1. Both the attacking bombers and fighter escorts, if any, fire with an attack value of 1.
For each 1 rolled, a defending interceptor is immediately removed as a casualty.2. The surviving defending interceptors then fire with a defense value of 2.
For each result of 2 or less, the attacker chooses a casualty and removes it.Those @1 vs @2 differences from the 42.2 OOB rules of escorts vs. interceptors are what ended Strategic Bombing in 1st edition Global. I wouldn’t care if my bombers were C5…I wouldn’t mess with buying them and bombing if escorts had to roll @1 against defender’s @2.
In spring 1942.1,
SBR were different:
Escort and Bombers have to submit to AA fire @1
Then escorting Fighter A1 and intercepting Fg D2.
Bombers get no roll in dogfight.
Then bombers roll D6 damage.
Once upon that time, Larry was not at all against an A0 bomber.
Sorry… don’t want to regurgitate everything I wrote in the other thread… I think I explained the concepts I like when it comes to dog fighting, and I really like the 1 role bomber idea as it’s full of promise. Not sure I can add anything other than what I wrote earlier… I’m interested in what you guys decide.
@Young:
Sorry… don’t want to regurgitate everything I wrote in the other thread… I think I explained the concepts I like when it comes to dog fighting, and I really like the 1 role bomber idea as it’s full of promise. Not sure I can add anything other than what I wrote earlier… I’m interested in what you guys decide.
IDK if any of those which prefer StB A1 vs Fg A2 D2 can accept to try both SBR.
And tell us which one they prefer.
I’m almost certain than for a real play-test, Barney can accept to modify StB and Fg dogfight values in a Triple A G40 map.
It is the only change same D6 damage in both case.
That way, we can get your first hand impressions on each.
Would you like to try one or the other, YG?
I may add, that numbers and damage are much higher when both sides have A1 and D2.
But, at first, I was satisfied of StB A1 d6 damage vs Fg A2 D2.
What convinced me to get to StB A0 d6 damage, outside numbers, is the implementation on Triple A.
OOB G40, it was already Fg A1 D1. Only damage to D6 and StB A0 to change.
And OOB 1942.2 Triple A, only StB A0 to change.
Less change seemed better then.
I also believed, wrongly it seems, that other people would find easier to adjust to a minimal change when there is only a single parameter to acknowledge in SBR dynamics: bomber reduced to A0.
Seeing as the attacker can dictate the odds in any oob strategic bombing raid… we rarely see interceptors in our oob games.
@Young:
Seeing as the attacker can dictate the odds in any oob strategic bombing raid… we rarely see interceptors in our oob games.
This was good calls IMO.
G40 OOB FIT is: from 1.55 StB/Fg and less
So, if there was 2 StBs against 1 Fg, it is best to not intercept.
This ratio isn’t hard to keep when your are the attacker.
If it is 3 StBs to 2 Fgs, you can prefer to stay grounded and you get similar odds between intercept or just being bombing minus AAA casualties. The Gap between a profitable SBR and a benefic interception is narrow:
from 1 StB against 2 Fgs to 3 StBs against 2 Fgs.
This is not surprising, OOB SBR is pretty generous toward attacker but does not give something to intercept in return.
The A0 bomber provides similar good odds per cost ratio for attacker but gives plenty of incentive to reduce damage with interception. FIT with no cap is the primary aspect.
The idea is to have a wide gap between Break even point and FIT, the wider the better.
And if FIT is high the more it gives incentive to intercept.
Thank you Baron for taking the time to explain the Fighter Intercept Threshold (FIT) in a way that’s simple to understand. It is very hard to describe the likely outcomes or to discuss a given raid/dogfight (at various attack defense values) without this concept.
I think probably what has happened is that players without this FIT concept have discovered the hard way, that intercept against a bomber wave OOB frequently ends in disaster for the defender on the TUV trade. They get cajoled by the attacker into a situation where they just start to intuit that “intercept is all bad for me” and “better to just stay on the ground.” You really only need to be burned by intercept as the defender a couple times for a mindset like that to set in. At that point the attacker has effectively psych-warred the escort/intercept rules out of play. The game then reverts to a more classic style calculus, where the attacker determines how many bombers to bring based mainly on expected AAAfire losses, rather than the expected intercept. Here risk aversion plays a major factor on an individual basis. Some players may elect to bring only 2-3 bombers (trying to sneak over the AAfire with no losses on average) whereas others will bring 6 or more (expecting to likely lose 1 bomber, but make up the difference on average with damage to enemy facilities.) But that’s all familiar territory by now. The promise of escort/intercept was for something rather new, but to get there intercept is really the key. Intercept leads over escort in gameplay importance, because without the former the latter becomes irrelevant, and the game defaults to aaafire as the only real consideration. This is basically what we were referring to when we talked about giving up a realistic strategic representation of Bombing and Escort/Intercept writ large, for a tactical representation of the bomber in dogfighting that might be of questionable value. Since it really doesn’t matter what value the bomber hits at, unless the dog-fighting situation has a chance to regularly materialize in the first place.
So this is the dilemma… the challenge to create an SBR dog-fighting dynamic that encourages interception and is easy to understand and calculate, but which doesn’t go so extreme that it deters bombing or escort altogether. Without this, we’d probably be better off from a time management and rules-overhead perspective to just ditch the escort intercept rules in favor of a classic situation where all this stuff was just abstracted into AAAfire. Personally I don’t like going backwards in that way, but if it is a choice between an escort/intercept system that is confusing and which undermines itself, or a classic system which is highly abstract, but works and is familiar, I’d have to favor the latter. Far better however, to simply make a system that actually encourages intercept in a reasonable way, so that dogfighting in SBR can become truly significant to the gameplay.
In Memphis Belle terms, the plot is clearly more exciting when Jerry comes after you. But if Jerry stays on the runway, because he’s too afraid of Erik Stoltz behind that machine gun to even make the attempt, then what? You’re just left with the flak.
:-D
I agree its a bind. If A0 is totally out of the question for you, perhaps the best solution I can offer is one which Baron mentioned already, to give the entire bomber wing a single shot in the dogfight. This is rather different than giving each bomber a shot @1. Depending on the number of bombers involved, it may still produce a situation which is attractive for intercept.
I think the Stg. Bomber should have an @1 for dogfighting. Part of the problem which most of us know is you don’t have much flexibility with a D6 system. I use the D12 system where the Bomber gets @1. So you have more room for values. If you think the D6 @1 is to strong then go with the rule of for every 2 bombers you get 1 roll of @1 at interceptors.
This SBR scenario basically comes down to Russia, London and Germany getting bombed.
UK and Russia pretty much can’t send escorts, so now even with the C5 bomber the Allies my not send any bombers because they don’t have a least a @1 for bomber. With Axis interceptors responding there will even be more less bombing for Allies with no Stg. Bombers @1. With the D6 system that Bomber @1 is better than my Bomber @1 in my D12 system. But my Figs D4 for dogfight in my game… So I’m in the test stage where I may need to raise the Bomber to @2.
From my test games the German’s have the advantage early in the game until at least Russia gets some Fig support from Allies ( UK Figs ) to intercept in Moscow and US Figs shuttle over to London for interceptor support, plus a UK US invasion in Norway to help with Stg. Bomber escort supports. Hope this doesn’t change game to much. I will be trying to do this in next test game. Even early in game allies bombers can’t make either.
If it was me I would do this. To bad you can’t do this on Trp A but on a tabletop game anyway I would give the Stg. Bombers a D12 @1 die roll for each bomber in dogfight and Figs D2 with D6 if nobody can decide on a rule.
@Baron:
Would you like one, YG or Ichabod?
My initial post in this thread and the other posts in the previous discussion thread is the scenario I’d like to try. I can’t convince you of my opinion. I respect your opinion though.
I really like the one bomber role. +1 to Black_Elk for starting this discussion in the first place!!
My thoughts are solely relating to the Global Board size.
I believe the C5 justifies permitting bombers an @1 (dogfight ability) since it can only bomb and can’t participate in normal combat. The Axis lose that long range @4 strike capability. I see the bomber only role as another balancing mechanism in this game. Also, this HR gives the tac. bomber a more important intended role.
I don’t see a need to change other OOB rules and costs for the two other planes (tac. and fighters). I like the fact that planes are expensive in this game and hit hard. They did in real life! The air force is so important that a completely separate branch of the military was created just for them.
I like fighters dogfighting A2 / D2 (w/ the -1 for attacker if only 1 movement point remains) because of the suspense and greater threat for either side…it’s more of a test of wills! A timid cautious player is probably going to keep their fighters grounded because they think it better than risking their 10 IPC planes…My play style is aggressive. So this works for. Playing axis is my favorite side too because you get to be very aggressive. Playing allies is more boring for me…and even when I go through the methodical process to stick a landing on Normandy or begin to tear into the Japanese Money Island NO, it’s still not as fun for me. I’m not a very good player, but I have a lot of fun playing! Sometimes my aggressive play style becomes my downfall.
Constant bombing could become more costly than not intercepting; especially in G40 when factories are getting maxed out to 20 damage.
It’s hard for me to follow the logic of it’s “better to leave your fighters grounded…” I don’t see many scenarios where a factory is bombed and maxed out turn after turn and one side just leaves it undefended (meaning only 1-2 fighters and not a good situation to intercept). Usually I can get away with a bombing run on Moscow, but then the next turn, the UK lands a stack of fighters to contest me. The best way to stop your opponent from bombing your factories is to gain air superiority. You CANNOT gain air superiority if you don’t intercept and start fighting the air war. Germany tried to contest in the actual war…and could never gain air superiority (in the Battle of Britain also…). Luckily for us they lost air superiority during the course of the war.
I think there is more of an incentive to intercept and to interrupt bombings since the stg. bombers would only cost 5.
I digress.
@SS:
I think the Stg. Bomber should have an @1 for dogfighting. Part of the problem which most of us know is you don’t have much flexibility with a D6 system. I use the D12 system where the Bomber gets @1.
I might accept an @1 on a D12 system for the bombers. Not likely to hit…but they still get to fire their M2 .50 Browning machine guns! However, I’d still want more punch for the fighters dogfighting. The D12 system gives a little more flexibility…maybe @3 in the D12 system rather than @4 which is equivalent to @2 in a D6 system.
The D12 system is really good for the hardcore guys that morph over to HBG maps. The D6 might make the die rolls a higher probability to hit…but sometimes that’s a good thing. You need the game to come to a conclusion.
@SS:
I think the Stg. Bomber should have an @1 for dogfighting. Part of the problem which most of us know is you don’t have much flexibility with a D6 system. I use the D12 system where the Bomber gets @1. So you have more room for values. If you think the D6 @1 is to strong then go with the rule of for every 2 bombers you get 1 roll of @1 at interceptors.
This SBR scenario basically comes down to Russia, London and Germany getting bombed.
UK and Russia pretty much can’t send escorts, so now even with the C5 bomber the Allies my not send any bombers because they don’t have a least a @1 for bomber. With Axis interceptors responding there will even be more less bombing for Allies with no Stg. Bombers @1. With the D6 system that Bomber @1 is better than my Bomber @1 in my D12 system. But my Figs D4 for dogfight in my game… So I’m in the test stage where I may need to raise the Bomber to @2.From my test games the German’s have the advantage early in the game until at least Russia gets some Fig support from Allies ( UK Figs ) to intercept in Moscow and US Figs shuttle over to London for interceptor support, plus a UK US invasion in Norway to help with Stg. Bomber escort supports. �Hope this doesn’t change game to much. I will be trying to do this in next test game. Even early in game allies bombers can’t make either.
If it was me I would do this. To bad you can’t do this on Trp A but on a tabletop game anyway I would give the Stg. Bombers a D12 @1 die roll for each bomber in dogfight and Figs D2 with D6 if nobody can decide on a rule.
Good idea!
It makes me think of this small variant.
Maybe it could be another way to describe how StBs squadron protected each other back.
(Difficult to implement in Triple A, IMO.)
But on a board game, pretty easy: each StB paired 1:1 received A1 in SBR dogfight.
Since it is a one round assault, you give A1 for 2 StBs, 2A1 4 StBs, 3A1 6 StBs, etc.
That way, you can also keep Fg A1 D1 without too much issue.
@SS thanks for the analysis! That situation is similar to what I would expect on the G40 board, especially with Escort being more challenging for Allies (without any range adjustments) just owing to the geography. It is helpful to draw comparisons. I think people will expect to see more bombers over Europe, what they might not be quite as prepared for is more bombers over London haha. But that’s the thing about the rule in isolation, since everyone has access to the same roster, there is a sense in which, if the underlying balance of a board favors the Axis economically in the midgame, then there is only so much the bomber can do alone as a balance corrective. That said, it is undeniable that the OOB bomber really screws the Atlantic crossing for Allies, so at least the new bomber idea will help in that regard. Just briefly to the d12 idea, I’ve often wished that Larry might introduce a 12 sided die into the boxed game. Even if it wasn’t a major aspect at first (I don’t know maybe for tech or whatever), just as way to get these dice in people’s hands, so they could get used to seeing them. But it would be kind a barrier to entry for some, if the rule required d12 to function.
I think these latest proposals are fine, with bomber pairing in a d6 system as SS suggested. I do share Baron’s concern though about the tripleA implementation. Such a pairing scheme has been suggested in the past, specifically for transports, but I don’t know if tripleA provides the necessary tools. Perhaps others will know?
The alternative of a single shot (like opening fire for the entire bomber squadron) is I believe possible. Whether that shot is made @1 or some other higher value is also something that could be adjusted in tripleA.
I think either way would work for the ideal dogfight situation we are trying to achieve, while still allowing some kind of shot for the bomber, but an opening shot for the whole squad would likely be simpler to implement in tripleA than bomber pairing. If only because pairing doesn’t have an OOB analog already in place inside the engine. Or at least not one that I’m aware of. But maybe someone has tried to build pairing into one of the many user made custom games? If so we might be able to cannibalize it and port the code into G40?
Again I would suggest that any rule we adopt, give serious consideration to tripleA play. Since it is by far the fasted method of popularizing and testing a proposal like this.
If possible to do for triplea, do you think it would be better to have 1 shot @1 for 1-2 bmbrs and then bump it to 2 shots @1 for 4 bmbrs, 3 shots @1 for 6 bmbrs etc… as opposed to 1 shot @2 ? take the low luck element out ? Make it more like the interceptor fire. A chance to kill more than 1 intercptor w/good dice.
Interceptor hitting at 1 still gives a 2:1 advantage, but hopefully not so big of a deterrent to keep people from SBRing when intercepts are present.
Also you’d get the @1 shot even with only 1 bmbr. Probably best to just let AAA take it out then. They only do 1-6 dmg anyway. Or make it require 2 bmbrs for a shot ?
Hmm… now that I think about it, you might be able to use different die system for separate Air Battles. Can’t remember. I’ll check it out.
@Baron:
@SS:
I think the Stg. Bomber should have an @1 for dogfighting. Part of the problem which most of us know is you don’t have much flexibility with a D6 system. I use the D12 system where the Bomber gets @1. So you have more room for values. If you think the D6 @1 is to strong then go with the rule of for every 2 bombers you get 1 roll of @1 at interceptors.
This SBR scenario basically comes down to Russia, London and Germany getting bombed.
UK and Russia pretty much can’t send escorts, so now even with the C5 bomber the Allies my not send any bombers because they don’t have a least a @1 for bomber. With Axis interceptors responding there will even be more less bombing for Allies with no Stg. Bombers @1. With the D6 system that Bomber @1 is better than my Bomber @1 in my D12 system. But my Figs D4 for dogfight in my game… So I’m in the test stage where I may need to raise the Bomber to @2.From my test games the German’s have the advantage early in the game until at least Russia gets some Fig support from Allies ( UK Figs ) to intercept in Moscow and US Figs shuttle over to London for interceptor support, plus a UK US invasion in Norway to help with Stg. Bomber escort supports. �Hope this doesn’t change game to much. I will be trying to do this in next test game. Even early in game allies bombers can’t make either.
If it was me I would do this. To bad you can’t do this on Trp A but on a tabletop game anyway I would give the Stg. Bombers a D12 @1 die roll for each bomber in dogfight and Figs D2 with D6 if nobody can decide on a rule.
Good idea!
It makes me think of this small variant.
Maybe it could be another way to describe how StBs squadron protected each other back.
(Difficult to implement in Triple A, IMO.)
But on a board game, pretty easy: each StB paired 1:1 received A1 in SBR dogfight.
Since it is a one round assault, you give A1 for 2 StBs, 2A1 4 StBs, 3A1 6 StBs, etc.
That way, you can also keep Fg A1 D1 without too much issue.
1@1 for each pair is fine by me as a concept, but I wouldn’t count on my gaming group for playtesting any of this. I can however, promote the whole system of 1 role bombers and all changes to dog fighting to my YouTube subscribers once the system becomes final.
@SS:
I think the Stg. Bomber should have an @1 for dogfighting. Part of the problem which most of us know is you don’t have much flexibility with a D6 system. I use the D12 system where the Bomber gets @1.
I might accept an @1 on a D12 system for the bombers. Not likely to hit…but they still get to fire their M2 .50 Browning machine guns! However, I’d still want more punch for the fighters dogfighting. The D12 system gives a little more flexibility…maybe @3 in the D12 system rather than @4 which is equivalent to @2 in a D6 system.
The D12 system is really good for the hardcore guys that morph over to HBG maps. The D6 might make the die rolls a higher probability to hit…but sometimes that’s a good thing. You need the game to come to a conclusion.
Have you tried play testing this on the tabletop board game or Triple A using the D6 system ?
I’m not trying make this a D12 system .
I have had 2 game designers say they love the way the D 12 works.
Like BE said not for TA. I was just showing some results of play testing .
It was hard to read…
I just add the missing “]”
@Ichabod:
@SS:
I think the Stg. Bomber should have an @1 for dogfighting. Part of the problem which most of us know is you don’t have much flexibility with a D6 system. I use the D12 system where the Bomber gets @1.
I might accept an @1 on a D12 system for the bombers. Not likely to hit…but they still get to fire their M2 .50 Browning machine guns! However, I’d still want more punch for the fighters dogfighting. The D12 system gives a little more flexibility…maybe @3 in the D12 system rather than @4 which is equivalent to @2 in a D6 system.
The D12 system is really good for the hardcore guys that morph over to HBG maps. The D6 might make the die rolls a higher probability to hit…but sometimes that’s a good thing. You need the game to come to a conclusion.
Have you tried play testing this on the tabletop board game or Triple A using the D6 system ?
I’m not trying make this a D12 system .
I have had 2 game designers say they love the way the D 12 works.
Like BE said not for TA. I was just showing some results of play testing .
@Baron:
Have you tried play testing this on the tabletop board game or Triple A using the D6 system ? No. Probably will never get the chance to for either D6 or a D12 system. When you don’t have a regular table top group that meets 2x a month…it’s really hard to get anyone to do anything other than the Larry Harris approved G42 or OOB G40 setup. I’m currently trying to convince people to try YG’s House Rules…for an upcoming game. So far, I only got 1 bite… I’m not trying make this a D12 system.
I have had 2 game designers say they love the way the D 12 works.
Like BE said not for TA. I was just showing some results of play testing .
If possible to do for triplea, do you think it would be better to have 1 shot @1 for 1-2 bmbrs and then bump it to 2 shots @1 for 4 bmbrs, 3 shots @1 for 6 bmbrs etc… as opposed to 1 shot @2 ? take the low luck element out ? Make it more like the interceptor fire. A chance to kill more than 1 intercptor w/good dice.
Interceptor hitting at 1 still gives a 2:1 advantage, but hopefully not so big of a deterrent to keep people from SBRing when intercepts are present.
Also you’d get the @1 shot even with only 1 bmbr. Probably best to just let AAA take it out then. They only do 1-6 dmg anyway. Or make it require 2 bmbrs for a shot ?
Hmm… now that I think about it, you might be able to use different die system for separate Air Battles. Can’t remember. I’ll check it out.
Yes I was looking for 2 bombers to get the first @1. If not paired, A0.
As I can rationalize, StBs were better defending in massive formation.
Both StBs seems a way to simulate how each other machine gun can protect with enough efficiency than a single Fighter.
It keeps the comparative power of bombers compared to Fg in SBR.
Pairing two units is a known A&A mechanic.
This time, it is the same kind of units, however.
The low roll @1 makes for a much lower attrition per SBR, on both part.
But it still keeps the 1:2 from the initial suggestion (A1 vs D2).
So, this means 1StB A0, 2 or 3 StBs 1A1, 4 or 5 StBs 2A1, 6 or 7 StB 3A1, 8-9 StBs 4A1, etc.
As Black Elk said:
@Black_Elk:
At that point the attacker has effectively psych-warred the escort/intercept rules out of play. The game then reverts to a more classic style calculus, where the attacker determines how many bombers to bring based mainly on expected AAAfire losses, rather than the expected intercept. Here risk aversion plays a major factor on an individual basis. Some players may elect to bring only 2-3 bombers (trying to sneak over the AAfire with no losses on average) whereas others will bring 6 or more (expecting to likely lose 1 bomber, but make up the difference on average with damage to enemy facilities.) But that’s all familiar territory by now. The promise of escort/intercept was for something rather new, but to get there intercept is really the key. Intercept leads over escort in gameplay importance, because without the former the latter becomes irrelevant, and the game defaults to aaafire as the only real consideration. This is basically what we were referring to when we talked about giving up a realistic strategic representation of Bombing and Escort/Intercept writ large, for a tactical representation of the bomber in dogfighting that might be of questionable value. Since it really doesn’t matter what value the bomber hits at, unless the dog-fighting situation has a chance to regularly materialize in the first place.
So this is the dilemma… the challenge to create an SBR dog-fighting dynamic that encourages interception and is easy to understand and calculate, but which doesn’t go so extreme that it deters bombing or escort altogether.
In Memphis Belle terms, the plot is clearly more exciting when Jerry comes after you. But if Jerry stays on the runway, because he’s too afraid of Erik Stoltz behind that machine gun to even make the attempt, then what? You’re just left with the flak.
:-DI agree its a bind. If A0 is totally out of the question for you, perhaps the best solution I can offer is one which Baron mentioned already, to give the entire bomber wing a single shot in the dogfight. This is rather different than giving each bomber a shot @1. Depending on the number of bombers involved, it may still produce a situation which is attractive for intercept.
This provides an alternative to the single shot @1 bomber group.
Do you know, Barney, if this last one is possible in Triple A?
Aha so basically using a combined arms-like method, but with two of the same unit, then hacking this only into the dogfight?
Is it possible? If so that would be ideal.
Ps. If the combined arms is not possible, then I would explore the opening shot at a higher hit value idea, as the next best thing. Though I think in that case, you have to allow that the “group shot” for the whole wing might sometimes be just a lone bomber. Not sure what the ideal numbers there might be.
Aha so basically using a combined arms-like method, but with two of the same unit, then hacking this only into the dogfight?
Is it possible? If so that would be ideal.
It is the idea.
It seems to better gives the feel of “a bigger flock the bigger the danger for Fgs intercepting”, than a single roll @1 for whole group.
The issue I have about StB A1 vs D2 Fg is more about the TUV swing which makes for more damage on both sides, even if the break even ratio is similar to A0 vs D1.
Unfortunately I don’t see an acceptable solution. You’d have to go to the D12, which I imagine people won’t like because of the numbers changing on all the units.
Or make two different bmbrs, one who can air battle and one that can’t. That is both sloppy and messy. Also I don’t think you can pick your AA casualties anymore. Someone else might know a way but…Idk.
