Strategic Bombing Raid?

If Britain purchases nothing but bombers, the Germans will gain more I.P. swing than the bombers can inflict.  If BRitain purchases tech, they are simply hoping on a wing and a prayer.  All the tech suck for Britain but heavy bombers and maybe longrange aircraft.  If someone purchases a whole bunch of bombers just run over them with land units.  Build an A.C. in the south to fill out your fleet once you have ramped up I.P. with Germany and then move it up north and land on them.  If BRitain does nothing but build bombers they become inconsequential.  Sure they take out more money that it cost them to build but they also have far less money than your mighty German empire.  If they invest allot of money in tech and get lucky they get lucky.  Full on bomber is a crap strategy.  The Axis is really hard to play.  Try to be more efficient on the eastern fornt and don’t lose tanks.  Lose infantry.  Very often you see people say that the everyone gang up on GErmany strategy works.  It doesn’t, a frugile and efficient Germany can hold out and do severe damage while an unchecked Japan will soar up to insane revenue.  Frugile, efficient, and conservative GErman play and strong Japanese play are required.  Don’t pay attention to the advice on sites to build a factory with Japan.  Build trnasports.  Always attack Pearl Harbor.  If the U.S. doesn’t engage the Japanese in the Pacific, Japan should crush Russia easily and the game will turn towards the axis as Russia is left staring at their 8 I.P. per turn without bombing runs.

@Linkon:

The main cases to use SBR:

You have Heavies.

Do you build anything EXCEPT bombers if you have heavy’s???

Let’s be honest, Heavy Bombers are so powerful that it is an almost assured game victory for whichever side gets them.  And I have never seen a game last long enough after one side gets heavy’s for the other side to also get them.

@Linkon:

Your opponent has (1) low income, but a (2) ton of defensive units holed up in the capital, and (3) your seige forces are not sufficient to win the capital battle.

Combining SBR and the trading of territories next to your opponents capital will allow the build-up of your seige forces to gain the eventual edge.  By then, your income should be several times higher than the opponent you are about to kill off.

I still like using SBR’s to PREVENT my target from building up massive defensive forces.  That is why as Japan I bomb Russia every chance I get… each run means less INF in Moscow upon my force’s arrival.

Of course it could also be that I just HATE siege warfare.  I’ll press a battle against a strong oponent just to weaken those forces if I feel I can re-build faster than he can; rather than wait for me to build to overwhelm.  That way, if one of my allies gets to a position to ALSO be able to strike, they face a weaker target.  And if my allies don;t get a chance to strike, my nation that made the original suicide run will still be outbuilding the target and can move more forces in and take it anyway.  Now, I have to be able to last long enough to do SOME damage… I won;t attack with a fighter and 3 INF against 30 INF.  But give me 7 INF, a couple of tanks, and several fighters on 30 INF, and I’ll blast in, inflict damage, and retreat; then do it all again as more cannon fodder arrives at the front.

Lather.  Rinse.  Repeat.

@MacArthurFan:

I’ve been playing A&A for quite awhile now. Has anyone else tried the strategy (while playing the Allies) of having Britian and America buy nothing but bombers, and sending them all to Germany (I’m not talking about heavy bombers, but just plain old bombers). I have tried this numerous times, and by the end of the 3rd round, Germany usually can’t buy anything. Even when Russia falls to Germany, and Japan gets really strong, if UK and US keep buying bombers, Germany and ultimately Japan simply can’t make enough money to buy anything. AA guns have proven to my satisfaction that they are not able to combat this strategy. I am very interested to know if anyone else has tried this.

amen to that brother but its stupid

BB,

i am kind of right and wrong. Just as you stated the “steady state”, i mentioned the process of getting there.

My odds calculator tells me that there is about a 25% chance of the bomber winning, 25% chance of the BB winning and 50% chance they both die. This assumes one-hit BB and no heavy bombers

Considering that while the BB costs more IPCs than the bomber, keep in mind it can do potentially much less attack damage (one time potential hit only on amphibious assaults) and on defense is essentially equal to only two transports (my odds calculators says 45% BB, 45% transports, 5% both die) I wouldn’t worry about it. Let them bomb away and your opponent will likely lose their bomber.

However, if you really don’t want to lose the BB, just make sure you keep a transport or two with it for “fodder”.

Its usually not a good idea to split up your navy anyway, I always make sure to keep some transport or submarine fodder next to the powerful and expensive ships whenever possible. As for land operations, you should always keep cheap (infantry or transports) weapons alongside expensive items (BB or bombers) so if they are attacked, the cheap items can be eliminated first.

"Odds of your bomber being shot down on or before the 5th sortie: 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6 = 5/6 "

thats not true at all. u have to use a multiplicative connection in this case: the odds of the bomber performing strat.bomb successfully are 5/6. U are going for 5 runs. So the result is 5/65/65/65/65/6 = (5/6) ^ 5 ~ 40%

u have a probability of 40% to strike for 3,5*5 = 17,5 IPC at costs of 15 IPC. which still isnt a good deal imho…

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 ]

Fighters definitely cannot defend in a SBR. But, I think SBRs are overrated and should be avoided vs. any IC that is defended by AA guns. Think about it: your bomber will average 3 IPCs per turn, so after 5 rounds you have done 15 IPCs damage. By then, the odds are that you will lose at least one bomber - worth 15 IPCs. At best, it’s a saw-off. Plus, you run the risk of losing 2 or more bombers with bad luck.

I have found it much more effective to use the bombers to strengthen a regular attack, when they are well protected behind the fodder of cheap INF and ARM.