Bombers a broken Unit, Observations

[Funcioneta]

@LuckyDay:

–I know why, because the allies have the advantage of money to start and can afford to build bombers to move paratroops while the Axis don’t

Not true. Sadly, axis has economic advantage since round 3 or 4 usually, so is the axis who can afford bombers. Buying too much bombers with allies is bad: you can buy one or two as much, but buying, say 3 bombers round 1 with USA is asking a Polar Express quick and deadly. Buying, say 3 bombers UK1 will lost Africa to you if Italy knows what is doing (take Egypt with germans, buying a AC and some dd with italians, landing german figs in the italian AC)

May the bomber be your tool, not your cane. 1 bomber buy each turn can be good, but more than that gets you into trouble

[DY]

@Subotai:

Instead of changing the game and making house rules, it’s more clever to think outside the box and make up new strategies.

Interceptors are an official optional rule – not a house rule.

Playing with interceptors is therefore just as valid as playing with NO’s.

[LuckyDay]

@Funcioneta:

@LuckyDay:

to start

axis has economic advantage since round 3 or 4 usually,

I said Allies have it to start, not round 3 or 4, hence many incorrectly think they have the advantage and can afford to purchase Allied bombers to start in round 1 or 2 and hence get themselves into trouble.

[Capt. Winters]

Hardly a broken unit, I love 'em, love what they can do and completely agree the techs are a bit out of control.  Thank God it’s an optional rule.  Bombers, as in previous versions are my favorite weapons because they are all offense all the time.  They add incredibly to every type of battle and can usually reach.  The price cut gets the game moving faster, IMO.

And strategically, I question some of you slide-rulers, you got the math, but have you got the game?

[general jason]

One bomber per bombing raid, per nation, per turn, per complex.

[REX]

The bomber is good but no necessarily broken in my opinion. We have discussed to incease the price maybe to 13-14 ipc. What do you think about that?

What we actually did change was the Tech chart. We made one chart out of two with the following setup:

1. Advanced Artillery
2. Rockets
3. Improved Shipyards
4. Increased factory production
5. Jet Fighters
6. Mechanized infantry

Its clear that Russia dont want Improved shipyards and there is limited benefits with the techs for other nations also but you still want to roll, dont you?

[Bardoly]

12 IPC bombers are fine.  It’s just the 3 techs(mostly Heavy Bombers) which makes them too good.

The only other unit which receives 3 tech upgrades is the weakest one - Infantry.  It gets Improved Artillery, Paratroopers, and Mechanized Infantry.  None of these tech upgrades are too powerful (Paratroopers is somewhat game-altering, but by itself, still not too powerful), and even if you have all 3 of them, they don’t work well together with each other to make one’s opponent worried about your upgraded Infantry units like the fully powered Long Range, Paratrooping Heavy Bombers do.

[wodan46]

@ogrebait:

Second, money plowed into bombers is not being put into other units, particularly ground units that can take territory and, in the case of certain countries, naval units to get your ground units to the fight. Thus, I feel there is a natural cap on the number of bombers that anyone should be buying.

In the case of UK or USA, they don’t need any defenses as their Bombers can sink fleets.  I can easily see Britain hammering Germany/Italy with Bombers and nothing else, while still making a difference.

@ogrebait:

Finally, in general I do not believe that SBR’s are the best use of one’s bombers. As already pointed out, the expected net IPC gain is only 1 IPC per bmbr per IC (and that doesn’t count the impact of the damage cap on ICs). In any other battle where a bmbr is augmenting an attack, and thus relatively free from loss, the expected net IPC damage is at least two (hit on inf), but can go much higher.

You are completely wrong in that regard.  In particular, your calculations are all wrong.  You use net gain for bombers, but net damage for ground forces.  If you look at it from a net damage perspective, Bombers are expected to do roughly 3 damage per battle when using SBR, and taking 2.  In a normal battle, their damage is equal to Rounds*(2/3)*(average unit value), their damage taken is 2 normally plus extra if they run the risk of being destroyed by regular fire.  Assuming 2 rounds and Infantry, a Bomber deals an average of 4 damage, only a marginal increase.  They get better damage at Sea, but are more likely to be destroyed or have expensive units destroyed in their stead.

However, you also misses another key aspect.  In order for UK and USA to attack with Bombers conventionally, they must also have ground forces to take the hits, transports to carry them, and naval units to protect them.  Once you factor in those costs, the advantages of using Bombers conventionally vanishes.

@ogrebait:

That being said, the average expected gain/loss often goes out the window when a key objective must be taken, or a well-timed SBR can support one’s overall strategy. However, buying lots of bombers and relying on SBRs to carry the day strikes me as a less than optimal strategy.

I view Bombers as vital for finishing opponents, because SBR cripples their turtling capacity.  If Germany is down to 30 or so IPCs, then they are going to start dropping 10 Infantry a turn until Japan hulk smashes their enemies.  SBR them to the max, and they can only build 4.

[hakan]

@Krieghund:

@Subotai:

Instead of changing the game and making house rules, it’s more clever to think outside the box and make up new strategies.

Quote of the week.  +1 to you, Subotai!

I agree, however making house rules are quite fun! At least when you have played the same game for a few years. But to be frank, how often do House Rules actually work?  :roll: I have probably made 100 over the years, but only a few has survived. Survivors are rules concerning passage to the Black Sea (also an optional rule now), Gibraltar and the Baltic Sea. And obviously some other of the House Rules that we have used, are quite spread, coz many of the House Rules that are found in A&A 50th (transporters, subs, China) are exactly how we used to play A&A rev and A&A original.

However, Krieghund, concerning Bombers we don’t have to use House Rules. If you want to balance the strategic bombing, you just have to use the official optional rule for the fighters. And to balance “Heavy Bombers”, you just have to use the official tournament rule from A&A rev. (Take the best dice of two, and add “1”.)

I think it’s lovely with the new less expensive units, so you don’t only buy infantry and panzer, as you used to to. Last game I even bought a Soviet bomber!! My friends was chocked!! “A Soviet Bomber???” However, it became very useful both supporting small front battles, and bombing the Japanese factory in Manchuria!

The prize for the bomber is just right, I think. The game is soooo much more flexible, than it used to be. I love it !!

/Håkan

[hakan]

By the way: When I played Axis last time, I got 1 Japanese bomber each turn, and they were VERY effective against US naval activities, mainland China and then the final assault on Moscow. However, I didn’t feel that I could afford Germans bombers. Do you also buy German bombers? I am planning my next game, and it seems as 1 German bomber each turn actually could be a quite dominant strategy, because of the range. Hitting the east front, beachheads in the west and threatening British Naval units in the Atlantic.

What do you think?

[bugoo]

I almost always buy a bomber a round for Germany starting turn 2.  They are great for threatening Moscow, even when in Germany, threatening allied fleets, and if they got nothing else to do I do enjoy bombing Brittan.

Its the allies I hate buying them for, even though they are still incredibly useful, every bomber UK buys is one less cruiser or transport.  You must be very careful not to ‘overbuy’ bombers as the allies.