Unbeatable Allied Strategy

OK, separate from the question of whether bombing hits max out at 10 damage for a square worth 10, let me take another shot at this math:

US builds 2 bombers and 2 rolls a turn (I wouldn’t necessarily do it this way, but it’s a good example)

Assume success in the technology at the start of US3.

Assume germany makes 40 per turn - bombing (a conservatise assumption since you are leaving germany alone)

A non-heavy bomber does 2.9 damage per shot (counting AA;'s), a heavy bomber does 5.8 damage per shot.

Bomb # hitting Germ Damage Germany Spends
Normal US0 0 0 40
Normal US1 0 0 40
Normal US2 1 2.9 37.1
HEAVY US3 2.83 16.43 23.57
HEAVY US4 4.36 25.29 14.71
HEAVY US5 5.63 32.68 7.32
HEAVY US6 6.7 38.83 1.17

So germany gets 3 full builds, and is not receiving as much pressure from the US so can afford to send the bulk of them at Russia.

I don’t know, that’s plenty of builds for me to put enough pressure on russia to allow them to be weakened when japan breaks through.  and meanwhile africa is more vulnerable to conquest by germany or japan as well.  I’m just not convinced that the 24 + 15 cash germany uses to turtle after its first three builds is really insufficient to defend itself.  while it’s first 3 builds focused primarily on russia can get the job done in terms of exhausting her resources.

Doesn’t strike me as unbeatable at all.

I think there are flaws in your calculations Eumaies:

1)  Why is America not bombing right off?
2)  Why are you wasting time on technology before you have at least 3 bombers running, preferably 5 bombers?
3)  Why are we wasting money on technology anyway?  5 Bombers > 3 Bombers + Tech (figure 30 IPC for the tech) but equal cost.  Not to mention, it’s much harder to shoot down 5 bombers than 3 bombers.
4)  Why is Germany being left alone?  USA, UK and USSR have plenty of units they can use to stop the German advance, especially if America is the only one focusing on bombers.  That’s 54 IPC for USSR + UK vs 40 IPC for Germany, a 14 IPC advantage to the Allies!

Figure you take 2.5 IPC in damage per bomber and do 3.5 IPC in damage per bomber.  By USA 2 you should easily have 6 Allied Bombers running. (UK starts with 1 and buys 2 on UK 1.  USA starts with 1 and buys 2 on USA 1.)

63.5 = 21 IPC to Germany on average
62.5=15 IPC divided between England and America, on Average.

Coupled with influxes of troops into Africa and the Russians stonewalling in Europe, I can easily see the Germans getting into a very tight situation very quickly.  Especially if Stalin goes mad and stacks the trading territories with 4 infantry, armor in each.  Now Germany has to for go liberation or dedicate large numbers of units to liberation which will bleed them faster.

good questions.

1. America can’t bomb on turn 1, you can’t reach germany.  On turn 2, only 1 bomber reaches, on US turn 3, your first “new” batch of bombers has arrived.

2. I wouldn’t waste money on tech that early, but that was the original poster’s idea.  I would perhaps build an extra bomber on US turn 2, and then spend less on bombers and more on tech later if I were attempting this.  Similar overall dynamics, though.

3. I basically agree, hence my post.  But for the record heavy bombers is worthwhile… you double your damage without doubling the number of AA guns fired at you, I just don’t think it’s broken.

4. Your argument is somewhat weak here – obviously Russia and UK have to consider japan, whether sooner or later.  And also, germany is really going to be making more than 40 for the first few turns, which makes my estimates conservative.

By USA 2, in your scenario, the allies would have bombed with 3uk bombers and 1 us bomber on that turn.  On USA3, that would increase.  in any case, no one is particularly concerned that regular bombers are “unbeatable” – i personally would never waste UK resources exclusively on bombers when they are actually in much closer range to attack germany directly.

More to the point, the general case for heavy bombers is overstated by many because they fail to consider the opportunity cost.  If i shell out $90 on 4 bombers + tech, I could instead have, in a simple example, 9 US fighters.  These fighters would cause significant damage on each turn in conjunction with land attacks.  They could easily do more than 20 damage per turn in killing german armor and infantry.

So I just don’t agree with the overall “unbeatable” storyline.

man usa is all bombers i feel a bit wacked becaus ei forget ground forces i am sorry……

That’s my point, what makes it viable is over-whelming them with bombers.

1 Heavy Bomber shot down by AA Gun is -2d6 in damage.

it is doubly likely that a heavy bomber will be shot down than two regular bombers will be shot down.

1 Bomber shot down by AA Gun is -1d6

Therefore, it is doubly beneficial to use two bombers instead of one bomber.

That said, Heavy Bombers do have their use (original rules that htey get 2d6, and can score two hits) because you can obliterate fleets.

Also, Japan can be safely ignored for 5 game turns before having to deal with them.  In 5 turns, Russia should be sitting on Berlin’s doorstep if you got slightly lucky on your bombing runs.  By then, you should be able to replace Russian units with American and British units and send them back towards Japan. (Japan’s earning 50, Russia’s earning -8 for lost territories, + 14 for conquered territories, so 30 IPC enough to stop Japan’s advance.)

Um… all you need to do as allies = make russia make infantry, usa make bombers and some men tostop japans success in asia/pacific and great britian to be slowing the axis by doing things that the axis would not like (help africa help india mass bombers to kill germany mass fleet)

There is no such thing as an “Unbeatable Allied strategy” in the Revised game, and if there is one, it certainly doesn’t involve purchasing bombers.

The only time you should ever even think about buying a new bomber is when the game is so far skewed in favor of one side already, that it really doesn’t matter what you buy anyway. Veteran players avoid SBR like the plague, and will only risk a bomber against an AA gun, if it has absolutely nothing else to do that round.

Rolling for Heavy Bombers is considered bad form by most players, because it is widely acknowledged that this particular tech is hopelessly broken under the standard Revised rules (and not much better under the LHTR rules.) Nobody who is serious about the game will respect a strategy built around strategic bombing. Its too unpredictable.

I’m not sure how you can say that an unbeatable allied strategy (OOB) would certainly not include bombers, but then admit that heavy bombers (OOB) are overpowered.  I believe I have seen several ‘serious’ players around here mention how broken a US strat bombing campaign is without LHTR.  I would consider myself decently ‘serious’ and was recently discussing with Jennifer (who I would guess also considers herself decently ‘serious’) an Axis strategic bombing strategy against Russia in the Most Surprising First round purchases thread, even under LHTR bombing rules.  a44bigdog tested it and reported that it was fairly viable.

And on top of all that people have been expressing their fear (for weeks, if not months) of overpowered bombing campaigns in the AA50 board because bomber cost was dropped to 12, plus the fright that heavy bombers will once again be overpowered - despite random techs, AND that rockets could be game-breaking - also despite random techs.  Now, I’m not saying those fears will be correct, they may they may not, but the fact that they are there in significant amounts tells me that people don’t consider bombing ‘too unpredictable’ for ‘serious’ consideration.

I understand and agree that bombing is less predictable than large-scale battles involving far more die, but I don’t see how you can so lightly dismiss bombing as a whole the way you did, especially in the hands of the US under OOB rules.

lots of interesting arguments here…

Jennifer, with regards to bombers and aa guns, the heavy bomber does an average of 5.83 when counting the 1 aa shot, the 2 regular bombers do a total of 5.93, on average.  So it’s basically a wash on damage caused, and the expected “rebuild cost” to the single heavy bomber run is -2.5, while the rebuild cost of dual bomber run is -4.6 to aa fire.  But good point on the other 2-shot uses of heavy bombers to make them somewhat useful.

Most importantly, I think Japan can absolutely threaten russia before turn 5 if left relatively unnopposed, and 3 turns of full german production are all they need to punish russia and keep then keep their front lines from collapsing.  An efficient Japan should be threatening moscow and/or killing russian troops adjacent to moscow by turn 4.  This drains resources from any russian effort to completely pwn germany a reap the rewards.

Black Elk, I totally agree with the sentiment that building a “strategy” that relies totally for success on a highly random tech research is kind of bad form - at least that’s why I avoid it.  But I think as 03321 points out if you could make the argument that some cookie cutter bomber strategy gives you a >50% chance of winning the game, that would be an “overpowered” thing to be concerned with.  As I’ve tried to argue, I don’t see the over-powered argument carrying much weight.

I do think building some bombers with the US is not a bad idea at all, though.  NOT for bombing raids, which are risky, but for strategic coordination with land troops all over the land and sea.  It’s great to have 6-movement air support to supplement a limited # of US troops, especially for out-of-sequence attacks that screw germany when russia can take advantage of holes the us creates in their lines.

Hypothetically there may be unbeatable strats, but this is very unlikely because many players have been trying all sorts of strats.

Bombers are almost never bought by experienced players, generally speaken. Same goes for DD’s and BB’s.

My point was that with 2 bombers attacking Germany you have a much better chance of doing 1d6 damage than if you had one bomber attacking Germany.

To defend itself from all damage, Germany would need to get 2 AA Hits against 2 Bombers.  That’s (1/6)*(1/6) or 1/36 which is ~ 3% chance of occurring.

To defend itself form all damage, Germany would need to get 1 AA Hit against 1 Heavy Bomber.  That’s (1/6) or ~ 17% chance of occurring.

Which is more likely to occur?  3% to shoot down two bombers resulting in 0 IPC damage, or 17% to shoot down one heavy bomber resulting in 0 IPC damage?  Obviously a 17% chance is more likely to occur than a 3% chance.  Therefore, the odds of doing damage to Germany is greater if you have two normal bombers vs one heavy bomber.

And that is what I was trying to get at.

@Black_Elk:

There is no such thing as an “Unbeatable Allied strategy” in the Revised game, and if there is one, it certainly doesn’t involve purchasing bombers.

The only time you should ever even think about buying a new bomber is when the game is so far skewed in favor of one side already, that it really doesn’t matter what you buy anyway. Veteran players avoid SBR like the plague, and will only risk a bomber against an AA gun, if it has absolutely nothing else to do that round.

Rolling for Heavy Bombers is considered bad form by most players, because it is widely acknowledged that this particular tech is hopelessly broken under the standard Revised rules (and not much better under the LHTR rules.) Nobody who is serious about the game will respect a strategy built around strategic bombing. Its too unpredictable.

Serious player tactic? No.
Incredibly Broken under OOB? Yes.

We all knew this before the game was even released on the old AH boards.

except, squirecam, i’ve never seen it tried successfully against me in the online gaming environment like gametableonline, so I’m not convinced it’s broken…

Jen, I see what you’re driving at, certainty vs average result.

Black Elk, with regards to the london attack on turn 1 with germany, i agree it’s kind of lame but the important thing is that it usually is not worth doing.  If it was, there really would have to be a slight fix to the game or inferior players would try it every time in the hopes for a 51% chance at beating a a more skilled opponent.

If you actually do the math of expected values and all possible outcomes, including IPC’s lost in the battle on both sides, money stolen by germany, tech chance of success, and likelihood that UK takes it back on their turn (with canadian forces), it’s actually a net loss for germany, in many cases even if it succeeds.  They can take UK’s capital and still lose so much tech-money and planes doing it that it’s not even a victory.  So overall i think it’s a silly but not overpowered approach.

@eumaies:

except, squirecam, i’ve never seen it tried successfully against me in the online gaming environment like gametableonline, so I’m not convinced it’s broken…

Jen, I see what you’re driving at, certainty vs average result.

Black Elk, with regards to the london attack on turn 1 with germany, i agree it’s kind of lame but the important thing is that it usually is not worth doing.  If it was, there really would have to be a slight fix to the game or inferior players would try it every time in the hopes for a 51% chance at beating a a more skilled opponent.

If you actually do the math of expected values and all possible outcomes, including IPC’s lost in the battle on both sides, money stolen by germany, tech chance of success, and likelihood that UK takes it back on their turn (with canadian forces), it’s actually a net loss for germany, in many cases even if it succeeds.  They can take UK’s capital and still lose so much tech-money and planes doing it that it’s not even a victory.  So overall i think it’s a silly but not overpowered approach.

@eumaies:

except, squirecam, i’ve never seen it tried successfully against me in the online gaming environment like gametableonline, so I’m not convinced it’s broken…

I dont know a serious top level player at Gencon or Origins that would use this strategy.

I suspect the same of the top PBEM as well, but cant speak to them. I would think though that anyone at GTO or PBEM who plays this way game after game cant win any other way. Its a boring, pathetic “strategy”.

For the germans, they can enver succed normally but they can take more damage from there oppenents because go all out on g1 then great britian will be weaker then normal and will have an easier time to take russia while the allies do some reapairs.
The western allies will be sending supplies expecially usa and if this all goes well asia is axis land now

@eumaies:

except, squirecam, i’ve never seen it tried successfully against me in the online gaming environment like gametableonline, so I’m not convinced it’s broken… (edit:  pathetic yes, broken no)

Jen, I see what you’re driving at, certainty vs average result.

Black Elk, with regards to the london attack on turn 1 with germany, i agree it’s kind of lame but the important thing is that it usually is not worth doing.  If it was, there really would have to be a slight fix to the game or inferior players would try it every time in the hopes for a 51% chance at beating a a more skilled opponent.

If you actually do the math of expected values and all possible outcomes, including IPC’s lost in the battle on both sides, money stolen by germany, tech chance of success, and likelihood that UK takes it back on their turn (with canadian forces), it’s actually a net loss for germany, in many cases even if it succeeds.  They can take UK’s capital and still lose so much tech-money and planes doing it that it’s not even a victory.  So overall i think it’s a silly but not overpowered approach.

I agree operation sealion wait for that was germanies problem not ready thoguht the brits would quite

I’m a pretty laid back player, not nearly as cutthroat as others in my gaming group, so I’ll be a little more flexible with tech rules than some people I know. For example, my house rule OOB is No Tech until round 4 or later, which preserves technology advances more as a feature of the endgame (either for the coup de grace, or as a desperation move to attempt some kind of recovery for the underdog.) Still, its very rare to see tech rolls happening with experienced players, because most of us recognize that rolling for tech essentially breaks the game.

The problem with Tech strategies is that, if you fail to roll properly, then the game is usually over right there; and even if you do succeed, the effect is often the same, forcing a rapid conclusion to the game. So I feel, if you’re rolling for tech in the first three rounds of play, its like a slap in the face to your opponent. Sort of like saying  “I don’t care enough about this game to take it seriously, so here’s a wild gamble to make sure it ends sooner rather than later.”

I have a similar attitude towards the purchase of new Bombers: they’re a slap in the face to your enemy. Its like saying “Hey, I don’t respect you’re abilities as an opponent, so I’m just going to blow these 15 ipcs on another bomber, since I know you won’t be able to counter it properly anyways.”

Tech rolls and SBR strategies are more likely to push the game in an unhappy direction, where one person leaves feeling bitter and probably less inclined to play against you next time. You’re better off treating your opponent the same way you’d want to be treated (e.g. not exploited on account of some broken gameplay mechanic) and not only will you find that your games are more entertaining, but you’ll also learn more about the underlying patterns in the process.

:)