Axis SBR Campaign

that makes absolutely no sense.

the original posted strategy suggested 1 bomber build for germany and 2 bombers built for japan on game round 1.

that immediately, clearly, speaks to an SBR strategy.  It’s simply sub-optimal to think those bombers won’t be bombing russia.

so after you see that you spend $10 on round 2 as russia.  And you can totally afford to because germany just spent $15….

(addendum – I meant round 3 as russia.  you have that much time)

And if Russia on round 2 builds 2 or 3 AA Guns, do the Axis NEED to bomb them?  Didn’t they just basically throw away 10-15 IPC which is about what the Axis would have been able to bomb them for on Round 3 anyway?  Meanwhile, the axis now have all those extra bombers for long range threats.

You’d be amazed the interesting challenges just one extra German bomber causes the Allies in the hands of a relatively good to exceptional player.  Now imagine how 3 German bombers can totally screw up your entire afternoon!

So let’s move into the fantasy world of a Russia that can magically afford all these AA Guns and still have an army (though in reality they’d probably be seriously considering vacating Stalingrad at that point, but whatever.)

3 Japanese bombers makes America’s life hell.  That’s -10 IPC from W. USA each round.  2 German bombers makes England’s life hell that’s -8 IPC from England each round.

So you have an America earning 29 IPC and an England earning 4 IPC (For East and West Canada, since Japan and Germany have everything else.)  Maybe they are earning 8 IPC since Russia is magic in this fantasy and can magically produce AA Guns and army and win the game all by themselves.

Dunno…doesn’t seam like a stellar situation for the allies.  What, are you going to put AA Guns on Transports and float them around England to stop Germany from attacking you there?  Or how about guns in SZ 55 and SZ 54 to stop Japan?

Basically, your entire rebuttal to the strategy is flawed.  If Russia buys the AA Guns, in reality, they’re crippled to the point they cannot recover anyway.  It would take seriously more than 3 AA Guns or 4 AA Guns to defend Russia the way you want too (forcing all incoming bombers to risk two AA Gun shots) and if you do manage to get them, you’re not going to be strong enough to stop the Axis.  And, if you just have amazing luck with the dice, and I’m talking upper 5% here, and you manage to keep Germany and Japan back AND get enough AA Guns and don’t need to risk trading armor every round or lose a fighter to AA Guns to trade territories, then America and England are easy targets for SBR damage and you’ll be alone.

There’s no way out.  No matter what you do, the Axis can counter with an easy stab with those bombers.  You’re only hope is to overwhelm the Axis with allied units before they can ramp up.  And that assumes, of course, they don’t see your silly rebuttal and pump out tanks to crush you before you can exploit them.

ummmm…. where to start.

i do agree that one extra german bomber can be very powerful.  certainly has its merits.

two japanese bombers, on the other hand, is sub-optimal except for the bombing strategy outlined.  sure they’re useful, but the delay in large asian land forces is very costly for japan.  so you are handicapping your ability to quickly pressure russia by other means.

bombing the us is completely illogical.  wasting precious japanese resources on the one allied power that has a hard time getting it’s cash to market doesn’t make sense, nor do you have a reasonable base of bombing operations if you wanted to.

Bombing england with germany is also relatively weak.  might as well have england bomb germany.  strategically it’s a net loss for the cash-strapped axis.

the overblown statements about $10 costing russia the game don’t make sense in light of japan and germany’s strategically and monetarily expensive builds.  I would never build more than 2 aa’s as russia, and as i’ve explained in the other posts, i get all of the value without any more.  it’s a one time cost, and aa’s held back in western asia are neither a waste against a souped up japanese air force, nor particularly vulnerable for the first several turns of the game.   Keep in mind too that if japan builds bombers again on turn 2 (while landing turn 1 bombers in china) russia will get to see that as well and factor it into the decision on whether to buy the two aa’s.

I do think $10 is significant, and the SBR strategy at least forces that, so good for the strategy.  but the builds are similarly inneficient given japan’s opportunity cost.

What costs Russia is not the 10 IPCs.  It’s what they wasted the 10 IPCs on.  They did not buy a fighter to give them better ability to trade territories.  They did not buy tanks to reinforce territories and press into Europe with.  They did not get infantry to soak damage.  They bought worthless AA Guns that can be easily out maneuvered from the air at worst, captured and used against Russia at worst.

The idea is not to create units that make the enemy stronger.  The idea is to out position and out maneuver the enemy.  If you are spitting out AA Guns every round then you are shorting yourself units.  With less units, the Axis will have to trade less territories.  With the Axis taking your AA Guns with infantry and tanks, you have to risk sending more infantry and getting your fighters shot down by the AA Guns or sending your own tanks which just makes the situation worse.  Russia cannot afford to trade a few tanks a round like Germany and Japan can.

Meanwhile, if Germany has 2 or 3 bombers, that means America is going to need more surface ships to defend their transports in the back and in front of their train.  That’s going to cost the allies more money than they normally spend on ships.  Perhaps it is only 2 destroyers, but that’s still 24 IPC they are not spending on equipment.  Added to Japan’s SBR runs on W. USA and Russia spitting out worthless AA Guns (because they are not needed now) we have the following situation:

Germany and Japan Cost:  30 IPC to Japan.  Germany’s bombers are still usable to trade territories in Russia while threatening the Atlantic.

Cost to Russia: 10 IPC for AA Guns + Potential losses of Fighters + Increased cost in ground units lost in trading.

Cost to England: Potentially 8 IPC if Germany SBRs them

Cost to America: 10 IPC in SBR damage + at least 24 IPC for destroyers to protect the transports landing units in the back so the forward fleet has something to transport into Africa/Europe/Asia

Net?

-30 Axis
-52 Allies and that’s not including the increased costs to Russia from lost armor and fighters that they otherwise would not have lost.

To me, that’s a good investment.  Anytime I can put a unit in the field of battle that returns 200% on investment is a win in my book.

while i think a better case could be made for your argument, that math is arbitrary and makes no sense.

1. you choose not to count the cost of the german bomber…. then proceed to count the benefits as if it could BOTH bomb germany and attack us shipping without ever dying.

2. you count 10ipc’s damage to us from western europe which as i’ve said is not even a feasible bombing target in the game due to distance.  (it’s also a terrible waste of bombers – i get it, you can use them for combat.  it’s just sub-optimal for japan).

3. as us, i wouldn’t buy 2 destroyers initially.  i’d use one (of my initial 2) per two transports in eastern canadian sea zone, which should be a deterant to all but a 3-bomber attack.  germany is the net loser if it risks 1-2 bombers against 2 transports and a destroyer.  after an attack, the us can rebuild, but this goes back to point number 1 about counting the german cost…

You must not be reading what is said or looking at the board.

W. USA can be bombed from Hawaii with Japan’s bombers.  Since Japan’s bombers are now trapped into being Hawaii, they cost the Axis money. I never said it was being bombed from W. Europe.

Russia’s AA Guns are a HUGE liability!  And they cost money on top of it!  That’s a double whammy.

America’s going to need surface ships to defend the transports.  One surface ship is not going to cut it, not against 2 or 3 German bombers.  So assuming you have 4 transports 1 destroyer that’s 44 IPC.  It’s perfectly feasible to think that Germany could sink 3 of those transports at the cost of 1 bomber quite easily.  Remember, they don’t have to sink your surface fleet, just your transports to set you two rounds back.  So realistically, the only way to counter this is to have 2 or more destroyers present so you can be safe in your hopes to hit two or more bombers in the first round of combat.

The math is sound.  You may not like it.  But all of your counters to the Axis bomber strategy cost the allies significantly more than it costs the Axis.

By cost I mean units that are locked into only one function and that function does not work directly towards winning the game, but rather work to maintain the status quo. (Units you have to build or move to certain places that in a normal game you would not have to do.)

German bombers don’t COST in this because they are still fully functioning units in prosecuting the war in Russia in fact, they are a boon to Germany since now Germany can press one more space in without having to move any of her fighters.

Your AA Guns are a direct and very expensive cost to Russia.  For one thing, no Russian player is going to build them in a normal game (and probably not in this case either).  For another, they are easily captured which results in Russia having to send more IPC in units to liberate them or watch them get walked out of the way of the bombers, neither is a good scenario for Russia.

Top that off with additional costs to America to protect shipping efficiently (which what I mentioned was not attacking them AND SBRing England, it was THREATENING THEM AND SBRing England, there’s a significant difference).  America can of course chose NOT to protect the transports, it will just cost them 4 transports a round instead.

Yes, there is a chance that the bombers will get shot down.  There’s always a chance.  It’s just highly unlikely to happen.  Even you realize this when you said you want to have double AA Coverage along all avenues of approach to Moscow.  If one AA Gun shot down enough bombers reliably, then you wouldn’t need the second gun!

What you discount is that all of your allied defenses are one shot things.  They can’t pull double, triple or even quadruple duty like the Axis attack bombers can.

Axis:  Bomb England/America instead of Russia
Axis:  Trade longer distance territories allowing fighters to remain in the west longer
Axis:  Threaten allied shipping further out in the Atlantic (which when coupled with the few submarines and other ships you have, is significant.)
Axis:  Bomb Russia

Uses: 4

Counter 1:  Buy a dozen AA Guns and turtle.
Uses: 1

Counter 2:  Buy surface warships to defend your transports now in jeopardy.
Uses: 1

Sorry, but all your counter strategies cost as much or more (in most cases at least double) and they lock your units far away where they are not attacking Europe.  No matter how you slice that, the advantage is to the Axis.  There’s only so many units and so many IPC you can dedicated to protecting yourself.  Every IPC you dedicated to protecting something is one less IPC you are dedicating to winning the game.

The cute thing about this move is that the bombers are not used to protect Germany.  They are used to threaten all the allies at once and will help Germany win the game no matter which way they are used.  Can you say the same for your extra destroyers out in SZ 2 or SZ 8?  Can you say the same for the AA Guns that Japan captures every round in Novosibirsk and Kazakh forcing Russia to send out tanks to liberate each round?

Imagine how devastated Russia would be if they had AA Guns in Kazakh and Novosibirsk because Japan foolishly put all three bombers in Sinkiang.  Now, Japan takes BOTH AA Guns with an Artillery left in each place.  Russia sends out 2 infantry, fighter to each and by some miracle, BOTH fighters are lost to AA Gun shots.  What did those guns just cost Russia?  What did they cost Japan?

You have to take these things into consideration!  You can’t just assume that your AA Guns are going to take out the bombers.  For one, it is mathematically incorrect, the odds are significantly on the side of the bombers, not the guns.  For another, you have to look at what resources both sides have.  Germany and Japan can easily dedicate a couple armor a round to taking your guns because they can count on the law of probability that eventually you will either lose a fighter to the guns trying to liberate them or you will fail to liberate them resulting in the Axis getting the chance to remove it.

PS:  Attacking W. USA for 10 IPC a round is not infeasible.  It is quite feasible really.  3 Bombers * 3.5 IPC in damage is 10.5 IPC so it is safe to assume you will actually do that much damage.

Coupled with most American players sending everything against Germany and abandoning the Pacific, your bomber bases in Hawaii should be quite safe from attack. (Leave an infantry or two there to discourage America from putting a bomber in W. USA to attack it if you need too.)

And with America losing a third of it’s income each round, those destroyers he has to buy to protect his transports from the German bombers just got significantly more expensive.  27 IPC does not stretch nearly as far as 37 IPC. (Assumes Hawaii is Japanese, China is Japanese and Sinkiang is Japanese, all safe assumptions AFAIK.)

i’ve already explained that us does not have to invest in greater ship defense because the germans first have to attack and take losses on the current fleet.  you don’t “pre-defend” against 2 bombers. you make the germans sacrifice their planes and it’s a fair trade-off.

Hawaii still makes no sense.  Remember, at the time on turn 3 when russia builds 2 aa guns, japan has already built 3 bombers (that’s a cost of 45!), and has not taken hawaii.  You don’t just turn the ships around, take hawaii, land there on turn 4, and bomb the us on turn 5.  And even if you could, it’s a terrible, terrible idea.

and then you make up these random counter strategies i would never do, like buying more than two aa’s.  save it for the game, jen :)

Japan has built 2 bombers, not 3.  You forget Japan starts with a bomber.

Japan takes Hawaii on Japan 2.  That means yes, on Japan 3 there are bombers in Hawaii. (Though in my version, that transport wouldn’t be in SZ 37, it would be in SZ 50 and Hawaii would fall on Japan 1.)

Germany never has to take a loss to her bombers to THREATEN THE AMERICAN FLEET.  Likewise, it’s still a win if America cowers like a little school girl with her sole surviving battleship to defend the fleet instead of buying destroyers to do that job.  After all, that’s one less bombardment America can do.  On top of that, with 3 bombers, 7 fighters, the British are also going to be hanging way back to avoid losing THEIR other battleship too!

You keep dropping gift after gift after gift in your plans to negate the Axis bombers!  You’d save a lot of time just forfeiting the game the instant I get my bombers going.

So far you’ve planned to spend 200% as much on units as the axis to negate the bombers.
You’ve planned to encircle Russia with AA Guns in hopes of stopping all bombers from coming from any possible angle
You’ve planned to build extra navy to defend your fleets so America can do a shuck-shuck

And the best part is?  Not a single plan of yours has cost the Axis one iota.  Every Allied counter plan you’ve presented has cost the Allies but have cost the Axis nothing, a couple of them actually make the Axis stronger!

PS: 2 AA’s are not enough.

Japan can attack Moscow through Kazakh, Novosibirsk, Evenki from the East.
Germany can attack Moscow through Arkhangelsk and W. Russia from the West.

To cover all those angles, you would have to have no less than +5 AA guns not including the ones you have in Caucasus and Russia.  And that’s only protecting Russia, that does not protect Caucasus.

And no, you cannot just move them.  Where are you going to move 2 guns too to cover all 5 flight paths?  All the Axis have to do is scatter their bombers, and I don’t know a single veteran player (with the possible exception of you) who dumps them all in one territory, especially when the other side has a couple extra AA Guns that they would have to deal with.

So far I have proven that none of your counters would be a feasible solution to the Axis bomber problem.  Would you like to try again?

Here’s a list of things you would have to solve:

First:  The solution should not cost the Allies more than the Axis.  That means every unit produced must function as both a defender AND must provide some offensive function, even if all it does is pose a threat to the enemy.

For instance, a German bomber in W. Europe can hit:

Arkhangelsk
W. Russia
Russia
Caucasus
Ukraine
Belorussia
Karelia
Norway
SZ 4
SZ 3
SZ 6
SZ 5
SZ 2
SZ 7
SZ 8
SZ 9
SZ 1
SZ 11
SZ 18
SZ 17
England
Egypt

That gives Germany a HUGE field of fire for one bomber.  It is quite possibly the most versatile weapon in anyone’s aresenal.  It removes about 20 Safe Zones if stationed in W. Europe. (I may have miscounted, I got 20 zones not including W. Europe itself that it can attack and still have 2 movement points left.)

Secondly:  Your counter to the threat should not be able to be used by the axis to the detriment of the allies.

For instance, buying up a bunch of AA Guns looks good on paper.  But Russia cannot afford to replace those guns nor can it afford to attack those guns.  Russia just does not have the finances to throw away 2 armor a round (you’d need to use at least two armor a round to attack and liberate the guns or you’d have to send and risk your fighters.)

With Japan earning 40+ and Germany earning 40+ (those are low numbers as anyone can attest who has actually played the game) it’s Russia 20+ vs Axis 80+ already.  If the Axis lose a bomber they’re out 15 out of 80 IPCs.  18%.  If Russia loses a fighter or two armor, they are out 50% of their income.  How many trades do you expect Russia to be able to make like this without being destroyed?

Thirdly: Your counter should not open yourself up to exploits elsewhere.

Lastly: It would be wise if your counter cost the Axis for building the bombers.  I Don’t know of a way this is even possible, but if you can think of a way, let us know.

Japan has 4 bombers.  The strat outlined specifically called for building a bomber on japan turn 2 in addition to the 2 built on turn 1.  It’s in response to that heavy push for SBR that the russian expenditure of $10 was valid on Russia turn 3.  Japan also cannot predict this and take hawaii on turn 2 (unless you plan to do that normally, which is not a good move, especially given the lack of transports).

I’ve already addressed most of your comments.  The additional jibes don’t refer to anything I’ve actually written or suggested.  But enjoy your perspective.

Anyone else ever notice that Jens arguements seem to morph as it goes on, in order to re-enforce her original theory?  And what is really annoying, is debating someone who repeats her 9 aa gun theory, even though i stated 7 max, as cauc is not in need of more than one aa gun cover. Does she respond to that assertion? no she counts the territorities she asserts we have to cover with AA = 9. Also, her language and tone seem inflammatory, as if we have questioned her religious beliefs? The axis SBR is an interesting strat, i just posted what i thought to be a reasonable counter to it.

You says things like russia buys 2-3 aa guns on r2, or magical russia buys aa guns every round and defends itself. However, in my arguement, I stated that russia buys 2 aa guns max, and more likely even just one aa gun to counter. Cuz we have GB, and they can bring over 1-2 guns via Arch. And eventually, the us can get a gun there, rd 3-4-5. Does she address allied help with aa guns? no, now her summary of my counter is Russia is spending its entire paycheck on AA guns. lol.

A few arguements that seem to make no sense.

1)  The russian player has no insight into the Axis players strategy, even though they have purchased 3 bombers in r1? Ok so the Fantasy Axis player is sooo insightful, they can find landing bases all over the map to get around any aa gun mine field, but the allied player is so obtuse, that they cant see a SBR strat coming until the moment they lose their enitire paycheck?  lol. classic.

“HEY NO FAIR!, You told me those funny things with the long wings in china were paper weights, now you are saying i get no income??”

further note: As  eumaies alluded to, your strat relies heavily on being able to maximize SBR damage, with a min of two bombers hitting moscow. He suggested you needing less than 7 aa guns to severly disrupt this plan, and I think he makes a good point. In order for russia to need to use the max of 7 aa guns, you would need 2 bombers planted along every flight path to and from moscow. Dem alot of bombers. Seems logical russia can use less then the max 7 to block your flight paths.

2) The russian investment of 5-10 ipcs (Russia buys 2 AA GUNS MAX; I repeat for the selective readers: Russia buys 2 AA GUNS MAX  is counter productive in the land struggle in europe, however, the 45 ipc axis have invested in round 1 alone actually improve their position in europe.  :?  Then she goes on to rattle off all these other useful uses for bombers other than SBRs. Well ok then, use them. Buy bombers and dont even SBR moscow, use them for all those wonderful, “magical”, purposes you have listed.

3) The russian investment of 5-10 ipc is a gamebreaker in eurrope for the axis? She goes on to tell us that the aa guns are useless in the land swapping. However, she presented us with a strat she characterized as “game breaking”. That russia has NO INCOME by round 4. Yet, she poses that the alternative, spending 5-10 ipc to prevent collecting no income on round 4 is wasteful. When you consider those 5-10 ipcs would have been bombed anyway into thin air, the tangible assets of 1-2 aa guns is much more than just a wise investment.

Oh and one more time:   Russia buys 2 AA GUNS MAX

Okay, let me rephrase, since you have completely morphed my original statements completely out of reality.

1)  Germany buys 1 Bomber and possibly 1 Fighter on Round 1. (This of course negates a carrier build which I have felt is a stupid move for quite some time now, well into the years category.)  These cost Germany nothing.  You spend IPCs for them, but they are able to be used every round, therefore, they cost nothing.

2)  Japan buys 2 Bombers on Round 1.  If Japan goes after America’s Industrial Complexes, these bombers cost 30 IPC.  If Japan does not, and instead uses them in Asia, then they are able to be used every round and thus cost nothing. Note, Japan has 3 total bombers.  I have never called for Japan to build a 4th, there’s no reason for it.  In either battle, you only need 3 bombers because each bomber averages 4 IPC in damage if it survives the AA Gun. (For the record, in math and science, 3.5 rounded into integers is 4.  You cannot surrender half an IPC, therefore 3.5 is an irrational number.)

3)  Eumaies and AxisOfEvil seem to be claiming that Russia now spends it’s 29 IPC on at least 2 AA Guns.  However, I have easily demonstrated how 2 AA Guns are clearly and sufficiently insufficient for the task they would like to use them for. (Japan can easily go through the third territory that has no AA Gun on it’s outbound flight (AA Guns do not fire in NCM, so the return trip can be shorter) and Germany can also go around if it needs too.  Assuming the Axis want to go after the Industrials.)

4)  Germany decides to either buy a 3rd bomber or something else.  Really, that 3rd bomber for Germany is optional, the idea is to force the allies into spending more on units that cannot be used to attack Germany and thus weaken their attack.

So there you have it.  AxisOfEvil and Eumaies want to shell out dozens of IPCs in units to defend against bombers that may never actually attack them.  Compound that error, in my opinion, with the fact that some of those IPCs spent on wasted units will result in units that can be used against the Allies.  Specifically, I reference the AA Guns which have to be deployed in territories that WILL be conquered and traded (by definition they have to go there, otherwise they are double stacked and thus do not serve any purpose what-so-ever.)  If they are conquered by the Axis, Russia is faced with a quandry.  After wasting the IPCs building the AA Guns they now have to decide if they want to risk losing their fighters trying to liberate them, or lose the precious few tanks they have (since they were buying guns, not tanks) liberating them.

The axis?  They don’t give a rats.  They can easily trade 2 tanks a round if it takes 2 tanks away from Russia.  If Russia does not liberate the guns, the axis just NCM the guns back out of the way on their next turn.

So for like the seventh time now, I have completely and utterly destroyed the “buy AA Guns for Russia” plan of stopping the Axis if they happen to buy 3 or 4 bombers over the course of the game.

Honestly, COME UP WITH ANOTHER PLAN or admit that you have no other plan.

It’s okay, honest.  For the longest time wasting 16 IPC on a carrier for SZ 5 was the best plan out there.  Likewise, it was thought for a time that the best move for Japan was Bid 1 IPC, build 1 Industrial and 2 Transports.  It was thought at one time that Russia should never buy anything but infantry and the occasional artillery until someone figured out they could get a fighter and increase offensive and defensive punch of their army.

However, your lies about my arguments “morphing” is getting old.  I don’t have to morph them.  If you say you want to cover all avenues of attack on Moscow with AA Guns, then you absolutely need to have them in all the places I mentioned.  You cannot do that with 2 extra guns.  If you do not cover all avenues, then the enemy just flies around them.

As for your hope that England is getting 2 or 3 guns and America is getting a gun, you’re nuts.  Sorry, but you are.  With 7 fighters and 3 bombers and the SZ 5 fleet, England isn’t even getting spitwads to Arkhangelsk, let alone having the extra transport capacity to move AA Guns.

Finally, MY STRAT does not rely on maximizing SBR damage.  It is realistic to assume any SBR damage would be maximized due to the volume of bombers that can be brought to bear and the chance of one or more being shot down by AA Guns.  In TripleA sure, you can expect 4 out of 5 bombers to be shot down.  But the inhouse dicey and frood are more realistic and you can actually expect none of the bombers to be shot down as the math has already proven.

So for the last time:

Strategy:  By strategically placing bombers on the map you can force the allies into blowing a lot of extra cash on units they won’t need or use.  Furthermore, if Russia starts churning out AA Guns and replacement AA Guns for those lost to the Axis, you have negated the need to SBR Russia, Russia is effectively SBRing itself far greater than expected for each AA Gun they create! (-5 IPC per gun, plus the chance they get captured and walked away.)

If the allies do not blow the cash on units they don’t need or particularly want, then the Axis are in prime position to erase all of Russia’s income each turn at minimal risk to their own assets.

Notice the strategy IS NOT TO STRATEGICALLY BOMB RUSSIA.  The strategy is to get the allies to waste money on things that are not tanks and transports!

well we’ve already hashed out most of these differences, i’ll just correct a few misunderstandings from your last post:

1. In the posted strategy from aabigdo, japan builds a 3rd bomber on round 2.  This made sense for his strategy and test runs, as the point is to try an all out, sustained SBR campaign even in the face of losses.

2. In my suggestion russia doesn’t need to buy the two aa guns until russia round 3 (after jap bombers built in turn 1 land closer to russia and additional jap bomber is built on turn 2).  Of course russia can afford $10 on round 3 of a game where the axis are spending so heavily on aircraft.

but let’s agree to disagree.  I don’t think you’ve understood the counterpoints I’ve raised and the straw man you insist on beating up has no relation to any moves i would feel pressured to take (e.g. no more than 2 aa’s, no need to cover both eastern and western fronts, no need to excessively defend transports, no need to worry about SBR on UK or USA, etc…)

Lol.  this arguement is over. Jen has already claimed complete, and utter proof of her arguements. And with logic like, Russia has no ability to pull in aa guns when they see a territory will be taken, how can you argue with her.

Maybe her point of reference comes from the players she plays with. Players that will leave a territory they cant defend completely empty, except for this shiny aa gun they bought for her. Players that can’t figure out how to land allied units in europe. Why even worry about a russian strat Jen, if you have a fool proof way of preventing the allies from getting to europe, the game is already won!!

Anyway. not worth wasting anymore energy.

I do believe Axis has just shown his naivette when it comes to playing Axis and Allies.

If you pull your AA Guns back when a territory becomes undefendable then you negated that AA Gun’s effect on the game.  That is exactly what I already pointed out as a severe flaw in the strategy.

If you do not pull it back, you have to defend it!  So who does it hurt more?  Russia who now has to take it back every round or risk losing their capitol to the enemy by defending this gun against all attacks, or the Axis who can afford to lose a tank or two to make sure Russia also loses a tank or two in the process of liberating it?

Honestly, if you don’t read the counter-arguments, Axis, you’d be better off going back to playing the AI in TripleA.  It’s geared towards people who don’t read or understand different ideas and concepts.

Eumaies:

What I am trying to say is that two extra AA Guns cost Russia too much to be efficient.  However, extra bombers don’t cost the axis anything because they don’t have a limited ability to be used.  A bomber does not have to go on an SBR run.  An AA Gun cannot do anything if it is not attacked by an enemy aircraft (or flown over.)

So you build the AA Guns on Russia 3.  I will assume you have 27 IPC - 4 IPC from Germany’s Bomber, - 4 from the bomber Germany bought on Round 2 but nothing from Japan since I assume Japan’s bomber was too far out into the Pacific to bomb you.  (Average Result equals 6!/6 rounded to the nearest integer.)

So Russia has 19 IPC to spend on Round 3.  This is when you want to build the 2 AA Guns because you see Japan sitting there with 3 Bombers.  Japan has a Bomber in China, a Bomber in Yakut and a Bomber in India.  Germany has 2 Bombers one in W. Europe, one in Libya and possibly a third in Germany itself.

Now, you take your 19 IPCs and buy, 2 AA Guns (stated) and I’ll assume 3 Infantry with the remaining 9 IPCs.  This is not a very strong build for Russia 3.  It is easy to picture the need for Russia to expend at least 5 infantry and an artillery liberating and taking Ukraine, Belorussia and Karelia.  That means you are down 2 infantry and an Artillery in combat units. (They’ll inflict damage on Germany both on their attack and on their defense.  And I am assuming all three territories were only defended by an infantry, they could have 2 or even 3 infantry defending based on how the dice worked out last round, but one infantry seems to be normal.)

Germany, on the other hand, is looking at round 3 with 42-44 IPC easily.  Japan likewise is probably looking at 36-38 IPC this round.

So now you have 5 AA Guns total.  2 Russian Starters, 2 Russian Built and 1 from India.

How do you want to arrange all 5 guns in such a way to block all bombers from attacking without risking two AA Shots each?

Also, how do you plan to recover from a round in which you effectively lost military strength?

ok i gotta be brief cuz i’m studying for an exam, but to your questions to me:

1. re: bombers don’t cost anything = they are inneficient builds for japan, is my contention.

2. russia may well have more than 27 by round 3 given your builds, and germany’s average damage is <3 per bomber, factoring in that you only hit 5/6 of the time and  cause 0 damage 1/6 of the time.  Nor can germany’s newly built bombers reliably hit moscow at this point and land safely.  Most allied moves would force a bombing of caucusus with new bombers in the first 2 rounds, which causes even less damage.

3. Japan does not have a bomber in Yakut or India.  end of round two japan didn’t take india in round 1 to make that a safe landing zone.  in fact, if you’re playing me and you built two bombers in round 1, japan doesn’t even take india in round 2, certainly not with the move into china.  Japan also hasn’t safely taken Yakut on turn 1 for landing on round 2 ready to strike on round 3.  Instead, russia forces have not been well-countered because japan didn’t buy enough transports.  Again, this is my experience of how people would fare against me.  Obviously we have different “data sets” from our own experiences.

4. per axis’ suggestion, i could’ve moved the aa gun from india in time for round 3 and built just one russia AA.  But since i like to hold india i probably wouldn’t do this.  In any case, russia turn 3 is a safe enough time to burn a little money when germany has burnt 30 in things that won’t quickly pressure the russian front.

5. For reasons above, i don’t have to strain to block bombers from multiple angles on round 3.  And in future rounds i’m content to block >1/2 of the bombers effectively.  But in truth, again from my own experience, I could pwn japan with builds like that and japan’s not going to have choice places to bomb from.  Regardless, if after all this investment the bombing campaign has a limited impact, I think the allies have got a leg up.

You have to assume Germany is going to be able to trade Belorussia, Ukraine and Karelia easily for at least the first 3 rounds, especially round 2.  So there’s no funky Russia earning 35+ IPC games most of the time.  It’s far easier to assume Russia is up Belorussia and Ukraine but down Buryatia and SFE most of the time.  That’s 31-2=29.  Even then, that’s the high end of the field and assumes Germany didn’t stack the crud out of Karelia allowing them to prevent Russia from getting that high, so it’s safer to assume 27 IPC for Russia

6!/6 is not 3.  It’s 3.5 in math we round this number to 4.  I know the guys who designed LL failed math because they like to round it down to 3, sometimes 2.5 to 3.0 depending on the flavor chosen.  But in reality, it’s 4.  Given that the odds are significantly against a bomber being shot down, we don’t have to account for the 0 variable, it’s mathematically insignificant.  So 3 bombers should be expected to inflict 12 IPC + or - 3 IPC (so you’d expect 9 < Actual < 12 in damage.)

I agree that in some cases, 2 bombers for Japan on Round 1 is sub-optimal.  England pulling everything except 1 infantry out of India with Russia pulling everything but 1 infantry out of Buryatia and England doing the Pacific shuffle with the fleet is not a case where 2 bombers is sub-optimal.  Japan has plenty of units it can transport and will be very busy clearing islands of wasted infantry anyway.

If England did a traditional move and Russia did a traditional move, it is quite possible for China, India and Buryatia to fall on Japan 1.  (Pearl Light is a clue.  Or you could just ignore pearl, but I prefer pearl light.)

So in reality, the most likely situation you are looking at is:

Japanese Bomber in China
Japanese Bomber in Buryatia
Japanese Bomber in India

German Bomber in Libya
Germany Bomber in W. Europe
*German Bomber in Germany (this would be added in Round 3 if at all, it’s not really needed, but it is nice to have.)

Given this, I really don’t see a viable AA Gun solution for Russia outside of America building AA Guns instead of tanks and bringing them over two or three at a time instead of liberating Africa or something.

For the record, odds of shooting down 1 bomber out of 3:

(1/6)(5/6)(5/6) = 12%.  Not exactly the best odds out there.
(Success)(Fail)(Fail)

This is my fundamental problem with LL calculations.  In LL the odds of shooting down 1 bomber in 3 is 50%, not 12%.  It completely skews the results.

So 88% of the time 3 bombers should do about 12 IPC damage to Russia.  12% of the time 3 bombers should do about 8 IPC damage to Russia.

Actually, I have only commented on your reading and demonstrated understanding of the situation.  You have resorted to flames, flame-baiting and malicious attacks.

Anyway, you have yet to sufficiently inform the gaming community how you are both placing your AA Guns out in traded territories AND manage not to lose them to the enemy without costs in excess of just taking the damage from attacking bombers that survive your defended AA Guns.

You see, you have completely failed to realize that the counter to your counter was already placed.  The counter is that the axis can afford to lose 8 IPC per territory but Russia cannot afford to lose 8 IPC per territory.  (This assumes you attack with Infantry/Armor and win with Armor on both sides.)

As an Axis member earning 30-45 IPC per turn, I’ll gladly trade you 8 IPC a round.  Especially multiple times in one round of game play! (-8 Kazakh, -8 Novosibirsk and -8 in any other territory you decide to put an AA Gun in.)  Hell, I don’t even need to bomb you then!  Now I can use my bombers on England and America since you are already bleeding yourself dry of units for your own defense!

Of course, you could chose NOT to attack after I capture your AA Guns, but as I said, then it’s a simple matter to just walk the guns away.

In other words, THERE IS NO VIABLE METHOD OF RUSSIA DEFENDING ITSELF WITH ALL THOSE AA GUNS!  You only end up guaranteeing that you will lose 16+ IPC a round in units, instead of 12 IPC + and that’s only on that one front!  That’s not including the other front, but that’s because I assume you want to get those guns back, not liberate EVERYTHING that you lost in the previous round! (I assume you leave that to your allies to at least stop some of the blood loss!)

Russia - 16 IPC from trading Kazakh/Novosibirsk - 12 IPC from Germany’s SBRs of Russia/Caucasus = Total -28 IPC per round.  Income: 27 IPC or less, probably less.  Net:  -1+ IPC a round.

Japan - 16 IPC from trading Kazakh/Novosibirsk.
Income: 45 IPC give or take.  Net: +29 IPC a round

Germany - Normal trading about equivalent between her and the allies (Karelia, Belorussia and Ukraine, possibly Arkhangelsk if Germany stacked Karelia Round 1.)
Income: 40-50 IPC give or take.  Net: +40-50 IPC

Germany + Japan:  Up at least 70 IPC a round
Russia: Down at least 1 IPC a round.

Net Difference:  71 or more IPC in favor of the Axis.

Of course, that assumes that round 3 when you buy those AA Guns (and start moving extras from America/England to help) you don’t end up with Germany and a large stack of Germans and Japanese fighters in W. Russia before Russia 4.

@Cmdr:

1)  Germany buys 1 Bomber and possibly 1 Fighter on Round 1. (This of course negates a carrier build which I have felt is a stupid move for quite some time now, well into the years category.)  These cost Germany nothing.  You spend IPCs for them, but they are able to be used every round, therefore, they cost nothing.

2)  Japan buys 2 Bombers on Round 1.  If Japan goes after America’s Industrial Complexes, these bombers cost 30 IPC.  If Japan does not, and instead uses them in Asia, then they are able to be used every round and thus cost nothing.

I will not enter in all the debate which seems like close, but just react on one point :

When you say that it cost nothing, I understand that you want to say that this is a usefull buy, and I agree with that.

But you cannot say that it cost nothing. Otherwise, we can say that when you loose the bomber with the AAgun defending the desesperate factory (which is with such a number of bombers flying over it ^^ ), you lose nothing. But this is not the case.

Thus, the bombers have a cost. When Russia lose IPC by your bombers, you sometimes loose units, and so IPC, by AA defense. This is the principle of SBR campaign : you spent money in bombers to reduce the money of the other country.

In the same way, if you want to bomb Russia every turn, you have to rebuilt a bomber some times. Otherwise, you will most of the time finish with no bombers to make your SBR campaign.

I think that this SBR Campaign is interesting, and can work. But it is not also an unbeatable strategy. It is just an other way to attack Russia. The main interest in this strategy is, as Jennifer pointed out, that bombers can be used in a lot of situation. Thus, you can react to a lot of allies answers. But on the other hand, you will have less ground units.

And for the AA response, I think that it can protect a little. For instance at the beginning, it is quite easy to keep territories against Japan (for the one close to Moscou at least). Thus, you will have some protections for the first turns. Moreover, I think that if England send a lot of ground unit by the north of Europe, it could enable Allies to trade territories (Karelia, Bielorussia and Ukraine I mean) with english force (this is for later turns).

But above all I think that as with a lot of strategy in AA games, that is the reaction that you will have during the game which will give the winner. Therefore, I think that it is difficult to predict what reaction will be good ten turns after the buy of the two bombers…

@Cmdr:

Actually, I have only commented on your reading and demonstrated understanding of the situation.  You have resorted to flames, flame-baiting and malicious attacks.

Anyway, you have yet to sufficiently inform the gaming community how you are both placing your AA Guns out in traded territories AND manage not to lose them to the enemy without costs in excess of just taking the damage from attacking bombers that survive your defended AA Guns.

You see, you have completely failed to realize that the counter to your counter was already placed.  The counter is that the axis can afford to lose 8 IPC per territory but Russia cannot afford to lose 8 IPC per territory.  (This assumes you attack with Infantry/Armor and win with Armor on both sides.)

As an Axis member earning 30-45 IPC per turn, I’ll gladly trade you 8 IPC a round.  Especially multiple times in one round of game play! (-8 Kazakh, -8 Novosibirsk and -8 in any other territory you decide to put an AA Gun in.)  Hell, I don’t even need to bomb you then!  Now I can use my bombers on England and America since you are already bleeding yourself dry of units for your own defense!

Of course, you could chose NOT to attack after I capture your AA Guns, but as I said, then it’s a simple matter to just walk the guns away.

In other words, THERE IS NO VIABLE METHOD OF RUSSIA DEFENDING ITSELF WITH ALL THOSE AA GUNS!  You only end up guaranteeing that you will lose 16+ IPC a round in units, instead of 12 IPC + and that’s only on that one front!  That’s not including the other front, but that’s because I assume you want to get those guns back, not liberate EVERYTHING that you lost in the previous round! (I assume you leave that to your allies to at least stop some of the blood loss!)

Russia - 16 IPC from trading Kazakh/Novosibirsk - 12 IPC from Germany’s SBRs of Russia/Caucasus = Total -28 IPC per round.  Income: 27 IPC or less, probably less.  Net:  -1+ IPC a round.

Japan - 16 IPC from trading Kazakh/Novosibirsk.
Income: 45 IPC give or take.  Net: +29 IPC a round

Germany - Normal trading about equivalent between her and the allies (Karelia, Belorussia and Ukraine, possibly Arkhangelsk if Germany stacked Karelia Round 1.)
Income: 40-50 IPC give or take.  Net: +40-50 IPC

Germany + Japan:  Up at least 70 IPC a round
Russia: Down at least 1 IPC a round.

Net Difference:  71 or more IPC in favor of the Axis.

---

Of course, that assumes that round 3 when you buy those AA Guns (and start moving extras from America/England to help) you don’t end up with Germany and a large stack of Germans and Japanese fighters in W. Russia before Russia 4.

amazing, you do it again. A full page summary of how trading terr with aa guns is bad for russia. When i explicitly said i would not be trading terr with aa guns. But great points!!

Amazing Axis, you again fail to read through the post.  I said if you DONT trade the territories with the AA Guns, then the axis just walks them out of they way.  Now you don’t have the territory AND you don’t have the AA Guns.  So you bought them for what?  They didn’t do anything, well, they did, but it was to make your opponent stronger, not you stronger.

At least he concedes that I have “great” points in my assertion that trading AA Guns (or buying them for that matter) is a losing proposition for Russia!

Yoshi,

The bombers cost nothing because they can be used as bombers each round.

For instance, the bombers are used passively as a deterrent to allied naval shipping in the Atlantic forcing them to consolidate their fleets and buy more units to defend American transports from attack.  The best part is, they pretty much have to do this even if you never intend to attack their fleets because they don’t know your intentions!

They are used aggressively in a myriad of ways:

1)  They can attack Russia’s or England’s Industrial Complexes.  Russia can try to counter with AA Guns, but I’ve pretty much shredded anyone’s hopes and dreams that would ever be cost effective for Russia.  England does not have that option being on an island.

2)  They have massive range allowing Germans to trade territories much farther away without having to move their fighters, this allows them to defend western territories with less men and in turn allows them to bring more cannon-fodder to bear on Russia. (Because the fighters can stay in Western and 1 fighter can replace - in my opinion - 3 to 4 infantry on defense.  That means those guys can move to the front lines.)

3)  They CAN go attack America’s transports if you chose to send them there.

Because of these 4 reasons, a bomber has either no cost, or a negative cost to Germany.  Do note, however, I did assign a cost to Japan’s extra bombers due to their lack of utility.  They either go SBR Russia or they go SBR America, they really serve no other purpose at all and they cannot shift from one to the other like Germany can without downtime in between.

Now, I’ve demonstrated that Russia building AA Guns has a cost far in excess than they can afford. (Both in building the actual unit and in units lost defending it.  And yes, you have to defend it or you basically gave 5 IPC to your opponent for nothing, so I’ll assume the better players in the field are defending them while the best players are just not building them to begin with.)

How about America though?  Well, to defend those 4 transports (32 IPC) they need to get units from North America to Europe/Africa/Asia they will need something.  They COULD strip naval assets from their fleet, but that would almost require them to keep their fleet with England stripping them of the flexibility of striking at Germany’s soft underbelly and liberating Africa or stripping them of their ability to reinforce Russia.  Neither option is exceptionally good in my opinion.

So what else can they do?  Well, +2 Destroyers would serve the purpose of taking the 2 starting destroyers out of the fleet, right?  So you can invest 24 IPC in destroyers to defend those transports and now break the two fleets apart allowing the allies to engage as they otherwise would all along the northern, western and southern borders of Europe and liberating Africa.  But alas, those 24 IPC are locked away from the battle and may never be engaged, thus, they cost 24 IPC since they add nothing to your ability to win the game, but are used solely to restore the status quo.

In summation:

German bombers:  No to negative cost. (Like infantry and tanks have almost no cost to negative cost for just about every nation at any point during the game.)

Japanese bombers: Moderate cost.  They can still be used, but a fighter would do the job just as easily and Japan has plenty of those to start with.  Not to mention, the two viable SBR targets are sufficiently far enough apart that Japan cannot pick a central location to hit either target, so they have to chose one and move to get in range.  Still, this is not horrible and it can be beneficial, even if all you do is hit Caucasus and bring extra firepower to bear in your other battles.

Russian AA Guns: Potentially the worst move possible by the allies.  These have an insanely high cost, even buying just one of these too early in the game or too late in the game could tip the scales of power giving the Axis an upper hand before the allies can recover.  They’re a liability.  They’re cumbersome.  In order to negate the potential negative affects of them, you have to stack them with another AA Gun which completely defeats the purpose of building extras!  To be perfectly honest, I think building a Russian Battleship in SZ 16 is a wiser move than building a single AA Gun with Russia except in the most extreme situations - even then, think twice and phone a friend before making the purchase!

I do have a viable solution, but no one likes it.  It’s almost my normal allied strategy to begin with.  England vs Japan, America vs Germans in Africa and Russia vs Germany, allowing Russia to focus it’s power on taking German territories while England/America liberate making Russia stronger over the course of the game, not weaker.

Parting Shot:

Always endeavor to build units that add to your ability to win the game.  As soon as you build units to restore the status quo, you have lost.  You cannot win Axis and Allies through defense and reaction alone.

The reason none of the solutions presented are good enough to win (and they have ALL been tried and defeated, which is how I know how to defeat them) is because they are all yielding the initiative to the Axis.