Are bombers underutilized in the game?

[JG26]

I have enjoyed the discussions displayed here in the Axis & Allies forum. It has
helped me become a better player, eventhough I have a long way to go :) .

I have always been a proponent of bombers in the game, especially to aid the
Axis in the Battle of the Atlantic. I know that the cost in IPC's is high, but
having images in my mind of Condors and Heinkels harrassing allied convoys
during the early days in the Atlantic is tough to suppress.

Seriously, having 1 to 2 extra bombers staging assaults from Norway and/or
Western Europe grouped up with other sea units (e.g. subs) could cause
some headaches for the Allies. Also, I do not want to forget the Pacific and
and how important the Betty's and Mavis were to the Japanese in there war
effort.

Obviously, there are some limitations, but for the Battle of the Atlantic
tactically, an investement in bombers could make things very interesting.

Any thoughts?

JG26

[DocD]

I could see that jg. I like to send my German bombers on SBR over UK. That combined with a Japanese raid on the India IC usually knocks off a few of the british ipcs they can hardly afford.

But depending on the goal that round I've had german bombers attack naval units.
I've even purchased another German bomber in the first round and sent it on constant naval patrol. Works well until the Royal Navy gets back to its feet.
Just depends on what I'm trying to accomplish that turn.

[GROGnads]

Since most folks are more concerned with using their Bombers for causing I.P. loss or on Invasions and in Attacks, there hasn't been much consideration about this. I'm assuming you're playing the Revised game, but this is easily adaptable for any of the previous versions. For Germany & Japan, it is quite a 'chunk of change' to shell out for this item, and then get your money's worth out of it without having it get shot down, so I'd suppose as long as you have other 'fodder' along with it, then YES, what you propose sounds very feasible. I know that in the original M.B. game, there was little incentive for Germany and especially Japan, to get any of them.They were too busy with other 'wants' and 'needs' to be able to afford the luxury of an 'Air Arm of Bombers' but it certainly would have been nice.;)

[TrimChris]

In the MB version, a UK1 purchase of 2 bombers could rock. UK could quickly eliminate the German med fleet and all of its units in Africa. It's a bit harder to pull off on the current map.

[Attila the Wolf]

I don't have the map in front of me, but if UK had the Middle Eastern Oil NA then bombers would be ever more effective at clearing the Mediterranean. And if Japan buys/captures an IC in India, SBRs from say Moscow could also be an option.

[Atlantikwall]

Obviously, there are some limitations, but for the Battle of the Atlantic
tactically, an investement in bombers could make things very interesting.The only reason I see, why I should ever buy a german bomber would be to prevent the combined UK&US-fleet to go to sz12 and drop troups in ALG in round 1. But spending 15 IPC (i.e. 5 inf less) just for that purpose seems a "little" expensive for me. Sbr`s to GBR don`t make any sense to me either. If you have a german bomber left, send it to Moscow! I think, the only nation, that can afford to buy bmb in the early game is the USA. But I rarely see a reason to buy one either. Later, if the USA has gone to the Atlantic, Japan and propably also afford another bmb to sbr MOS.

Btw, the statistics "prove" that bmb are only bougt very seldomly (aboiut 1% of all IPC spent on units).

[Clausewitz]

Something else to consider is that bombers have a significant deterrant factor. For example I always send my UK bomber to Sinkiang on B1. This threat alone forces Japan to rethink it's naval strategy or lose it's entire transport fleet. The range and attack power of bombers makes them powerful even when static, so don't risk losing them on silly SBRs.