Italy + SBR = destruction?

Hello, new to this forum ;)……my only answer to this…and i understand your feeling about this problem…is there some kind of interception (planes in territory intercept the bombers and fighters coming in) like in AA Europe?..could be the answer?

When I read this topic I was like “Hey I thought of that!”  Thanks for the credit lol.

However, I think that SBRs would be very damaging to a nation like Italy even if handled differently.  I don’t see any counter to this flaw since unfortunately fighter interceptions are not in the game, but on the bright side, now we don’t have to worry about the Allies bombing Germany OR having to play with those Italian units that were made from the German molds that everyone was complaining about  :|

^Napoleon, I wish there was interception, I enjoyed that rule.  There isn’t, however.

If this was a $40 game I’d have no problem if it wasn’t playtested as extensively (like Pacific, where it is only balanced with an alternate setup, 12 IPC allied bid, and 24 Victory Points required, at which point it is perfect balance, but otherwise Japan will completely dominate) but I see a lot of concerns being raised about potential gamebreakers and we haven’t even had the chance to play it yet.  I probably will be sticking to revised (Enhanced, since I just recently discovered that  8-)) until the Holidays, and by then who knows, maybe A&A50 Enhanced will be out by then  :-D

Hehe, anyway the fighters interception can be a house rule after all.

The fact about this game is that we dont know all of it. We can have some surprise for the gameplay.

Krieghund said it, : Major surprises?  Probably not.  The biggest surprise left is the actual gameplay:)

So let him discuss about that with us!

What’s the problem?

You won’t buy “THIS GAME” cause somebody could bomb Italy to ruins?

With this new weapon develop system there is a good chance to develop radar. Three bombers fly in and you will shot one down every round!

If they concentrate on Italy - Germany and Japan will give’em hell!

Bombers are expensive! If they build a lot of it, the somewhere on the board are less ships, infantery, etc….

This game can’t be ruled by a single factor like SBR or rockets!

@Napoleon:

Krieghund said it, : Major surprises?  Probably not.  The biggest surprise left is the actual gameplay:)

I agree with you 100% +1 to ya.  :wink:

LT

@marechallannes:

Bombers are expensive!

Not anymore.

At 12 IPC bombers offer more offensive punch/cost than fighters, it seems bombers will be all over the place (maybe even some Russian bombers!), and because they cost less SBR is now a better investment for your money.

As for bombing Italy to death…consider a scenario where Italy takes out Egypt early and claims the rest of Africa.  UK’s going to be as low if not lower than Italy in income.  So, what’s to stop the Axis from using the same bomb-to-death strategy against UK?  Or Russia for that matter.  Personally, I think SBR will be used more extensively in AA50, possibly even with full strategies centered around bombing one power to a point that it can barely defend itself.  But I don’t think it will break the game.

I just read an article from someone who played AA50 at the GenCon. Allies won by bombing Germany so she could hardly afford infantry to defend the borders…

Seems like we have flaw already in AA50. The problem here is that in WW2 there was countermeasurers available, and allies didnt manage to reduce Germanys production by bombers alone.

I think game designers should change AA gun rules so each AA gun fires one shot, and maybe AA guns should be destryed rather than captured. Either this option or inerceptor rules, possibly for SBR attacks only.

I think:  power x + SBR = destruction

They played that game without national objectives, so that would make some difference.  And I’m pretty sure the people playing Axis admitted they didn’t play well.

I think you forget the dices…

SBR are a big risk! ….maybe with superbombers it’s gone be hard for your opponent.

How often made my brave british bombers their way to germany - avoiding AA-fire - released their payload and then???

I rolled a 1, next time a 3 and on my third run this damn german AA shot down my Bomber! I lost 15 IPC to reduce the german income only for 4 IPCs in two rounds of combat.

The best way to use bombers is to support your fleet operations and small land combat operations.

In the revised edition my japanese standart first production is a factory and a bomber. To keep the US-ships away and support my few infantrymen on their way to Moskau - China - India……

Law of large numbers.  While you may have a few particular good or bad luck strokes with SBRs, on average your bombers will do 3.5 damage each time with a 1/6 chance of being shot down.  6 bombers would do 17.5 damage with one casualty, resulting in a net gain of 2.5 IPC for the attacker in Revised, a 5.5 gain in AA50 since bombers are cheaper.

By the logic that bombers are a risk, everything is a risk in a dice based board game  :-)

@03321:

As for bombing Italy to death…consider a scenario where Italy takes out Egypt early and claims the rest of Africa.  UK’s going to be as low if not lower than Italy in income.  So, what’s to stop the Axis from using the same bomb-to-death strategy against UK?  Or Russia for that matter.  Personally, I think SBR will be used more extensively in AA50, possibly even with full strategies centered around bombing one power to a point that it can barely defend itself.  But I don’t think it will break the game.

What’s to stop the Axis from using the same bomb-to-death strategy against the UK?  Russia.

What’s to stop the Axis from using the same bomb-to-death strategy against Russia?  The UK.

What’s to stop the Axis from using the same bomb-to-death strategy against Russia and the UK?  Limited funds.

Britain and America are in a position that isn’t vulnerable to the Axis (the Axis just don’t have enough funds to launch a campaign against UK/USA, especially when Russia still stands).  If Britain were to build a bunch of bombers UK1 (they could buy 3 or 4 I believe), then bomb Italy to smithereens, then send forces to reclaim Africa with little to no resistance…

We’ll see when it comes out, but SBR was obviously broken in Revised, and required Larry to release a set of house rules to make the game playable.  We could tell this early on, just by taking what we knew about classic, seeing how Revised handles everything, and seeing that SBRs were too powerful.  I think this will be the case once more, but of course we wont know for sure just yet…

@Rakeman:

Law of large numbers.

I’d hardly call the 30 rolls involving a long-term SBR campaign against Italy over the course of an entire game ‘large numbers.’  Compared to regular battles, SBR involves very few die.  I agree, though, that the average net gain more than doubling from Revised to AA50 will cause SBR to be used more extensively (as I already said).

@Rakeman:

What’s to stop the Axis from using the same bomb-to-death strategy against the UK?  Russia.

What’s to stop the Axis from using the same bomb-to-death strategy against Russia?  The UK.

Germany can buy 1 bomber every turn or 2 in Revised and get away with it until US comes in on a full KGF.  Why wouldn’t they be able to in AA50?  The question is more about whether US will actually need to pay attention to Pacific, which I (and I think 1 or 2 others) said a long time ago in another thread.  If they don’t then they should be the one to employ the all-out SBR tactic, imo.

And by the way, if UK purchases nothing but bombers to try bombing Italy into submission, they’ll have basically no navy after UK1.  They’ll have to wait until UK2 to buy some of that navy, and by i2 Italy should easily have taken Egypt.  So now Italy is pushing through Africa, while UK probably can’t even land in Algeria yet, due to Germany’s air.  Though maybe they’d have enough combined with help from US.  On the other side of the world this means Japan should be able to take India without much trouble as UK didn’t reinforce it.  So UK’s down to what, a low-20s income?  And then they lose the rest of Africa and drop into the teens.  I tend to think it’s going to be a bit more trouble for them than simply bombing Italy to submission and swatting them out of Africa.  Certainly, I think that supporting a conquest of Africa with bombing against Italy will be helpful…game-breaking, I don’t think so.  But hey, I could definitely be wrong.

I just read an article from someone who played AA50 at the GenCon. Allies won by bombing Germany so she could hardly afford infantry to defend the borders…

Seems like we have flaw already in AA50.

That cant be extrapolated from one game that nobody has seen before.

I like 03321 would make the same point to emphasize that the first player to start building the bombers can gain a nice advantage by bombing first which causes the effected players to divert IPC to building their own bombers. Germany is the best position to do this, The Soviet even if he plays second needs tanks and fighters more than a bomber. If Germany bombed UK every turn ( they build 2 bombers on G1) it could cripple UK. I would worry more about them than Italy. Italy can be protected by holding africa and deny UK a base to launch bombers.

the dice roll got to love and hate it!

though bombing italy is risky since i would just make(if i was italy) inf. artillery and a tank and trasnport(s) i2-i3 ill have my invasion force killing egypt if bombing runs were at me

@Imperious:

I just read an article from someone who played AA50 at the GenCon. Allies won by bombing Germany so she could hardly afford infantry to defend the borders…

Seems like we have flaw already in AA50.

That cant be extrapolated from one game that nobody has seen before.

I like 03321 would make the same point to emphasize that the first player to start building the bombers can gain a nice advantage by bombing first which causes the effected players to divert IPC to building their own bombers. Germany is the best position to do this, The Soviet even if he plays second needs tanks and fighters more than a bomber. If Germany bombed UK every turn ( they build 2 bombers on G1) it could cripple UK. I would worry more about them than Italy. Italy can be protected by holding africa and deny UK a base to launch bombers.

UK can launch bombers to Italy right from Great Britain.

@03321:

@Rakeman:

Law of large numbers.

I’d hardly call the 30 rolls involving a long-term SBR campaign against Italy over the course of an entire game ‘large numbers.’  Compared to regular battles, SBR involves very few die.  I agree, though, that the average net gain more than doubling from Revised to AA50 will cause SBR to be used more extensively (as I already said).

@Rakeman:

What’s to stop the Axis from using the same bomb-to-death strategy against the UK?  Russia.

What’s to stop the Axis from using the same bomb-to-death strategy against Russia?  The UK.

Germany can buy 1 bomber every turn or 2 in Revised and get away with it until US comes in on a full KGF.  Why wouldn’t they be able to in AA50?  The question is more about whether US will actually need to pay attention to Pacific, which I (and I think 1 or 2 others) said a long time ago in another thread.  If they don’t then they should be the one to employ the all-out SBR tactic, imo.

And by the way, if UK purchases nothing but bombers to try bombing Italy into submission, they’ll have basically no navy after UK1.  They’ll have to wait until UK2 to buy some of that navy, and by i2 Italy should easily have taken Egypt.  So now Italy is pushing through Africa, while UK probably can’t even land in Algeria yet, due to Germany’s air.  Though maybe they’d have enough combined with help from US.  On the other side of the world this means Japan should be able to take India without much trouble as UK didn’t reinforce it.  So UK’s down to what, a low-20s income?  And then they lose the rest of Africa and drop into the teens.  I tend to think it’s going to be a bit more trouble for them than simply bombing Italy to submission and swatting them out of Africa.  Certainly, I think that supporting a conquest of Africa with bombing against Italy will be helpful…game-breaking, I don’t think so.  But hey, I could definitely be wrong.

Good points, I definitely agree that whether or not USA has to pay attention to the Pacific is the most concerning thing in this game, especially in a 15 VC game or something.  If they do, then I believe any further flaws would be easily fixable.  But if once again USA can ignore the Pacific, I don’t think this game will be nearly as fun as it could have been…

italy wont be bombed alot people

I am still not sure, why people are overly concerned about SBR;

We have now played three AA50, granted house games, utilizing the partial AA50 rule set, we have put together here online,
some points to consider;

Item:Players have always used USA/UK bombers to bomb Germany,
now add Italy(same territory really as Souther Europe) to your list,
in our 3 games, it was not more of a factor, then usual, some hurt, but not overwhelming. (Italy?  giving Germany less attention, priceless.)    
(and, yes, our USA, UK players bomb every round possible, they love their bombers,
even, more bombers then usual were in play-cheaper.)

Item:Noted, This AA50 game seems more mobile, w cheaper Naval units, new game mechanics, lots of action, get ready to lose those bombers.
Brief point, screening (at 8 IPC) destroyers, backed by cruisers are defending at 2/3, are soaking up a lot of attacking air power, costing 10-12 IPC.  A subtle, but steady economic loss.  The same results happened in the second game.
By the third game, everyone, began buying more subs to counter the larger naval deployments.
Air power may be losing dominance, fighters will likely have to get cheaper
(at least 8 IPC,) to stay in the game( Next game Rev-LOL.)
Hell, even the Germans/Italians now seem to have credible naval operations.

Item:Disclaimer, of course our results, might not be yours, and yes we play with some AARHE rules, which could modify our results further.

While I agree that SBR vs. Italy is interesting, I’m not sure its game breaking or indeed even stronger than simply committing men to Africa.

Regardless of Italy’s financial situation their builds on turn 1 will give them odds to take Egypt turn two even if the Brits reinforce it from both India AND Trans-Jordan.  Dirt poor Italy will still bust loose in Africa and the mid-east eventually denying the Brits 13 IPCs.

Net gain for Allies: Italy -20 / England -13 = +7 IPCs.

If (instead of building bombers) America builds men and boats landing 3 INF, 2 Tanks, and 1 Artillery in Algeria on turn two,  Italy is in a very rough spot.  They might take Egypt but have their remaining forces could be destroyed by the two American tanks.  At any rate they cannot break out into Africa in force since both of their nation objectives involve holding Libya, Egypt and Trans-Jordan.  The Americans can continue to land more troops in North Africa than Italy could ever hope to.  Once they hold North Africa and Trans-Jordan they are causing 10 IPCs “damage” anyway.

Net gain for Allies: Germany: -1.  Italy -11, England 0 = +12.

america doesnt need to go to afrika if usa wnats to do anything go say hi and land right on italy

Actually when I wrote my response I didn’t know there were new SBR rules (which can be found elsewhere).

So again cheap bombers can make the level of SBRs more historical but it isn’t game over.

Standard tactics still apply.

Here’s an example series of turns assuming they Allies take a heavy SBR vs. Italy strategy.

Turn 1: USA builds 2 bombers and England builds 1.Italy builds a transport and saves 2.  Italy collects 15.

Turn 2: UK bombs Italy.  If it does more than 5 IPC Italy does not repair.  Italy takes Egypt and collects 19.  US finishes off Italy’s factory.  Italy now has 36.

Turn 3: Allied powers are forced to bomb elsewhere.  Italy repairs its factory and with the remaining 24 3 tanks and 3 INF.  Depending on how well they did in the Egypt battle, they may claim 2-4 more IPCs worth of English territory.

Turn 4: Italy is shut down again and saves except to purchase a factory in Egypt.

Turn 5: Italy finishes off Africa and starts sending a sizable force to Persia.

And onward: Italy collects 30+ per turn while reducing England by 12.

If Germany can hold Ukraine then the Axis forces can 1-2 (or 1-2-3 punch Causcaus).

Japan can suicide in with some planes, then Italy can move land units in from Persia AND transport units in from Italy.  Then if Germany holds Ukraine they can deliver the coups de grace.