From: barich@bach.udel.edu (Dewey H Barich)
Subject: Re: A&A: Allies buy how many dice?
Keywords: A&A
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 04:23:09 GMT

In article <obbe.717849936@galaxy> obbe@ph.tn.tudelft.nl (Obbe Vermey) writes:
>pendy@ais.org (Paul Hohn) writes:
>
>Did the allies try to get heavy bombers ? I think that bombing factories
>with AA is hardly worth the trouble. (1/6 chance you lose your bomber of
>15 IPC's and 5/6 chance the other loses 3,5 IPC -> expectancy of 0.417
>IPC gain. This means it's better to use your bombers for assistance in
>battles. (Unless you've got heavy bombers ofcourse)

Well, let's see...  First off, I am not condoning the industrial raiding
strategy.  I simply don't like it...   But.  If no technology is
attempted, the UK and US can each buy 2 more bombers in the first round.
Also, the UK can raid on turn 1.  Now, assuming that turn 1 is one of
the 5/6 chance that the AA misses, the UK bomber survives and takes out
3.5 IPCs (you have 3,5 -- a typo I assume?).  So, the German player has
lost 1 infantry, perhaps an armor by not having those IPCs.  For round
2, there are 4 bombers (3UK, 1US) to raid.  Also, the UK gets at least 1
more, the US 2 more.  Let's lose 1 bomber now to AA.  Three get through,
taking out (about) 10 IPCs.  Next round, there are a total of 6 bombers
available, 5 get through, (about) 17 IPCs gone for Germany.  So, by
round 4, Germany has most likely lost Ukraine, Finland, maybe East
Europe.  Let's have UK abandon India to strengthen Africa (thus, a
"Germany first" aproach) from the start of the game, so Africa is lost
as well for the Germans (I suppose we'll have wiped out the German Med
fleet with the UK fighters by now).  So, Germany has an income of 22, 25
if East Europe is still theirs.  So, the Germans are operating on (at
best) 25 IPCs, minus the raids, which come in around 17, so there are
only 8IPCs to work with per turn.  And, as more bombers come in, the
numbers fall quickly.  Under this kind of pressure, the Germans will be
hard pressed to mount an offensive against the USSR.  In fact, the USSR
will probably be mounting an attack of their own.  If this continues,
the Germans will have no production and will fall fairly quickly.

So, this is an effective strategy, with two problems.  The most
significant is Japan.  You can ignore Japan completely, but not for a
real long time.  At best, Japan can reach Moscow in 4 moves (Retake
Manchuria on turn 1, then Yakut, Evenk'i, then Moscow).  Of course, not
much can reach and thus there is no big threat (yet).  But, with a
complex purchased on turn 1, a few infantry and a few armor (at most 3
armor) could reach.  More likely another 2 rounds are necessary for
Japan to really threaten the capital, and still it's no picnic.
Although that kind of pressure would certainly diminish the USSR's
ability to go after Germany.  But, we are 6 rounds in and Germany has
quite possibly not built a single unit for 1 or 2 rounds, and probably
about to go under for good.  The only chance (on rough average) is for
Japan's early forces to take the USSR capital.  Not likely, and
virtually impossible with proper Allied care.  It might be close, but
even if Russia Falls, the Allies will have all of Germany and will be
able to out-produce the Japanese.  Game over.
The other drawback to this strategy is "what if the German AA gets
lucky?"  This is why I don't use this strategy.  If the German player
gets lucky and drops a bunch of Allied bombers, the US and UK have to
start back at square one.  At least if you are fighting a more
conventional war, you have something to show for a failed assault
somewhere (you still have the complex, you still have the transports,
etc.).  If you lose the bombers, you've got nothing to throw at the
Japanese to buy time for the Allies to rebuild the bomber corps.

I think the key here is that even with average losses of bombers on the
part of the Allies, they can better afford those losses than the
Germans can afford losing the IPCs.  After all, if you do it this way,
it's 3 on 1 and you can afford such losses.

Of course, heavy bombers makes this virtually trivial.  I prefer to not
develop weapons, in order to force better strategy development, not
luck.

Well, I think I've gone on too long already.  Let me know what you
think.  But don't attack my numbers too much, I think they are
reasonable but I'm doing this off the top of my head....

Dewey