Are SBRs worth it?

[Clausewitz]

I must say that I never bother using bombers on SBRs. The prospect of losing a 15 IPC unit to a lucky AA hit is not worth the damage it does. Moreover I prefer to utilise the powerful range and attack of bombers to eliminate enemy naval units. Not only does this loss of shipping cost the enemy a lot of cash to replace, but the new units may take several turns to get into position.
So, in my view, bombers are much better used to target enemy shipping. SBRs should only be used to finish off a stubbord opponent who is already economically defeated.

[TrimChris]

My first choice for a bomber is usually to attack enemy units. An unprotected IC might draw me to it if the bomber's value in combat that round may not be significant. Bombing a guarded IC is my last choice, but I will always take it instead of letting my bomber sit idle.

[DY]

I'm pretty much the same as TrimmChris -- I will look for any excuse not to risk my bomber on an SBR, but if it has nothing else to do I'm prepared to risk it. Having played several rated games I find most players will SBR Moscow/Berlin virtually every turn. That -$7/turn is a real killer.

[Frog]

I have kept a total of IPC's lost to SBR in my last 3 games compared to the cost of the bomber. In every game the bomber was shot down before the 15 IPC's were reached.

I believe there may be instances where SBR is useful, just not a general practice.

[axis_roll]

If you can afford to buy bombers, then I think they can be useful. USA is the perfect country to do that, since the bomber can over come the distances USA has to travel to get into the war as well as help to slow the might war machine(s) of the axis by throwing money at the problem (which is what an SBR is, the trading of my money for your money)

If I can afford to throw away the money(since bomber loss is inevitable), then SBR's are a good thing.

[TrimChris]

And that's just it. In a typical KGF game, German IPC are more valuable than any other nations. They just have more decent IPC value territories to protect. So trading 15 US IPCs for 13 German ones is probably a "win" for the Allies. Especially when German IPCs would be more quickly placed on a front.

[BlackWatch222]

If you can afford to buy bombers, then I think they can be useful. USA is the perfect country to do that, since the bomber can over come the distances USA has to travel to get into the war as well as help to slow the might war machine(s) of the axis by throwing money at the problem (which is what an SBR is, the trading of my money for your money)

If I can afford to throw away the money(since bomber loss is inevitable), then SBR's are a good thing.

If you can afford to throw away bombers, you must be ahead in the game, and are simply looking for a way to whittle Germany down prior to a major assault.

SBR's give you an expected gain of 0.5 (one half) an IPC per round, which is essentially zero.

You can get to the same place, without conceding even the possibility of losing a bomber by trading units with Germany. Assign one of the Allies to trading duties, while building another one up for a major assault. If you try on a 1 inf, 1 BB attack and a inf + air attack on another front, leaving the traded country with at least two Allied units, the chances are very good that Germany must make up for the losses with at least 3 infantry units (1 for the battleship hit and two in the traded territory) for a total of 9 IPC's.

Keep the bombers for use in killing enemy units - they can score a lot more damage DIRECTLY ON A CRITICAL FRONT if you have them available, than you can if you use them to kill cash in a faraway bank.

BW

[Attila the Wolf]

People here are making the assumption that we're talking about a single bomber. In that case, no, it's not worth it. But you send in 3-4 bombers (you'll probably lose 1) and now you're talking 10-14 IPC damage per turn on average (min 3-4, max. 18-24). That hurts bigtime. Even if you're losing the same amount to pay for a downed bomber, that's still cash the enemy has lost. This is particularly effective for US vs. Germany. Actually, the US is the only country I'd recommend it for.

Even without heavy bombers, I've played US players who simply churn out bombers and nothing else. It so weakened Germany that the USSR could push through.

SBRs are worth it if you're using it as a strategy for victory. They're not worth it if you're doing it b/c you have nothing better to do with your bombers.

[sking500]

Only with Heavy Bombers in the original A&A. As I have not yet played AAR, I cannot comment on the subject in that game. However, in the original A&A, if I EVER rolled for heavies, especially if playing the UK, I would immediately start buliding up a bomber-heavy force, and pound Germany into submission.

[BlackWatch222]

People here are making the assumption that we're talking about a single bomber. In that case, no, it's not worth it. But you send in 3-4 bombers (you'll probably lose 1) and now you're talking 10-14 IPC damage per turn on average (min 3-4, max. 18-24). That hurts bigtime. Even if you're losing the same amount to pay for a downed bomber, that's still cash the enemy has lost. This is particularly effective for US vs. Germany. Actually, the US is the only country I'd recommend it for.

Even without heavy bombers, I've played US players who simply churn out bombers and nothing else. It so weakened Germany that the USSR could push through.

SBRs are worth it if you're using it as a strategy for victory. They're not worth it if you're doing it b/c you have nothing better to do with your bombers.

If you are talking about regular bombers, the expected net gain per bomber run is slightly less than 1/2 an IPC per bomber per attack. It doesn't matter how many bombers you have - the equation per bomber is the same.

So if you throw 6 bombers at Germany (distributed over the correct IC's so you don't run into damage limits), you still only get a net gain of 2 1/2 IPC's per round (1 bomber lost for 17.5 IPC's damage) - an expected gain of slightly less than 1 infantry unit. When you take IC damage caps into effect SBR's give even a smaller net expected advantage. And if the dice gods crap on you so that you lose 3 bombers in one round, you may just have handed the game to the Axis.

If you want to trade 15 IPC's a round with Germany, you can do so just as effectively without risk to your expensive bombers by trading as much infantry as you want on one or more fronts that Germany is trying to maintain.

Attack 2 inf with 3 inf, 3 bombers. If he gets any defensive hits, move another infantry unit in. Germany only gets one try to retake the territory - the Allies can have up to three.

If you play by AH rules, which allows relatively cheap HB's for the US, the equation then becomes highly profitable on the Allies side, since you can bomb Germany back into the stone age at relatively low cost for the Allies. And the arguments presented here can be cheerfully pitched on the dust heap...

BW

[DocD]

I for one routinely send bombers on SBR's. I consider it the same as tech rolling. Sometimes you win early and often, and sometimes you don't. If you attack units, hey that player may or may not decide to replace it. But if you take money they don't have a choice.

[TrimChris]

People here are making the assumption that we're talking about a single bomber. In that case, no, it's not worth it. But you send in 3-4 bombers (you'll probably lose 1) and now you're talking 10-14 IPC damage per turn on average (min 3-4, max. 18-24). That hurts bigtime. Even if you're losing the same amount to pay for a downed bomber, that's still cash the enemy has lost. This is particularly effective for US vs. Germany. Actually, the US is the only country I'd recommend it for.

Even without heavy bombers, I've played US players who simply churn out bombers and nothing else. It so weakened Germany that the USSR could push through.

SBRs are worth it if you're using it as a strategy for victory. They're not worth it if you're doing it b/c you have nothing better to do with your bombers.

IPCs are nothing more than UNBORN UNITS! So it makes sense to usually kill the units of most value first. Switching your bomber to SBR after killing available units on previous turns makes perfect sense to me.

And it doesn't matter if you SBR with 1 bomber or 20. Your average IPC trade-off does not adjust.

[Attila the Wolf]

Frankly, I couldn't care less about the balance of IPC tradeoffs. All I'm concerned with is that the US is almost immediately dropping Germany's available IPCs that would otherwise be used against USSR. If SBRs is your strategy, US spends all its cash on bombers and just pounds relentlessly at Germany's IPCs. Believe me, it starts to have an effect. Especially when the German player is pulling his hair out as he's trying to deal with aggressive attacks by UK and USSR.

Now this isn't a strategy I use too often b/c, quite frankly, it's boring. And I don't play boring games... (at least not for long!)

[Doctor Strategy]

SBRs can be useful. However, I don't use them very often myself. Just a personal preference. I say if you get heavy bombers definitely go for it. If not run through this scenario. You take 6 bombers and SBR Germany. Assume average for damage and chance to hit. 18IPCs of damage given and 1 bomber destroyed. This is a net of 3 IPCs to your advantage as the bomber only costs 15 to replace. Small gain for much risk in your opponent getting lucky and shooting down more than one or rolling crappy for damage. I say heavy bombers are the sure thing otherwise I wouldn't risk it.

[Moderator Sinister]

If I play the US I don't mind throwing bombers away to limit german production but that's about the only time I use SBRs. Of course HBs are a different issue.

[V-Disc]

I'm casting a "yes" vote. But I think this poll needs a third choice.
I occasionally employ SBR's as a tactic to upset an opponents' economy. Especially if I sense my foe has an important, "big ticket" item in mind on his next turn.
I seldom use SBR's as part of an overall strategy. Bombers are better put to use "tank busting" or in naval/air attacks.

just my opinion

[TrimChris]

I'm casting a "yes" vote. But I think this poll needs a third choice.
I occasionally employ SBR's as a tactic to upset an opponents' economy. Especially if I sense my foe has an important, "big ticket" item in mind on his next turn.
I seldom use SBR's as part of an overall strategy. Bombers are better put to use "tank busting" or in naval/air attacks.

just my opinion

Yes this poll as cast was too black and white.

[Molotov Cocktail]

I agree with V-Disc. SBR are not as black and white as the poll asks. I voted no because generally I don't use them. It often depends on who i am playing. Some of my friends couldn't roll a one if there (economic) lives depended on it. So I usually SBR them if my bomber isn't being used elsewhere.

On the other hand I have given up trying to SBR some of my other buddies because no matter WHAT they always roll 1s when I SBR them.

[Celeritas]

I'm with Clausewitz on this one. The average return is limited.

Do the math...
Average loss => 1/6 * 15 or 15/6 or 2.5
Average gain (on a big IPC territory) => 5/6 * 3.5 or 2.92.

Net gain of .42 IPC. WHOOPEE!

There are normally far better things for a bomber to be doing. If the value of the territory is 4 or 3 (say Caucuses or India), bombing rapidly becomes counterproductive and the average damage - capped at 3 or 4, goes down dramatically, making it a losing proposition.

The only time to do it is when you're ahead and a war of attrition favors you...

[TrimChris]

I'm with Clausewitz on this one. The average return is limited.

Do the math...
Average loss => 1/6 * 15 or 15/6 or 2.5
Average gain (on a big IPC territory) => 5/6 * 3.5 or 2.92.

Net gain of .42 IPC. WHOOPEE!

There are normally far better things for a bomber to be doing. If the value of the territory is 4 or 3 (say Caucuses or India), bombing rapidly becomes counterproductive and the average damage - capped at 3 or 4, goes down dramatically, making it a losing proposition.

The only time to do it is when you're ahead and a war of attrition favors you...

Simple math doesn't reveal the true value of SBR's because German IPCs are worth more than an equal amount of Allied IPCs. Generally,as long as Allied production exceeds Axis production, a 1 to 1 ratio of trade has merit.

[Lt M Cotten]

Okay, I voted no because the logic says it is not worth it BUT rarely I will send one out so the enemy feels that their AA guns weren't just wasted money.
I love when they buy an IC and forget to get an AA so I get a free shot...... :)

[MasterHawk]

Since you start the game with bombers, I usually buy very few more, and just use the ones I have to bomb income. It helps, they lose money and it doesn't technically cost you anything!