German bomber strategy - How to play and How to counter

Those are some great stats….  :-o

I hate to be a buzzkill, but this thread started by discussing a German bomber strategy.  It somehow has degraded into the merits of SBR’s versus not SBR-ing.  Well, in my games, I rarely SBR with the bombers (if there is going to be no interception, then I may go for that when convenient, but it’s not a central part of the strategy).  The power of the bombers is numbers, not SBR’s.  If you want to SBR, you really don’t need 18 bombers…

I have hit the UK to clear it of all land/air units with the bombers – your SBR rule differences don’t change that dynamic.

I really, really like the idea of not being able to repair bases until the end of the turn (or during noncombat, or whatever).  But again, this isn’t a house rules thread. ;)

The power of the bombers is not by sacrificing them for petty things.  It’s the projection of threats across Europe.  And the more bombers that exist, the more threat that is projected…

@DizzKneeLand33:

Those are some great stats….  :-o

I hate to be a buzzkill, but this thread started by discussing a German bomber strategy.  It somehow has degraded into the merits of SBR’s versus not SBR-ing.  Well, in my games, I rarely SBR with the bombers (if there is going to be no interception, then I may go for that when convenient, but it’s not a central part of the strategy).  The power of the bombers is numbers, not SBR’s.  If you want to SBR, you really don’t need 18 bombers….

I have hit the UK to clear it of all land/air units with the bombers – your SBR rule differences don’t change that dynamic.
I really, really like the idea of not being able to repair bases until the end of the turn (or during noncombat, or whatever).  But again, this isn’t a house rules thread. ;)

The power of the bombers is not by sacrificing them for petty things.  It’s the projection of threats across Europe.  And the more bombers that exist, the more threat that is projected….

Sorry, I couldn’t restrain myself to get all the numbers side by side to have all comparison points.

According to your idea, do you mean the bombers stack is more a threat than an effective combat (or SBR, if anyone willing to do it) forces?
You trade bombers casualty at 12 IPCs against grounds casualty (3 to 6 IPCs).
But you cannot do this on every occasions.

As far as I understand, the bombers stack is preventing USA or Russia from moving within bombers range toward Central Europe.
This is a blocking strategy.
What happened if USA chose to sacrifice the Navy?
Does Germany will lose his bombers stack in the attack or not?

Does this strategy work as long as no Allies is willing to compromise a stack of his units as a necessary sacrifice?

If it is not the case and StBs stack is really so powerful to destroy a lot of units and lose only 1 or 2 bombers per attack,
does delaying the repair of Air Base to the Non-combat move Phase is really a way to hinder StBs Spams strategy (by creating some SZs or Territories unreachable)?

Or the only way to really hinder their offensive power is to reduced their attack value?

@Baron:

If it is not the case and StBs stack is really so powerful to destroy a lot of units and lose only 1 or 2 bombers per attack,
does delaying the repair of Air Base to the Non-combat move Phase is really a way to hinder StBs Spams strategy (by creating some SZs or Territories unreachable)?

Or the only way to really hinder their offensive power is to reduced their attack value?

If you change the attack value or anything to do with SBR you make a change that will be in the game even if the axis side wants to do some strategy other than this mega-bomber strategy.

If you change when facilities are repaired to the start of Noncombat phase, that house rule is very subtle and probably has really no effect at all in 99% of the games that the axis side does not build a million bombers.  So that house rule targets this bug in the game and leaves everything else alone.

Sorry for discussing this house rule again (BTW I revived that old thread in House Rules).

@variance:

@Baron:

Or the only way to really hinder their offensive power is to reduced their attack value?

**If you change the attack value or anything to do with SBR you make a change that will be in the game even if the axis side wants to do some strategy other than this mega-bomber strategy. **

You can take a look at this Triple A files to see what this can means:
@barney:

Well wasn’t able to get all of it Baron but here’s a triplea xml that has bombers A3 +1 when paired with fighter(1:1), TACs A4 D3 gives +1 to tanks D when paired 1:1. Fighter escort and interceptors A/D 2.

Wasn’t able to get the +1 when no enemy air is present, but I don’t think that will mess things up too much. Most ships have either ACs or ABs to protect them. One fighter shutting down a slew of bmbrs would be the same as one dstry shutting down subs. Not being able to hit a lone blocker or sub killer sets them back as well as solo infrantry attacks but we’ll just play the historical strats weren’t good at hitting ships anyway. :) We probably won’t see many SBRs without fighter escort but that’s the way it goes. Their main advantage is still their range and offense can be boosted with a ftr.

TACs get the 4 hit plus the boost to the tanks D. So they still have a connection. Not sure how that will play out but I think it will be OK. Just have to play it and see.

Anyway gonna start a playtest right now.

If you’re not familiar with adding XMLs to triplea: open triplea, open maps, open WW II Global zip, put the objectives there then open games and put the xml there.

@Baron:

@DizzKneeLand33:

Those are some great stats….  :-o

I hate to be a buzzkill, but this thread started by discussing a German bomber strategy.  It somehow has degraded into the merits of SBR’s versus not SBR-ing.  Well, in my games, I rarely SBR with the bombers (if there is going to be no interception, then I may go for that when convenient, but it’s not a central part of the strategy).  The power of the bombers is numbers, not SBR’s.  If you want to SBR, you really don’t need 18 bombers….

I have hit the UK to clear it of all land/air units with the bombers – your SBR rule differences don’t change that dynamic.
I really, really like the idea of not being able to repair bases until the end of the turn (or during noncombat, or whatever).  But again, this isn’t a house rules thread. ;)

The power of the bombers is not by sacrificing them for petty things.  It’s the projection of threats across Europe.  And the more bombers that exist, the more threat that is projected….

Sorry, I couldn’t restrain myself to get all the numbers side by side to have all comparison points.

According to your idea, do you mean the bombers stack is the more a threat than an effective combat (or SBR, if anyone willing to do it) forces?
You trade bombers casualty at 12 IPCs against grounds casualty (3 to 6 IPCs).
But you cannot do this on every occasions.

As far as I understand, the bombers stack is preventing USA or Russia from moving with bombers range toward Central Europe.
This is a blocking strategy.
What happened if USA chose to sacrifice the Navy?
Does Germany will lose his bombers stack in the attack or not?

Does this strategy work as long as no Allies is willing to compromise a stack of his units as a necessary sacrifice?

---

If it is not the case and StBs stack is really so powerful to destroy a lot of units and lose only 1 or 2 bombers per attack,
does delaying the repair of Air Base to the Non-combat move Phase is really a way to hinder StBs Spams strategy (by creating some SZs or Territories unreachable)?

Or the only way to really hinder their offensive power is to reduced their attack value?

I believe someone pointed out earlier in the thread that the bomber stack seemed threatening until Germany had to commit it anywhere. As soon as it is used in combat, the stack decreases in size and usually has to land somewhere where it will be of less use than it was originally.

Basically, its goal is to intimidate the Allies into losing. I have yet to test a game where the Allies risk losing heavily in order to entice the bombers out, but such a strategy will go one of two ways:

1. The Bomber stack threat is greatly decreased and the Allies can now proceed to combat the Axis on even ground.
2. The Allied losses are so heavy they can’t recover, and Axis wins.

Also, has anyone tried launching two allied invasion fleets simultaneously? This would force the Germans to either let one through the bombers, or split the stack. In either case, the bombers would face losses. The main concern is the invasion fleets not having enough units to capture the territory they land in, but with Germany spending so much on Bombers, I’d expect their land defenses to be weaker than usual.

@amanntai:

@Baron:

@DizzKneeLand33:

Those are some great stats….  :-o

I hate to be a buzzkill, but this thread started by discussing a German bomber strategy.  It somehow has degraded into the merits of SBR’s versus not SBR-ing.  Well, in my games, I rarely SBR with the bombers (if there is going to be no interception, then I may go for that when convenient, but it’s not a central part of the strategy).  The power of the bombers is numbers, not SBR’s.  If you want to SBR, you really don’t need 18 bombers….

I have hit the UK to clear it of all land/air units with the bombers – your SBR rule differences don’t change that dynamic.
I really, really like the idea of not being able to repair bases until the end of the turn (or during noncombat, or whatever).  But again, this isn’t a house rules thread. ;)

The power of the bombers is not by sacrificing them for petty things.  It’s the projection of threats across Europe.  And the more bombers that exist, the more threat that is projected….

Sorry, I couldn’t restrain myself to get all the numbers side by side to have all comparison points.

According to your idea, do you mean the bombers stack is the more a threat than an effective combat (or SBR, if anyone willing to do it) forces?
You trade bombers casualty at 12 IPCs against grounds casualty (3 to 6 IPCs).
But you cannot do this on every occasions.

As far as I understand, the bombers stack is preventing USA or Russia from moving with bombers range toward Central Europe.
This is a blocking strategy.
What happened if USA chose to sacrifice the Navy?
Does Germany will lose his bombers stack in the attack or not?

Does this strategy work as long as no Allies is willing to compromise a stack of his units as a necessary sacrifice?

---

If it is not the case and StBs stack is really so powerful to destroy a lot of units and lose only 1 or 2 bombers per attack,
does delaying the repair of Air Base to the Non-combat move Phase is really a way to hinder StBs Spams strategy (by creating some SZs or Territories unreachable)?

Or the only way to really hinder their offensive power is to reduced their attack value?

I believe someone pointed out earlier in the thread that the bomber stack seemed threatening until Germany had to commit it anywhere. As soon as it is used in combat, the stack decreases in size and usually has to land somewhere where it will be of less use than it was originally.

Basically, its goal is to intimidate the Allies into losing. I have yet to test a game where the Allies risk losing heavily in order to entice the bombers out, but such a strategy will go one of two ways:

1. The Bomber stack threat is greatly decreased and the Allies can now proceed to combat the Axis on even ground.
2. The Allied losses are so heavy they can’t recover, and Axis wins.

Also, has anyone tried launching two allied invasion fleets simultaneously? This would force the Germans to either let one through the bombers, or split the stack. In either case, the bombers would face losses. The main concern is the invasion fleets not having enough units to capture the territory they land in, but with Germany spending so much on Bombers, I’d expect their land defenses to be weaker than usual.

Amanti, you are on to the solution.

The allies have to play “at a statistical loss” so to speak.  Too many people are used to living off the battle calculator, and only making moves that are 60% survival or stronger.

Against the bomber threat the allies must throw their units out in such a way that they have a 35% or better chance of surviving.  The bombers see the target, and can choose to engage - but it’s costly.  It costs the allies too, but what they allied DON’t lose - is schedule.  Schedule being how fast they can get their units to the objectvies.

The other trick I find is to try to create situations that ONLY the bombers can reach, the Gibraltar Seazones tend to have this as a reoccurring event.  Double down on those types of moves, and throw as many 'Option" attacks as you can out there.  The Axis will have to choose one, or none.

The minute the axis start taking on those stacks, their power diminishes.

Also - I am toying with heavy air builds with USA.  2 bombers a turn.  It’s a beaut so far.

Baron had some interesting math in another thread: I believe it was a full carrier versus 3 attacking bombers. The bombers had only a 24.3% chance of survival! In a battle between 24 bombers and 8 full carriers, the bombers had only a 7% chance of surviving!

If the Allied match the Axis bombers 1 IPC for 1 IPC with carriers, There is no way the German bomber stack can wipe out the Allied fleet. Of course, they also need transports and land units, which means they can’t build all carriers. But just something to consider. I don’t think fleets are going to be demolished by bombers with very few Axis losses.

@amanntai:

In a battle between 24 bombers and 8 full carriers, the bombers had only a 7% chance of surviving!

This will be around 25% if the allies choose to lose fighters before tipped carriers, and about 6 of those carriers will live.  Not such a bad deal if they are next to a naval base like at Gibraltar (or Iceland or Suriname if you build one).

Sure, 8 loaded carriers would be sufficient to prevent the Germans from launching a bomber raid against the Allied navy.  Keep in mind that such a build requires 4 full turns of US spending in the Atlantic plus a turn or two for moving the fleet into position.  Time is on the German side in Dark Skies.  Once the Germans reach the oilfields, their income will start matching that of the US.  Also consider that Germany has quite a bit of flexibility.  The bombers can be used to destroy Russia, navies, London, and supporting raids on territories with medium-sized stacks of troops.

In my last game, the US tried a KGF strategy with a very large navy off the coast of Gibraltar on round 3.  The Germans mostly ignored it.  From the base in Paris, the bombers could limit the options of the Allied navy and also force Russia to retreat back towards Moscow.  Meanwhile, Japan was about to capture India and it seemed inevitable for a total victory on J7-J8.

@amanntai:

Baron had some interesting math in another thread: I believe it was a full carrier versus 3 attacking bombers. The bombers had only a 24.3% chance of survival! In a battle between 24 bombers and 8 full carriers, the bombers had only a 7% chance of surviving!

If the Allied match the Axis bombers 1 IPC for 1 IPC with carriers, There is no way the German bomber stack can wipe out the Allied fleet. Of course, they also need transports and land units, which means they can’t build all carriers. But just something to consider. I don’t think fleets are going to be demolished by bombers with very few Axis losses.

Theoretically, bombers are not unbalanced vrs. fleet.

What’s making them unbalanced is the combination of deterring Allied navy, bombing raids, killer range, overwelming superiority in land trades, and utility in major land battles.  All that together makes them formidable.

Changing SBR damage and/or interceptor rules is probably the way to go.  Until then…higher bids.  The higher the bid the less money Axis will be able to make and the less bombers they can buy.

Perfectly stated, Zhukov.

I would like to share some thoughts about that strategy. I encountered it just this weekend, and I lost playing the Allies. Nevertheless, I do not think it is overpowered. Why?

Let’s start with what the strategy is good in:
-Germany is obviously flexible
-Germany can deny any small naval force to approach Europe
-Germany can defeat even a huge drop force when you have like ten mech inf stationed in Western Germany
Therefore, I do think it is a rather defensive strategy. It has obvious weaknesses when attacking Russia:

As pointed out by LeClerc (who is, as always, a good analyzer), you cannot attack Russia without ground forces, and German ground forces cannot approach Russia if you have not bought additional units. Russia buys mostly inf and art and waits for the German to come one step too close. You can of course sit and wait until your economic gains from the Russian territory and the bombing raids on Moscow allow for a save approach, but: I do think there are other strategies to allow Germany to defeat Russia late in the game – that is not overpowered.

Moreover, Anit aircraft comes in handy: assume you have Bombers/3 AA units. They fire three times at 1, thus, are better than inf, and they hit a plane, not a mech inf. They only shoot once, but all inf I could buy instead would be killed in the first round and, thus, also only shoot once.

So, Russia can hold out for some time. In our game, we tried to invade Europe and had a huge force assembled to counter the German bombers. That force could participate in the attack, so we were able to easily take Rome. The problem I see is that if you cannot achieve more than taking out Italy before Moscow falls, the German player has enough to counter US and GB if he focusses completely on them. But you could either be more successful with your D-Day, or you just send everything to Japan. So: not overpowered.

I should add that we do not play with victory cities or bids.

@Zhukov44:

@amanntai:

Baron had some interesting math in another thread: I believe it was a full carrier versus 3 attacking bombers. The bombers had only a 24.3% chance of survival! In a battle between 24 bombers and 8 full carriers, the bombers had only a 7% chance of surviving!

If the Allied match the Axis bombers 1 IPC for 1 IPC with carriers, There is no way the German bomber stack can wipe out the Allied fleet. Of course, they also need transports and land units, which means they can’t build all carriers. But just something to consider. I don’t think fleets are going to be demolished by bombers with very few Axis losses.

Theoretically, bombers are not unbalanced vrs. fleet.

What’s making them unbalanced is the combination of deterring Allied navy, bombing raids, killer range, overwelming superiority in land trades, and utility in major land battles.  All that together makes them formidable.

Changing SBR damage and/or interceptor rules is probably the way to go.  Until then…higher bids.  The higher the bid the less money Axis will be able to make and the less bombers they can buy.

But as DizzKneeLand pointed out, SBR isn’t even a part of the strategy! Changing SBR damage and interceptor rules will have absolutely no effect on Dark Skies.

How can such a strategy deter Allied Navy, if the Navy will inflict heavy losses on the bombers? How can Germany win in Russia if they spent less on land units and more on bombers that died in the Atlantic?

@Arthur:

Sure, 8 loaded carriers would be sufficient to prevent the Germans from launching a bomber raid against the Allied navy.  Keep in mind that such a build requires 4 full turns of US spending in the Atlantic plus a turn or two for moving the fleet into position.  Time is on the German side in Dark Skies.  Once the Germans reach the oilfields, their income will start matching that of the US.  Also consider that Germany has quite a bit of flexibility.  The bombers can be used to destroy Russia, navies, London, and supporting raids on territories with medium-sized stacks of troops.

In my last game, the US tried a KGF strategy with a very large navy off the coast of Gibraltar on round 3.  The Germans mostly ignored it.  From the base in Paris, the bombers could limit the options of the Allied navy and also force Russia to retreat back towards Moscow.  Meanwhile, Japan was about to capture India and it seemed inevitable for a total victory on J7-J8.

1. As has been pointed out by myself and others, what the Germans can use the bombers for is not as important as what they do use it for. If the Allies don’t build a fleet because they are scared of Bombers, of course they will lose! The Allies in this strategy must force Germany to make a choice. As soon as Germany commits the bombers anywhere, flexibility and strength decreases. German bombers can destroy the Allied fleet or kill Russia, but it can’t do both at the same time.

2. The US doesn’t need 8 carriers. That provides only a 7% survival for 24 bombers, obviously this is overkill. I haven’t done the math, but I’m pretty sure the US could get by with a smaller fleet.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Shaniana :-)!

I see a lot of valid pros and cons for/against this strategy by a lot of people here. Not that I know much about this strategy, but many considerations I see here make sense. Both in favor or against the DS strategy.

@Zhukov44:

Theoretically, bombers are not unbalanced vrs. fleet.

**What’s making them unbalanced is the combination of deterring Allied navy, bombing raids, killer range, overwhelming superiority in land trades, and utility in major land battles.  All that together makes them formidable.  **

This provides a good summary of the tactical advantage of Strategic Bombers stack, IMO.

@Arthur:

Sure, 8 loaded carriers would be sufficient to prevent the Germans from launching a bomber raid against the Allied navy.  Keep in mind that such a build requires 4 full turns of US spending in the Atlantic plus a turn or two for moving the fleet into position.  Time is on the German side in Dark Skies.  Once the Germans reach the oilfields, their income will start matching that of the US.  Also consider that Germany has quite a bit of flexibility.  The bombers can be used to destroy Russia, navies, London, and supporting raids on territories with medium-sized stacks of troops.

In my last game, the US tried a KGF strategy with a very large navy off the coast of Gibraltar on round 3.  The Germans mostly ignored it.  From the base in Paris, the bombers could limit the options of the Allied navy and also force Russia to retreat back towards Moscow.  Meanwhile, Japan was about to capture India and it seemed inevitable for a total victory on J7-J8.

ABH, thank you. you speak a lot of sense. i’m sorry, but when people focus on things like “loaded carrier vs bomber–bring it on!”, they’re not really understanding the difficulty. i guess they have to just experience it for themselves. to think that US can build 8 fully loaded carriers in the atlantic is, imo, showing inexperience and lack of really understanding just what kind of punishment will be delivered by the foe on the other side of the map.

zhukov is totally right. of course i’d expect that from one of our elites :)

@Zhukov44:

@amanntai:

Baron had some interesting math in another thread: I believe it was a full carrier versus 3 attacking bombers. The bombers had only a 24.3% chance of survival! In a battle between 24 bombers and 8 full carriers, the bombers had only a 7% chance of surviving!

If the Allied match the Axis bombers 1 IPC for 1 IPC with carriers, There is no way the German bomber stack can wipe out the Allied fleet. Of course, they also need transports and land units, which means they can’t build all carriers. But just something to consider. I don’t think fleets are going to be demolished by bombers with very few Axis losses.

Theoretically, bombers are not unbalanced vrs. fleet.

What’s making them unbalanced is the combination of deterring Allied navy, bombing raids, killer range, overwelming superiority in land trades, and utility in major land battles.  All that together makes them formidable.

Changing SBR damage and/or interceptor rules is probably the way to go.  Until then…higher bids.  The higher the bid the less money Axis will be able to make and the less bombers they can buy.

umm…if you don’t play with VCs, that changes everything…then US can focus way more on KGF, without fear of losing on the pac side. imo, a no VC game is VERY different from the one we are discussing…it is like apples and oranges different. sorry

I should add that we do not play with victory cities or bids.

as i have mentioned a few times before in this thread (look back at some of my points), the real advantage of the bomber stack goes exclusively to germany. no other nation comes close to the advantage they have in utilizing this strategy, due to the unique combination of favorable factors. i don’t wanna repeat the argument, as i have mentioned it a few times. america is a distant 2nd, since it desperately relies on navy, is not as centralized, and starts with a significantly smaller ground army.

@Baron:

@Zhukov44:

Theoretically, bombers are not unbalanced vrs. fleet.

**What’s making them unbalanced is the combination of deterring Allied navy, bombing raids, killer range, overwhelming superiority in land trades, and utility in major land battles.  All that together makes them formidable.  **

This provides a good summary of the tactical advantage of Strategic Bombers stack, IMO.