** Strategic Bombing ** Revisited Again for No Reason

[Ansbach]

More ideas and stats, also see Desert_Viper’s post “SBR-Revisited”:

---

• Strategic Bombing Stats *

---

Let’s use a single UK bomber bombing Germany every turn as an example:

Technically, a bomber gets shot down once in six runs. The other five runs it hits for an average of 3.5 IPCs (3.5 is the average of a six-sided die btw, not 3).

If you do the math, then every six runs the bomber is hitting Germany for 17.5 IPCs, and the UK is losing 15 IPCs. So bombing statistically favors the attacker, right?

Wrong - in A&A! The problem is that this is where people stop. However, for the UK bomber to come out ahead - or ‘pay for itself’ - the bomber has to hit the first five runs and get shot down on the 6th!

The chance of a bomber living through 5 bombing runs is about 40% - so only about 40% of bombers pay for themselves. However, the bombers that do last past 5 runs start to cover the cost of other bombers. Once you’ve made enough runs, you get back to the original ratio of +17.5/-15. Unfortunately, in an A&A game you won’t even come close to making enough runs to even the odds, much less get to a favorable ratio. What this means is that the short-term statistics - which are all you have in an A&A game - heavily favor the DEFENDER, not the BOMBER!

---

The reason I brought this up is that people often attack or defend the strategy of strategic bombing with statistics, when it really has little to do with it.

Basically, all this means that the perceived ineffectiveness of bombers during an A&A game is true - they get shot down without paying for themselves. That is why so many people think strategic bombing is a waste.

Actually, strategic bombing is VERY effective - but it comes from abstract losses on the front lines that are a result of the strategic bombing - the loss of troops that were unable to be built and used! The fact that this is an abstract advantage is why some people have a hard time accepting it!

[ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-05-13 15:41 ]

[mini_phreek]

why does every one feel the need to do the number crunching on this issue?

[Candyman67]

Probabilities and odds don’t really matter to me when it comes to industrial bombing. I am an advocate of indust. bombing so whenever I have the chance, bombs away!

[TM Moses VII]

When you’re the Allies and are in it for the long haul, bombers are key to any strategy.

[Guest]

I see someone’s read my thread: SBR Revisited - Some new algebra.

The only factor we haven’t taken into account though is the fact that you don’t pay for the units at the start of the game, but you do for the ones you make during it. Therefore, all bombers you start with will always make a “profit”, which does kind of negate the argument above.

Ahh well, can’t always have perfect maths!

[Guest]

“When you’re the Allies and are in it for the long haul, bombers are key to any strategy.”

Quote - TM Moses VII

I think INF and ARM are a much more efficient and effective use of your IPC’s. There are really only two countries which can potentially afford purchasing bombers: Japan and US. However, it is hard to justify purchasing one unit which only rolls once per round of battle (unless you have heavies) on a 66 percent chance of hitting. You could buy 3 ARM for the same price which roll three dice at 50 percent odds on attack. It is not even worth going on about the defensive rolling.

But this is a thread on strategic bombing runs…

I agree with other posters that SBR’s can have a time and place and can be very effective in preventing your opponent from purchasing units. However, if your opponent already has a slew of cash, chances are that the run will not have much impact. It is also safe to say that if your opponent has a lot of cash, it probably means they already have too many units on the board. Thus, it would make more sense to use that bomber in a more productive way and attack something. If you bring a bomber into a battle which will go over several rounds, it is possible for that bomber to hit at least two things. This is at least 2 INF or 6 IPC’s. The best you can do in a SBR is 6 IPC’s damage. But that is not guaranteed.

The time for a SBR is when: 1) you can afford to loose that bomber (when is that?), 2) your opponent is strapped for cash and this will really put the pressure on, and 3) there is not a better use for your bomber that turn.

[Yanny]

All your numbers are good, but you lack a utopian point of view on the subject. Sure, your losing money by Strat bombing, I agree, but the allies have more money to throw around. Germany’s 15 IPCs are much more valueable than Britain’s 15 IPCs.

[Ansbach]

LMAO at Desert_Viper! That’s great - no, I hadn’t read your post - sorry to repeat a thread! I was bored at work and playing with P10000… what a waste of time… At least I know now that my math checks out! Also, you are taking ‘paying for bombers’ a little too literally - just think of it as having bought the bombers on turn 0.

Yanny? Your post is confusing, or else you didn’t read my last paragraph: I am saying that you lose money strat bombing but it’s worth it because of the intangibles, and you are saying that you lose money bombing but it’s worth it because of the intangibles. You’re just referencing different intangibles - they’re both there.

Also “you lack a Utopian point of view” is really confusing - it sounds like you were trying to take a shot at me, but a.) you said the same thing I did, and b.) you mis-used the word “utopian”. Maybe it’s just me, but I sure am glad you think I lack an idealistic, impractical viewpoint! :smile:

[ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-05-13 18:39 ]

[TM Moses VII]

“When you’re the Allies and are in it for the long haul, bombers are key to any strategy”

Again, I will reaffirm my standing on this issue. Buying infantry and ARM for the short run is a great idea, especially if you plan on mounting them on a next turn attack or counterattack. But as the turns chip away, the potential of maintaining a bomber fleet becomes invaluable.

This gives me a chance to test out the Moses Active Time Battle (ATB). What is more intimidating: a tank on turn one or a tank on turn 7? Most players would choose having a tank on turn one as there are generally less units are on the table and it gives the long range IPC ability of conquering and hold more territories faster.

When a tank is simply used as a deterrent against a possible attack or to reinforce a buildup (better known as the Russo-Prussian Front), some of its effectiveness is detracted. I would much rather have my tank ATBing than idly sitting around doing nothing.

This is where bombers come to hand very quickly to solve this dilemma. Bombers by themselves are good at almost any time in the game, early on in supporting battles and tacking out lone naval and ground units. The disruption factor alone is worth the investment. But their true worth shows up in the mid-game. While my tank is simply starring me down in the face, my bombers will be ATBing in the form of strategic bombing raids. In the mid-turn rounds a bomber will net 14 IPCs over the course of four rounds. This is equal to at least 4 infantry. Meanwhile, a tank’s role in battle is considered great if I can knock out 2 infantry in a battle.

By the numbers, 1 bomber still has a chance of surviving (33% chance) over 4 rounds. How about if I pitch my 3 tanks versus 4 inf. or the amount tanks would have to inflict to even come close to equaling this amount? Battle results show that the tanks would only survive 37% of the time. A 33% chance of surviving or a 37% chance? However, with the 37 percent chance you have to factor in battle damage. Only 5% of the time will all three of your ARM be able to survive. With a bomber, you don’t have to worry about any battle damage as it is either a hit or miss.

The persistent bombing is key to allied victory (see above) as the defensive nature of the Allies will give them the opportunity to bleed the Axis treasury, while giving time to establish themselves.

---

“Axis and Allies stands not only as one of the most stupendous works of man, but also as one of the most beautiful of human creations. Indeed, it is at once so great and so simple that it seems to be almost a work of nature.”

[ This Message was edited by: TM Moses VII on 2002-05-13 18:05 ]

[ This Message was edited by: TM Moses VII on 2002-05-13 18:07 ]

[ This Message was edited by: TM Moses VII on 2002-05-13 18:36 ]

[ This Message was edited by: TM Moses VII on 2002-05-13 18:48 ]

[ This Message was edited by: TM Moses VII on 2002-05-13 18:50 ]

[ This Message was edited by: TM Moses VII on 2002-05-13 18:55 ]

[Yanny]

SAT question, Black:White :: Utopian: Scientific. Not ment as an insult. You look at the facts and not at the person in your analysis.

[Guest]

“Buying infantry and ARM for the short run is a great idea”

• Quote: TM Moses VII

I think the exact opposite is true. INF and ARM are the most important pieces to buy if you are playing for the long term game. In your above explanation you do not describe how many BMB’s you typically purchase in a game. So for discussion sake let’s say over 6 turns you purchase 3 BMBs. That means you spent 45 IPC’s. With that same amount, you could have purchased 9 ARM or 15 INF. If you already have sufficient INF on your fronts, 9 ARM will inflict a lot more damage in a future attack than would 3 BMB. In any given round of battle, those BMBs could hit at most 3 units, with odds of hitting 2. Those 9 ARM hit 4/5 units on odds. So as a defender, I would be more sensitive to my opponent having an additional 9 ARM on my front versus an additional 3 BMB.

If you are buying BMBs for the sole purpose of performing SBR’s, what is happening to your fronts? If your opponent is not buying BMB’s, and you are, their front lines are getting stronger and yours are shrinking in comparison. It is only a matter of time before they overwhelm you with numbers.

I know you mention that BMBs can also be used for other battles like TRN and lone INF, but how many people you play leave TRNs alone to be picked off? And if you are attacking lone INF or ARM with BMBs, your odds of a BMB surviving 4 rounds is not 33%.

I have not seen a player consistently win because they use SBR’s as a key tactic. Only heavies make this tactic more feasible.

[TM Moses VII]

First building bombers for the short term is plain useless. If I was Russia, and I had German armies staring me down in the face at the gates of Moscow, what use will bombers do? And if I planned to commit on a major offensive, three tanks would fit in nicely with sufficient infantry. I’m sure I covered that in a previous post.

Second, you mentioned a massive front. I can only think you are referring to the Eastern Front. If so, I can assume the argument holds less bearing. Again, the only Allies I see capable of purchasing bombers are Britain and USA. Russia cannot afford bombers and shouldn’t do so since it’s strength lies in the ability to tie the Germans up in holding Karelia.

Exactly how can Germany reach Britain and Western USA with 3 tanks and supporting infantry? I can only assume that you will be building transports with Germany that I can hit with my bombers. The other logical place is Africa. Again, this requires a capable German transport fleet in the Mediterranean. However, the distance covered by bombers gives a huge advantage to the Allies. From Britain, I can hit any location in the Mediterranean and still land safely in Caucasus.

What about the idea of shrinking fronts? Shrinking fronts would normally mean a declaration for invasion. Upon closer inspection, I would say the game is slighted toward the defenders when it comes to large troop build-ups. Lets say I had 90 IPCs. With the defenders I can buy 30 infantry. However, if I planned on attacking, 30 infantry would do me no good. Instead I must balance my 90 IPCs between tanks and infantry. Though I have not found the perfect combination between tanks and infantry, lets say I use three different combinations: 6 tanks, 20 infantry; 9 tanks, 15 infantry; and 12 tanks, 10 infantry. The ability for the attackers to win is neigh impossible – 3% chance for the first case, 4% chance for the second case, and 3% for the third case.

As you can see, it would seem that the Russians could hold off the Germans indefinitely due to its great numbers of infantry at the beginning of the game. Another problem would be how lopsided the IPC income between Russia and Germany are near the start of the game. With bombing raids I can help balance out a bit of this indifference and even tip it with a large bombing fleet (3-5 bombers). For example, lets say I have two bombers (1 USA and 1 UK) with the income between Germany and Russia standing at 32 and 24. After the two bombers have conducted their raids, the German income would’ve been lowered 7 IPCs, from 32 to 25 IPCs. Not yet equal to the Russian budget, but good enough to stop the German lines from swelling in their tracks.

The possibilities of bombers beside SBRs are also useful. Usually my bombers will be spent bombing, but bombers are the perfect example of ATB. Bombers can hit both land and naval units with the Mediterranean being a prime example. It’s great range makes it able to reach a variety of hotspots. With supporting units, bombers provide the much-needed combat boast and helps to keep the opponent off balance.

[cystic crypt]

well, you all missed the most important answer to the question “to bomb or not to bomb?” The fact is SBR’s are an important feature that add to the game’s playability. For example, let’s say that I’m Britain, and i strategically bomb my good friend playing Germany. First we both hold our breath as he rolls for the AA gun. Then he either laughs hysterically, shouting some profanity (i.e. he rolls a one), or i get to rub my hands in glee at determining how much cash i get to soak the poor bastard for (of course rolling less than a 4 is like kissing your ex-girlfriend on the cheek . . .so close and yet . . . ).
just try to tell me that these are not important elements to A+A, except these are not emotions and advantages to SBR’s that can’t be calculated and measured.
Especially the joy of the “F-You” of a couple of bombers rolling in for $12 worth of damage to his factories . . . MWA HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
sorry, i’m done now.

[TG Moses VI]

Cystic Crypt is exactly right on his observation. For this reason alone, to this day I will never buy bombers – Axis or Allies. With bombers, you are risking too much. I, being a strict pessimist when playing A&A, will always believe that everything that can possibly go wrong will. As chessmaster Savielly Grigorievitch commented on the game’s opening position, “The mistakes are all waiting to be made.”

Now say I buy bombers and on subsequent raids, I roll consecutive 6’s. Guess I’m the hero, the greatest since Air Marshall Brig. Gen. Ira Eaker, commander of the Eight Bomber Command. But what happens if the AA guns roll 1’s? What if this happens? Now, I have to kick myself in the back as I poured 15 IPCs down the drain. And since it takes at least 3 runs (even if I rolled 6’s) before I can make good on my investment, those are three turns in which AA guns are free to score hits. In addition to being a pessimist, I am also a control freak. On SBR’s I have no real control on the outcome of the battle. With inf and ARM, I can at least dictate when and where to hit, as well as when to retreat. The sheer suspense in SBR is already enough to kill me many times over.

I would much rather do more with less, which is the prevailing thought of the NASA space program. This means I buy 5 infantry instead of 1 bomber. So incase something goes wrong, which it usually does for me, I don’t crack all of my eggs in one basket.

---

“Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be.” - Aldolf Galland
“The create? The create matters not. It is the man who pilots the create that truely counts” -

[ This Message was edited by: TG Moses VI on 2002-05-17 21:19 ]

[ This Message was edited by: TG Moses VI on 2002-05-17 21:20 ]