Would more bombers be bought if their price was lower?

[Doctor Strategy]

Would people be less worried about losing a bomber if it cost 12 IPCs instead of 15 IPCs? Would this encourage more SBRs, thus resulting in more bombers being purchased. After all the fighter got a reduction to 10 IPCs, shouldn't the bomber's cost also be reduced?

[axis_roll]

I answered the poll question as stated:

I would buy more bombers if they were $12.

Would I use them for SBR's? Maybe, depends on what I am trying to do. Bombers range and power make them a great buy for USA. In 2nd edition, they were also a great buy for Japan. But with the advent of placing ftrs on carriers(better initial range), and their reduced cost, I think a ftr is a better aircraft buy for Japan now over bombers (at $15, that is)

[Attila the Wolf]

I'd say reduce their movement to 5 along with the price drop. Otherwise they're too good.

[Stephen]

$12 is too cheap, it would render almost all naval purchases as unnecessary since cheap bombers with cheaper fighters could do most of the dirty work, above and beyond what you begin the game with.

I'm not sure how to increase bomber purchases, though I can't say I think more bombers ought to be bought than is the case right now.

[Rufferto]

I think a bomber at 12 IPC is too cheap. A bomber squadron can be used as a navy killer- anything too close to your coastline and it's dead. It would become impossible to mount an amphibious assault. If I were playing Germany, for example, I would buy several bombers and use them to blow up any transports in range, even if they're heavily defended. If there's nothing in range, then I'd send the bombers off to kill Russia, along with all my coastal land defences since they're no longer needed on the coast.

[GROGnads]

Even buying them discounted at $14 apiece is a good bargain, without having to diminish them at all. Yes, I'm aware that for some gaming Expansions, they have gone ahead and done this making just about ALL the Player's pieces lower or higher, in COST, proportional to that particular Nation's 'expertise' in the game, according to the 'makers' understandings. Some of them stayed at around the same price, such as A.A.-Guns or I.C.s, but others became cheaper on one thing or another, and were more expensive for some others, depending upon the Nation involved. It certainly makes for an 'interesting' game when using those, since you usually find the Players getting the 'cheap' ones more often.

[V-Disc]

Is this poll topic a trick question?

I'm an undecided voter on this one.
"Yes"; I would buy more bombers if there were less expensive. Who would not buy more of a good thing if the cost of that thing were reduced?
I don't think the price of the bomber should be reduced though. I guess I will vote "no change".

P.S. How do you vote "maybe"? Maybe yes...maybe no?

[holywolfman]

Is this poll topic a trick question?

I'm an undecided voter on this one.
"Yes"; I would buy more bombers if there were less expensive. Who would not buy more of a good thing if the cost of that thing were reduced?
I don't think the price of the bomber should be reduced though. I guess I will vote "no change".

P.S. How do you vote "maybe"? Maybe yes...maybe no?


I AGREE...Who wouldn't!!??! I voted- NO CHANGE!

[Attila the Wolf]

Bombers are really good with their range and attack values. 15 is probably about right. Maybe 14.

[SCIPIO]

I agree! I vote that I would buy more if they were cheaper, but I think that 15 is the good price! In comparison to other units, what bombers do is already good and I buy them often

[Doctor Strategy]

So it seems that most people would try to use bombers in their game more if they cost 12. It is just what I thought. I don't know if this will be too disbalancing as every one might suddenly go SBR crazy. Even the Russians might get in on a SBR of Germany. I would love to see that. :)

[Desert Rat]

The options in this poll were not put out correctly. I would buy more bombers if they cost 12 IPCs but I also believe that bombers should remain at 15 IPCS which is how I answered.

Ill give you a secret to my success as a MB A&A player. I never bought fighters except to be used on my carriers. I always bought bombers for air power. By the end of the game I would have a fleet of bombers.

A 12 IPC fighter that moves 4 and attacks at 3 can't compare to a 15 IPC bomber that moves 6 and attacks at 4. For just 3 more IPCs you get an air unit that could fly more spaces and hit 2 out of 3 times versus half of the time.

But wait you say, a fighter has a defense value of 4 while the bomber has a puny 1. True, that's why you still buy fighters for carriers. However, pay attention to air units in your games. How often do you use fighters to defend territories? To defend a capital maybe, but hardly anything else. Air units are mostly used for attacking.

A bomber can be used to attack a target every single turn. It has almost an endless reach to go anywhere and it hits hard with a 4. That was my little secret buying strategy that helped me over my opponents before revised came out.

Now we have revised, and I have to compare a 10 IPC fighter to a 15 IPC bomber. Now that fighters are cheaper they are worth buying again for Britain and Germany. But as the USA or Japan, I would still go for Bombers. Most games are decided within 8 turns. Thats right, about 8 turns. The USA and Japan need the extra spaces that a bomber can cover to get ahead in the game.

[Doctor Strategy]

You make some good points Desert Rat.

However, since a bomber only defends at a 1, you need to keep it as far away from the front as possible. You also need more troops to defend them. You need the extra movement of a bomber just to get it into an attack and back safely.

Fighters on the other hand can stay with the front and help defend your INF stacks at a 4. They are not limited to hanging back.

For the US bombers are probably better because they have surplus money and can easily absorb a loss. Other wise for the cash strapped, fighters are a better buy.

Which would you rather have (unenhanced by tech) 2 bombers or 3 fighters? On attack the bombers will average 8/6 or 1.33 hits. The three fighters will average 9/6 or 1.5 hits. Not only that you have an extra fighter to choose as a casualty to continue fighting longer if necessary. We won't even include the unsurpassed defensive capability of a 3 fighters vs. 2 bombers as it would be a waste of time.

Just another point of view.

[Desert Rat]

You make some good points Desert Rat.

However, since a bomber only defends at a 1, you need to keep it as far away from the front as possible. You also need more troops to defend them. You need the extra movement of a bomber just to get it into an attack and back safely.

Fighters on the other hand can stay with the front and help defend your INF stacks at a 4. They are not limited to hanging back.

For the US bombers are probably better because they have surplus money and can easily absorb a loss. Other wise for the cash strapped, fighters are a better buy.

Which would you rather have (unenhanced by tech) 2 bombers or 3 fighters? On attack the bombers will average 8/6 or 1.33 hits. The three fighters will average 9/6 or 1.5 hits. Not only that you have an extra fighter to choose as a casualty to continue fighting longer if necessary. We won't even include the unsurpassed defensive capability of a 3 fighters vs. 2 bombers as it would be a waste of time.

Just another point of view.

Wow DocS, this is the best post of yours Ive seen yet, at least the only one that makes some sense to me anyway. :D

Im glad you saw my point of view in the MB version.

In the revised version your right that fighters are a better buy if distance is not an issue but cash is. This is the reason why Britain and Germany (and Russia ofcourse) probably should only buy fighters. The air units do not need to move so far in the European theater and in a war of attrition these countries need all the IPC's they can get their hands on. Germany, more than any other country will actually use fighters for defense as well. I would only recommend that Britain and Germany each retain one bomber for strategic value.

But the conditions for Japan and the US are different. Both of these countries have to move through many different territories to get into the action and both of these countries have widely separated fronts. In the Pacific you only need fighters for carriers, other than that you should only be buying bombers.

Japan may have to hit a territiory in Asia one turn and then in the next turn a sea zone in the Pacific. And the US may need air power in the Pacific one turn and then later it may be needed in Europe.

The extra 5 IPC's for bombers pays for the ability to maneuver through more territories. A bomber will almost always be able to hit anywhere you need extra firepower. With the extra distances for Japan and the US, bombers are a must. When A&A can be decided in several turns, time is the one thing you don't have.

[Doctor Strategy]

This seems like it may need a few more votes to decide. Probably not but who knows.

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

this poll was flawed from its inception. the question contradicts itself. please do not try to make any judgements from this poll

[Atlantikwall]

This seems like it may need a few more votes to decide. Probably not but who knows.You don`t need any vote at all for that question because the question is a rhetorical one and one answer (prize should stay at 15 IPC) doesn`t fit to the question. Of course, if the prize is lower, more bmb would be bought. A reasonable question would be: "What`s the "fair" prize of a bmb (with the given skills)? In another poll it seems that 14 IPC would be the most frequent vote. If other (naval) units were made cheaper, you would have to lower the prize of the bmb to may be 13 (or 12), too.

[Lt M Cotten]

Fourteen was the prevelent vote in the last poll, and if I remember right I was the only one to vote 13.

I bet if you lowered the price to 3 a whole lot of bombers would be bought! :D

Dolittle used bombers launched from carriers to strike Japan. What if a carrier could carry 1 bomber or 2 fighter groups? (Even if the bombers could not land on the carrier and could only be launched that could prove to be a cool, and simple change to the game.)

[Doctor Strategy]

This poll predated the new poll that was started by Desert Rat. I simply bumped it to get more responses.

[Doctor Strategy]

What if a carrier could carry 1 bomber or 2 fighter groups? (Even if the bombers could not land on the carrier and could only be launched that could prove to be a cool, and simple change to the game.)

If you check out Improved Axis and Allies, I have designed a naval tech called super carriers. This allows a carrier to hold 3 FTRs or 2 FTRs and 1 BMR. If you choose to add a bomber it cannot be removed from the carrier afterward and may only see naval combat and strike land territory but must return to the carrier.

[Lt M Cotten]

Listen I got so used to paying 12IPCs for a fighter that if you dropped the price of bombers that low I might not buy anymore fighters except for my carriers.

Seriously 12 is too low. I still say leave it alone at 15...

[newpaintbrush]

"Would more bombers be bought if their price was lower?"

Well, that's really kind of a supply and demand question, ain't it? And of course, as any young budding economist knows, when prices decrease, increased numbers of a unit will be sold.

(Crusty economists know the exceptions, but oh well, you know.)

Thing is - Yeah, bombers are not so super duper at 15, BUT there are a few things you can screw around with.

If US gets Superfortresses, economic attack on Germany quickly becomes a Real Pain.

Apart from that, heavy bomber research makes bombers excel against naval forces (with cheep fighter support of course)

I would say - YES, bombers are a wee bit expensive at 15, but the fact that you can research heavy bombers offsets the cost. If bombers were 12, I would get a "hella lot" of 'em.

[Doctor Strategy]

Apart from that, heavy bomber research makes bombers excel against naval forces (with cheep fighter support of course)

I would say - YES, bombers are a wee bit expensive at 15, but the fact that you can research heavy bombers offsets the cost. If bombers were 12, I would get a "hella lot" of 'em.
This will not hold up for other units. Why is the Battleship so high when no tech exists for it at a bargain 24 IPCs? If you're saying that beacuse a tech exists then a unit should cost more. I don't think so but I feel that heavy bombers are too unbalancing. Nice if you got them but terrible if you don't.

Tech is nice and may help turn the tide but if you blow too much on it you risk takeover. The US is the only one who can afford to go for tech on a repetitive basis without overly risking capture.

This is not very fair as all parties involved researched technology throughout the war. Some more so than others. You could argue that this may have contributed to Germany's downfall as they had so many projects going that they couldn't keep track of them all. A little concentration would have allowed them to get much needed tech sooner than they did.