@a44bigdog:

You are missing the entire point. The Axis specifically Japan needs to be bombing both the Caucasus and Russia. Now Japan may need to increase the number of bombers being sent to Russia due to the increased AA guns, but the goal of the strategy is to choke off Russia’s production ability.

I do not think I am missing the entire point, just because I choose to bomb Caucasus over Moscow.  Well obviously if Moscow is only protected by 1 AA gun, you bomb that while you can, but I am just not going to come over to the idea of bombing through 2 AA guns while Caucasus is still available.  It’s just a bad gamble, and sure, it can pay off sometimes, but I do not like bad gambles as a strategy, unless things are truly desperate.  And I cannot see a situation where getting 16% more SBR damage justifies doubling the risk of getting shot down by AA.  If times are that desperate, 16% more SBR damage is not going to save you.

Also I am curious, have you ever won with this strategy against an opponent of equal skill or better?  In my games, victory seemed a bit out of reach, so I am hesitant to keep trying it.  USSR was losing money to SBR alright, but the extra territories it was able to keep due to the much slower Axis ground build-up seemed to make up for it.  Maybe I did not buy enough bombers with Japan, not sure.  I stayed at about 3 with them.

@a44bigdog:

Axis and Allies is NOT an accounting game.

A bomber in an SBR strategy (Axis or Allied) does not have to do its purchase cost to be effective. It merely has to do enough damage at the appropriate time to strangle your opponents production capability. That last part is the entire purpose of an SBR campaign, shut down your opponents ability to produce and move in and mop up.

OK, but you are only doing .5 IPC less in damage bombing Caucasus.  Surely that little bit of difference is not worth double the AA risk?

@a44bigdog:

eatenbyargue, are you doing it as I lined out in the first post? That is the best way I have found to conduct an Axis SBR campaign through quite a bit of testing. Germany is not that much shorter on land units than normal. Not bombing Moscow because of additional AA fire is a mistake, only bombing Caucasus will not eliminate enough of Russia’s income. Remember that Germany only buys 2 additional bombers and uses these until they are gone.

Surely it is better to bomb Caucasus.  Mathwise:

2AA Moscow:  Average 2 successful bombing runs per bomber.  Average raid is 3.5 IPC damage.  Cost of 2 runs = 15 IPC for the bomber lost.  So you are losing 8 IPC per bomber invested.

1AA Caucasus:  Average 5 successful bombing runs per bomber.  Average raid is 3 IPC damage.  (It is 3, not 2.5, because 5 and 6 also count as 4, so (1+2+3+4+4+4)/6=3.)  Cost of 5 runs = 15 IPC for the bomber.  So you are breaking even on the investment.

I have tried this a couple of times, and I do not know if I am just not pulling it off properly, but I find the shortage of ground units really tough to deal with.  The extra money USSR gets in from being able to better hold some European territories sort of makes up for the bombing.  And shielding Moscow with additional AA guns, forcing the Axis to bomb only Caucasus, also puts a damper on things.

I have never played AA42, but there seem to be some changes that would favor the axis.

1.  The UK battleship off Gibraltar is now a cruiser instead, so this frees up at least 1 German fighter on turn 1 to do something else.  Heck, under certain circumstances, it may even be acceptable to skip this battle (say with bad USSR dice on turn one, making a full eastern assault desirable).

2.  New transport casualty rules seem like they would favor the Axis.  UK and USA have to build more protection for their transports.  Japan is affected by this too somewhat, but usually USSR and UK are not in a position to snipe much at Japan’s, so I think Japan is affected less than than the Allies.  Given a full KJF from the USA, of course this would come into play, but I assume KGF is still the more common strategy.

So it seems in theory, the game should not favor Allies as much, but maybe I am missing something, not having played it yet!

Edit:  Just thought of something - the German Med fleet is affected by the transport casualty rule pretty badly too, so who knows!

@a44bigdog:

Bumping this so newer players can see it.

Thanks for bumping it.  I read it, and looked at a couple of your games when you have used it.  It certainly looks like a viable strategy, but for some reason, I have always been too risk averse to SBRs.  Perhaps it is irrational, but I always seem to find a better, risk free, use for the bomber unit in normal attacks.

Also, there is always something about SBRs that did not sit right with me as a game mechanic.  It is completely luck based, and you cannot really defend against it by stacking forces, etc.  You just have the AA gun, which is such a crapshoot, though I suppose that buffering zones with AA guns could in theory work.

Looking at it, if you do want to station additional AA guns, you would need 4 or 5 more.  Depending on where Japan puts its bombers, you only need 2 in east, Kazakh and Novo (if Japan puts bombers in Bury, just shift an AA to Evenki).  In the west, you need AAs in Arch and WR.  You can’t protect Cauc because of the sea zone, and it is only 4 damage max anyway.  I don’t know how well USSR and other allies would be able to protect those territories, but it seems like they would have a shot at it due to the heavy air buildup by the Axis resulting in fewer ground forces.

It’s worth trying in a game, if I can put down my aversion to the diceyness of SBRs.

In the future, naybe try not to land in EE if it is deadzoned.  Just take it with minimal forces and stack Karelia if you can hold that.

With what you have in the Pacific, I think you have a real shot at winning.  Japan seems like they will never get a navy to compete, so they won’t be able to ferry troops over.  And if you take out the Indian complex, he is going to have a real issue, having to build even more complexes, and the prime sports, i.e. near the coast, are all in danger from the USA.

@Col.Stauffenberg:

They have to make it past the destroyer though. Sure, the destroyer would have to hit twice but if you’re only using the battleship to fight, this could happen.

I’ve been playing for years and we’ve never needed to use bids. Obviously the allies have an advantage since it’s 3 against 1 but the axis still win the majority of our games.

The battleship alone will likely win against the destroyer, and with a fighter assisting it is almost certain.

I think you meant 3 to 2, but either way, that is not an advantage.  Seeing as you cannot combine attacks, it is actually a disadvantage.  The Allies’ advantage lies in their greater starting income.

@Col.Stauffenberg:

@uffishbongo:

Actually, if I was Germany and saw a Russian fighter in Egypt I would start watering at the mouth…anytime I get a chance to kill a Russian fighter I become very happy.  Russia’s fighters are essential to its ability to trade territories and keep its income up, and it generally can’t afford to replace them.

With a bid in Africa the Germans can bring up to 6 ground units and 2-3 planes into Egypt on turn 1.  There’s no way you can withstand that.  Even without the bid they can get 4 ground units and 2 planes for almost a 90% chance of winning.  I would go for that pretty much every time with the Germans.

We never play with bids. Pretty sure they can only get 3 ground units (1 inf + 2 tanks) and two planes plus bomber. But that destroyer has to be taken out as well. It’s a winnable fight but no ones been willing to commit to it yet. Because the allies could very easly get three returns first round and start eating into german planes and the germans could very easily only get a couple hits, delaying them from African money by rounds they can’t afford. The risks aren’t worth the reward since that russian fighter isn’t that big a threat, defensively or offensively.

Germany can get 4 ground units to Egypt (2 from Lybia and 2 via transport), plus a fighter and a bomber.  Odds of winning the battle are 87.5%, with a 5% chance of mutual destruction.  Germany may or may not lose a fighter, but as Germany, I would certainly trade a fighter of my own for a Russian.  So I think your friends are overly cautious.

Also, bids are a fact of life in serious games, as, if you play enough against expert players, you will find out that Allies do start with an advantage.

@blitzkrieg:

Hi,

i’m new, and play A&A since december, so i’m not quite good yet and still discovering new options. we started a game yesterday, and i play axis but japan is getting tricky.

it’s J2 now and this is the situation:
i had unfortunate rolls on china so i couldn’t take it but i got rid of the PH fleet pretty easy. (lost the sub)

-UK fleet: BB is together with the US transports and destroyer on the east coast, no UK transports left in the atlantic so no pressure in the next round for germany. the indian fleet is in SZ33.
-the RAF (5 fig, 1bom) wiped out my baltic fleet and is now located at caucasus.
-manchung is taken by 5 rus inf.
-kwangtung IC, 2 fig
-FIC 3 inf, 2 fig, 1 tank
-india 5 uk inf
-china 1 us inf
-sinkiang i us inf, 2 rus inf, 1 rus tank, 1 rus fig.
-japan 4 inf, 2 art, 1 bomb.

i was thinking of taking china with 2 inf and 3-4 fig from FIC.
then take (non combat moves) 2 inf from manilla to kwangtung 2 fig, and my AA and 1 inf to FIC.and locate 4 fig
locate my FIC fleet next to kwangtung, my other fleet in 60.

then drop an AA and 1 tank at japan, trans at 60 and 3 inf in kwangtung
which leaves to:
FIC 2 inf, AA, 1 tank, 4 fig
china 1 or 2 inf
kwangtung 5 inf, 2 fig.

so now my fleets are pretty save, and only my transport next to FIC will probably be destroyed.

there’s 1 us fig at persia and 1fig/1 bom at alaska. uk can’t reach the fleet but may take FIC with good rolls. but then the raf will be way thinner.

please help me out, is this the best solution?

cheers,

BB

First priority should be to recapture Manchuria, which should be easy with all your air power and BB bombards.  Then China , Sink, India.

You did not mention whether the USA was massing a Pacific fleet.  Assuming not, there’s not alot of pressure on Japan, so just try to focus on the best targets where you can take out the most enemy troops with least loss and also balance that against IPC gain per territory.

In this case, you can take out 5 inf with relatively little loss, and the gain is 3 IPC versus 2 in China, so thats your best choice.