I’m currently gauging interest in an Anniversary 1941 tournament. If you’d like to participate, let me know in this thread.
Ozy.
Germany must ALWAYS build IC to win game in Anniversary?
-
@Cmdr:
Who comes out better? Because to be honest, I’m probably going to end up with 6 to 7 bombers even without you building an IC in France, I’m only adding 2 to 3 more if you do build one.
Germany spends $15 on an IC, I am sure it’s not going to be a total loss. Similiar to the bombers capabilities you mention, it will be used.
USA is now building an ADDITIONAL $24 to $36 in bombers to counter the $15 in an IC build. That’s $9 to $21 more invested in planes instead of navy/ground units to land in Europe than Germany spent on it’s IC.Exactly one of my points I made ealier.
So who comes out better? Do the bombers get shot down on their first or second SBR? That’s important.
However, now we’re turning the game into Yahtzee…. Can the axis_roll alot of ones?It seems to me like you’re going to buy the bombers either way. Which is not a bad allied strategy.
In fact, I think SBR’s are broken in this game. I am an advocate for the fighter escort rule on SBR’s. -
Ok let me state a few things about all these theories.
-
French IC lets me mitigate SBR damage
-Wrong, you pay 15 IPCs for an extra 6 build slots so to speak. If your main factory gets bombed for 6, and you decide not to repair it because you have a france IC you just spent 15 IPCs to repair 6 on your factory, so to speak. -
French IC lets me SBR G for more
-Wrong, they could just pay to repair either factory to regain there build slots. It does allow you to increase the upper limit of bombing you can do, but it is still G’s choice to build units there or not. If your taxing them 20 IPCs a turn to begin with, typically they can barely afford to repair to full and build 10 inf as that would cost 50 IPCs. -
French IC helps when playing G turtle
-Wrong, if your going turtle how on earth are you making enough IPCs to use said factory. Even if built turn 2 you get at most 1 turn where your income can support that many inf being purchased (16x3=48 IPCs). While those 15 IPCs could have upgraded 2 of your inf into fighters and 1 into an art instead, which is much more useful on defense (more mobile) and offense (threatening allied shipping when based in france, or making the can opener threat against moscow greater).
-
-
Ok let me state a few things about all these theories.
- French IC helps when playing G turtle
-Wrong, if your going turtle how on earth are you making enough IPCs to use said factory. Even if built turn 2 you get at most 1 turn where your income can support that many inf being purchased (16x3=48 IPCs). While those 15 IPCs could have upgraded 2 of your inf into fighters and 1 into an art instead, which is much more useful on defense (more mobile) and offense (threatening allied shipping when based in france, or making the can opener threat against moscow greater).
I disagree with your #3 premise. Why?
There is no cheaper defense than inf, so your idea of a FTR being better than an inf is not true (based strictly on the idea that Germany is turtling). Based on that fact, anytime Germany has more than $30 IPCs to spend, and Germany does not have another IC to use other than the original Berlin, then they are not investing in the maximum turtle strategy: inf. You do not need to produce maximum units at your IC’s to be in turtle mode.
My thoughts are based on the fact that I would rather have 10 inf instead of 3 ftrs when Germany is turtling.
- French IC helps when playing G turtle
-
Ok let me state a few things about all these theories.
- French IC lets me mitigate SBR damage
-Wrong, you pay 15 IPCs for an extra 6 build slots so to speak. If your main factory gets bombed for 6, and you decide not to repair it because you have a france IC you just spent 15 IPCs to repair 6 on your factory, so to speak.
Correct, it allows you to ignore some IC damage for a while, but only for a while. I don’t know if it is worth the purchase price for that one or two round ability though.
- French IC lets me SBR G for more
-Wrong, they could just pay to repair either factory to regain there build slots. It does allow you to increase the upper limit of bombing you can do, but it is still G’s choice to build units there or not. If your taxing them 20 IPCs a turn to begin with, typically they can barely afford to repair to full and build 10 inf as that would cost 50 IPCs.
**Yes, but they have to chose between repairing or building units. If I can swap 20 damage for 32 damage to Germany each round, i think that is pretty darn significant and very valuable. Sure, I am putting a few less ground units on the board (literally, as axis_roll pointed out, America has exactly 3 less infantry in Africa/Russia than normal) but Germany has 4 less infantry a round to put out too. HUGE boon to the Allies. It even lets Russia turn back and pound on Japan since Germany is basicaly earning 20 IPC now (Less than England.) and that assumes he is only repairing the one complex.
Oh yea, and for the record, that would be 15 IPC for the Complex + 4 less infantry a round vs America having 3 less infantry period. Maybe 7 less infantry if they go with the extra. Not a huge dent in a nation earning 50 IPC a round. However, 27 IPC from 45 IPC a round is a large dent.**
- French IC helps when playing G turtle
-Wrong, if your going turtle how on earth are you making enough IPCs to use said factory. Even if built turn 2 you get at most 1 turn where your income can support that many inf being purchased (16x3=48 IPCs). While those 15 IPCs could have upgraded 2 of your inf into fighters and 1 into an art instead, which is much more useful on defense (more mobile) and offense (threatening allied shipping when based in france, or making the can opener threat against moscow greater).
I agree. If you are starting with the position of turtling, you need the 5 infantry more than a complex that will net you maybe one turn of building.
- French IC lets me mitigate SBR damage
-
@Cmdr:
Oh yea, and for the record, that would be 15 IPC for the Complex + 4 less infantry a round vs America having 3 less infantry period. Maybe 7 less infantry if they go with the extra.
HUH?
How does Germany have 4 less infantry A ROUND, let alone for ONE round?
Did you forget that Germany doesn’t HAVE to repair the French IC?
Again, you are discussing the strengths of an Allied SBR heavy game plan.
I would say the additional potential damage to another German IC is offset by the flexibility to drop units elsewhere besides Berlin or to place more than 10 units on a German turn. Bombers also tend to be lost to AAA fire every now and then, too.
I think our discussions are going back and forth, and the bottom line is:
1). Playing style (some people like to run allied SBR campaigns, some like the Russia rush with Germany, etc)
2). the game situation dictates if an IC is a good move for Germany:-
Can they take Karelia/Caucasus?
-
Is USA triple teaming Europe?
-
Will Germany have a 35+ income for several rounds?
3). Thus far, there is no one prescribed ‘best’ move for either the Axis nor the Allies. Therefor, there can be no absolutes about specific moves.
-
-
Ok let me state a few things about all these theories.
- French IC helps when playing G turtle
-Wrong, if your going turtle how on earth are you making enough IPCs to use said factory. Even if built turn 2 you get at most 1 turn where your income can support that many inf being purchased (16x3=48 IPCs). While those 15 IPCs could have upgraded 2 of your inf into fighters and 1 into an art instead, which is much more useful on defense (more mobile) and offense (threatening allied shipping when based in france, or making the can opener threat against moscow greater).
I disagree with your #3 premise. Why?
There is no cheaper defense than inf, so your idea of a FTR being better than an inf is not true (based strictly on the idea that Germany is turtling). Based on that fact, anytime Germany has more than $30 IPCs to spend, and Germany does not have another IC to use other than the original Berlin, then they are not investing in the maximum turtle strategy: inf. You do not need to produce maximum units at your IC’s to be in turtle mode.
My thoughts are based on the fact that I would rather have 10 inf instead of 3 ftrs when Germany is turtling.
I am saying the 2 inf upgraded to figs instead of just the factory. So its 2 figs OR 2 inf and potentially more build slots, which would require an income of 48! IPCs to maximize. How many times is G making 48 IPCs after repairs when allies are going KGF? And if there not going KGF why are you building 16 inf instead of killing Russia?
- French IC helps when playing G turtle
-
I think our discussions are going back and forth, and the bottom line is:
1). Playing style (some people like to run allied SBR campaigns, some like the Russia rush with Germany, etc)
2). the game situation dictates if an IC is a good move for Germany:-
Can they take Karelia/Caucasus?
-
Is USA triple teaming Europe?
-
Will Germany have a 35+ income for several rounds?
3). Thus far, there is no one prescribed ‘best’ move for either the Axis nor the Allies. Therefor, there can be no absolutes about specific moves.
excellent points! everything is fluid and the meta game becomes critical for seizing the initiative on your opponent.
-
-
Correct, they do not have to rebuild the IC after it is bombed into oblivion. But then, what did it do for you? You sacrificed 15 IPC in units, got nothing and pulled pressure off Russia early when you need it.
I, of course, assumed you were going to repair it after it was bombed so you could actually use the complex.
BTW, I disagree that there is no one best move. We have not found one yet for Germany. We have one for Japan, IMHO.
-
And you assume no Bomber was shot down during the SBR.
I would dare say this for bombers:
- It’s 12 ipc a piece. If even one got shot down by AA, Germany can already rest easier.
- They do an average of 3 ipc dmg per bombing run, they’ll have to run more than four missions to have a plus value above 12 ipc.
Hell, if I knew building a France IC would get my opponent to go heavy on SBR, I’ll build it if only to see less cruisers/fighters in the sea with maybe an added bonus of seeing my AA gun take one or more of the bombers out. Snake eyes anyone? :P
5 infantry is not a big price to pay to bait an opponent in weakening it’s fleet. Plus they not bombing Italy either which would be way more effective.
-
Due to the lack of resistance against Japan, I am not surprised to see that Japan could have optimal moves
But because Germany/Russia/Italy/UK and to a lesser extent USA all face opposition, all face victories and defeats on multiple fronts, it is not surprising to see that there are no specific strategies that can apply to them. You can have a general idea of what you want to do, but depending on what your opponent do, you might be forced into responding or to correct your strategy.
Robert
-
they do 3.5 on average damage, and i will trade US IPCs for G IPCs all day long. Even at almost a 2:1 ratio.
-
how does a D6 produce an average of 3.5!?
-
To find the average, you add the lowest value to the highest value, and divide by 2.
-
I’m wondering if Germany builds an IC out west, if the UK should just funnel troops through Russia. That may be able to take off enough IPC’s from the Eastern front to negate the 16 unit builds, it also means that Germany is really going to have trouble moving her troops up to the Eastern theatre. It would also help for defense against Japan, and may come in use for taking Egy.
If the UK did that the question would be, what should the US do? It could focus on Japan. Build bombers, secure Africa/cripple Italy, use remaining bombers on an SBR campaign, then focus on Japan. It could double up with the Brits and funnel troops through Russia, the whole time threatening France and Germany. It could destroy the Italian fleet and funnel men through the Caucaus/Baltic region. Or maybe find a way for it to nab Norway to build an IC, and it could do some type of balancing act.
If the US is funneling troops through the Russian front, it is stalling Japan out, if it is going straight to the Pacific it is fighting Japan directly. Point being, I don’t think a heavy SBR campaign is the only way to counter a French IC.
-
I’m wondering if Germany builds an IC out west, if the UK should just funnel troops through Russia. That may be able to take off enough IPC’s from the Eastern front to negate the 16 unit builds, it also means that Germany is really going to have trouble moving her troops up to the Eastern theatre. It would also help for defense against Japan, and may come in use for taking Egy.
If the UK did that the question would be, what should the US do? It could focus on Japan. Build bombers, secure Africa/cripple Italy, use remaining bombers on an SBR campaign, then focus on Japan. It could double up with the Brits and funnel troops through Russia, the whole time threatening France and Germany. It could destroy the Italian fleet and funnel men through the Caucaus/Baltic region. Or maybe find a way for it to nab Norway to build an IC, and it could do some type of balancing act.
If the US is funneling troops through the Russian front, it is stalling Japan out, if it is going straight to the Pacific it is fighting Japan directly. Point being, I don’t think a heavy SBR campaign is the only way to counter a French IC.
Absolutely there are other allied counters to a French IC. That was Jenn’s method. Is it better? I don’t know. Depends on alot of other things going on in the game.
Your point leads to other discussions about how the USA should be played when Germany doesn’t threaten Russia as hard and as fast as possible. Work around Germany, nibbling away at her edges and support Russia. This is a viable strategy.
Can USA go toe-to-toe with Japan? That might be an uphill battle depending on how well Japan did J1 (china mostly killed, few/no ftrs lost, in position to push on India/Australia/Russia, etc), how much she is willing to invest long term in her navy, etc.
USA can certainly tie up SOME of Japans resources with some of her own, but it is my opinion that USA would have to invest ALL of her income to give a good Japanese player any major fits. In that case, the atlantic is a mere side thought… and then those German stacks of infantry soon began to push east, and they can become hard to kill when they get large…
Such a fine balance exists in this game (barring CRAZY dice)
FYI, this is without Tech. That wildcard changes everything.
-
I can’t wait to roll a 3.5 on my D6. :-P
If you already good to SBR all day long to trade USA ipc with Germany, I don’t see why you would only do it if there is a France IC or how the France IC cripples Germany in that context.
It does not changes anything, SBR should go logically to highest IPC value territory first which is Germany 10 ipc IC. And if you built a fleet of bombers that can reduce it down to maximum dmg, a France IC would not change anything to it.
That France IC just gives more resilience to thoses bombings and helps Italy which is also is 6ipc if you start bombing it. Remember that you choose how much and where you do repairs.
Also, a SBR campaign is simply an invitation for Japan to do the same. And they got way more ipc to devote to this, especially if USA don’t check them. From East Indies and Indochina, it’s 1 turn for a bomber to Italy. I can assure you, Russia/Britain won’t prod anything way before Germany/Italy suffers the same fate. And why not simply sink UK allied fleet R5 or so with massive japanese airforce once you are bored with SBR? 9 starting fighters + 10 bombers, any takers? OR simply land in Alaska, hold it 1 turn, land the planes and bomb the hell out of USA.
I like it, I’m pretty sure you still can achieve Japan land objectives and build up IJN airforce. Will make a strat and let you know how it goes. Catchy names: ‘‘Ground-Zero’’ or ‘‘Zero terror over Hollywood’’ ?
-
I always SBR with US vs G building atleast 1 bomber a turn. Bombers are so awesome you’d be crazy not to with US, and Japan for that matter.
-
@Corbeau:
And you assume no Bomber was shot down during the SBR.
I would dare say this for bombers:
- It’s 12 ipc a piece. If even one got shot down by AA, Germany can already rest easier.
- They do an average of 3 ipc dmg per bombing run, they’ll have to run more than four missions to have a plus value above 12 ipc.
Hell, if I knew building a France IC would get my opponent to go heavy on SBR, I’ll build it if only to see less cruisers/fighters in the sea with maybe an added bonus of seeing my AA gun take one or more of the bombers out. Snake eyes anyone? :P
5 infantry is not a big price to pay to bait an opponent in weakening it’s fleet. Plus they not bombing Italy either which would be way more effective.
Even if bombers are lost, look at the exchange:
Bombers are shot down 17% of the time (1 out of 6.) That means you should budget about 2 IPC a round for the bombers (that way every 6 rounds, you have the cost of a replacement.)
However, the bombers average 3.5 IPC in damage a round! Even if you fall right down the line on statistics (which never happens) you should be making 1.5 IPC a round with that bomber on SBR. (Which isn’t the whole story, since you are either limiting your enemy’s production and/or costing him units he can be building which puts you in a strategically superior position - or it should if you are playing well.)
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=13984.new#new
There’s a game where I am crucifying Germany and Italy with SBRs. It originated when Botider put in an Industrial Complex in France. Granted, his AA Gunners are blind as shizzit, but even if they were not….
Also, notice that the Japanese fleet has had to remain out of the Indian Ocean for the game thus far, out of fear of the Americans bombing them into the bottom of the ocean. Thus, the bombers are serving dual purposes! Wow, they are doing two things a round for 12 IPC, guess that means they really only cost 6 IPC. :P
In regards to funnelling Brits though Karelia/Arkhangelsk, I’ve already mostly shifted there anyway. With everything in the British navy sunk except for the one destroyer and transport in SZ 9 (and the ones off Australia that cannot do anything) before England can go, it’s not worth building an offensive fleet. Build enough to force Germany to Either put their fighters near Karelia or in France (thus allowing the Americans free reign or the British.)
Sure, you lose the NO for no Allied units in Russia, but let’s face facts here, 24 - 32 IPC in ground units per round into the Russian defense is a little more significant than 5 IPCs, no?
-
Ok, before you all tie yourselves in knots. This has been said before… charity mathematics for those who don’t like probabilities.
The expected return per bombing raid is about 0.9 IPC per bomber
The average hit is 3.5 (it’s called an average - 1,2,3 is just as likely as 4,5,6. What’s halfway in between…?). However you only make that hit 5 in 6 times (1 in 6 your bomber is dead first). That means the average is ~2.9 (3.5 times five, divide six). Your expected loss is 2 IPC (one in six chance of losing 12 IPC hardware).
2.9 minus 2 = 0.9 per run.
Does your bomber have something more useful to do than collect an IPC lying on the ground? Very often yes.
-
Several things.
1. To the thread topic. I rarely build an IC with Germany. Sometimes in very rare and I do mean rare circumstance it can be worthwhile for the ability of Germany to produce ships in the Med. For defense France is one space away from Germany so I see no need. Buying massive infantry stacks for defense went away with the 3/3 tank from Revised. Infantry are good fodder but need some meat to back them up. I have no problem with Germany producing 10 units and the money they make. If they are making in the upper 50s or low 60s they already have a Russian IC anyway.
2. For Axis_Roll. I meant sub-optimal. Not merely unexpected. Sub-optimal can have the benefit of making ones opponent think, “this guy is a dunce and this will be easy”. My example was probably bad as I do not think there is any one “optimal” strategy in AA50-41. We may narrow it down to 3 or 4 really good strats per side in a year or so, but I do not see any one being the be all end all.
3. With regards to SBRs. Through the math out the window. I have conducted these in numerous A&A games and one thing I have found is that the numbers and the results do not match up. Strategic Bombing is a dedicated campaign decision. Full stop. Let it sink in a minute. Strategic Bombing is a dedicated campaign decision, not a spur of the moment “oh my bomber is not doing anything” The last will leave a very bad taste in your mouth. When carrying out a strategic bombing campaign, bombers are purchased with the intent of conducting Strategic Bombing raids. This means you have accepted that there will be loses and that your bombers are bought to bomb. This does not mean they can not be used for another purpose if it arises like the example that Jen gave of striking a fleet in the game she referenced. Also in some circumstances if the loses from AA get too great it can be a good idea to shift gears to another strategy, you should still have some bombers to beef up whatever you changed to.
Now lets look at the numbers crap. Since the US is the one that generally is the one conducting the SBR campaign I am going to restrict myself to them. 1 bomber equals 12 IPCs or 4 infantry. To get those 4 infantry any where it is going to take 14 IPCs worth of transports, or another 2 bombers and some change. Those 2 transports are going to need some defense. That is more IPCs spent and these have at least as far as Germany are concerned have almost no attack value of any worth. But lets say a carrier and cruiser were purchased for defense of the transports. I am leaving out the fighters as those can be multi-role. Again we have 2 bombers and some change. So we have on one hand 5 bombers to smack Germany and Italy around with or 4 infantry and some ships. Those 4 infantry are not going to kill many German or Italian units. Lets be generous and say they traded out 1 for 1. With our 5 bombers and some change worth of units we removed 4 German or Italian infantry from the map and those 4 infantry are now also gone from the board. (I am assuming here they killed 2 somewhere taking a territory and then 2 on there way out) Now those 5 bombers should be doing 15 IPCs worth of damage and I am rounding down from 3.5. For arguments sake they suffered no losses on the first round of their use. They have already killed 1 more enemy unit than the infantry example. Next round they lose a bomber but do 12 damage. Is the picture becoming clear yet? Simply put the whole accounting argument of a piece has to kill its cost in a game to be effective is total fallacy.
Suggested Topics
