SBR questions

Answer is “no” on both your questions. A bomber can only participate in one combat per round, so just one SBR run or one attack(land or sea)

I don’t know why it’s “popular”, though. Using a statistical/mathematical approach and LHTR rules SBR bombing does not pay off. You lose more buying the bombers than you gain by bombing. (Considering the AA gun present of course)

Some people probably rely on luck to win their games and some just don’t realise it’s not a good move. Circumstances where it could be a good move might be for a short-term objective where the bomber has no better use. For example bombing Berlin or Moscow a few rounds prior to a big attack. Or knowing that your opponent needs an exact amount for a specific purchase trying to inflict enough damage to make him have to forego the purchase.

@Sankt:

I don’t know why it’s “popular”, though. Using a statistical/mathematical approach and LHTR rules SBR bombing does not pay off. You lose more buying the bombers than you gain by bombing. (Considering the AA gun present of course)

Staistically speaking you take 3 damage for every 4 you do to the enemy with each bomber on SBR.  Realistically speaking, because of flaws in the dice code, odds are exceptionally good you’ll do 5 or 6 damage on an SBR with almost no risk of being shot down.

DAAK’s one of these places that uses the messed up method of rolling.  As long as I have a 100% getting shot down by AA guns and a 0% rate of hitting anything with an attacking infantry by DAAK, I’ll never believe it’s an unbiased machine.

1/6 chance of losing a 15 IPC bomber.

5/6 chance of doing average damage of 3.5 IPC (the bomber can only hit the industrial complex if it survives the AA shot)

+35/12 IPC damage, a little less than 3 IPC damage expected
-15/6 lost bomber, or 2.5 IPC loss expected from building bombers.

For 0.5 IPC net expected gain, I would rather use the bomber to help on an attack against naval or ground forces.  Say you attack a territory with some infantry, fighters, bomber; say that territory is defended with an AA gun and some numbers of infantry.  You have the same probability of losing the bomber, but now with each round of combat, you inflict 2 IPC expected damage (2/3 chance of destroying an infantry worth 3 IPC).  So with just two rounds of combat, you will have done more damage to units that had to spend time getting to the battle front than economic damage to units that have not yet been produced that would have to march from an industrial complex to the front.

An attack on naval forces is far more rewarding, at 5+ minimum IPCs expected per round of combat, and no chance of being shot down by an AA gun.

Of course, this assumes that there is no battleship in the naval territory, and in both cases that the defending forces would not be stronger than the attacking forces, but I think that there are enough ways to ensure attacker superority in numbers that bombers are better saved for use against other targets.  (Subject to change if there’s no AA gun defending, or if superior attacking power cannot be brought to bear)

It also assumes there is something for the bomber to do and that you are not under immediate threat of loosing it to a counter attack anyway.

But those are extreme cases.

Meanwhile, I’d say 6 bombers vs Germany by two nations is viable.  You can easily do 32 damage at the risk of loosing 1 bomber (15 IPC.)  32 > 15.

I’ve used them a few times to bomb Germany into the stone age.  Especially on a KJF strategy.

England pumping out 1 or 2 bombers a round up to 3, America keeping 2 or 3 bombers in England and then blowing the heck outta both Germany facilities will severely limit his production.  Heck, 6 bombers vs Germany herself is still 20 damage, that’s 6.66 infantry they are not buying to prosecute the war.  And remember, those rounds you don’t loose a bomber, you don’t build one, you build fighters or transports or land units instead.

Meanwhile, America is more then capable of taking out Japan.  If Japan switches to building navy they do not have the man power to make significant gains against Russia/America/British stonewalling and thus America can easily out produce them, especially when America starts grabbing islands.