Why G1 1 x Bomber Doesn't Work (maybe)

So there I was on Discord, and players are talking about G1 bomber standard meta. And I’m like, they have forgotten the face of their father.

(Dark Tower by Stephen King reference)

But then I’m like, well . .

https://imgflip.com/i/87fhxq

(Picture of Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker; Darth Vader says “You have forgotten the face of your father”, Luke says “Don’t be absurd I’ve never even seen your face.”)

Right, so how can we expect upcoming generations to understand stack bleeding/building if it’s not explained to them? Oh, they should just figure it out, okay, maybe. But isn’t that sort of heartless?

So here we go again.

And right at the outset, once again. Probably I’m skipping over a lot, and I don’t claim to be original or whatever. Revised base is about twenty years old at time of this writing, 1942 Second Edition eleven years. Don Rae’s essays older than Revised even. So really it’s about method, application, running numbers, just, you know, basics.

And a lot of the basic methodology comes out of articles on Revised, a lot of which are lost to time now. Like, players would write out the percentages and projections turn by turn. Quite nice, that.

So anyways, this is all stuff that’s been written before, or at most built on what was written before, nothing spectacular really. But maybe worth a read eh?

Reserved (I may chuck a table of contents and links in here later or something.)

Short version: G1 1 x bomber gains do not adequately compensate for loss of G4+ loss of 4 infantry.

Thank you, you’ve been a great audience.

. . . no?

Fine, let’s get on with it. R1 4 inf 3 art (I won’t get into how apparently meta likes 4 inf 2 tank) 12 W Rus 9 Ukr.

W Rus 9 inf 2 art 1 tank vs 3 inf 1 art 1 tank, we say attacker 3 hits defender 2 hits, then attacker 2 hits defender 1 hit, average 6 inf 2 art 1 tank survive.

Ukr 3 inf 1 art 3 tank 2 fighter vs 3 inf 1 art 1 tank 1 bomber 1 fighter. We say Axis go bomber-fighter OOL; round 1 attacker 3 hits / defender 3 hits; round 2 attacker 3 hits / defender 2 hits / then we say attacker presses on for Reasons, attacker inflicts last hit while defender gets one more hit; USSR has 1 tank 2 fighters, and yes I know that’s not how it often works out but whatever. Ballparking it.

Saying the Novo infantry moves to Moscow, and counting AA guns and fighters that’s 15 units at Moscow/Caucasus or points west. And we say R1 we’ll add 2 more infantry from Evenki (because on Archangel they pressure Karelia), then R2 1 more, R3 4 more (plus the Kazakh infantry makes it back). Then we account for build; we say 7 per turn through R3 then 6 a turn from R4. All infantry equivalents on defense (that is, infantry and artillery).

The Numbers (More or Less, Sort Of)

Yes, horrible oversimplification. But end of R1 that’s 24, R2 32, R3 44, R4 50, then R5+ 6 per turn, and we can add 2 UK fighters per turn and 1 US fighter initial, plus some discretion.

**Bleed / Build **

USSR wants to bleed out Germany; Germany wants to bleed out USSR. But if that’s true, then what happens if USSR tries multi-stack “pressure” against Germany? That is, put four infantry on Karelia, 4 infantry on Ukraine, that sort of thing?

Answer is, USSR loses. Germany has more air so does better on trades. Plus Germany doesn’t have to accept any given battle, and Germany can stack defense on territory of its choice with tanks. That generally means, USSR can and should bleed off minimally to trade, but trying to expand the rate of bleed just leaves USSR at a disadvantage.

Conversely, what if Germany tries to multi-stack? Maybe we say Germany comes out a little ahead in the short term, but in KGF Germany really doesn’t want to trade with anyone; it wants to stack defense.

So assuming KGF, both USSR and Germany want to keep trades light. Can’t not trade; that just surrenders territory without fighting for it, which locks that income away, and since the early stacks are in direct competition that’s just not working out well for anyone.

So we chop 5 infantry equivalents a turn for each side. Again, making assumptions, but whatever.

So what are Germany’s reserves? Totting up everything left in Europe it’s 38 units. Say Germany strips 2 out to dump to Trans-Jordan, that leaves 36, but not all those 36 can pressure West Russia right away. But let’s say Germany gets there in the end.

Germany production is at 13 units, again takes a while to get there. Let’s say the G1 build reaches Karelia on G3, and by then all the rest of Germany’s units in Europe can reach Karelia too. So we set that as our base.

G3 49 units against R3 44. But then, we’re thinking about stuff like UK2 build dumping to France on UK3; US1 build can reach on US3 too. So then, let’s say Germany holds just 5 infantry back. Maybe more. Maybe less. Uses some fighters. Whatever.

In all this, what happens if UK builds fighters to drop to West Russia? There’s the greedy UK1 Atlantic fleet build, there’s the less greedy UK1 London fighters build, both combine with 3 ground units on India. But regardless, we can figure maybe another 4 UK fighters, 1 US fighter, maybe more.

Then it starts to make sense, you see players writing about J3 timings on India, and here’s a G3 push into Karelia, right? See how the timings synchronize a bit? And if the Axis really lean into it, that’s where the pressure breaks down; Allies want to defend both territories and one may expect one or the other to have to give. Like, really.

But let’s say Allies did the fighter to West Russia thing. And let’s really think about the G1 build; if Germany mobilized 10 units on Berlin and 3 on Italy, will those 3 Italy units really push Karelia on G3? Of course not. Because the Italy units march to Berlin on G2, so only reach Karelia on G4, along with the G2 Berlin build.

And it’s right about then that USSR’s feed of troops from east Asia starts tapering off.

Playing fast and loose a lot, but again, base G 49 vs R 44; we deduct 3 units for the Italy deploy, another 5 for France, and boost West Russia by 4 fighters. It just does not look good for a G3 attack into West Russia (actually 4 of the USSR infantry are on Archangel but whatever). Regardless, Germany shouldn’t really be in a position to threaten gains.

But G4, another 13 units join at Karelia. And that is kind of a lot. Plus Germany’s G4 build can include fighter(s) which add to the threat on W Rus and also pressure Allied drops to Med.

The Takeaway

So when exactly does G pressure hit? The answer is, we actually don’t really know. If Allies do something like fighting over Buryatia to no point, or doesn’t reinforce Szechwan, that’s where Japan can bleed out Allies and elsewhere I make the point, USSR fighting over 1 IPC territories, not a good deal, really need those units in Europe, if USSR wants to fight in Asia it had better have a ---- good reason for it. Like, REALLY. And players scoff at ol “theoretician” aardvark that doesn’t know how to play. (Using 15 IPC of unit to fight for 10 IPC worth of territory on the key timing is totally worth it apparently.)

I mean, if I really know how to play, I should be able to make absolute pronouncements, and scoff at other players that claim with different dice outcomes and different player decisions games actually have a range of outcomes. Wink wink. Well you know, lawks, I just leave all that confident talk up to the pros, you know. Yes, that’s a Granny Weatherwax reference.

But you get some idea, depending on dice outcomes, depending on player decisions, G really just shouldn’t have the numbers for forced pressure against West Russia terribly early.

And though it’s not spelled out, it should be understood going beyond the G4 timeline is not great in the KGF either. Germany has to split units off to deal with UK/US threats; it bleeds the Karelia stack something awful. Even when Germany shifts off France to push east, UK/US will make their presence known somehow, and Germany will have to deal with it in some way. By G3, maybe Allies have been building transport escorts and not really focusing transports, or moving Allies into position, but around G4-G5, better watch out. Hoo boy.

Sure there’s “tricks” like G4 push with G4 build of fighters or something, get a few extra crucial dice against Europe while also threatening Med dumps. Some more complications I won’t get into.

But the takeaway is, G3-G5, somewhere right about there, Germany really wants to be looking for a favorable major stack battle. If Germany doesn’t force the issue, then Allies can shift to deal with Japan, and eventually the German position collapses. Japan trying to break the unified Allied stack by itself, really awkward.

But Germany gets that with the G1 bomber? Well no, it doesn’t. Because when you take off the G1 bomber, sure G1 mobilized 9 land on Berlin maybe so it pushes G3. But you don’t get a 13 unit push on G4. It’s 10 at best. Build tanks to compensate for the timing, Germany has less infantry to trade at Italy or hold France.

And the same is true for G1 carrier or whatever. Axis can play timing tricks with Germany if it’s KJF, sure. But if it’s KGF? Then the Allies should be squeezing Germany.

Case Study

Copied and pasted a chunk out of a Discord thread where I posted a screenshot about G3 Karelia.

The conclusion? I’m framing it as, G1 bomber works in case of Allied misplays (or arguably, severe lucksack pressure). Otherwise, Axis should just play solid fundamentals. And if Axis don’t have those fundamentals, then their front collapses against solid Allied play.

I don’t say it’s ever a “safe” game. Players should take risks, but the question is, what risks are reasonable? What risks are optimal?

But you want, well all right, let’s say SOME sort of contextual application? Fine. Let’s take second screenshot, bit zoomed in on US3.

I make the assertion that Germany used all its infantry to stack France and/or pressure Poland and/or secure Baltic. Chop four infantry anywhere and something collapses.

So let’s just ignore USSR hitting Ukraine, shall we, and pretend US and USSR will do nothing but reinforce West Russia on US3/USS4 before Germany can hit on G4.

https://axis-and-allies-calculator.com/?rules=1942&battleType=land&roundCount=all&attInfantry=18&attArtillery=3&attTank=9&attFighter=5&defInfantry=20&defArtillery=6&defTank=3&defFighter=3&defAAGun=1

56.1% attacker wins.

Now chop 4 infantry and add a bomber.

https://axis-and-allies-calculator.com/?rules=1942&battleType=land&roundCount=all&attInfantry=14&attArtillery=3&attTank=9&attFighter=5&defInfantry=20&defArtillery=6&defTank=3&defFighter=3&defAAGun=1&attBomber=1

38.4% attacker wins.

Does a 18% swing in a major stack battle not shout out to you “Hey look at me! I’m important!” There’s 307 IPCs worth of units in that battle. Don’t you kind of, um, want to win it?

And what else did Germany lose by not having a bomber? Let’s full screen it.

Germany still has holdings in Africa, pushing to interior of Africa, Allies still don’t have fleet challenging, etc.

But Allies are about to Med drop? Allied misplayed? Yes yes, sure. But bottom line is, does Germany really want to give up winning major stack pressure to bleed out Med? The timing is wrong.

So, a player wants to screw around with the numbers, and what? It doesn’t make a difference in the end?

Four infantry have the same attack as one bomber (doesn’t really work that way but whatever). But they also have way more hit points. And having casualties to take in place of more expensive units means preserving those more expensive units’ hitting power. There just is not any way around it.

And if it’s KGF, there’s no way around the Allied squeeze. There’s definitely a lot of things Axis can do, but one bomber is not going to be enough.

You can see there’s a case for going multiple bombers and simultaneously threatening north Atlantic and Mediterranean, especially if Germany has overwhelming air power. If Germany attacks with a lot more than defenders can defend with, Germany wipes out all defenders while receiving only light casualties. Or you could say subs and bombers, or whatever. But one bomber? No, not really. Five fighters and a bomber is not enough for Germany. If fighters are on France, they defend Italy and Morocco sea zones but can’t defend Norway/Finland at all. If fighters are on Karelia, they defend Norway/Finland sea zones but are useless against Italy and Morocco sea zones.

But even if making an argument for multiple bombers, what does G1 bomber really accomplish other than guaranteeing G4+builds are 4 infantry down, always, forever?

Not much really.

G1 Berlin fighter vs UK cruiser; the 6-0 vs 5-1 debate

One thing players sometime tell me is how great G1 6-0 vs UK battleship is. Yes, that’s nice, and I play 5-1 greed, but apparently I just don’t understand there’s greater risk to German fighters that way! Sigh. Really?

Well one would think if one is going to 6-0, one would at least send Berlin fighter vs UK cruiser to prevent UK destroyer/UK cruiser countering and wiping the survivors.

A German Bomber That Doesn’t Fight Is Useless

But then players say no, don’t risk German air. Well, you know? So let’s say Germany has 5 fighter 1 bomber vs 2 destroyer 1 carrier 2 fighters. UK gets wiped of 50 IPC, but Germany probably loses 3-4 fighters in the process. UK didn’t even have to land anything In Europe to bleed out Germany’s stack, and UK can afford more fleet. It’s not great for UK but it’s not what I would call great for Axis either.

Or let’s say Germany supposedly threatens the French West Africa sea zone. Sure. Go ahead do it. Land on Morocco and get wiped by the US2 landing; 7 IPC transport for 12 IPC bomber, good trade for Allies. Or Germany presses west and abandons Egypt? That works for Allies too. No problem, let’s do it.

But Germany can use the bomber to press in Africa? Well it’s the whole KJF situation all over; for Germany to press into the interior of Africa it has to go through Egypt; to survive at Egypt Germany has to survive the counter from Trans-Jordan, then there’s the followup from any early Allied landings at French West Africa and the Union of South Africa infantry. So no, not really, the bomber doesn’t really help control Africa either. It’s not nothing, but it’s not really great either.

But Germany can use the bomber to threaten unescorted transports at East Canada sea zone? US1 build moves to sz1 on US2 and alternates to Finland/Norway. Zero disruption. Even for the drop from East Canada to France / NW Europe, US1 Pacific fleet to Mexico US2 to East US US3 to East Canada sea zone. G1 bomber moves to France on G2. That only leaves Germany one turn to specifically threaten unescorted transports from East Canada to France (only), and even that is gone by G4.

The Tradeoff

Is a G1 bomber useless? No. But it really doesn’t do all the things it’s supposedly doing that make it worth the cost. Even if one figures a bomber to replace two fighters (a single bomber can cover a range of targets that would require placing a fighter on France and another fighter on Karelia, say), Germany still needs fighters to back up that bomber because a solo bomber just can’t do much on its own.

For so little, I say it just does not make sense to mess with the G3-G6 timings. The case study I wrote up, there’s a 18% swing in win/loss for a battle of 307 IPCs. That’s just on G3. By G5 it’s 400+ IPC.

And the comeback is, well, of course the Allies shouldn’t fight a losing stack battle. Okay, so collapse West Russia. Germany stacks West Russia, then Allies have to choose between Caucasus and Moscow. Axis don’t even need to hold Caucasus, they can just trade it for more income while sitting on West Russia ready to punish any Allied push from UK/US in force into Karelia.

The Tradeoff Part 2

The rest of it, some players dismiss, claiming who really knows what. “It’s just too much to conceive!” But really now. Germany should press West Russia, Japan should press India, and in the KGF there should be a switch between powers of who the major Axis stack controller in Eurasia is. Coordinating the pressure means the Allies should give at one or another, and once they do, the Allied position starts to collapse. This is just the expectation. And if Allies commit heavily to one defense or another, the Axis have outs; Germany can transition from Karelia towards Belorussia towards Ukraine; Japan can shift through to India. (But the shifts should be responsive to openings / Allied overcommitment to a particular defense)

So we may not know the particulars. But we do know that both Axis powers want peak threat for the crucial stack battle / pressure. Power to spare just means more for Berlin defense in the KGF. Or maybe Germany does a strafe (attack with intent to retreat) preserving its tanks and retreats tanks to Berlin for defense later. Regardless there should be some sort of major stack pressure, that’s just expected. And it is expected to be tight, because it will always be tight. That tightness is the margin of victory that Germany has.

And should Germany just cut that margin of victory by 18%? No. Clearly not.

Really?

Players can hypothesize different scenarios but generally where battles are pretty close, unit count is important. So the question is, is it close? If players disagree with the ballpark numbers here, sure, but does it play out closely against skilled opponents? I say it should.

And if that assertion is true, if the key balance is tight, then is it really better to have unit count? I would say, don’t take my word on it. Look it through.

And will positions really collapse for want of four infantry? I would say certainly. But again, look at the positions.

If you’re playing G1bomberx1 and your positions never collapse, great.

But if your positions do collapse, well. Maybe you need more bombers. Or maybe you need less bombers. But G1 1xbomber I would say is too much or not enough.

G1 vs G2 etc.

Generally I would say if Germany wants to dump a load of air on the board, then do it later instead of earlier. Later air dump will still disrupt Allied Atlantic shipping, and will give more hitting power to earlier produced ground waves that are now at the front.

Sometimes players say, well, you need to maintain a stream of German infantry, do 1 air each turn. But really? You saw above G1 bomber means you just won’t hit the timings, you will always be 4 infantry down, always, forever. What do you really lose if you do G2 air instead of G1? Or G3? Or later? If you look at the real breakdown of how German bombers are used, exactly, I’d say Germany not doing G1 1x bomber means losing pressure Germany didn’t need in the first place, with a serious boost in expected G4+ pressure.

But if Germany does G1 1x bomber, yeah, great, super nice for the short term. But Germany gets what it doesn’t really need, and gives up what it does need (G4+ pressure).

And it’s not even necessarily G4+ pressure. In the case example I gave, the expectation was not G5 W Rus break, but G4. That isn’t just pressure but a potential actual attack.

Multiple G bombers / subs

Well that’s another story. This thread is pretty specific to posters writing about G1 1x bomber “meta”. And incidentally, players doing 6-0 vs UK battleship and not hitting the UK cruiser, and players leaving lone defenders on Buryatia / Burma. I suppose I left some stuff out. Eh.