Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
9 Posts

Axis & Allies» Forums » Strategy

Subject: Strategic Bombing - UK rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Al White
United States
Missouri
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
A friend of mine and I disagree about the effectiveness of strategic bombing. For the past few games, I've played the UK and my standard strategy is to secure the seas and the pile on with the strategic bombing. While I do lose more than I take away, I find it an effective strategy to slow down the German push into Russia and I've never seen Moscow fall as a UK player. My friend, ever the economist, argues that it is a losing strategy since I end up spending more than I take away.

What are your thoughts about this strategy?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sean Conroy
United States
Winchester
Virginia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As long as you are able to keep constant pressure on Germany and aren't letting them run rampant then I see no problem with this strategy. I usually have a few things for my starting bomber to do at the beginning of the game. If it survives I let it strat bomb untill it's shot down then don't bother anymore.

The only problem I can see is if you are contantly replacing/buying new bombers then there is the potential to take too much away from the British ground war effort.

Finally thought, yes you will most likely loose more than you take away, but as long as you are not hindering the Allied efforts against defeating Germany and the Allies don't lose due to this strategy then your it seems sound.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Einmal ist keinmal
United States
Andover
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
You'll Never Walk Alone
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The Allies, as a whole, have deeper pocketbooks than the Axis. So, it's not necessarily a bad strategy simply because you are paying more than what you are destroying.

I would say that whether or not it's a sound strategy depends on the circumstances of each individual game. I'd be reluctant to say in all cases that it's either a good strategy or poor one.

That said, if it's working for you, then it sounds like a good one!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Desiderata wrote:
The Allies, as a whole, have deeper pocketbooks than the Axis. So, it's not necessarily a bad strategy simply because you are paying more than what you are destroying.

I would say that whether or not it's a sound strategy depends on the circumstances of each individual game. I'd be reluctant to say in all cases that it's either a good strategy or poor one.

That said, if it's working for you, then it sounds like a good one!


Agreed.

As for your friend the economist, his argument is flawed in that it considers the situation in isolation. The gain is not just the IPCs taken from Germany but the concomitant undermanning by Germany of the Russian front. In effect, the excess IPCs used by Britain pay to aid Russia.

By the way though, bombing raids are most effective with multiple bombers and heacy bombers if possible. I will often when playing Britain use it relatively little in the ground war but bleed Germany dry so that the German player simply cannot deal with the Russian counter-invasion.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Charles Neal
Canada
Nepean
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
It would be especially effective with multiple bombers, if you can afford 'em!

My first priority as Britain is to keep the sea areas around me under control, and to bolster Russia if possible.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Post
United States
Madison
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
By my calculations, strategic bombing seems to be cost-effective.

If I send 6 bombers at Germany, I can expect to lose one to the AA. Loss of 15 IPCs. But the remaining 5 bombers will deal 3.5 IPCs of damage each, for a total of 17.5. Net gain of 2.5 IPCs, or .4 IPCs/bomber. Plus, a heavy investment in bombers should have a few other strategic benefits--for example, it deters the Germans from contesting the Atlantic.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Troy Dawson
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mb
When I play Triple-A single-player for fun I like trying to have the axis win with the US and UK only buying 3 fighters and 2 bombers each turn, respectively.

Once the UK strategic bombing offensive gets going on turn 3 with 4 or 5 bombers Germany is effectively shut down and has to turn turtle to defend itself against Russia.

So, yes, sending a bomber to Germany has a net economic value of only +1 IPC, since on average it will cost 2.5 IPC to inflict 3.5 IPC of damage to Germany.

But Germany is starting from a stance of material strength and industrial weakness vis-a-vis the allies, and in fact the game can be really seen as Russia vs the Axis with US & UK help. 4 bombers pounding on Germany reduces its output from 32 to 18, ie from 4 tanks and 4 infantry to just 6 infantry.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
juerg haeberli
msg tools

Hmm....whats going on in Asia/India while you are strategic bombing Germany ?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Erik Uberdolphin
msg tools
Building bombers with the UK for strategic bombing isn't the best strategy in my opinion. Strategic bombing is cost effective but transporting infantry to Africa and Russia/Europe is much more effective. Strategic bombing with the USA makes more sense because the location of their factories is far less favourable to shipping troops and American bombers can also be used to threaten or destroy the Japanese (transport) fleet.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.