Okay……seems pretty obvious now I see. Thought I been very thorough reading up on things…evidently NOT!! Thanks
Question about conquering damaged IC
-
If a damaged IC (or NB or AB) is damaged and then captured, what happens to the damage? Is it automaticly repaired or must the new owner pay to fix it?
In a game last weekend, both Germany and Italy conducted SBR on the Russian mIC in Ukraina. It was eventually maximum damaged and Russia didn’t bother to have it repaired. Then Italy captured Ukraina. But did Italy capture a damaged or a fully operational mIC?
-
The damage remains until repaired, regardless of who the controller is.
-
That makes sense. Thanks.
-
If you capture a damaged major complex, say it has 9 damage, or 16 damage, as per rules the complex is reduced to a minor, but a minor can not have 9 damage or 16 so the damage is reduced to the maximum a minor complex can have, 6 damage. You then have to pay to repair it. Believe that’s what I was told on here or YouTube.
-
I favour a house rule which increases the maximum damage that a minor IC can have. At least 8 - that way you can’t lose any damage which you inflicted in a bombing raid. Probably max damage = 9. That there is so little trouble repairing a minor IC annoys me. Maybe increase the max damage for a major one to 25 too.
Doubt there would be much support for that though.
-
Because it promotes strategic bombing. It also annoys me that so much damage is removed when an IC is downgraded.
A single fighter makes an undefended bombing raid on a minor IC a dubious proposition in BM. Probably about break even.
-
Because it promotes strategic bombing. It also annoys me that so much damage is removed when an IC is downgraded.
A single fighter makes an undefended bombing raid on a minor IC a dubious proposition in BM. Probably about break even.
That was my concern when I talked about airstrike values for Balanced Mode mostly to RegularKid.
Bombers were weak. It was clear deterrent to SBR. And Cap on damaged IC does not help either.
As I compared OOB G40 SBR, it was like going from one side of the pendulum (too strong) to the other with BM (too weak).If anyone is playing BM on tabletop gameboard (since no Triple A mode use First strike in SBR), I suggested TcB and StB Attack @1 first strike (OOB 1942.2 SBR combat value).
That way, rolling a “1” will save bomber from an interceptor defense roll @2.
It doesn’t make more odds of damage on defender but reduced odds of damage done on attacker, at least.This preemptive attack value is in between the extremes SBR of G40 OOB and G40 BM.
-
I like the BM rules. It’s even more historically accurate. Undefended bombers got smashed in daylight against a modest number of fighters. I believe the bombers had to be outnumbering the interceptors 3 to 1 for the interceptors to reconsider.
A also hate putting so much value on a 1 roll. AA gets that but I don’t really like spreading it to other areas.
-
A also hate putting so much value on a 1 roll. AA gets that but I don’t really like spreading it to other areas.
What do you mean by “hate putting so much value on a 1 roll”?
-
@Baron:
A also hate putting so much value on a 1 roll. AA gets that but I don’t really like spreading it to other areas.
What do you mean by “hate putting so much value on a 1 roll”?
If the 1 hits you actually get a first strike effect and prevent the attack (or in this case, defence). I think that is too much of a swing and it’s worse when it’s something which happens only 1 time in 6 - more unpredictable.
-
@Baron:
A also hate putting so much value on a 1 roll. AA gets that but I don’t really like spreading it to other areas.
What do you mean by “hate putting so much value on a 1 roll”?
If the 1 hits you actually get a first strike effect and prevent the attack (or in this case, defence). I think that is too much of a swing and it’s worse when it’s something which happens only 1 time in 6 - more unpredictable.
To better understand your POV, here is another question.
Let’s suppose you played in D12 digits instead of D6, would you find less disturbing to rise the rate of attacking bombers to 3/12 than making 2/12 first strike bombers (as OOB 1942.2 SBR (1/6 first strike) made it against Fighter interceptors Defending 2/6, (4/12))?
3/12 is an higher rate of loss than 2/12 but, compared to forbidding the opportunity to defend against incoming StBs due to first strike loss, it seems more fearful for the defender.
I used this hypothetical 12 digits because there is no in between 1/6 and 2/6 with D6 digit.
Is it what you meant by “too much of a swing … more unpredictable”? -
Yes. If you made the bomber attack stronger without the first strike capability that would bother me less.
Although that there is a real possibility of a shoot down before the bomber strikes has some realism.
Bottom line: I think the rules in BM for air battles are almost perfect. I don’t see a need to change.
-
Yes. If you made the bomber attack stronger without the first strike capability that would bother me less.
Although that there is a real possibility of a shoot down before the bomber strikes has some realism.
Bottom line: I think the rules in BM for air battles are almost perfect. I don’t see a need to change.
Then, I clearly not understand what you meant here:
@simon33:Because it promotes strategic bombing. It also annoys me that so much damage is removed when an IC is downgraded.
A single fighter makes an undefended bombing raid on a minor IC a dubious proposition in BM. Probably about break even.
Can you explain further, please?
-
I’m saying that it should be a dodgy proposition to attack 1 bomber on 1 fighter.
Yes, I like SBR but not when there is no real defence against it. I’m just throwing ideas into the air here more than anything.
I don’t like the 1942.2 optional rule because there is too much variation for the defender in a one on one fight. At least if the bomber shoots you down you should still get a chance to fire back IMO.
Basically, no need for change to the air battle rules from BM but there is a need OOB. OOB it is very difficult and mostly unrealistic to deter an SBR from actually happening because there is so much damage to be done.
-
I don’t even think it’s a that much a function of the D6. Think of how upsetting it would be if you were using a 20 sided dice rolling at a one and it hit!?
I’d wonder if low luck for SBR AA would be better? Triple A can handle that. You have to ask the question then why not LL for normal AA.
One thing I don’t really see why it changed is the external AA. Why don’t you need to invest in AA to have it, like you did in classic? I don’t see the rationale for this. I don’t really think it makes a better game - it was better before.
-
I like the part about them being taken as hits and having limited capacity though. I guess it would mean that escorts could be shot at by AAA which might need some thinking about. I also like but less strongly the part about shooting at while flying over. Maybe that’s where the 12 sided dice would come into it.
-
I agree that the part that they could be captured was “sucky” as you put it.
-
I don’t even think it’s a that much a function of the D6. Think of how upsetting it would be if you were using a 20 sided dice rolling at a one and it hit!?
I’d wonder if low luck for SBR AA would be better? Triple A can handle that. You have to ask the question then why not LL for normal AA.
You made a good point IMO.
Lower is the odds of making a hit, the higher AAA shot can be called “unpredictable” and can create hilarious or desastrous outcomes, depending of POV of defender or attacker.**The game is unrealistic with regards to strategic bombing.
And yes with a D6 that is just really not something to be changed at all.Interception would take down a few bombers and the rest would just attack your facilities.
In the game if you win the interception nothing happens no damage at all, if AA hits again no damage at all. Normaly you only shoot down a % of the bombers.
Also attacking bomber formations would be able to defend themself and where known especialy later in the war to shoot down plenty of fighters so bomber defence @1 represents that.**The interceptor @1 and the AA @1 just represent that fact, also the bombers rolling for damage iso just doing a fixed number represents that.
It will never be realistic whatever houserule you devise and how balanced you say your houserule is.
Its a game not a simulation if you really want to change the game to more realism move to D12 system or even D20 and overhaul the whole combat system then at least you can have more variance that isnt jumping up that much.Currently your return on investment that you can expect with a bomber is around 3 ipcs in total if you do strat bombing a lot, that bomber attacking in a land battle will hit and inf as well.
And that is only if you attack a factory that needs to be used, If you bomb india for 6 damage they might completely ignore it and produce 4 units you did 0 damage but risked 12 ipcs worth of production.These points make a lot of sense.
An all or nothing strategic bombing raid seems unhistorical.
If flak and interceptor hit, there is no damage; while no hit makes for an highly damaged IC.
The real things was in between. Extremes were exceptional event in WWII while mitigated raids were common, as far as I know.
You made me think about an alternate way of doing SBR, without changing basic OOB StB A1 Fg A1 D1 combat values.
I will post something in House rule later. Thanks.Edit: Here is the link to the House rule alternate SBR mechanic:
Strategic Bombing Raid (SBR): an alternate mechanic for 1942.2 and G40
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39189.msg1620459#msg1620459
Suggested Topics
