Posts made by Yoshi

I already use Triple A ;)

This question is here because there was comparison between the two softwares ;)

@Yoshi:

one question : is Abbatlemap available for Linux users ?

I mean without using a windows simulator (which need to be installed, and so root access)

no answers ?

because I am in such case, and I do not know Abbatlemap very well so…

@Cmdr:

Yoshi,

The bombers cost nothing because they can be used as bombers each round.

As I said, I agree that this bombers are usefull. But some other use of the 15 IPC could be more usefull in such situation. What I want to say is that building a bomber has a cost: 15 IPC. This is not zero IPC. Then, of course, the bomber is used, so that you do not lose your money : this money is a usefull investment. But you cannot say “the bomber  has no cost ; they make russia lose IPC ; thus the axis win” (I do not say that these words are precisely yours, but this is the way I understand what you mean when I read your posts). Indeed, you can loose the bombers, such that you are trading money between Axis and Russia (if making SBR campaign against this country). This is not useless, and can be very good. But this is not unbeatable. It depends of what happens in the other points of the game, and also of the dice (for instance, if you are quite unlucky with AAguns, you can be in trouble, and on the other side if your bombers are never killed, Russia will be in a very bad position ^^ ), more than in classical battles I think (since each plane killed is 15 IPC lost, and not 3 IPC when you took one more defense it than the average in ground combat for instance)

@Cmdr:

For instance, the bombers are used passively as a deterrent to allied naval shipping in the Atlantic forcing them to consolidate their fleets and buy more units to defend American transports from attack.  The best part is, they pretty much have to do this even if you never intend to attack their fleets because they don’t know your intentions!

I totally agree with this point. This is one of the interest to invest in planes with germans. But in practice, it will make the Allies buy a carrier for UK and US, what they often do. And then, to force them to buy more naval units, you will have limited movement with your plane. Thus, you force them to buy these carriers, but you cannot say that this is 32 IPC spent for nothing for the Allies : first, they often buy it, and secondly this enable them more flexibility for their plane also.

But on an other hand, the first bomber bougth by german is very usefull to protect Algeria in the first trun (and so to gain one turn on the classical Africa reconquest of the Allies).

To conclude this point, I would say that bombers are very interesting for this point, but it is difficult to conclude that it cost money to the Allies…

@Cmdr:

They are used aggressively in a myriad of ways:

1)  They can attack Russia’s or England’s Industrial Complexes.  Russia can try to counter with AA Guns, but I’ve pretty much shredded anyone’s hopes and dreams that would ever be cost effective for Russia.  England does not have that option being on an island.

without talking of buying more AA guns for Russia (which I think need a lot more of details to understand all the problem), attacking industrial complexes has a cost : the price of the bombers you can lose. In average (and to look this point we need to consider the average), you loose 15/6=2.5 IPC, and you win 5/6*3.5=2.91 IPC, that I will round to 3 (which is better for your strategy). Thus, you gain only 0.5 IPC buy bombers. And this is for one bomber, which can make 6 IPC damage (for instance, this change when you attack Caucas or when you have two bombers on Russia, since when the two bombers are not killed by AA Gun, you are limited to 8 on your damage). But anyway, I think that we can assume the following : you do not gain money when you attack russian industrial complexes, and you do not loose money (I can make the all average computations if you want to be more precise, but I do not think that we need more mathematics in this discussion. The aim is not to see if you win 0.1 IPC or 0.3 IPC, at least this is my opinion: I make enough mathmatics at work :) ).

This said, I think that even if you do not gain money by bombing the Russian Factories, it is still interesting: as Germany and Japan make this, they each loose a part of their money where as the Russia loose most of its own. And this is an oter interesting point of this strategy. What I want to say is that bombers have a cost: precisely this money that you invest to make Russia loose money.

@Cmdr:

2)  They have massive range allowing Germans to trade territories much farther away without having to move their fighters, this allows them to defend western territories with less men and in turn allows them to bring more cannon-fodder to bear on Russia. (Because the fighters can stay in Western and 1 fighter can replace - in my opinion - 3 to 4 infantry on defense.  That means those guys can move to the front lines.)

If you replace fighters by bombers to trade territories, when you are not applying your original strategy. Thus here you do not gain really something from your bomber. I mean, let say that you can keep 2 more fighters in France because you have two more bombers. Assume that this 2 fighters enable you to send 7 more guys to the east then if you needed your fighters (and this is I think a lot, or only when you already have a very big number of infantry in France, that means not a the beginning). The two bombers you bought cost you 30 IPC, that is 10 infantry, less than 7.

But I agree that this may be a usefull use of your bombers, especially to force allies to invest in navy if they want to attack for instance from SZ 5 (since the fighters in france are more agressive on the UK or US navy). One more, UK can go via SZ 4 to deal with such fighters agression.

To conclude, this can be interesting, but not more (in my opinion of course, I do not claim anything more than my opinion ;) ). Only in special situation I think.

@Cmdr:

3)  They CAN go attack America’s transports if you chose to send them there.

Once more, a AC buy from the US, added to its initial boats (1 BB and two destroyers, added to 2 planes an a carrier, and say 5 trannies, you need a very big number of planes to attack that), can cancel that. And this is when you want to go close to the German planes. Otherwise, you can for instance go to SZ4 with the UK, and do not have to consider any defense against Germans planes, since you will have the two Allies fleets together)

@Cmdr:

Because of these 4 reasons, a bomber has either no cost, or a negative cost to Germany.

As already said, I considered that they have a cost. This cost  is an investment that you will get back during the game. But it include the Allies losses from your bombers.

So you can say that it has no cost if you include money lost by the Allies from that bomber, and I will agree with that. But then, you cannot say “they have no cost and then they make Allies losses”: the Allies losses have already been counted to say that the bombers have no cost.

@Cmdr:

Do note, however, I did assign a cost to Japan’s extra bombers due to their lack of utility.  They either go SBR Russia or they go SBR America, they really serve no other purpose at all and they cannot shift from one to the other like Germany can without downtime in between.

For Japan bombers, I think it depends: if US goes KJF, then you will have more power to fight against the US navy and may appreciate these bombers. Thus, in such case, we can say that this is usefull (but as said a44bigdog, I think that a 8 bid for a japan tranny is required such that you can send some troops in Asia at the begginning).

Otherwise, if US goes KGF, I think that Japan can buy bombers, since he will become rich quite fast. Thus, the trade of money between Japan and Russia is clearly an advantage for Japan.

To conclude, I think that this strategy is interesting. I see here an other way to defeat Russia. But how Germans will defend against a KGF strategy with a two bombers buy at the beginning, I do not know how it will conclude for the germans. I would say that it would conclude with a fall of Russia an Germany, as quite often in KGF games, but then… too much difficult to say what would appear ^^

@Cmdr:

1)  Germany buys 1 Bomber and possibly 1 Fighter on Round 1. (This of course negates a carrier build which I have felt is a stupid move for quite some time now, well into the years category.)  These cost Germany nothing.  You spend IPCs for them, but they are able to be used every round, therefore, they cost nothing.

2)  Japan buys 2 Bombers on Round 1.  If Japan goes after America’s Industrial Complexes, these bombers cost 30 IPC.  If Japan does not, and instead uses them in Asia, then they are able to be used every round and thus cost nothing.

I will not enter in all the debate which seems like close, but just react on one point :

When you say that it cost nothing, I understand that you want to say that this is a usefull buy, and I agree with that.

But you cannot say that it cost nothing. Otherwise, we can say that when you loose the bomber with the AAgun defending the desesperate factory (which is with such a number of bombers flying over it ^^ ), you lose nothing. But this is not the case.

Thus, the bombers have a cost. When Russia lose IPC by your bombers, you sometimes loose units, and so IPC, by AA defense. This is the principle of SBR campaign : you spent money in bombers to reduce the money of the other country.

In the same way, if you want to bomb Russia every turn, you have to rebuilt a bomber some times. Otherwise, you will most of the time finish with no bombers to make your SBR campaign.

I think that this SBR Campaign is interesting, and can work. But it is not also an unbeatable strategy. It is just an other way to attack Russia. The main interest in this strategy is, as Jennifer pointed out, that bombers can be used in a lot of situation. Thus, you can react to a lot of allies answers. But on the other hand, you will have less ground units.

And for the AA response, I think that it can protect a little. For instance at the beginning, it is quite easy to keep territories against Japan (for the one close to Moscou at least). Thus, you will have some protections for the first turns. Moreover, I think that if England send a lot of ground unit by the north of Europe, it could enable Allies to trade territories (Karelia, Bielorussia and Ukraine I mean) with english force (this is for later turns).

But above all I think that as with a lot of strategy in AA games, that is the reaction that you will have during the game which will give the winner. Therefore, I think that it is difficult to predict what reaction will be good ten turns after the buy of the two bombers…

one question : is Abbatlemap available for Linux users ?

I mean without using a windows simulator (which need to be installed, and so root access)

Otherwise, I do not play a lot on the net. I only play with friends and we use tripleA. I do not have problems with it, since in case of the plane’s randge with AC, you can also use the edit mode to fix the problem (and such problem occurs only in few examples). I never encoutered any problems with AAguns on bombers, you must be cursed Jen ^^. After all, bombers dice are the same dice then dice for battle, and you can see the statistic of the game to be sure that the randomness is quite good…

With 72 ipc, I would better buy 3 subs, 1 destroyer, 1 carrier and 2 fighters.

22 defense, 7 hits, and defend well versus subs or fighters (only subs give no defense against air, only carriers and fighters are sunk by some subs). I think it’s a good trade off between the two solutions given here

But it also depend of what I already have (for instance, a fleet need at least one transport), the fleet you are fighting and so on…

But isn’t this choice only for the jet fighters hits ?

Otherwise, if the defense player has 1 jet fighter and 1 AAGun (say attacker does not have Long Range Air Craft tech, but he got Rockets tech), then the bomber would be more protected that if the defense wouldn’t have jet power (2 hits@1 needed to kill the bomber).

Thank you for the answers. I know that this is a very special case, but I encountered this point (of the beginning of the thread) in a friend game.

ok, I see.

I have again one question  :wink:

If the AAGun hits and the interceptors do not hit anything, can the attacker choose the rocket as causualty ?

I would say no, but it is to be sure

@axis_roll:

Example 3.

AA gun fires (1 shot at one bomber).  It’s a hit.

Next the 4 German jet ftrs get to shoot at the rocket.  4@1.  1 hits.

No damage would be inflicted (2 for 5, the Germans got lucky)

Attacker gets to choose how to apply the hits.  Well not much choice here.  Lose the rocket and then For each SBR BMBR that is hit, another die must be rolled, with a 1,2 or 3 resulting in destruction of the BMBR, and a 4,5, or 6 allowing the BMBR to retreat.

There is something I do not understand on this example. As there are 5 US escorts fighters, the interceptors can not fire against the bomber. Moreover, AAgun can not intercept rockets (except with radar, but here we are looking to the german player). Thus, I think there are two differents things:

First, the AAgun try to kill the bomber. If it  hits, we look at the partial protection given by the escort.

Then, the interceptors try to kill the rocket. They have 4@1 to do this. One or more hit destroy the rocket, but if you have two hits you cannot kill the bomber.

Otherwise, this example could happen :

Example 4

AAgun fires and misses

Interceptors fires 4@1 and get two hits !

The attacker has to choice who is killed : one for the rocket, and one for the bomber. But with long range aircraft tech, this should not be the case :s

4. Long Range Aircraft
-Your FTRs move 6. Your BMBRs move 8.
-For SUB Detection Rolls, your AIR Modifier now becomes +2 (instead of +1)
-Your LRA FTRs can now “escort” BMBRs on SBR missions. Escorts “neutralize” any enemy “Interceptors” (Enemy FTRs with JP) in the SBR territory on a 1:1 basis (meaning that each “neutralized” Interceptor does not fire it’s @1 shot against an SBR BMBR). If there are more Escorts than Interceptors in an SBR territory, SBR BMBRs gain partial AA protection. For each SBR BMBR that is hit, there is no SBR damage. However, another die must be rolled, with a 1,2 or 3 resulting in destruction of the BMBR, and a 4,5, or 6 allowing the BMBR to retreat. Escorts are not subject to AAGun fire in the SBR territory, though are still subject to any AA they fly over on the way.

Am I right ?

Suppose US gets rockets and long range aircraft, whereas Germany has jet fighters.

US Turn, there is a US AA at London, which send a rocket at Berlin where 4 Jet Fighters and one AA are defending.

More over, US player sends one bomber with 5 fighters to escort.

According to the Long Range Aircraft rule, the four first escort fighters neutralize the four German Jet Fighters. Thus, the US bomber can not be intercepted and moreover the last fighter protects the bomber from the AAgun (giving him one chance over two to escape if the AAgun hits him).

But what about the rocket ? Can the Jet Fighters also intercept the rocket or are they neutralized by the escort fighters, making the rocket sure to hit ?

Yoshi

this can be useful for england…

With 2 trn, Germany will take London with a probability of 32%… Russian planes do not have to go at London.

thanks for the answers ! (I hadn’t seen the previous discussion)

Hi everyone,

I have some questions about AAguns, notably when they are taken several times by each power.

For instance, at the first turn, USA takes Algeria and come here with their AAgun of Eastern USA.
Turn 2. Germany liberate Algeria. The AAgun becomes german.
Turn 2. England takes back Algeria. Who get the AAgun ? USA or England ?

Second example. After several turns, English AAgun from India is in Kazakh. Japan takes it and so get the AAgun. Then, USA liberate this territory. Who get the AAgun ? England ? USA ? Russia ?

When I read the rules and the faq, I come to the conclusion that when you take a territory, you get the AAgun. But when you liberate a territory, the AAgun is given to the country which owns the territory.

Am I Right ?

PS: I think that tripleA doesn’t run very well with this point. I have experience of several experiences which should have the same result but in practivce had different ones.