I will double check how come my friend (well also my opponent) manages to kill my battleship in the first turn all the time.
Do you move the Russian sub to link with the Z2 navy? That decreases the chances from 70% to 35%
British counterattack in EGY on UK1
-
Yea, I have seen 2 or even 3 bombers for Japan, based at buryatia, menacing both soviets and Pacific fleet. It’s easier for Japan than for UK replace the bombers.
-
@Cmdr:
My opinion is that the British Bomber is the most important for a number of reasons.
1a) It can be used to liberate Egypt and secure Africa
1b) It can be used to SBR Germany limiting their production on round 2Ok. Umm im seeing some circular logic here. We arrived at your proclaimation that the UK bomber was the most important piece in the game when discussing whether or not the UK should counter egypt with it. You said you wouldnt because of the risk to the bomber. And here, in your proof of how valuable the bomber is, your first reason is this counter that you are argueing against! :?
Also, the very second reason for how valuable the bomber is, is a r1 SBR on germany? Do people do that with UK, a r1 SBR? I cant imagine a piece being very valuable when the BEST option on the first round to SBR. SBR is a marginal positive return at best. I think that the Russian fighter, which save russian infantry in trading territories, is so far more valuable than any conceivable SBR,. that its not even funny. But we all have are own opinions.
Also, i havent played a game yet where i saw 4 russian fighters, and less then the norm to see 3.
Also, I do agree the UK bomber is quite valuable in the early rounds, but i think the value of this piece diminishes in later rounds, where as the russian fighter may be just as valuable, if not more, than the uk bomber in early rounds, and INCREASES value in later rounds as the japanese approach, and there are more territories to swap.
-
No, I said I would not use the bomber to liberate Egypt if it was at risk of destruction on the subsequent turn.
If Germany had only one fighter in Libya that could reach it, then it is not at risk. (UK Fighter, UK Bomber defending against GER Fighter SHOULD result in the loss of both the attacking and defending fighter and the bomber remaining undamaged. Should being the operative word here.)
-
The value of the UK bomb is related to the missions that he may accomplish.
The possible task for UK bmbr in UK1-UK2 are for the great part task that exposes the bomber to be downed or be leaved out of position for sequent attack or in exposed site. Usually valuable unit are not send in missions with high possibility of being lost.Russian fighter are never exposed to comparable risks.
The UK BB usually is not placed in dangerous situation. UK players usually buys other ships as cannon fodder for avoiding the loss of the BB before commiting the UK fleet to sea zone under threat of Luftwaffe.
Indian Ocean AC is often retreated to UK, being useless for 4 turns because is such a valuable unit (together wih its escort) when it reach Europe, that UK player prefer to wait 4 full turn before using it.
UK bomber, instead may be sent to SBR Germany, a good 16,66% of being downed. Or used in AE with high riskof being destroyed in G2. This lead to a consideration: is it more valuble a unit that may be emplyed in mission with high possibility to die or units that are used carefully and always covered by other units?
IMHO it is more simple to win with the BB and without the bmb than with the bmb without the BB.
However each one of us owns his personal feeling about the value and the task of the units.
-
@Cmdr:
No, I said I would not use the bomber to liberate Egypt if it was at risk of destruction on the subsequent turn.
If Germany had only one fighter in Libya that could reach it, then it is not at risk. (UK Fighter, UK Bomber defending against GER Fighter SHOULD result in the loss of both the attacking and defending fighter and the bomber remaining undamaged. Should being the operative word here.)
I think we would both agree that one german fighter in Libya is a rarity,and should not be counted on. Usually, you have to deal with one fighter and one bomber. So this should not be reason 1a for how valuable the UK bomber is, since is is a rare case.
I personally would accept a german attack of one bomber and one fighter, vs my one UK bomber one UK fighter. I feel that the German AF is more valuable than the UK AF. That attack puts the german fighter and bomber at risk, 48% of the time they both are lost. 86% just the fighter is lost. Not to mention, unless germany purchased AF r1, they just used a 1/3 of their air power on that attack, which means they arent using it to trade eastern front terr, threaten allied shipping, or defend WE.
-
I dunno about it being a rarity. Generally I only have the one fighter in Libya because my bid went to Libya and I kept the bomber for something else.
But yes, there is a good possibility of 1 fighter, 1 bomber in Libya or even 2 Fighters, Bomber in Libya. In which case, the risk to the English bomber is significant and I would use the British bomber for another action. (Clearing SZ 5 maybe, or just flying it to Novosibirsk to attack Japan if the opportunity presented.)
-
@Cmdr:
I dunno about it being a rarity. Generally I only have the one fighter in Libya because my bid went to Libya and I kept the bomber for something else.
But yes, there is a good possibility of 1 fighter, 1 bomber in Libya or even 2 Fighters, Bomber in Libya. In which case, the risk to the English bomber is significant and I would use the British bomber for another action. (Clearing SZ 5 maybe, or just flying it to Novosibirsk to attack Japan if the opportunity presented.)
Romulus makes a very good point about the value of the UK bomber. If it is so valuable, why expose it to so much risk. The sz 5 attack for example. There is a 1 in 4 chance the bomber is lost in that attack. 1 in 6 it is lost in a SBR. Would you attack sz5 or SBR berlin with the russian fighter? no way, wouldnt even conceive of it would you? That in itself suggest the russian fighter is more valuable.
-
Well said AxisOfEvil! You got the point I try to expose.
Valuable unite are carefully watched not sent to where they can die. And if the only things they can do are risky then we have the following situation: sending the unit to the mission risking the lost, because is not valuable, or keep it at home doing nothing… doing nothing? What kind of valuable unit is valuable if doing nothing?
-
@Cmdr:
My opinion is that the British Bomber is the most important for a number of reasons.
1) It is a very vital and functional piece of equipment for the British Empire. It has any number of uses in the first round of the game and gives range and punch to the British navy and army in subsequent rounds.
1a) It can be used to liberate Egypt and secure Africa
1b) It can be used to SBR Germany limiting their production on round 2
1c) It can be stationed in Novosibirsk to threaten the Japanese fleet almost forcing them to hold back some warships in SZ 60
1d) It can be used to sink the German Baltic Fleet
1e) It can be used to liberate India on UK 2
1f) It can be used to sink the Germans if they move their fleet west to GibraltarOptions a,c, and e disappear rather quickly. Consider yourself lucky if any of them are available after UK 2.
The US is much better suited to perform option d.
Who does option f? :? And if you mean the fleet unification then the German fleet is usually unified and gone before the Allies can build up enough navy to make the UK bomber effective in this role.
And option b is my favorite. If the bomber is so very important to you then exactly why would you be willing to risk it’s destruction to AA just to knock Germany’s massive income down an infantry or two?
@Cmdr:
- It is too expensive to replace given England’s finances. 2) It is too valuable in extending the power of the British empire and in slowing down Japanese and German expansion.
These two statements I agree with. But not for the same reasons.
Regarding 1): It IS far too expensive to replace the UK bomber. But, not because of it’s value. It’s because it isn’t necessary. When the UK builds more aircraft, and it usually does, it will be fighters simply because the bombers range isn’t needed in Europe, the fighter’s defensive ability IS needed in Europe, and Japan won’t be leaving undefended TP’s out for the bomber to pick off.
Regarding 2) This is true. Which is exactly why you don’t use it for SBR’s early in the game. But this doesn’t last either.
The fact is, the UK bomber is extremely valuable in the first 2 to 4 rounds. However, once the UK infantry in Africa and Asia are gone, it’s value rapidly diminishes and it becomes nothing more than a poorly defending, long range fighter. On the other hand, the Russian fighters retain their high value throughout the entire game and I’d much rather let the UK bomber be destroyed than have to replace a destroyed Russian fighter.
-
Well i certainly know one thing, i would never dream of a SBR mission with the most VALUABLE piece in the game. But i do SBR with the uk bomber sometimes.
-
The fact is, the UK bomber is extremely valuable in the first 2 to 4 rounds. However, once the UK infantry in Africa and Asia are gone, it’s value rapidly diminishes and it becomes nothing more than a poorly defending, long range fighter. On the other hand, the Russian fighters retain their high value throughout the entire game and I’d much rather let the UK bomber be destroyed than have to replace a destroyed Russian fighter.
TY U-505. this was a point i tried to make earlier. Its marginally debatable whether the UK bomber or russian fighter is more valuble EARLY ON, although I still claim its an easy nod to the russian figther. But as far as later rounds, when japan threatens Moscow as well as the germans, and the uk bomber is running out of useful missions, and usually is regulated to SBRs, there is no comparison to value!!!
-
U-505 and AxisOfEvil Karma +1 for both of you.
I agree qwith and, furthermore, your arguments are well presented than mine!
-
U-505 and AxisOfEvil Karma +1 for both of you.
I agree qwith and, furthermore, your arguments are well presented than mine!
Right back at you. And I’m going to have to give AOE good karma just because after 49 posts he’s already accumulated -8. He’s rubbing somebody the wrong way. :lol:
-
@Cmdr:
I dunno about it being a rarity. Generally I only have the one fighter in Libya because my bid went to Libya and I kept the bomber for something else.
But yes, there is a good possibility of 1 fighter, 1 bomber in Libya or even 2 Fighters, Bomber in Libya. In which case, the risk to the English bomber is significant and I would use the British bomber for another action. (Clearing SZ 5 maybe, or just flying it to Novosibirsk to attack Japan if the opportunity presented.)
Romulus makes a very good point about the value of the UK bomber. If it is so valuable, why expose it to so much risk. The sz 5 attack for example. There is a 1 in 4 chance the bomber is lost in that attack. 1 in 6 it is lost in a SBR. Would you attack sz5 or SBR berlin with the russian fighter? no way, wouldnt even conceive of it would you? That in itself suggest the russian fighter is more valuable.
Actually, in the SZ 5 attack there is a 0% chance of losing the bomber.
Specifically because the Germans only have two shots that can hit the planes and you have 2 fighters and a bomber. As long as you do not continue into a second round, then you have nothing to worry about there.
The Russian fighter, on the other hand, cannot SBR. However, if I had 2 Russian Fighters and a Russian submarine, I just might attack SZ 5 with them. Then again, I’ve also been known to build Artillery, 2 Fighters on Russia 1 giving me 4 fighters to use.
Also, the Russian fighters can be lost without a huge loss because British and American fighters can be brought in to assist with the defense of Moscow (and usually are.) By then you should have Americans and Britains assisting with liberating Russian lands, at least if all goes according to plan.
But I can agree that by about turn 5 the UK Bomber has lost most of it’s usefulness. By that point, Africa has been taken by America, England has a force going into Karelia by either Norway or direct from SZ 5/4 and Russia’s turned her attention to fighting the Japanese. By then, the bomber is most likely an added threat to landings in Germany/W. Europe and to bomb Japanese production and less of a vital piece of equipment.
However, by then, the Russian fighters are likewise pretty useless since the Americans and Britains are doing the lion’s share of attacking and Russia’s just trying to hold on to a few pieces of key realestate.
-
U-505 and AxisOfEvil Karma +1 for both of you.
I agree qwith and, furthermore, your arguments are well presented than mine!
Right back at you. And I’m going to have to give AOE good karma just because after 49 posts he’s already accumulated -8. He’s rubbing somebody the wrong way. :lol:
Yeah, I just saw this. I dont know where I accumulated this negative karma from. Doesnt concern me much, unless it is a part of my background check for loans or something!!! Its kind of useless caring about karma, unless someone lets you know they gave you a hit to your karma for a specific reason.
-
@Cmdr:
Actually, in the SZ 5 attack there is a 0% chance of losing the bomber.
Specifically because the Germans only have two shots that can hit the planes and you have 2 fighters and a bomber. As long as you do not continue into a second round, then you have nothing to worry about there.
This I agree with.
The bomber is rarely, if ever, at risk in sz5. If the odds are in favor of the UK, they press the attack. If not, they retreat.
@Cmdr:
Also, the Russian fighters can be lost without a huge loss because British and American fighters can be brought in to assist with the defense of Moscow (and usually are.) By then you should have Americans and Britains assisting with liberating Russian lands, at least if all goes according to plan.
However, by then, the Russian fighters are likewise pretty useless since the Americans and Britains are doing the lion’s share of attacking and Russia’s just trying to hold on to a few pieces of key realestate.
This I disagree with.
Russia needs the fighters to trade Belo and Ukraine if they can because the other Allies taking them won’t give Russia any income.
Also, the other Allies usually don’t have a great deal of units to help Russia on it’s Eastern front so when the UK/US begin to take Russia’s place holding back Germany, then those fighters end up trading territories with Japan.
Lastly, Japan almost always gets to Persia in force before the US does so the Russian fighters are usually tasked with trading Persia until the US can get big reinforcements in there. All it takes is one round of letting Japan control Persia without trading and you could end up seeing a massive ground unit stack backed up by 5 or 6 Japanese fighters and AA there and then Russia is in trouble.
Generally, Russia has more territories to trade than it does fighters to do the trading. Buying more fighters can be a hard investment to swallow so having to kick in 10 IPC’s to REPLACE a lost one is just bad juju.
-
Yeah, I just saw this. I dont know where I accumulated this negative karma from. Doesnt concern me much, unless it is a part of my background check for loans or something!!! Its kind of useless caring about karma, unless someone lets you know they gave you a hit to your karma for a specific reason.
I know. But, since I play here regularly, it can be a barometer of how my opponents and the general public view me and can therefore be a factor in whether a prospective opponent wants to deal with my drama or not :-D. For the discussion forums it’s pretty meaningless.
-
Yeah, I just saw this. I dont know where I accumulated this negative karma from. Doesnt concern me much, unless it is a part of my background check for loans or something!!! Its kind of useless caring about karma, unless someone lets you know they gave you a hit to your karma for a specific reason.
I know. But, since I play here regularly, it can be a barometer of how my opponents and the general public view me and can therefore be a factor in whether a prospective opponent wants to deal with my drama or not :-D. For the discussion forums it’s pretty meaningless.
well then, your approval rating is quite good. I seem to ahve some george Bush numbers here :-o
maybe i should stop posting, as it may hurt my chances of playing the game!!! I could be on a black list as we speak!! Damn you McCarthy!!! Im no red!!
-
well then, your approval rating is quite good. I seem to ahve some george Bush numbers here :-o
No…
THESE
<----------
are George Bush numbers :roll: -
@ncscswitch:
well then, your approval rating is quite good. I seem to ahve some george Bush numbers here :-o
No…
THESE
<----------
are George Bush numbers :roll:Pretty political statement there. I’d ask if you’d not bring politics into a game discussion before a moderator stops by to lock it.
As I said, Russian fighters are not worthless. It is my opinion that the British Bomber, at least in the beginning of the game, is more important than Russia losing ONE (1), note I said ONE, UNO and no more, fighter.
As for later in the game, say around round 6-10, it may be a completely different scenario. I can only really justify evaluations on specific pieces of equipment in the first few rounds given how widely the dice can throw a game. After all, how valuable is the British bomber if it is the only piece England has and England has no territories? Again, just how valuable are the Russian fighters if Russia owns Manchuria, Kwangtung and French Indo-China while the allies (that is the other two) own W. Europe, S. Europe, E. Europe and Balkans?
Suggested Topics
