@gamerman01:

I was going to write this long explanatory response, but I would sound argumentative.  I’ll just say it this way, I would enjoy being your opponent if you use logic like this. 
How many bombers is “enough bombers to do 12 IPC damage to Italy”? Two?  Three?  Five?
Who would spend 9 with Italy to repair if there was 12 damage?  A player would spend nothing and save another 9 so they have 18 the next turn.

-doing 12 IPC takes on average 3.4 bombers.

Look mate I’m not sure why your so worked up but your plainly putting little thought into your replies. If Italy waits to turn 2 after the SBR to bomb again they have 18IPC - 12IPC to fix allowing them to build 2 infantry. Allies come in the next turn and it begins all over again.

Regardless italy has gone from building 3 inf per turn to 2 every 2 turns and even better for the allies they have to use their bombers in SBR only every second turn as well so while the axis have gained some respite to build again they are killing less heavy bombers and freed up the heavy bombers to do some combats.

The maths don’t support your logic.

@gamerman01:

In this one, double the IPC value is the total damage limit.  If a factory is maxed out in damage and isn’t repaired, it can’t be damaged at all for a turn.

As Britain or USA you wouldnt call preventing Germany building a single unit for that a victory?

Here is a plausable and common scenario.

-Enough bombers go in to do 12 IPC damage to Italy.
-Italy only has 9IPC to repair with. (2 mainland ones)
-No units for Italy that turn and still 3 IPC left to repair
-Next turn allies need to risk even less bombers to keep Italy out of the game!

@gamerman01:

Also, your math is correct, but you leave out the other opportunities that bomber may have.  Many times bomber support on a battle is more effective than a SBR, especially because usually in the battle the Bomber has a 0% chance of being lost.  Those are some of the reasons I don’t see that much SBR in this game.

Everything has an opportunity cost not jsut strategic bombing. Very hard to calculate.
But in order to use the bomber as you suggest then some other unit is costing you.

ie. while the bomber isnt being lost whatever you sent in with it si!

Heavy bombers kills fleets.

Period.

Fleet HP are expensive with 6pts being the cheapest available. Which however offers no defense vs aircraft.

Put it this way, jet fighters gives +1 dice roll on def.
Super sub gives +1 attack dice.

Neither gives double dice!

Why is heavy bomber any different?

I think heavy tech should just give +1 dice roll modifier on attack or double dice is just on strategic bombing. (at least strategic bombing has countering techs as an option!)

Always sux to be beaten by a better player. However you only make things worse for yourself by blaming game mechanics!

Base cost of bomber = 12 IPC
Average cost of bombing per turn= 12/6 = 2 IPC
Average damage per turn = 3.5 IPC

So yes initially strategic bombing is worth it (The people who claimed on this thread that it isn’t fail at basic maths.)

Especially when you take into account that in this version of AA strategic bombing can do twice as much damage! e.g you can do 20IPC damage to Germany instead of the maximum of 10 in previous editions.

You mentioned earlier that you roled for heavy bomber tech? Correct? In that case how did that alter your game plan mr great AA player?
Did you start bombing England for 7 IPC ave per bomber? Or did you stick to your inflexible pre game plan?

Once you saw the Allies build more and more bombers how did you plan for countering them? Extra tech dice?

Bah

I disagree completely. The basic defense premise being touted here is static defense. Once that point is reached the only thing the defending player is hoping to do is try and last an extra turn or two. If Russia is holed up in Moscow that player better have his team mates at the gates of Berlin.

No the best defense in A&A is mobile defense. Basically what an attacking player is trying to do is swap his cheap inf boys for the defenders hard assest, fighters and tanks. A decent player should always being aiming to defend from a counter attacking/smack position. Leave a territory with a couple of inf but be prepared to go back in hard if neccessary if lost.

p.s. That is why fighters are superior to tanks;

Hmmm
Heres a scenario.

Russian player A:

Attacks 2 Jap inf with 6 inf and 1 fighter. Gets on average 2 hits. (Jap player gets none on defense)
Jap player counter attacks and lands 6 hits to kill the inf. The russian player lands 2 hits on defense.

The russian player killed 12pt but lost 18pt.

Russian player B

Attacks 2 jap inf with 3 inf + 1 art and 3 tanks. Gets on ave 2.5 hits. (Jap player gets none on defense)
Jap player counters and lands 6 hits first round. The russian player lands 3 hits in total.

The russian player killed 15pt but lost all 28pt.

Which Russian player would be in the better position to do yet another counter-smack?

@Bean:

In other words, that’s 30 IPCs spent to kill 0 IPCs spent, since the German navy and Japanese transports were already on the board to start with. Does that still sound good to you? What I hate when people start using IPC values is that they don’t really understand how to make it relevant. There is a very big difference between spending IPCs to take out existing IPCs versus spending IPCs to take out the other guy’s spent IPCs.

You’re a clever fellow ain’t you? If starting units are as worthless as you claim they are then why don’t you put your money where your mouth is and start again without any?

Never doubt, in A&A like most games you can win psychologically.
An oppononent gets mentally defeated to thepoint they surrender even though there is still a strong chance of winning.

If you quit early you will never know the limit of your own skill.

In fact I’m going to be harsh and say ANYONE who quits after just 3 rounds is not someone I’d ever like to play against because they are basically saying that if things don’t go there way in the beginning then they don’t want to play.

I’ve certainly recovered from the worst starts, once as Japan i failed in almost all attacks and ended up with 2x damaged BB navy and 2 fighter + bomber Airforce by round 3 and still won on the coat tails of a strong German team mate performance.

Nothing worse than players who makes high risk moves that fail with the sure knowledge if the dice goes against them then they can just start again.

rant off

Basically you have to be fexible.
If Japan has a poor first round why not drop your pre-planned JGF and go hammer and tong for Japan with IC in india and sinkiang + large US pacific fleet? The key is that a IC in india is only viable if supported elsewhere vs. Japan.

I’ve always found that Axis win because the Allies do not put enough effort into containing Japan, in my experience Germany can turtle and hold off Allies in France a lot longer than Russia can hold Japan off the gates of Moscow.

One IC you didn’t mention is a factory in Egypt, bring in planes + indian fleet, sink Axis med fleet and bingo you have a back door into the underbelly of Europe.

Personally I would never build a IC in South Africa.