German bomber strategy - How to play and How to counter

I think Japan’s DOW on round 2 actually helped the allies in that game. If they had waited then the US wouldn’t have been able to have such a large fleet in the Atlantic so soon. And that may cause problems for Germany now.

It’s hard to follow this game without seeing a map of the board.  It seems that the Japanese player is quite inexperienced to let America keep the Philippines on J4…  I normally crush that territory on J1 to deprive the US 50 PUs over the course of the next ten turns.  Regardless, the United States has to start putting massive money into the Pacific ASAP because Japan has a 2:1 economic advantage over India + ANZAC.

DL triplea and put it in your saved games. You’ll get the full visual effect then. :)

Thanks!  After seeing the map, I definitely can conclude that Japan is not a strong player.  They should have a much better economy at this point.  I don’t get the purchase of 2 more factories on turn 4 when there are few land units to oppose them…

Been trying to keep up on this hot topic, and from what I’ve learned so far I think it’s important for Germany to have anywhere from 15-20 bombers (and that’s a new perception for me based on this thread) however… I don’t believe it’s necessary to have 20+ and ignore purchasing land units to that degree. On a different note , our group devalues strategic bombers slightly with our house rule which states “Strategic bombers conducting SBR only receive a +2 damage bonus if they have departed from an operational airbase”.

You may want to consider reducing the effectiveness (damage) of bombing runs if there are interceptors that are launched as a house rule instead.

@Young:

“Strategic bombers conducting SBR only receive a +2 damage bonus if they have departed from an operational airbase”.

A small but worthy change. I like it!

@Adam514:

You may want to consider reducing the effectiveness (damage) of bombing runs if there are interceptors that are launched as a house rule instead.

Or maybe the +2 damage bonus during SBRs should be removed altogether.

Thanks for notice on this game, ADominion :).

Intercepted bombers should even SBR at reduced effectiveness. I’m okay with the +2 if not intercepted, but why not give them no bonus if intercepted and even a -2 per intercepted bomber that does not have an escort after interception and AAA-fire if there are interceptors left (not counting FTR that are on the ground that decided not to intercept).

For example, lets say 4STR and 3FTR SBR Moscow after interception combat and AAA-fire. There are  interceptors left, so 3STR (escorted by 3 FTR) roll @ no bonus, 1STR rolls @ -2. In effect, that’s rolling 4 dice and subtract 2 from the result.
Likewise, if after AAA-fire 13 surviving bombers (without escorts left) are intercepted (by whatever number of intercepting FTR still alive), they roll 13 dice and subtract 26 from the result. They will likely cause still cause 19 to 20 damage….

That would make intercepting much more a consideration. As does escorting. It is more effective to raid with 5STR + 5FTR than it is with 10STR unescorted…

Honestly, if you’re resorting to a house rule then you’re admitting that the game is broken as is. I’m much more interested in discussing possible strategies for countering the bomber strategy using OOB rules.

I would like to do some play testing as allies against anyone wanting or willing to try out this axis strategy. The stronger the player the better (e.g., a tier E, 1, or 2 preferred). We can make it a non-league game so there’s no competitive pressure there, and we’d be free to explore options. I now feel I’m losing my second game against this strategy, and let me tell you, I don’t lose a lot of games, but I do feel helpless against this one. I take some comfort at least in that I’m not the only one who’s struggling against it…as far as I can tell, NO ONE has yet to beat this strategy (Dizzknee said he hasn’t lost in 5 games using it, and I know bmnielsen is something like 10-0 between last season and this one so far). Sure there was that Allweneed game a while back, but unfortunately it never finished so it’s still hard to conclude anything out of that one.

Anyway, I’d like the game to be under similar conditions to the ones i’ve played already vs bmnielsen, which are:

1. allies get 20 bid
2. germany builds mostly bombers, but sometimes a fighter or two as needed, and mechs as needed (an occasional ss or dd of course)
3. J2 DOW (he seems to emphasize transports over factories)

He’s very good at using the Italians to gain a landing spot for the german bombers who can then air blitz the hell out of any unsuspecting stack. This forces allies to either really unstack and spread thin, or really stack up in just one or two critical places (in the middle east e.g.).

I can usually play at a pretty fast pace too. PM if interested.

I am currently in the middle of a table top game with a friend and I am playing the Axis. I’ve got a very strong game going and I’m expecting to win eventually, it’s round 5 and I’ve only got 3 bombers for Germany, but I’ve also got 9 transports with naval support in the Baltic shucking to Leningrad. Is it too late to turn and do this bomber strat which should help me crack Egypt if I want to go there, and the Allied fleet which he will now build because my sealion fake is weak, or should I continue to use my transports and drive land units and SBR Moscow with the few bombers I have? In other words… is it too late to apply this strategy if you only have a few bombers and lots of transports for Germany on round 5?

@axis-dominion:

I would like to do some play testing as allies against anyone wanting or willing to try out this axis strategy. The stronger the player the better (e.g., a tier E, 1, or 2 preferred). We can make it a non-league game so there’s no competitive pressure there, and we’d be free to explore options. I now feel I’m losing my second game against this strategy, and let me tell you, I don’t lose a lot of games, but I do feel helpless against this one. I take some comfort at least in that I’m not the only one who’s struggling against it…as far as I can tell, NO ONE has yet to beat this strategy (Dizzknee said he hasn’t lost in 5 games using it, and I know bmnielsen is something like 10-0 between last season and this one so far). Sure there was that Allweneed game a while back, but unfortunately it never finished so it’s still hard to conclude anything out of that one.

Anyway, I’d like the game to be under similar conditions to the ones i’ve played already vs bmnielsen, which are:

1. allies get 20 bid
2. germany builds mostly bombers, but sometimes a fighter or two as needed, and mechs as needed (an occasional ss or dd of course)
3. J2 DOW (he seems to emphasize transports over factories)

He’s very good at using the Italians to gain a landing spot for the german bombers who can then air blitz the hell out of any unsuspecting stack. This forces allies to either really unstack and spread thin, or really stack up in just one or two critical places (in the middle east e.g.).

I can usually play at a pretty fast pace too. PM if interested.

I’m bumping this for the new page.

I just wanted to point out, that if you divide the IPC value of a bomber by the attack value, you get the same effectiveness as infantry attacking.

bomber: 12 IPC’s/attack at 4 = 3 IPC’s per attack
infantry: 3 IPC’s/attack at 1 = 3 IPC’s per attack

This, combined with bombers’ much greater range, shows why this strategy is so effective.

If you look at other units,

artillery 4 IPC’s/2 per attack = 2 IPC’s per attack
tank 6 IPC’s/3 per attack = 2 IPC’s per attack

but these land units move slow compared to a bomber

sub 6 IPC’s/2 per attack  = 3 IPC’s per attack
destroyer 8 IPC’s/2 attack = 4 IPC’s per attack
cruiser 12 IPC’s/3 attack = 4 IPC’s per attack
battleship 20 IPC’s/4 attack = 5 IPC’s per attack

fighter 10 IPC’s/3 attack = 3.3 IPC’s per attack
tac bomber 11 IPC’s/3 attack = 3.7 IPC’s per attack

back in the original Axis & Allies, infantry was the most effective unit on the board because of this (and that it was cheap cannon fodder) and the fact that the territories were much bigger proportionately so infantry moving only 1 did not make much difference.

@madscientist:

I just wanted to point out, that if you divide the IPC value of a bomber by the attack value, you get the same effectiveness as infantry attacking.

bomber: 12 IPC’s/attack at 4 = 3 IPC’s per attack
infantry: 3 IPC’s/attack at 1 = 3 IPC’s per attack

This, combined with bombers’ much greater range, shows why this strategy is so effective.

If you look at other units,

artillery 4 IPC’s/2 per attack = 2 IPC’s per attack
tank 6 IPC’s/3 per attack = 2 IPC’s per attack

but these land units move slow compared to a bomber

sub 6 IPC’s/2 per attack�  � = 3 IPC’s per attack
destroyer 8 IPC’s/2 attack = 4 IPC’s per attack
cruiser 12 IPC’s/3 attack = 4 IPC’s per attack
battleship 20 IPC’s/4 attack = 5 IPC’s per attack

fighter 10 IPC’s/3 attack = 3.3 IPC’s per attack
tac bomber 11 IPC’s/3 attack = 3.7 IPC’s per attack

back in the original Axis & Allies, infantry was the most effective unit on the board because of this (and that it was cheap cannon fodder) and the fact that the territories were much bigger proportionately so infantry moving only 1 did not make much difference.

This analysis was very helpful, it really helps me gain the confidence needed when buying so many bombers over infantry or naval units.

But of all the countries, Germany stands to benefit the most out of buying them in great numbers, due to its strong starting ground army, its high starting income and its even higher income increase potential, its need for very minimal navy and transports, and its strategic reach from WG or SI to so many critical targets, including London, Gibraltar, egypt, Middle East, Moscow, and almost all sea zones from which transports might invade.

@Young:

@madscientist:

I just wanted to point out, that if you divide the IPC value of a bomber by the attack value, you get the same effectiveness as infantry attacking.

bomber: 12 IPC’s/attack at 4 = 3 IPC’s per attack
infantry: 3 IPC’s/attack at 1 = 3 IPC’s per attack

This, combined with bombers’ much greater range, shows why this strategy is so effective.

If you look at other units,

artillery 4 IPC’s/2 per attack = 2 IPC’s per attack
tank 6 IPC’s/3 per attack = 2 IPC’s per attack

but these land units move slow compared to a bomber

sub 6 IPC’s/2 per attack�  � = 3 IPC’s per attack
destroyer 8 IPC’s/2 attack = 4 IPC’s per attack
cruiser 12 IPC’s/3 attack = 4 IPC’s per attack
battleship 20 IPC’s/4 attack = 5 IPC’s per attack

fighter 10 IPC’s/3 attack = 3.3 IPC’s per attack
tac bomber 11 IPC’s/3 attack = 3.7 IPC’s per attack

back in the original Axis & Allies, infantry was the most effective unit on the board because of this (and that it was cheap cannon fodder) and the fact that the territories were much bigger proportionately so infantry moving only 1 did not make much difference.

This analysis shows the advantage, and really helps me gain confidence when buying bombers over infantry or naval units.

So, for example, if the axis needed to invade america the same way the allies need to invade europe, then a similar all-bomber strategy for the U.S. would be as effective as it is for Germany, since the US also has a high starting income, has a reasonable and proportionate starting ground force considering the fewer territories to protect, would need very little navy, and the bombers could thwart anything trying to get near–simultaneously on both sides (pac and atlantic).

One other very important factor that makes bombers so effective for germany is that, in effect, Italy goes first (technically they go after germany, of course, but after the first german turn, one can consider Italy as leading the way, since there is no real power that goes in between the italian and german turn (France is a joke and anzac has almost no bearing in the European theatre)). The Italians pave new landings for the bombers, so they are in effect continually increasing their range. The US, for example, doesn’t really have this. The Russians are usually shrinking, not expanding, so they’re not so helpful with this, and UK goes after.

Another way to use the turn order is to have Germany do a drive-by on Egypt with the bombers so Japan can follow through with amphibious assault.  This is one of those to-hell-with-the-pacific kind of strategies.

@Young:

I am currently in the middle of a table top game with a friend and I am playing the Axis. I’ve got a very strong game going and I’m expecting to win eventually, it’s round 5 and I’ve only got 3 bombers for Germany, but I’ve also got 9 transports with naval support in the Baltic shucking to Leningrad. Is it too late to turn and do this bomber strat which should help me crack Egypt if I want to go there, and the Allied fleet which he will now build because my sealion fake is weak, or should I continue to use my transports and drive land units and SBR Moscow with the few bombers I have? In other words… is it too late to apply this strategy if you only have a few bombers and lots of transports for Germany on round 5?

It’s never too late, but be smart about it.  1 or max 2 bombers a turn.  Once you have 5 or 6, look out!