Most Important Piece

axis_roll:

May I point out that it is true you can provide equal threat to E. Europe, Germany and W. Europe with British fighters on a British Carrier in SZ 5, the problem is that you must first purchase the Aircraft Carrier and then move it into position in SZ 5.

The bomber, on the other hand, is already present in England and can easily move to Russia where it can still pose a threat to those three territories (and many more) but also serve as a casualty if Russia is attacked and the battle goes poorly for the allies?

The thing about threat potential is that it forces your opponent to react to it, or leave him or herself vulnerable.  If my bomber sits in Moscow for 15 rounds but forces Japan to build a destroyer for SZ 60 and Germany to keep fighters stationed in Germany instead of E. Europe, has the Bomber served me gainfully?  Even considering it not once engaged in combat?

In my opinion, of course!  I cost Japan 12 IPCs and kept Germany’s fighters a full territory farther from Russia than they may otherwise have been.

Of course, that’s not to say the British bomber won’t engage.  Japan could leave an IC open to SBR without AA Gun protection or some British fighters and the bomber could engage German or Japanese shipping in the Med/Gulf area.  Maybe the bomber is brought in on an attempt to take Germany in an amphibious assault?

Bunnies, many thanks, you clarified many of my points, and I appreciate your consideration of my personal opinions on the matter.  I fully realize and understand these are my opinions and thus are not facts to be rammed down the throats of unbelievers.

I do not think any less of those who feel the Russian fighter is more important.  I am slightly bewildered by the assertation of the German Battleship, but that’s okay as well.

As to Mr. Ivan:

I understand your perspective.  However, I’ve lost so many Russian fighters and ultimately won the game it isn’t even funny anymore.  Russian fighters are very valuable, but remember, we’re only talking about the loss of ONE Russian fighter.  That means you’d still have one left.  Also, keep in mind the cost of a Russian fighter is 67% the cost of a British Bomber and that Russia is generally earning 33% more than England is for much of the opening of the game. (29 IPC income for Russia one is not rare.  30+ for Russia two, three and four is also pretty common.  While England is usually looking at closer to 28 on England 1 followed by low 20s upper teens for the next 4 rounds.)

To me, the cost analysis alone is enough to catapult the British Bomber to more valuable than a single Russian fighter. (Loss of both Russian fighters would be worse than loss of a single British bomber, but that’s a different discussion.)

Topping it off is the threat of the bomber.  It forces Germany to keep two AA Guns back, it forces Germany to add defensive units to counter the Bombers attack in W. Europe, E. Europe and Germany (maybe other places if England can hit them amphibiously) and it forces Japan to keep an eye on it’s own stacks and complexes.

And, of course, it’s combat effectiveness is pretty strong as well.  Any amphibious assault with bomber support is going to see better results than without, assuming the bomber hits 67% of the time as it should.

@AxisOfEvil:

@Cmdr:

The Russian fighters are only trading territories or cowering on the Russian capitol.

You might get more respect for your opinion if you didn’t use such inflammatory language. I mean, to use cowering for the self-admitted “second” most important piece in the game, you arent winning over any of the non-believers.

I am sorry you took offense at my choice of words.  Honestly, I call it cowering in your capitol when you are reduced too, in effect, only your capitol and you have the main bulk of your army there.  (This of course does not mean you ONLY have your capitol, you may have say Evenki as Russia or maybe you are trading W. Europe or S. Europe with Germany, but in those cases, you are pretty much reduced to just a capitol.)

In either event, the Russian fighters are almost only reduced to one of two rolls:

1)  Liberating Russian territory
2)  Defending Moscow from attack

Yes, they MIGHT one day land on an Allied carrier to defend their fleet.  They MIGHT one day make up for a botched American invasion of Berlin and finish clearing the land taking Berlin (with some Russian armor or infantry say) for the Allies.  They MIGHT one day land in W. Europe or S. Europe just long enough for the allies to pull in reinforcements.

Then again, my dead Grandmother may one day grow testicles.  Should I plan to start calling her Grandpa, or keep my ideas more mainstream? (Sorry, my attempt at humor there.)

Anyway, if Russia falls, what good are the Russian fighters now?  Granted, the British bomber is even more useless if England falls, but how often is it that England falls before Russia?  Now, how often is it that you need that extra umph with England (and America) to hit Germany and make it fall just before, during, or just after Russia falls?

Yes, it is a very bad thing to lose a Russian fighter.  Catastrophic?  No.  But I do feel, in my personal opinion, the damage potential of the British Bomber, without having to purchase one, is more conducive to the allies winning the game than a Russian fighter.

After all, if you have to trade Novosibirsk with 2 Infantry and a Fighter it costs you 6 IPC.  If you have to trade Novosibirsk with Infantry, Artillery then it costs you 7 IPC.  Not a huge difference in cost and both (when one infantry is defending) are pretty good odds of Russia winning the liberation.

But England only has the troops it can bring by transport to attack Germany (Usually, sometimes you have a stack in E. Europe or W. Europe, but then, you probably have your bomber in Russia to be used as first casualty as Germany is already defeated.).  That means the only way you can get more firepower is by air power.  A bomber you don’t have to pay for is worth an inestimable fortune in that case, to me.

@axis_roll:

Right on queue “Posting Jen”.  Page 4… post #4!

Same sort of silly rhetoric too.

Your sarcastic list of things Russian ftr(s) MIGHT do is only more reasoning WHY a Russian ftr is more important because, guess what… I HAVE used Russian ftr(s) in EVERY SINGLE way that you say they MIGHT be someday used:

• defending allied carriers

• taking Berlin

• supporting Western

• supporting Southern

Oh yes, I have used Russian ftr(s) after Moscow has fallen too.

Yes, but is that the primary use you’ve used them for, or was that just a silly circumstance you found yourself in despite your best efforts to the contrary?

That’s the main difference.  Russian fighters are almost exclusively used to defend Moscow and trade two different territories each round.  The British bomber is almost exclusively used to crush Germany under the heel of the British Jack-Boot and failing that, to make Germany so whipped that when America’s turn comes around she screams “achtung!  May I please have another, Herr President!”

So i ask, is it better to defend Moscow or to take Berlin?