They change the “rules” every time we turn around. They change how much units cost all the time why is the latest iteration sacred? If you can win the game most of the time just by building 1 unit then that unit is too powerful and it should be made more expensive or less powerful in values. There has been a continual struggle over decades to keep A&A games balanced and to act like one unit value or one specific rule is unchangeable is silly. The fact is the bomber strategy makes a mockery of the game and I won’t use it even if it works, I would prefer that a strategy to neutralize it would emerge (short of bids going into the 30s) but if it doesn’t the game needs to be adjusted for the enjoyment of those who play. No one wants to play a game where one and only strategy dominates.
They change the “rules” every time we turn around. They change how much units cost all the time why is the latest iteration sacred? If you can win the game most of the time just by building 1 unit then that unit is too powerful and it should be made more expensive or less powerful in values. There has been a continual struggle over decades to keep A&A games balanced and to act like one unit value or one specific rule is unchangeable is silly. The fact is the bomber strategy makes a mockery of the game and I won’t use it even if it works, I would prefer that a strategy to neutralize it would emerge (short of bids going into the 30s) but if it doesn’t the game needs to be adjusted for the enjoyment of those who play. No one wants to play a game where one and only strategy dominates.
I haven’t played against this yet, but it seems like the strategy is its own weakness. Since strat bombers are by nature expensive units, kill them at every opportunity and kill ground troops when you can’t. Build up your own bombers and hit those Axis bombers on the ground where they defend at one. To get to where you can kill them, deprive them of landing spaces so that your fleet is safe. Use the turn order to your advantage to 1 punch with the US and then two punch with the UK.
Marsh
“They change the “rules” every time we turn around.”
Really? mmm…I wasn’t aware of any rule changes to G40 since 2ed came out some years ago…please excuse my ignorance.
Would you know where I could look up these changes so I could learn the new rules?
This is not a new topic for G40…it had a quite active thread years ago.
pointless to argue with people who are going to be intentionally dumb. If you’d like to argue there’s a good counter to the bombers - fine but bring something that shows you’ve played the game and not Marsh’s build bombers garbage. If you want to argue that the game is wonderful and who cares if the Allies have to bid +40 fine but say so don’t act like we’re building lights at Wrigley.
Absolutely no reason to ridicule Marshmallow’s contribution to the discussion, rpg.
In general, I’d like for this to be a pleasant place for anyone to share whatever thoughts and experiences they have. You can disagree with people, but please don’t be rude about it.
@captain:
I’m not if favor of changing the rules, but I do feel some of the rules favor this strategy.
Like the delayed entry and reduced income for the US…by the time the US can get to Gib, Germany could already have enough bombers to take out their fleet.Or that you’re only allowed to scramble three fighters from an airbase…a big stack of fighters doesn’t help much if you can only use three of them to defend against a bomber stack.
They change the “rules” every time we turn around. They change how much units cost all the time why is the latest iteration sacred? If you can win the game most of the time just by building 1 unit then that unit is too powerful and it should be made more expensive or less powerful in values. There has been a continual struggle over decades to keep A&A games balanced and to act like one unit value or one specific rule is unchangeable is silly. The fact is the bomber strategy makes a mockery of the game and I won’t use it even if it works, I would prefer that a strategy to neutralize it would emerge (short of bids going into the 30s) but if it doesn’t the game needs to be adjusted for the enjoyment of those who play. No one wants to play a game where one and only strategy dominates.
Talking about opening the OOBox:
You can increase the cost. (The simplest but not very creative.)
Or develop the other units to be a good response to the overwhelming mobility and projection of power of Strategic Bombers stack.
You can add some countermeasures to one neglect unit, such as giving Cruiser an AAA capacity.
Or a combined arms bonus which gives same AAA capacity as OOB land AAA, to two or three warships paired 1:1:1, such as Cruiser, Battleship and Aircraft Carrier.
You can increase the combat value of Fighters specifically against planes.
(The simplest is a “1” on any roll hit directly enemy’s planes.
But there is more interesting ways, inspired by 1914 Fighter.)
or you could do something with unescorted bombers attacking at lower values which would be much more realistic, I cringe every time I send a stack of unescorted bombers against a factory because in reality any fighter cover would make mincemeat of unescorted bombers (unless its a night raid).
For this specific point, you can modify Strategic Bombing Raids escort and intercept values of Fighter:
Gives escorting Fg: Attack 2 and intercepting Fg: Defense 2.
(The actual OOB G40 SBR rules are very much against the defender which can only use the Fgs from the IC’s territory.
For his part, attacker can bring as much StBs, TcBs and Fgs within range.
Also, Fg having the same defense D1 value as the Bomber attack factor A1 gives an important advantage toward attacking Bombers and is quite unhistorical.)
Allows up to three Fighters only on an operational Air Base to scramble in an adjacent territory (not just SZ) which have an Industrial Complex/Naval Base/Air Base under SBR/TBR to be able to act as interceptors.
You can increase the combat value of AAA unit.
Allows each AAA to make up to 1 roll per plane per combat round (instead of 3 initial rolls and no more after), let it works the same as other units but only against planes.
You can even make more powerful this neglect 5 IPCs unit:
Up to three pre-emptive rolls @1 against up to 3 planes, whichever the lesser, and 1 regular roll @1 against up to 1 plane, whichever the lesser, for the other rounds.
You can lower the price of AAA unit to 4 IPCs or even 3 IPCs, so it becomes easier to provide an Anti-Aircraft cover against StBs umbrellas attack.
You can also allows 1 or 2 Fighters or Tactical Bombers (with enough additional move points) to land in a just conquered territory to protect the remaining ground units, which are usually weaker and more vulnerable to large stack of Bombers.
Naval units can do it by bringing a few Carriers in a SZ, you can at least allows that land territory being able to receive a similar number of planes as if you bring in a single carrier unit.
Allows up to one Fighter only per Aircraft Carrier (max 3 Fgs) to scramble from an adjacent SZ into a territory which have an Industrial Complex/Naval Base/Air Base under SBR/TBR to be able to act as interceptors.
About this specific issue:
@captain:
Or that you’re only allowed to scramble three fighters from an airbase…a big stack of fighters doesn’t help much if you can only use three of them to defend against a bomber stack.
Allows the building of one additional Air Base in any given territory, maximum: 2 per territories.
That way, up to 6 Fgs or TcBs can be scramble into one SZ.
However, it means that the first 4 damage points are for making both ABs non-operational, but it can rise to 12 damage points, since each AB worth 6 damage points.
Allows defenseless transports stack under Airplanes attack only, a single regular defense AA roll @1/per plane per transport, whichever the lesser. Once done, all transports are destroyed, even if all planes were destroyed too.
Thanks for this thread topic.
It provides an opportunity to summarize a lot of other HR discussed in the Forum.
(Without it, I’d never try to put in a single post every HR related to StBs somehow.) :-)
We tried this strategy of massive bomber buys by the Axis a while back. It was after reading someone’s post of the strategy and called it “Darkened Skies”.
We didn’t just have Germany buying a lot of bombers, but Japan did it as well. Not ALL bomber buys, but definitely a lot more than usual, with a few land units to supplement the starting land forces and in Japan’s case, an occasional extra transport.
It was kind of an experiment game because we just wanted to see what would happen. The Axis won it and our Allied players couldn’t quite figure out a way to contest the strategy. There just seemed to be no way around the Axis bombers. If an Allied fleet got too close to Europe or Japan, they got pasted. And, as mentioned before, it was much easier for the Axis to replace the bombers than it was for the Allies to replace their navies.
Also, Germany SBRd poor Russia into the stone age. Our Russia player thought with Germany buying mostly bombers they would be weak on land forces so they wanted to get aggressive. They bought mostly offensive units for the first 3 rounds and stationed most of their forces at the borders with Germany. On round 4 Russia attacked and destroyed all the German border units, but at some cost. Then Germany sent some reserve units in under an umbrella of bombers and wiped out the Russian offensive. By the time Germany got to Moscow, Russia had very little in defense because of all the factory bombings and losing most of their army in the initial attacks and counter attacks.
Germany also had enough bombers to keep SBRing UK. With the UK spending most of it’s money fixing bomb damage, this made things much easier for the Italians to contest the UK in the Med and Africa.
Japan did the same thing against China and India. A stack of men with an umbrella of bombers tend to wipe out anything it seems.
Even when the US entered the war, they didn’t accomplish much because they couldn’t figure out where to send their fleet. They had already lost one large fleet thanks to Japan and one smaller one trying to approach Europe. So they built a new large fleet, carriers, warships and lots of transports with men and tanks, but with the German and Japanese bomber threats, they were afraid to get too close to Axis air bases.
I’m sure there is a flaw to this strategy and there must be some way to beat it, we just couldn’t figure it out.
Absolutely no reason to ridicule Marshmallow’s contribution to the discussion, rpg.
In general, I’d like for this to be a pleasant place for anyone to share whatever thoughts and experiences they have. You can disagree with people, but please don’t be rude about it.
other than that it deserved ridicule, go start a drum circle on another thread.
Absolutely no reason to ridicule Marshmallow’s contribution to the discussion, rpg.
In general, I’d like for this to be a pleasant place for anyone to share whatever thoughts and experiences they have. You can disagree with people, but please don’t be rude about it.
other than that it deserved ridicule, go start a drum circle on another thread.
Come on…
Marsh. of War is new on the forum.
Give him a welcome, not a cold shoulder.
He may be ironic or simply giving his spontaneous 2 cents.
Instead of turning him ridiculous, just show him, at least why one of his point is clearly wrong.
That way, he can improve his strategic and tactical understanding of the game.
It’s kind of a digression, but I think I’d be annoyed if the price was returned to 15. I mean it should have been fairly obvious when AA50 came out and dropped them from 15 to 12 ipcs, that people would go bomber crazy. The unit used to be overpowered mainly because of the heavies tech, it probably never needed the drop from 15. That said, now that we’re all used to cheap bombers I’d think it would be hard to go back. I admit I almost never buy tactical bombers, when a strat B seems to work just as well in most situations. It’s clearly overpowered, but I think I’d be more amenable to an ability change at this point than just a straight reversion to the old unit stats.
As it stands though, in Global and 42.2 the bomber is tough to beat, so it’s not surprising to see so many strats adopting strategic bombers as the go to build.
In the past if one player magnified their air builds, the other player usually had a tough choice to make, they could follow suit, or do the opposite and go heavy on the ground. But the DoW delay in Global screws with this latter option big time at least for G, and the former option doesn’t do much good since G doesn’t need a navy anyway, so you can’t really punish them the same way they can punish you, even if you match them bomber for bomber. The DoW basically turns Germany into a power more like America, where they can build up bombers in relative safety (at least for a few rounds) so it’s much harder to punish them for making such a magnified build.
The main exploit with StratBs is their ability to nuke fleets over huge distances. Perhaps if they were less effective against warships, the unit wouldn’t be quite so deadly, but that gets into HR territory.
I know there are a lot of house rules that try to improve the intercept concept, but using it in normal combat. Or other ideas that try to capture the “altitude” concept. But I know that’s not really the subject of this thread.
The main exploit with StratBs is their ability to nuke fleets over huge distances. Perhaps if they were less effective against warships, the unit wouldn’t be quite so deadly, but that gets into HR territory.
I know there are a lot of house rules that try to improve the intercept concept, but using it in normal combat. Or other ideas that try to capture the “altitude” concept. But I know that’s not really the subject of this thread.
That’s what I have in mind when I suggested to introduce a naval AAA when Carrier, Battleship and Cruiser are 1:1:1.
So, each time you get these 3 units, you get, at least, up to three pre-emptive roll @1 against up to three planes.
This can somehow be a deterrent to launch all out Naval attack with StBs only.
Or, at least, it provides a way to do to something against such massive Bombers buying.
Here is an old thread of HR forum which I started on that topic on Bombers Strategy to suggest HR to fix things:
Are Bombers broken? HR adjustment explorations continuating the Global tread
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=31373.msg1151809#msg1151809
@captain:
This is not a new topic for G40…it had a quite active thread years ago.
Are bombers broken? : Axis bombers lead to allied dismay.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=31284.0
Yeah I agree, and people have been bringing up the cost vs ability several times in this thread too. But it doesn’t really get the methuselah’s opening Q.
Honestly on all the latest boards, the advantage seems to go to the side that builds up their air the fastest and then dominates with it. If it was a game of rock paper scissors, Air pretty much always beats Naval. The fighter is overpowered as much as the bomber, but the cheap bomber at 12 just really highlights the disparity.
On previous boards my response to a first round save, no purchase by the enemy, was usually to do the same. And basically keep the guessing game going. But that’s a little trickier in Global because of the DoW situation. I think it might be wise as USA to save if Germany saves, or go nuts with Bombers if Germany goes nuts. I mean someone has to match them right? and you know it’s not going to be UK or Russia! Haha
ps. the Brazil idea might be worth exploring some more. It’s really too bad French West Africa has to be French. Because a naval base there would allow you to launch transports back and forth between 101 and 87 and be able to push on Africa in one go, without having to move so perilously close to the bomber threat. Getting a bunch of ground moving towards Cairo along a somewhat less circuitous path. Unfortunately sz91 can be put on blast by Axis bombers. 87 is at least of more a pain for Germany to swing their bombers around to threaten, since they’d have to buy more AB, or move their bombers into crappy positions. Plus its a faster push to on Cairo going Sub Saharan than N. African since its one less move. But the inability to place a naval base in 87, makes that sz much less desirable place to launch into, because getting back takes 2 rounds instead of just 1. With a Naval Base there, you could at least threaten S. France and Normandy, while you funnel ground to Egypt (something an NB in Brazil still doesn’t get you.)
French West Africa would have been a much more entertaining territory if it was under British control. Or if all French territory in Africa was made more like the dutch, controlled by the first power to claim it. I suppose one might allow the British or Americans to purchase bases on French territory? That might be kind of gimmicky. Short of that, doing it from a Brazil harbor you could at least launch transports continuously between 101 and 86, then set up the shuck from 87 to Brazil and back. Seems like an awful long way to go just to stay out of Bomber range. Alas
I’ve given it some more thought and my conclusion would be:
Again… :-(, the allied solution may be in the Pacific on a, more or less, KJF strategy. The exact reason why I am not playing this game a lot anymore. Allied strategic options are just 1: KJF. Maybe some very, very few exceptions aside.
OR
Russia can become stronger than I can anticipate on from just scratching my head (I need to playtest strategies to get an epiphany ;-)) and start pushing west. That’s a big IF, but doesn’t seem impossible. Here’s the idea:
Russia should play conservatively and not too aggressive too early (would be a mistake). Preserve its army and build up critical mass and then march west. With the help of, say, 10 allied FTR, they should march adjacent to the German army. Then the allied FTR rebase into the stack as well. The Germans, not being able to attack this huge combined Russian-allied stack, will have to retreat because their defensive ability is abysmal…
This idea of Russian ‘strength’ comes from Germany buying so much bombers. Even if Germany buys only 10STR, that’s the equivalent of NOT building 20ARM, 30MECH, 15MECH + 10ARM, 9ART +28INF, etc. etc. Imagine Germany buying 3STR/turn. That quickly adds up to 18. Anyway, an equivalent force of land units performs a lot better offensively and infinitely better defensively if produced instead of a large number of bombers. This may be wishful thinking, I don’t know but I’ll playtest it some time. Far ahead. Big question remains when the SBR of Moscow begins and how effective it is in terms of losses on the Luftwaffe and how well Russia can handle the economic damage (repairing each and every turn may be too costly but still a necessity, etc.).
For me, a big problem with the game is intercepting. Needs further refinement. I just can’t accept that bombers and fighters go at each other with same combat value, and that tac bombers can’t even intercept at all. That may be the one area of refinement that fixes the problems.
Also, wouldn’t it be cool if any facility aa could be upgraded to fire at 2 instead of 1 for, say, a cost of 10?
I’ve given it some more thought and my conclusion would be:
Again… :-(, the allied solution may be in the Pacific on a, more or less, KJF strategy. The exact reason why I am not playing this game a lot anymore. Allied strategic options are just 1: KJF. Maybe some very, very few exceptions aside.OR
Russia can become stronger than I can anticipate on from just scratching my head (I need to playtest strategies to get an epiphany ;-)) and start pushing west. That’s a big IF, but doesn’t seem impossible. Here’s the idea:
Russia should play conservatively and not too aggressive too early (would be a mistake). Preserve its army and build up critical mass and then march west. With the help of, say, 10 allied FTR, they should march adjacent to the German army. Then the allied FTR rebase into the stack as well. The Germans, not being able to attack this huge combined Russian-allied stack, will have to retreat because their defensive ability is abysmal…
This idea of Russian ‘strength’ comes from Germany buying so much bombers. Even if Germany buys only 10STR, that’s the equivalent of NOT building 20ARM, 30MECH, 15MECH + 10ARM, 9ART +28INF, etc. etc. Imagine Germany buying 3STR/turn. That quickly adds up to 18. Anyway, an equivalent force of land units performs a lot better offensively and infinitely better defensively if produced instead of a large number of bombers. This may be wishful thinking, I don’t know but I’ll playtest it some time. Far ahead. Big question remains when the SBR of Moscow begins and how effective it is in terms of losses on the Luftwaffe and how well Russia can handle the economic damage (repairing each and every turn may be too costly but still a necessity, etc.).
You know, I think a good idea that might fix this in some areas would be to treat aircraft like they do in the A&A 1914 game. In other words, have the aircraft battle it out before any aircraft can attack any land or sea units. So, you would have an “Air Combat” phase before the regular combat phase.
First of all, the battle would go until one side or the other has no planes left.
Second, the combat values would be different in the air combat phase. I think the following would work well:
Strategic Bombers == A 1, D 1
Tactical Bombers == A 2, D 2
Fighters == A 3, D 3 or 4
I figure Strategic Bombers do have armament and could get a possible hit. Tactical bombers would handle themselves a little better than strategic bombers in a dogfight, thus a value of 2. I wasn’t sure if fighters should retain their regular defense of 4 or drop to 3 for air combat. Either way they obviously outclass strats or tacs in air-to-air combat.
I wondered if perhaps in the “Air Combat” phase, a fighter’s attack value be bumped up to 4, so a fighter would attack and defend @ 4. That would definitely make people want to include fighters in their air fleets. Also, for those that want to give different values to early-war and late-war planes, you could have the earlier, more obsolete models (like the Russian I-16 in HBG’s Russia Early War set) hit @ 3 in the “Air Combat” phase.
This also might make the Axis alternate between bomber and fighter buys in this “bomber spam” strategy. After all, if you attack a force with 20 bombers but come up against 6-10 defending fighters, your precious expensive bombers could get wiped out before even dropping one bomb on the land troops.
Now, this wouldn’t fix the “Bomber Spam” strategy everywhere because obviously the Allies can’t afford to put fighters in every strategic location, but perhaps it would slow it down and maybe even prevent really crucial locations from falling, thus preventing an Axis win (or Allied win if you are playing the other way).
By the way, I agree that Tactical Bombers should be able to escort and intercept in SBRs as well. I think this “Air Combat” idea would be better used for the dogfight phase of an SBR as well. Maybe still leave it at one round of combat, but use the combat values (strats = 1, tacs = 2, fighters = 3 or 4)
Given the rules as they currently are, it seems to me that a KJF is a good response to German bomber spam. One of the great strengths of the bomber strategy is that it forces the Allies to defend both ground and sea in the Atlantic. If the European allied plan is to concede the Atlantic and win on the ground (and possibly with subs/air in Med), then you can negate part of those bombers’ power.
What I’m most interested in is what proponents of the strategy see as being the best Russian response. Max infantry from round 1 or commit to an offensive stack supported by UK fighters? Or something else entirely…
Absolutely no reason to ridicule Marshmallow’s contribution to the discussion, rpg.
In general, I’d like for this to be a pleasant place for anyone to share whatever thoughts and experiences they have. You can disagree with people, but please don’t be rude about it.
Rpg can act pissy if he likes.
As I said previously, I haven’t played against this strategy. That being the case I stand by my position for these reasons:
1. One of the fundamental concepts of the game is resource usage. Given finite resources, a heavy concentration of power in one area is going to lead to vulnerabilities in other areas. Those bomber stacks are expensive. If Germany is building bombers, they’re not building ground forces. Granted that Germany has lots of ground forces at the start, but those will get worn out pretty fast. This cannot work without ground support from Germany’s jr buddy in the Med.
2. It’s amazingly easy to destroy Italy’s income. A stack of three or four Allied subs can all but shut down Italy’s production. Italy can work on killing Russia or it can try to protect its income, but it can’t do both effectively. If you shut down Italy, the Axis offensive should stall out. Remind me again how those bombers do against subs when you have no destroyers….The Chinese ground forces can claw their way to the coast, depriving Japan of a lot of its income.
3. Allied strategic bombers work against captured factories too. If you want to build at those factories, you’re going to have to buy off the bombing damage first.
4. Those bomber stacks are really only effective if kept together. The Allies are more than capable of presenting multiple threats on the same turn that have to be dealt with and giving the Axis tough choices about what to do. Splitting stacks diminishes the effect of the law of large numbers on the stack’s effectiveness and increases losses to the stacks.
5. It’s amazingly dumb to assume that Axis bomber stacks will never have to land somewhere where Allied bomber stacks can attack them. Even if the Allies only get one or two bombers at a time, that stack is getting smaller. It’s a hefty assumption that the Axis can keep that bomber stack at full strength for the entire game.
6. Given the same amount of IPCs spent on bombers vs fleet, the fleet will beat up the bomber stack pretty damned well, killing a heck of a lot of IPCs that it will take many, many turns to replenish.
7. Allied factories in Iraq, Persia, and Egypt can shuttle enough fast-moving ground forces, fighters, and even strat bombers into Russia to counter the presence of Italian troops, slow down German troops, and strat bomb captured factories. The Axis can’t keep going forever if it’s being pressed on multiple fronts.
8. Since the Axis has to be conservative with its existing ground troops, there are going to be opportunities to deprive Germany of valuable income (Finland, Norway, etc) and give those NOs to Russia. That will lessen the impact of strategic bombing on the Allies and also lessen the ability to replenish lost Axis bombers and the ground forces that shield them.
At first inspection this seems like pretty much every other Axis strategy – if the Allies can live long enough and coordinate their defense, the Axis will run out of steam. Is this a viable Axis strategy? It seems so. Is it a guaranteed win? If it were, wouldn’t you all be running it all the time? This strategy can be probably be countered with the right combination of skill, analysis, and teamwork on the part of the Allies.
Is the bomber unit broken? Probably. You can add it to the list of things that aren’t right with the game. I’m sure it wouldn’t even make page one of the list…
Marsh
Issue isn’t as simple as calculating bombers vs boats. If all those carriers and fighters could somehow also simultaneously threaten the japanese, then you can make the comparison. Again the threat projection is the real problem allies face. Those same bombers are keeping the allied boats at distance, while simultaneously threatening London, Cairo, the Middle East, and Moscow.
I understand rpg’s frustration. Unless you’ve actually played against this strategy, which is very frustrating believe me (we both have failed against it), one just doesn’t really see the problem.
Done some calculation. Using Low luck as i can do those things in my head :)
Bombers vs ships.
Actualy if you take 3 bombers 36 and attack a loaded carrier 36 ipc you have nearly mutual annihilation ( slight defender advantage )
Attack 12 vs defence 10. Defender hits once you hit twice, round 2 8 vs 8 lets call that even shall we.
If you take 6 bombers and attack 2 loaded carriers the defender will nearly always win.
attack 24 defence20, 4 hits attacker 3 hits defender. Round 2 12 attacker vs 14 defender defender will win this with 1 fighter left.So if germany wants to spend most of its money on bombers the US can easy counter buying carriers with fighters. If they time it right the UK can add their carrier + fighter as well. You can even add a few destoyers in the mix just for good measure but your carriers will hold out against german bombers and while germany is trying to outspend UK + US ( they can barely outspend the UK ) russia is just going to say Hello on the eastern front.
Bombers vs ships isnt that overpowered. Same IPC value can defend against it and in higher numbers outright defeat it.
Put another way, if you have to assemble a large enough stack of boats in the Atlantic just to overcome the bombers, then you may as well pack it up in the pacific. It’s hard enough as it is against the japanese when you have america giving it full attention.
Furthermore, no one wins with just boats. Say you manage to dominate the seas and then start dropping troops in Europe. How many do you think you can drop if much of your income went to buying your boat stacks? With 20 or 30 german bombers and say 5 inf, do you think your landing party has any chance of surviving?
