Fixing Strategic Bombing

@Krieghund:

It’s true that SBRs are nearly a break-even proposition.  However, if they weren’t, they’d dominate the game.

The whole point of SBRs is inflicting damage that the enemy can’t afford.  The US is the only country that can really afford an SBR campaign, simply because it can afford the losses, while Germany can’t.  The US sacrifices its own income to suppress Germany’s so that the UK and USSR can take advantage of its weakened state.  This is not really pointless.

If SBRs were a money-making proposition, there’s no way that the Axis could survive, since they start off economically inferior to the Allies.  The Allies could simply build a few bombers to SBR with, then devote the rest of their income to defense.  Eventually, the combined toll of the bombings would render the Axis powers bankrupt, then the Allies could move in for the kill.  Doesn’t sound like a very fun game, does it?

The strategy you’re describing sounds perfectly viable to me.

:-D
In the movie; Battle of the Bulge, there is a scene where the german generals are discussing this story about the chocolate cake, still very fresh, ( I think they may have actually eaten it) and saying if the Americans have ample resources to spend on shipping cake to their soldiers then we are lost. Something to that effect anyway.
Another story, off topic, sorta, is that some bomber crews were talking about all the different kinds of ordanance that we were dropping on germany, and one crewman said, “We’ve dropped everything but the kitchen sink!” So on the next mission, you guessed it, they brought along a kitchen sink and threw it out one of the side gun windows during Bombs Away! :roll:

in East and West (cold war version), it cost i think 10 IPC, the peace is on the board like other units. to drop it you have to have a bomber do it. the nuke kills 5 units on sea or land.
you can develop the tech to fire them with a move of 4 i think, then you can upgrade again to have them kill 10 units.
ether version also reduces the IPC of target teritory by 1 IPC for one or two turns per nuke used.
nuking a teritory with a nuke causes the other nuke to blow giving the effects to stack.
for all you also have to make a consiquence role. some cause anti nuke protest (can’t build nukes for a turn or two… USSR un effected), political strife with neutrals, or no effect.
i think it was well balanced out for use, although the games i played the nukes turned into a game of who can do the most damage with the nuke and gain the most head way from it… nuke wars are no fun really and that was with nukes that wern’t over devistating.

Yes, well HB tech added to that would be nice, but remember that Heavy Bombers only do 1d6+1 damage to industrials and you still max out at the territory’s value.

I prefer Marines combined with Mechnized Infantry myself.  I see a realm of possibilities for that combination. (Infantry attack at a two or less, move two spaces and can blitz like tanks.)

@newpaintbrush:

@Jennifer:

How do you plan to invade England when they have 2 fighters, 2, armor, 2 infantry, 1 artillery and 2 bombers + 2 infantry, 1 fighter, 1 bomber, 1 artillery, 1 armor from America on it?

Keep in mind you have maybe 6 fighters, 1 bomber, 2 transports and 1 battleship to use on Germany 2 and that’s making some assumptions that you did not loose any of those assets prior to your second turn and that you landed all those aircraft in France somehow knowing that England was going to buy a bomber and an IC instead of something else.

How is it that every time I propose a move, that the Allies mysteriously pop up with these shadow forces in the ideal place?  That’s why I really dislike Jennifer’s responses.  Somehow the Allies always watched to see what Germany would do, and did something that would otherwise be almost retarded to counter Germany’s response.  But in that case, Germany can just have done the other thing.

Hmm, possibly because you keep changing what Germany does to fit the actions of England who moves after Germany???

However, I’ve never changed my English strategy.  They always end up with 5 fighters, 1 bomber, 2 infantry, armor and artillery + America can land more if Germany appears to be setting up Sea Lion.

Not my fault you’re not capable of seeing the short falls in your own plans.  I’d say I’m sorry, but I’m not.  You need to pay closer attention to details that are posted instead of assuming.

I presume you assumed England sent her bomber to Egypt, retook Egypt with the SZ 35/India equipment, landed troops in Algeria, leaving their capital with only a few infantry to defend it, huh?  Because, unless that’s exactly what England does, Germany hasn’t a chance in hell of taking it on G2 and everyone on the board knows it.

Switch’s answer is correct for the LHTR, and many other revised rulesets such as Caspian Sub’s.  It is not correct for the out of the box rules however.  The official Avalon Hill/WOC FAQ spells it out pretty clearly:

@http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/faqs/axisrevised:

Q-IPC loss from strategic bombing is limited to the territory’s income value. Is that per bomber or per turn?
A-Per bomber.

So in other words, if the US with three Bombers bombs Germany and rolls 4,6, and 5 it does 15 IPCs of damage to Germany, since none of the bombers invidually exceeded the territory value of 10.

Germany bombing the Causus with two bombers with rolls of 2 and 5 does 6 IPCs damage to Russia, since each bomber can only inflict a maximum of 4.   So the roll of 5 is downgraded to 4.

I’m also pretty sure that in the out of the box rules, Rocket attacks and Strategic Bombing attacks are resolved separately.  So, for instance, Germany can launch a Rocket attack vs. the Causus to inflict 1-4 IPC of damage and do a Strategic Bombing run on the Causus to inflict 1-4 IPC of damage per bomber all in the same turn.  Switch’s comment that the two are combined is correct for LHTR though.

Thart right, the other therd is almost the same :), let stop this thead and use the other…  “An introduction and a question about Strat. bombing”

But is it even possible to hold off a British / U.S. invasion in Europe while attacking Africa, all the while getting bombed? I would think not, unless one had lucky rolls. And if Russia was smart they would take advantage of the situation and pick apart any scattered German positions. In this situation, I think Japan has to do its part flawlessly, whatever that may be. Annoying U.S., trying to help roll up Russia, taking NZ Australia and India?

Sounds like a tough decision to make.