Remember that Germany only buys 2 additional bombers and uses these until they are gone.

Surely it is better to bomb Caucasus.  Mathwise:

2AA Moscow:  Average 2 successful bombing runs per bomber.  Average raid is 3.5 IPC damage.  Cost of 2 runs = 15 IPC for the bomber lost.  So you are losing 8 IPC per bomber invested.

1AA Caucasus:  Average 5 successful bombing runs per bomber.  Average raid is 3 IPC damage.  (It is 3, not 2.5, because 5 and 6 also count as 4, so (1+2+3+4+4+4)/6=3.)  Cost of 5 runs = 15 IPC for the bomber.  So you are breaking even on the investment.

[a44bigdog]

Axis and Allies is NOT an accounting game.

A bomber in an SBR strategy (Axis or Allied) does not have to do its purchase cost to be effective. It merely has to do enough damage at the appropriate time to strangle your opponents production capability. That last part is the entire purpose of an SBR campaign, shut down your opponents ability to produce and move in and mop up.

[eatenbyagrue]

@a44bigdog:

Axis and Allies is NOT an accounting game.

A bomber in an SBR strategy (Axis or Allied) does not have to do its purchase cost to be effective. It merely has to do enough damage at the appropriate time to strangle your opponents production capability. That last part is the entire purpose of an SBR campaign, shut down your opponents ability to produce and move in and mop up.

OK, but you are only doing .5 IPC less in damage bombing Caucasus.  Surely that little bit of difference is not worth double the AA risk?

[a44bigdog]

You are missing the entire point. The Axis specifically Japan needs to be bombing both the Caucasus and Russia. Now Japan may need to increase the number of bombers being sent to Russia due to the increased AA guns, but the goal of the strategy is to choke off Russia’s production ability. Germany will probably have lost some of it’s bombers before additional AA guns are a factor since Germany should only buy 2 additional bombers and send 2 to Russia and 1 to Caucasus as long as they last. Japan can continuously buy bombers if they feel like it, although around 5 or 6 on the map is sufficient. Not all of these need to be sent to bomb Russia, that number is recommended so that losses are immediately replaced and the pressure can be kept up.

[eatenbyagrue]

@a44bigdog:

You are missing the entire point. The Axis specifically Japan needs to be bombing both the Caucasus and Russia. Now Japan may need to increase the number of bombers being sent to Russia due to the increased AA guns, but the goal of the strategy is to choke off Russia’s production ability.

I do not think I am missing the entire point, just because I choose to bomb Caucasus over Moscow.  Well obviously if Moscow is only protected by 1 AA gun, you bomb that while you can, but I am just not going to come over to the idea of bombing through 2 AA guns while Caucasus is still available.  It’s just a bad gamble, and sure, it can pay off sometimes, but I do not like bad gambles as a strategy, unless things are truly desperate.  And I cannot see a situation where getting 16% more SBR damage justifies doubling the risk of getting shot down by AA.  If times are that desperate, 16% more SBR damage is not going to save you.

Also I am curious, have you ever won with this strategy against an opponent of equal skill or better?  In my games, victory seemed a bit out of reach, so I am hesitant to keep trying it.  USSR was losing money to SBR alright, but the extra territories it was able to keep due to the much slower Axis ground build-up seemed to make up for it.  Maybe I did not buy enough bombers with Japan, not sure.  I stayed at about 3 with them.

[Zhukov44]

I’m not sure how Moscow can successfully shield Moscow via AA guns.  Lets say the Russians plop down on a 3rd gun and move another out to Arch, while the Brits move theirs to Cauc.  That aa purchase victory in itself for Axis, and Germany can still bomb Cauc and land in India or China.  Is diverting the bomber worth the aa purchase?  I doubt it but maybe.

Re the ability of the Luftwaffe to contain Arch drops, if Germany moves their figs out to EE, then the UK fleet is pretty safe in SZ 2 with 2 fig 1 ac 1 bb 4 trans 1 (russian) sub against 3 bomb 5 fig….  It could be bad if Germany got really good dice but that’s an extremely risky attack for the Krauts in a KGF scenario.  USA can eventually move up a destroyer to help…given that they will be able to mass in 12 if Germany’s figs are in EE.

I think stuff like this is what steered people away from German air buys in Revised…bombers are the only unit with the range to threaten sz 2 and 12 simultaneously but they are economically unfeasible.  The situation has clearly changed in AA42 and AA50.

[a44bigdog]

Zhukov44 sometimes an attack on a navy is not necessary. Often the mere threat of an attack can force an opponent to delay, add more ships, or otherwise alter their plans. I have found it beneficial in any war game to make moves that makes an opponent respond, as opposed to allowing them free reign to pursue their strategy at will. This is one of the best things I found about this strategy, it forces an Allied response. Some players are quite good at being flexible and responding as need be to any situation, too many others are rote players that have limited responses based on normally observed moves.

eatenbyargue, yes I have used this strategy effectively against equally skilled players. The first post is arrived at after several weeks of testing in nightly face to face games with some refinements added from some polishing here online. I will state again from experience that bombing the Caucasus only with Japan is not enough damage and should negate the entire strategy. Additional AA guns may mean the need to send in some additional bombers to get the job done, but choking off Russia’s ability to produce units is the primary goal of the strategy. If you are familiar with battlemap perhaps we could play a game here with me as Axis to demonstrate what I consider the best way to conduct this campaign.

[macphearsome]

Thanks for posting your strategy!

I`m not going to get involved in any debates because some of you seem to take this game way more seriously than necessary, but I just want to point something out:

Opponents of this strategy have pointed out that the max damage caused by bombers is 4 ipcs in the caucasus and 8 ipcs in russia. (See the top post on this page, by mjkusn01 for example)

The 4 IPC max in the caucasus is relevant; however, the IPC max is per bomber not per turn.  So each bomber attacking russia can still do up to 6 damage, and those can combine to go above 8 damage.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/faqs/axisrevised

‘‘IPC loss from strategic bombing is limited to the territory’s income value. Is that per bomber or per turn?
Per bomber.’’

[77stranger77]

Most people are playing with LHTR(Larry Harris Tournament Rules). You’re referring to Box Rules where one side can amass a stack of bombers and do a lot of damage. Now the limit for one turn for all bombers/rockets is the value of the territory being bombed. Check the bomber description on page 26. http://www.axisandallies.org/files/AAR_LHTR_v2.0.pdf

[macphearsome]

Oh, I didn’t realize that.

Thanks for the link. I’ll talk to my buddies about adopting those rules for our next game.