Theoretically it’s plausible to sink the German navy with 4 Fighters. (American fighters are better than Russians though, I agree…Russian fighters usually end up sinking Allied ships, not Axis ships.)

@Rhineland:

Has anyone every tried an all air craft build for japan turn one? If so how did it turn out?

I’m interested in trying this myself next game see what happens.

I think, without a transport build you will lose foothold on asia quickly. If the UK sink that lonely tranny in SZ 59 (which seems to be a common move) you will only land 4 land units in the first two turns. If the UK build an IC in india you may be in deep trouble …
You need an infantry shield to claim land. Fighters/bombers are nothing without fodder.

I agree with Croggyl, you don’t need FTR’s without INF to absorb hits.  If you want to try this idea do the normal TRN build J1 and the FTR build J2.  That’s if you want to get them into the game quickly.

I would do a TRN build on J1, INF J2 then the FTR build J3.

Keep in mind that this is all based on moving into Asia. I would do things diffrently if you are proposing a FTR build to get into the Pacific.  If that is the case I think a FTR build could be interesting.  Although FTR’s can’t really outmaneuver a navy in this game b/c of the SZ and island spaces each count as a space.

I would be interested to see how this works out for you. Keep us posted.

LT

I have considered a bomber strategy with both Germany and Japan.  The idea being that with 5 or 6 bombers you can cripple the Russians and make them roll over before England and America can bring their A game. (Figure 2 or 3 German bombers against Russia/Caucasus averaging 3.5 IPC each should be 11-12 IPC in damage and another 3 bombers from Japan for another 11-12 IPC in damage should almost bring Russia to zero IPC in short order.)

It would be easy enough for Germany to produce 1 or 2 bombers on Germany 1 and Japan 2 bombers on Japan 1.  Then it’s just a matter of hitting China really strong and holding it so you can put your bombers in place.

@Rhineland:

The thinking with the fighters it to have a squad go over to africa to defend the german placement. The bid will go into a tran in med or libya men.

Its a land grab for germany more so then for japan and this will play into the axis hands if they come after the jap as well becuase germany will have africa plus the russian territory to roll into russia.

It has got me interested and I will try it out maybe not all FTRS start but i will go all 2 rnd. Plus they will not expect it lol. I hope that rolls do not effect this to much either way.

This sounds like a story I heard once about a pig and a chicken that wanted to host a barnyard breakfast.  The pig said, “What should we have on the menu?”  The chicken said “How about eggs and bacon?” The pig said “That’s just being involved for you, that’s commitment for me.”

My point is that it sounds to me like Japan has its fair share of commitment for that Africa strategy and Germany is just involved.  Japan also will not be able to gain any IPC’s to pay for this campaign.

I don’t think I would use this strategy; however, I have been wrong in the past so let me know how it works out for you if you choose to use it.

LT

Rhineland,

I think it could work but like you with one axis player vs. two.  I think it is safe to say this would have to be a KGF game.  Japan would need those FTR’s or IPC’s if the US came full bore at Japan.

I also think that Japan hade better hope that Germany can keep INF at the space Japan will be using as an air base.  Yeah FTR’s have a good defence but I would attack 4 FTR’s with 2 INF and 2 ART or ARM b/c Japan would loose more in the fight.

LT

On Germany 1, a good player tried buying 5 tanks and an IC in Ukraine after I had bad dice on R1. Didn’t work out in that game however.

Honestly, I really have not play tested the 6 bomber strategy against Russia.

I think it would probably work better in a KJF game because it would take America a turn just to catch up to Japan and then Japan would get defensive advantage anyway.  But that’s just my personal opinion on the matter.

As for “luck” I believe it would be safe to say that if you budget a loss of 9 IPC a round (33 Bombers) to do 12 IPC a round in damage (43 Bombers) you should be able to recuperate your losses when they occur.  But yes, it seems pretty obvious that 100% accurate AA Guns or 100% inaccurate AA Guns would impact the strategy and there is just no way around that in an ADS (using Actual Dice vs LL) game.

The sticking point would really be whether or not it is better for Germany to buy the one bomber on Germany 1 or both bombers.  Technically, Germany can easily afford 2 bombers (especially if you have 42 IPC on Round 1 because of a bid allowing 2 Bombers, 4 Infantry) but it may be better to stagger the purchase over two rounds. (With replacements every few rounds which can be saved up by spending 5 IPC less than your income each round.)

Just my opinion on the matter.  I do happen to like the theory behind this because it would limit the amount of money you need to dedicate to feet on the street (infantry) and maximize your resistance to America and England.  Of course, America and England can retaliate against Germany with their own bombers topping damage at 32 IPC a round vs the 24 Russia would be taking.

Well, to be honest, all gambit moves really depend on how round 1 (especially Russia 1) went.

If Russia tried for the hat trick (Belarus, W. Russia and Ukraine) and got stomped big time, then the all tank gambit might be the way to go.

If the allies put up zero resistance to German attacks, and you are like me and routinely purchase a bomber on Germany 1 anyway, the SBR campaign gambit might work

If your opponent is cocky, ahem, and there are a few on these boards, the Canadian Shield gambit might work.

Really, the game is turning into reading your opponent and luck and less into strategy for me now.  That’s why this is my year of really weird things.  Like against Uffish in my league game, I have purchased Artillery, 4 Armor with Russia on Russia 1. (I was going to get 2 fighters and an artillery, but the calculators said I would lose Caucasus.  my other idea was abandoning Caucasus and going with 3 submarines in SZ 16 or 2 destroyers or something, just to REALLY screw with his head!)

But the odds of success per round are:

No Bombers shot down: 33.14%
1 Bomber shot down (or less): 74.42%

That means, almost 75% of the time, you will do more damage to Russia than you will sustain to either Germany or Japan.  Mathematically/statistically speaking, the theory is sound.  At 15 IPC per bomber and only a 25.58% chance of losing more than one bomber, you are looking at a loss of 11 IPC on average to the axis.

Meanwhile, you are looking at a mean result of 3.5 IPC in damage done per bomber.  6 Bombers * 3.5 IPC in damage is 21 IPC.

So you, theoretically, do 21 IPC in damage to Russia each round and take 11 IPC in damage each round (and that 11 IPC is split evenly between Japan/Germany, so figure 5.5 IPC to each Axis but a full 21 to Russia.)

Now, I am not going to sit here and tell you that statistics is 100% accurate all the time.  Sure, I’ve experienced the event when 3 bombers attacked an AA Gun and 3 bombers were shot down by the AA Gun.  But assuming a normal distribution of results, rolled on a fair die, the potential damage to Russia far outweighs the potential risk to the axis - on paper.

Uhh…How are you getting those numbers?

On average out of 6 bombers you will lose 1 per round (15 IPC).  On average you will do 17.5 IPC of damage with bombers that don’t get shot down. (5/63.56) (chance-to-not-get-shotavg.-dmg#-bombers)  Right?

The strategy depends a lot more on a lot less dice, though, which allows for a lot more statistical deviation.  The problem is that you won’t be rewarded so much for the upside of this deviation (not losing bombers to AA+doing above average dmg), while still being fully penalized for the downside assuming LHTR.  This is because your damage is capping at 4 IPC/bomber, not much higher than the 3.5 average (2 for 8 in Moscow, 1 for 4 in Cauc), so above average damage won’t lend you much more than average.  However, when you get shot down or have a streak of low damage rolls you’re going to feel the full effects, and have trouble making up for it because your good dice are again going to be capped.

By the way, the average damage of a bomber vs. Caucasus is 3 ignoring AA (3/64 + 1/63 + 1/62 + 1/61), and 2.5 taking AA into consideration with an average loss of 2.5 IPC worth of bomber (15/6).  So really you’re not gaining much of anything on a 1:1 Allies vs. Axis IPC advantage, the strength seems to be simply that you are focusing all of the effort on Russia’s IPCs directly, dropping it to something like 6-12 IPC of buying power per turn, and Russia is the one Ally that can put units directly into Europe or Asia.  I don’t think it’s a very solid strategy, though, unless you like to depend on luck even more than you need it in a game with a more orthodox strategy.

Actually, what I did to get the chance of a bomber shot down was to run 6 bombers against an AA gun on Frood.  (for one round of combat)

34.36%6 Bomno units.0 IPCs
40.02%5 Bom1 Bom15 IPCs
19.59%4 Bom2 Bom30 IPCs
5.1%*******3 Bom3 Bom*45 IPCs
0.83%2 Bom4 Bom60 IPCs
0.1%1 Bom*****5 Bom75 IPCs

Now, technically, just because you have a 1 in 6 chance to shoot down a bomber does not mean you will always get a positive result for every six bombers attacking.  The chances are actually 6 take 1 or 100%- 6 take 5 that you will score a hit.  On any given roll you have a 16.67% chance of hitting a bomber, but it does not scale like that in statistics.

Therefore, letting Frood run the numbers for me, so I don’t have to go through the binomial distribution to figure them out for myself!, the odds of losing 1 bomber or no bombers is the odds of losing no bombers + the odds of losing one bomber or:

34.36%+40.02% = 74.38%.

74.38% of 15 IPCs = 11.157 IPCs, but since you cannot lose 0.157 IPCs, we round to the nearest number, which is 11 IPCs.

To get the average damage done by 6 bombers we can determine the mean result and multiply that by the number of rolls.  The mean (or the expected value of Y) is the sum of all possible results divided by the number of possible results.  In this case, 1+2+3+4+5+6= total, total/6 = mean of Y.  Therefore the mean of Y is 3.5 IPC per bomber.  Since this is a mean and not the actual damage done we can have a partial IPC.

So we know that 74.38% of the time we have 5 or 6 bombers surviving their SBR runs.  Therefore, we can calculate the damage done by doing the following:

Number of Bombers (5) * Mean (3.5) = Total Damage (17.5 IPC)
+
Number of Bombers (6) * Mean (3.5) = Total Damage (21 IPC)

Total Damage/2 (for two results) = 38.5/2 = 19.25 IPC in damage.

Now we clear the partial IPC since you cannot surrender only a part of an IPC in this game.

The total damage we can expect to do, in one round, with 6 bombers attacking, 74.38% of the time, is 19 IPC and the total damage we can expect to take, in one round, with 6 bombers attacking 1 anti-aircraft cannon is 11 IPC.

This is an 8 IPC per round advantage to the alliance performing the strategic bombing runs.  In this case, it is much more significant as it is 11 IPC inflicted on the axis powers (roughly 5 or 6 IPC each) vs 19 IPC damage done to Russia each round.  Considering Russia is only earning between 18-30 anyway, this seriously weakens their ability to maintain a defensive posture forcing them to fall back sooner.

Of course, that’s the theory, and how I derived the numbers I was using.

In case anyone wonders, I am using result for 5 or 6 bombers because the odds of losing two or more bombers to anti-aircraft fire becomes prohibitively small.  However, it would be valid to run the numbers using 4 bombers as a possible result as this would happen 25.52% of the time.  I just prefer to be a little more optimistic about my bombers and pessimistic about my anti-aircraft cannons.

Okay, I see what you’re saying now, but it still seems misleading to me to just ignore 25% of outcomes.

Yes, 75% of the time you’ll average a positive outcome.  But your math is incorrect for the amount of IPC-loss in bombers you sustain when losing 0 or 1 bomber.  You took 75% of 15 IPCs, combining the chance that you would both lose 0 and 1 bomber, when really it’s only 40% of 15 IPCs - the chance that you lose exactly 1 bomber.  So 75% of the time you’re going to average more like +13 IPC net damage.

But 25% of the time you’ll average a negative outcome of about 21 IPC (taking between 2 and 4 AA hits into account).  That is statistically relevant, and 25% is quite often.

I am equally pessimistic about the ineptitude of both my AA guns and my bombers, and the other player’s good luck with both.

I don’t think your calculations represent what really happens though.

Most of the players I play with are happy if they can get a 75% chance to win any given battle, especially ones with serious amounts of IPC in play. (Most of us will also take the 40% chance of winning a capital fight, since the upside far out weighs the downside.)

However, let’s look at your numbers.

Loss of 0 or 1 bombers results in 50% the cost of a bomber, which is 7.5 not 13 as you claimed.  This is still more accurate than LL which says 2.5 IPC lost per bomber (6 bombers would be 15 IPC.)

If you’d like to put it to a proof, tell you what, come up with a realistic map in round 3 where Germany purchased 1 bomber in Round 1, 1 Bomber in Round 2 and Japan purchased 1 bomber in Round 1 and 1 bomber in Round 2.

It’s round 3, therefore, all 6 bombers are in range of Caucasus and Russia.

No special gambits.  Africa’s owned mostly by Germany, like normal, and Japan has sunk the Pearl fleet and conquered Sinkiang, China, Yakut, Buryatia, SFE and India like normal.

Let’s see if my model or your model proves more accurate.