Strategic bombing campaign

[PanzerMike]

What are your experiences with strat bombing as the Allies? Is it worthwhile to buy them expensive heavies, or are your PP's better spent elsewhere?

[Nirosi]

Hi,

In previous posts, some comments (both sides) were made here (including mines):

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... i#p4754300
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... g#p4982288
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... g#p4936953
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... g#p4935773

Cute-paste is so much faster than retyping

[MagicMissile]

Difficult question I am not sure if anyone knows .

My view is that if you build 3 bombers that will set you back around 1500 PP. That will force the Germans to spend the same amount to buy AA. Germany start with 40AA if they build another 100 similar cost to the strat bombers they can put 6 AA on all major targets 10 PP and up plus all oil hexes and have like 2-3 AA on all 5 PP hexes. Can 3 bombers inflict more damage than they suffer from the AA? Maybe but I dont really know. It feels like it wont be a huge win anyway so maybe building 3-4 arm corps instead feels like a better choice. Decisions decisions.

Personally I want strat bombing to be good since it was a big part of the war it should be in the game but I guess it can easily be made too good if one is not careful. Also didnt Germany if I recall correctly produce more stuff in 1944 than they ever did despite the bombings so I guess one can argue strat bombing maybe wasnt that successful in the real war either. With hindsight I think the analysis now is that the allies should have gone for the electricity/power grid and infrastructure instead of bombing the actual factories but I am no expert on the subject I am sure someone on the forum knows a lot more.

I think one could consider increasing the cost of AA possibly 15 is too cheap. Cover all of Germany with 6 AA at the cost of 3 strat bombers seems a little bit off to me. Also the fact that you rather defend Germany with AA than with interceptors might indicate AA is a bit too good at the moment.

Some food for thought

/MM

[Nirosi]

And the equation become even more difficult to calculate as the bombers can also be used first in helping killing subs too before switching to bombing the Axis. So they can save Allies PPs before going for Axis PPs latter on...

[MagicMissile]

And the equation become even more difficult to calculate as the bombers can also be used first in helping killing subs too before switching to bombing the Axis. So they can save Allies PPs before going for Axis PPs latter on...

Yes they are useful for that reason for sure but of course a bit expensive costing like 11-12 escorts each. But probably worth building at least one.

/MM

[AlvaroSousa]

Strat bombing is an attrition game the Allies can afford and Germany cannot.

If you build 2-3 strats Germany must keep back fighters and build AA or lose PP. Not protecting these assets will result in super bombers as their experience goes up unopposed.

It should be a zero sum game and an option for the Allies. Otherwise is would be a simple answer one way or another.

You also need to choose oil or production or both.

Now imagine if the Allies build 10 strat bombers? How would that impact the game? I don't know.

[kklemmick]

I played a quick game against the AI where I essentially just built strat bombers as the Allies. Initially this seemed effective as I bombed most of their production in Europe flat, but the AI was smart enough to build AA everywhere and after a while the losses to the bombers was great enough that I stopped being able to cause as much damage. Meanwhile the Germans were still growing their army (although slower) and the Allies had virtually no land forces.

It was a quick test game that took less than an hour, so I'm sure there were things I could have done better, but my take away from it is that over investment in strat bombers isn't worth it, but some investment is, as it forces the Axis response (as has already been mentioned here).

Something to think about at least.

[MagicMissile]

I have done one experiment. I started the 1942 campaign. I built AA for Germany so they had 140 AA enough to blanket Germany in 6 pt AA. I built so the allies had 5 strat bombers with supply trucks and 1943 tech.
I started bombing in May 43. I bombed for 7 turns one of which was heavy rain after which the bombing force needed rest with effiency down in the 60s. I only bombed 6 pt AA hexes. Ruhr area and Hamburg.

The result. Not too promising for the Allies I would say. For starters the 5 bombers cost 2800 PP vs 1500 pp for the AA and since allied economy at most is 50% bigger than the axis the Allies are behind from the get go. The lost production for the Germans including the after effect while cities were repairing themselves was approximately 600. The repair cost of allied bombers 760. So in total a loss for the allies. It is only one sample and with the randomness of AA and bombings the result might be better or worse if one try the experiment again. And maybe the result will be better over a longer period of time and as bomber tech goes to 44 and 45.

Also remember in the summer of 43 the Axis army in size is as big or bigger than the Allied army and of way higher quality. The German economy is huge in the summer of 43. In the 42 scenario without moving a single unit the Economy went from 540 in May to 580 in October. The Germans simply wont care if they lose 80-100 production per turn they have plenty enough of production anyway.

So in conclusion again based on a small sample going for stratbombing production seems to be not good enough. Possibly going after oil might be a better option.

Might experiment a bit more later we will see .

/MM

[canuckgamer]

Good analysis Magic. I think that bombing oil is a better option because reducing the capabilities of German armour and air can have a significant impact which I experienced with the UK last game when they were short oil. In our PBEM game I can see that my opponent has come to the same conclusion as he has 6AA in every oil hex in western europe.

[AlvaroSousa]

Strat bombing can't be 1 for 1 otherwise it's a no brainer for the Allies.

It needs to be a ratio based on the production ratio of all the Allies vs the Axis.

In the 1944 scenario the Allies have 1153 production vs 715 of the Axis

That's a 1.6 to 1 ratio

In 1943 Axis 704 vs Allies 1083 = 1.53 to 1 ratio

strat bomber costs 600pp in 1944 tech
AA costs 90 for a 6 slot
Each AA has a 50% chance to hit

1944 result
bombing run = 10 strat bombing points at 50% XP and 100% effectiveness = 6 damage
3 goes directly to stockpile, 3 damages the facility
Each AA point has a 50% chance to hit and a 60% chance to damage the aircraft = 1.8 damage
Each damage to repair on a plan costs 12 PP for a 1944 strat bombers

So.......

Each run costs the Allies 21.6 PP on average against a 6 AA
Each damage does 3 real + 3 factory X prod multiple 2.43 = 7.29 for the next turn.

So say the Allies hit with 3 bombers Hamburg.
64.8 PP cost for repairs on average at 100% eff and 50% experience
30.87 PP damage to the Germans 9 real + 9 factory.... the 1st turn.

Say they stop bombing until the factory is healed up.
17.01 PP next turn (factory now at 7 damage)
12.15 PP next turn (factory now at 5 damage)
7.29 PP next turn (factory now at 3 damage)
2.43 PP next turn (factory now at 1 damage)

Total damage = 9 stockpile + 60.75 = 69.75

Allied cost 64.8 PP
Axis cost 69.75 PP

But usually after the first run the bombers will be lower effectiveness. Usually 77% and some loss.
Usually ~50% as effective due to effectiveness loss and strength loss after a 2x strike.

So really the Allies are taking around 2:1 losses depending on how you bomb.
But it forces the Germans to expend resources to defend against it before it gets out of control.

We can't make the cost ratio say 1.2 to 1 because then The allies would just strat bomb the Germans into eternity and let the Soviets win. It has to be a cost higher than the ~1.6 to 1 production ratio for the Allies.

So it is about right.

[stjeand]

Allies should focus on Berlin, then Cologne and Essen.

Berlin being 25 PP is the biggest bang for the buck and once you get it to full damage...easy to keep it there.

But the cost-wise...

Honestly I never build strat bombers...never have.
BUT when I play a scenario with them they are great...mainly because the Germans have no air-force left.
But they normally do when I play PBM and then the bombers get hammered...because escort fighters are not up to high enough tec.

Without must testing on my part it is difficult to say.

Honestly 6 strat bombers vs 6 armor? The armor will win every time in my book once you invade France / Italy.

[MagicMissile]

Strat bombing can't be 1 for 1 otherwise it's a no brainer for the Allies.

So it is about right.

Ok thanks for the insight. I feel buying strat bombers just to lose 1,6 to 1 does not feel very sexy . I feel there should be a little bit more upside for the allies, Also remember the Western allies are so far behind in army size so setting aside production to bombers instead of tanks delays the army buildup. But I do understand that it would be very easy to make strat bombers too good unless one is careful.

/MM

[MagicMissile]

Honestly 6 strat bombers vs 6 armor? The armor will win every time in my book once you invade France / Italy.

I agree. In general I would like air units buffed a little bit so people buy more air and less land. Just look at the 44 scenario the UK and US have like 400-500 Size army and loads and loads of airplane. Would be more fun I think .

/MM

[AlvaroSousa]

So let's look at this another way.

The UK has 20 ships.
Germany has 4 ships.
Ratio 3:1

Because Germany has 4 ships and the UK has 3 convoy lanes within reach of those ships you have to spend 16 ships to secure all those lanes.

But what if I told you that you can trade 2 UK ships for 1 German ship and wipe them out? Would you do it? Easy yes.

Ok so now I have 12 ships left and took a brutal loss of 40% of my fleet. Germany has ZERO ships left. I don't have to patrol anymore. All 12 ships are freed up.
Ration Infinite:1

That is how to look at strategic bombing.

Imagine dumping as many PPs to the USSR as possible between the USA and UK
while also killing 50pp of Germany's production. That's a huge swing.

Strat bombing is an option. But it is an attrition option for which the benefits are not directly seen on the battlefield.

Then there is the added effect of that 60 pp you just killed in a month is 1 less division on the Russian front doing X PPs worth of damage to the Russians.

How do I personally look at strat bombing? Without it you have a high variance game that can possibly be cut short with an Allied or Axis victory. Performing strategic bombing slows down the game until 1945 and probably ensures the USSR remains alive. Strat bombing slows the Allies and slows Germany as both sides invest into a part of the war that has no direct affect into conquering territory.

[generalfdog]

what I have found works best is to target oil in 41 and 42 which can really put a damper on Barbarossa and or air and sub actions in the early years when oil is pretty tight for Germany then in 43 on switch to factories targeting occupied France and low country production centers with shorter range tac bombers and sending the heavies to the Ruhr, by 44 you can usually escort to Berlin which is the big prize, by switching it up you force Germany to buy even more aa and keep them guessing also I have found that you can't do any meaningful production damage early on but that early oil resource damage, especially if the Soviets hit Ploesti from Crimea, can be very annoying for Germany