Strategic bombing your way to a win

@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:

We switch between the 12 point bid, and the axis again 4 NA’s and the Axis seem to win 50-60% of our games, and the last few months no one can beat them. Axis has one 13 of 17 games since this past september.  We have 20 man group that plays about twice a month.

@Bean:

It’s ok Jen, and it turned out to help you in your game ^^

Yea, well he was a royal prick in the game and got the mod to force that the worst outcome of the two results be applied, even though the first outcome was obviously first.

I had to go back to a previous roll to check and make sure my artillery was applied right, they were not.  So he lost 1 hit, but because my worst of two was like -12 hits, he still came out like a bandit.

Anyway, thanks, because Germany now has +42 IPC for next round and I AM sticking him with it.  18 rounds of illegal rocket fire. (I just took every rocket on S. Europe, figured it was the most fair.  Germany’s a higher value target then S. Europe, so it would probably be the target shot at anyway.  Besides, Germany was the first rocket rolled in every round, S. Europe was the second, Caucasus the third.)

Germany lost 400 IPC in armies (killing only 215 because of that dice fiasco) but she also has 120 to spend and Japan’s going to finish off the enemy anyway!

If UK and US are idiots, and the Germans and Japs geniuses, the Allies will lose.

If you attack a country with ground forces, whatever ground forces you attack with are committed.

For this reason, I like to have three USSR fighters and some artillery.

Tanks are a must-have; if Germany does massive infantry push, the tanks can rush back east to mess with Japan.

Basically, I usually build a fighter, LOTS of infantry, and a couple of artillery every so often.

@AgentOrange:

Which is why I brought up this topic:  Would it be a good or a bad idea to allow Germany a first-round withdrawal?  :?

Ive done it before…and sometimes it works very well.  My method of retreating and regrouping is to simpy advance all my inf forward, cause I feel that I shoud at least make the russians pay dearly for advancing.  I retreat my art and arm…making large arm stacks in Eastern Europe and making a large art stack in the Balkans.

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.

@Octopus:

about that Aircraft Carrier….

“analyze their attack sir, there is a danger.  Shall I have your ship ready?”

:-o

what does that mean? are you for it or against it? I see more pros than cons. Lets hear an argumant against the purchase of an AC on G1. I don’t have one