Bomber house rule

[Jennifer]

I’m not talking about having 10 bombers and 10 infantry.

Here’s what I am saying:

1)  Bomber/Paratrooper can attack up to 5 spaces away, that’s a bloody awful amount of ground to cover for an infantryman that normally can only go one territory a round.  And an Inf/Bmb vs Inf is a good bet.  Even if you lose, odds are, you’ll take out the defender too.  And if there is no defender, you just got some free land!

2)  Bomber/Paratrooper can be used to augment an attack made by other forces.  It’s a good way to dump extra units into an attack REALLY fast, especially if you were going to use the bomber in the attack anyway.

3)  Bomber/Paratrooper can be used to snipe enemy NOs or get some friendly NOs with minimal risk. (You fly out, drop the unit off, take the land, and land in a safe place.  Can’t do that with a transport!)

4)  Bomber/Paratrooper can side step enemy fleets.  I have to imagine they wave as they fly over them.  That means you don’t need a fleet so it doesn’t matter if your enemy has Heavy Bombers, they are impotent since they have no valid targets to attack.

5)  Bomber/Paratrooper can make surprise attacks on unwary opponents.  I’ve taken London with German paratroopers before.  Just a couple of fighters, a few bombers and a few infantry.

It’s really amazing the multiple options you get when you get paratroopers.  You really only need three bombers to cause all sorts of havoc with your opponent.  (3 Inf, 3 Bmb allows you quite a lot of firepower if you want it.)

What’s even better is if you get Long Range Aircraft (giving your infantry an attack range of up to 7 territories) and/or heavy bombers on top of it.

I’d have to say, as far as great techs go, Paratroopers defeat Heavy Bombers mighty handily.  I’d even give my opponents heavy bombers for free if I got paratroopers for free and the technologies started in Round 2.

[d142]

i could see paratroopers being useful at the pacific theatre,

the u.s. can build a lot of bomber’s, and with the paratrooper tech could cause a lot of damage to poorly defended axis held island’s, although with the large japanese navy, the bomber’s would be more useful at sinking the japanese navy,

i think that there are a lot of advantages to paratrooper tech,

sneak attack’s being the the most annoying, they would keep opponent’s edgy and fearful and the prospect of a surprise attack, could be too much to handle for a weak opponent,

however,

i still see paratrooper tech as a poor substitute for the real backbone of a fleetfooted infantry,
or advanced artillery,

what about war bond’s, when i use war bond’s, i would save them all up and buy a huge navy, full of battleships and a monster attack force, that would crush a weak-willed paratrooper based attack,

sniping a territory is possible, if there was no one there, otherwise there would be a need for a way too expensive paratrooper attack,

the way that i see the bomber is that they are useful for S.B.R. against a low I.P.C. earning player,
against a high earning I.P.C. player the S.B.R. and paratrooper attack is negated, and also there is the problem of spending all the I.P.C. on a less than worthwhile attack,

to plough into paratrooper tech would be arrogant against a well drilled opponent, especially with the opponent in command of their capital, spending all that I.P.C. to hope to snipe a few territories, it could take 12 -15 turn’s before there was real progress, and at that the opponent would probably have sniped a capital, and counting the I.P.C. while the paratrooper builder had a mighty airforce with no ground support,

paratrooper tech may be under-rated, it is because it is the weakest of all the tech, if my only tech was paratroopers, and faced opponent’s, with mech infantry, super-submarines, advanced artillery, and war bond’s, i would most likely run for cover, concede, or to finish the game play the paratrooper tech, and see it demolished,

if you have paratrooper tech, it is useful, something like a lucky penny, however if the penny is rubbed the wrong way, a player could fall flat and end up with no capital, or worse, no I.C.

it is no match for the soundness of the mighty jet fighter, or rolling thunder of mech infantry, supported by heavy long range bomber’s

if i do have the unfortuity to end up with paratrooper tech, i am sure that i can find a use in the pacific for it  :-)

[Jennifer]

You’ll never amass enough wealth from war bonds in a quick enough time to build up a fleet of any real power.

Anyway, paratroopers are good for the battle in Asia, Africa, Europe and the Pacific.  They’re not too helpful for taking out America but just about everything else it can attack well.

Not saying that Heavy Bombers are worthless, they are near the top of my listing of great techs.  I’m just saying that Paratroopers are more valuable.  With paratroopers I can be relatively sure of having all my NOs every round with whatever nation I want except America (if I’m too far away to liberate Philippines.)

With paratroopers I can massively increase my ability to invade enemy nations because I can add infantry and bombers to the stack, that’s two units that have to be destroyed for the defender to win, instead of only a bomber.

With paratroopers I can make large threats to enemy income that I normally couldn’t.  Things like Invading/Liberating Madagascar become a possibility.  Things like dropping an infantry into Brazil becomes a possibility.  Etc.

[d142]

the possibility of taking obscure and remote territories, such as madagascar and brazil is a possibility, holding those territories is another matter entirely, not impossible, although with only paratroopers the rescue or liberation of remote places would be easily achievable with a heavy bomber and a transport,

i have liberated brazil from weak invasions, and reclaimed the 3 I.P.C.

i do not see the value of a ridiculous 1 infantry attack that has no real influence at the battle,
1 infantry to a battle per bomber,
i would not entertain or endure such a tech, and also it could lure a player into a sense of false security,
with the player supported by paratroopers building bombers like there is no tomorrow they could be caught by a radar inspired AA gun attack, or forced to move the bombers which have a weak defence away from the front line,
and with a player’s hopes centred totally on paratrooper tech and the false dawn that they entail,
a squad of the same cost of fighter’s for the opponent would easily counter the overstreched arm of the paratrooper player, 4 bomber’s, 4 infantry, at a cost of 67
against a squad of fighter’s for the same cost, 6 fighter’s and change for artillery and infantry, i would move my fighter’s around the board and negate a paratrooper attack at every turn,

with war bond’s rolling at average, 3 / 4, after 5 -6 round’s i would have 15 > 20 i.p.c, and when playing germany and collecting N.O. a build of 70 I.P.C. or more would cause a collapse of a wily russia player’s strategy,

with the cost of those paratrooper bomber’s, a heavy stack of ground infantry and armor is unlikely, more likely non existant, i could predict a situation where the offensive would be ground to a halt at round 7 > 9, with enough infantry and armor and a not too light scattering of fighter’s at defence 4, i would heartily laugh and at the advancing army of paratroopers with no ground support,

to build a strategy based entirely around paratroopers, based on the premise that paratroopers can cause a influential swing toward victory for the attacker would be similar to a fool’s gold rush against a player that can easily negate and nullify such attack’s,

i would go with long range heavy bomber’s, improved factories and war bond’s, improved shipyard’s could be useful

[d142]

here is an idea for paratrooper tech, build 5 - 10 bomber’s, and build at the border’s, then when the attack is primed,

unleash the bomber’s with the paratrooper’s, something like a brass ball and chain to reinforce the front and drive toward the enemy capital,

there would be a need for a great ground attack, with a lot of armor and artillery, including infantry,

with that there could be a chance that paratrooper tech could be used as a great resource,

in the instance of a patient build up of ground forces,

although in the face of mech infantry, war bond’s, and increased factory production, a more subtle approach could reap greater reward’s, such as S.B.R.

[Jennifer]

If I have paratroopers I routinely have 3-6 bombers anyway.  So you’re really looking at something like this:

Germany attacks Norway with Infantry/Bomber - +3 IPC
Germany attacks Finland with Infantry/Bomber - +2 IPC
Germany attacks Gibraltar with Infantry/Bomber - -5 IPC from England (NO lost)
Germany attacks Brazil with Infantry/Bomber - +3 IPC
Germany attacks Madagascar with Infantry/Bomber - +1 IPC
Germany attacks Ukraine with Infantry/Bomber + Armor from somewhere else - +7 IPC (+5 for the NO, +2 for Ukraine.)

Net: +3+2+3+1+7 = +16 IPC for Germany that round
Potential -16 for the allies (if they cannot reconquer all that land.)  At the very least, the allies are now scattering units and resources all over the map attempting to reclaim everything they just lost.

Second Scenario:

Here, for instance:

Germany attacks Russia with 16 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 16 Armor, 6 Fighters, 6 Bombers and Russia defends with 26 Infantry, Artillery, 15 Armor, 4 Fighters (all realistic numbers.)

Germany has a 55.3% chance to win but that win does not include ground forces, only bombers left most likely.  Russia has a 43.9% chance to win with most likely nothing but the Fighters left.

If Germany had Paratroopers, they would have +6 Infantry and their odds would change too  92.3% chance to win with 7 Armor and Bombers left (assuming you took fighters as casualties before Armor) and reducing Russia’s odds too 7.4% odds of winning.

It’s a massive change in the odds, roughly 37% swing just because you had Paratroopers and could drop those extra few infantry off for the major battle.

Sure, you could have spent the next 3 turns out building the Allies defending Russia and then attack, but that’s three extra rounds where you could have been snafu’ed by the dice somewhere.

Scenario 3:

Germany has Paratroopers and the threat of those 6 infantry, 6 bombers causes England to keep extra manpower in England.  This slows down England’s progression and allows Germany time to build up a stronger defense.  Without the threat of an aerial invasion of England, England would have been able to move more units into France faster and been able to do a joint amphibious and ground invasion of Germany before Germany could recover and build up their defenses after a battle went sour.

That’s just three minor scenarios.  Each of the three cannot be done by Heavy Bombers or War Bonds or any other tech.  Don’t get me wrong, the other technologies are great!  I’m just not convinced, PERSONALLY (and this is a personal opinion, I’m not trying to tell anyone they are wrong to think other technologies are better, maybe they are for their style of play), that paratroopers are by far the best technology in Anniversary so far.

[d142]

for a player that build’s a lot of bomber’s, paratroopers would be a great advantage, the problem is how to get the tech with a lucky roll of 3, it is possible to use the tech for 30 i.p.c. from enhanced, with the option of the 6 i.p.c. buy out,

i think that it was axis_roll that made that rule,

that would reduce a paratrooper fanatics odd’s of getting paratroopers, when i use the same tech rules i buy out of the
paratrooper tech each time, and go for advanced artillery, war bond’s, mech infantry and increased factory production,

if a player build’s a lot of bomber’s, why not try tech chart 2 and go for heavy bomber’s,

i would not like to be on the recieving end of an organised paratrooper attack,
although with the chance to roll for radar, i would back the AA gun to hit 25% > 30% of the time

i would not determine the effectivness of a tech until i had played at least ten games with the same tech,
against different opponent’s,

it is obvious that mech infantry is a far superior way to get infantry from territory > territory, than the standard infantry move 1 space, long range aircraft and jet fighter’s, that is the best combo

[Jennifer]

I am assuming the technology is achieved somewhere in midgame and was not originally planned for.  So the person who gets the technology probably has 1 bomber already (Japan has zero, America has 2, so coupled with England having 1 and Germany having 1, most nations who can afford technology rolls average out to having 1 bomber in AA50:1941.)

From there, it’s a matter of building up bombers over a few rounds.  Obviously, I don’t think it wise to buy 5 bombers the round after getting Paratroopers.  But you could buy 1 or 2 bombers a round depending on your income and your troop supply needs arriving at 3-6 bombers in short order.  Especially if you are sniping NOs and territories boosting your income so you can afford the bombers.

I agree, Radar can pose an issue for Paratroopers.  For that matter, a plain old AA Gun poses and issue for them as well.  But most of the time, you’ll find yourself in Scenarios 1 and 3.  If you are in scenario 2, you would expect only a portion of your forces to be lost to the AA Gun, not all of them and so you’d probably plan accordingly.

Notice, I am stating that it’s generally better to get the technology before building the bombers.  Honestly, 6 bombers without paratroopers is kind of wasteful to me.  Two bombers is understandable, three bombers tolerable, but six of them without having a technology to make them more deadly doesn’t seem like the wisest course of action for anyone.

Now, heavy bombers are good.  They have some flaws (such as two attacks being lost with every bomber shot down.)  But they are also on tech chart 2 as you mentioned.  Germany is probably not focusing heavily on Tech Chart 2 since Tech Chart 1 has 6 technologies it can use. For instance:

Germany and Japan can definitely use advanced artillery, rockets, paratroopers and mechanized infantry for taking out Russia faster.  Improved Factories increase production and make SBR campaigns virtually useless.  War Bonds at least increase your income each round.

Chart 2 isn’t so useful.  Yes, LRA, JP, Radar and H. Bombers are helpful, but Improved Shipyards and Super Submarines are virtually useless to nations like Russia and Germany.  IF America is not going KJF, they are useless to Japan too.

I know I looked at it from the perspective of the Axis, it’s usually the axis I see with the cash to blow on techs more often than not.  But some of that holds true for the allies too.

[d142]

when i play, i most likely end up with 1 tech, the cost of rolling for multiple techs is way too much,

it is difficult enough to get the I.P.C. together and roll for 1 tech when playing germany, unless a capital was taken i would not roll for another tech,

now that tech can not be directly targeted, it is somewhat of a lottery as to the value of rolling for tech, the randomness is fair, although when a player of a very high standard play’s a player of a lower standard, it could be offputting to roll for a tech, which may or may not be needed or even useful,

take improved shipyards for example, if the cost of rolling for a tech is 25 > 30 I.P.C. if i am playing as russia that tech is completely useless,

when playing revised i always rolled jet fighter’s, they are great for defending against a german attack, defense 5 and with 10 infantry to hold the line, the german attack would be ducking and diving, and switching to get a foot in door,

improved shipyards could be useful to the u.s. player, early in the game when they can build a force to challenge japan,
with the 55 > 60 i.p.c. that the u.s. player has, there is a oppurtunity for the u.s. player to back up their industry, and build ships for 1 > 3 i.p.c. less, that can make a big difference when building large scale fleet’s

[Jennifer]

It’s hard to make a good judgment for what’s best if you only get one tech.

For one thing, it’s only one tech.

For another, you don’t know what the board looks like!

For instance, if Japan has 20 submarines and is trying to get a numerical edge on America for a great naval engagement, Super Submarines might be just the thing.

Or let’s say Germany has no threat from the sea or the air, so maybe for them Mechanized Infantry is just the answer.

Maybe the Axis got pounded but the allies have no meat behind their attacks, so paratroopers will be more than a nuisance, they can cost the allies the game.

---

What I can say is this:

Paratroopers can be upgraded by two other technologies.  No other technology in the game can.
Since Paratroopers can also have Heavy Bombers, Heavy Bombers are not the superior technology.
Since Paratroopers can also have Long Range, Long range is not the superior technology.
Heavy Bombers only have two functions:  Bomb Units or Bomb Factories
Paratroopers have three functions: Attack Units, Conquer Territories, Complete National Objectives
3>2 so Paratroopers have the Edge there.

I think it safe to say, though, that you and I would agree that Long Range Aircraft + Heavy Bombers + Paratroopers is probably the most powerful combination of technologies in the game.

[d142]

that would be a fearsome combo,

i would fear the heavy bomber’s most of all, long range is useful, possibly for a double S.B.R. combo against japan by the u.s. and russia, i am still not conviced about paratroopers,

putting the three together and calling that the best combo, sound’s good, although, pick the bones out of those three tech’s and there is very little support, heavy bomber’s / not contested, the best support for a large scale attack, long range, not always usable, paratroopers / the same as regular bomber’s, except the carry 1 infantry abilty,

consider this for a combo, rockets / uncontestable S.B.R. / no radar or AA gun can stop a rocket attack /
jet fighter’s / attack 4, defend 4 / twice as powerful as bomber’s / for 3 I.P.C. less /
heavy bomber’s / two attack dice /

with the S.B.R. capability of heavy bomber’s and rockets, the S.B.R damage could be crippling,

i would still consider paratroopers a minor tech, the cost of building the bombers must be a nuisance,
and when those bomber’s are lost, or despathced by AA gun and radar the idea of a rebuild and failure a number of times, i would think could be very discouraging to the attacker,
however there are bullish player’s out there, and i would relish the prospect of facing a 1 dimensional attacker that somehow think’s that they have been unlucky,
however if paratrooper tech has become available to a opponent, it becomes too expensive after 3 > 4 turns without progress,
realistically, how many bombers could a player build without going over the edge or crossing the line to the point where there is no balance to the attack force, and paratroopers are being flown around, with nothing to support them, radar and jet fighter’s would soon sort a player that would lean too heavily toward paratrooper tech,
a player immersed with paratrooper tech is the folly of a low level strategist, a nuisance surely, not a game breaker, a I.P.C. breaker,

[d142]

the cost of building bombers to deliver 1 infantry to a battle is too much to suatain during the early rounds, unless a game would go for around 20 rounds or more i could not entertain the logistics, the longest game that i played went on for 9 rounds top’s