@arwaker:
The less different types of units you have in the game, the more of the specific sculpts are in the box.
I dont see the advantage in stategic depth of the game a tactical bomber could offer, to compensate the reduction of specific sculpts and the complification of the rules.
However, one can introduce as many new types of units he wants (as a house rule). What about assault guns, interceptors, frigates or landmines? Would they increase the funfactor of the game? I’m not sure. Same as with tactical bombers.
If there is no Air Base or Naval Base and having only the combined arms: giving +1 to attack if tactical bomber is paired to Fg or Tank, I agree there is not much additional strategic depth about it.
The fun thing is only about having more different sculpts Inside the Box.
From a collectors POV, it seems more interesting having more different units than fewer types but more of them. Isn’t it?
Chips are provided when you have many units of the same type.
Of course, it adds more specific rules. That’s the issue specifically treated by 1941 game.
Simpler and shorter for beginner.
1942 can be more develop with sculpts without extending the play-time or the whole map (not excluding a few changes, like the no-IPC value Islands in Pacific, for instance).
Global is made for hard-core players who have a lot of time.
From what I experimented, I could say that adding Mechanized Infantry and Tactical Bomber (and even a 5 IPCs’ Mechanized Artillery (assault Gun) and 9-10 IPCs Escort Carrier, HBG sculpt) can provides a deeper experience and feel of WWII at a strategic level without having to plan for a 2-days event.
Although, your focus on increasing “strategic depth”, makes we think about the two game mechanics brought to hit directly planes. And in this perspective, one seems better compared to the other.
The one I introduced in my opening post is better because it allows a specific unit (Fighter), a specific capacity: targeting enemy’s plane first (costlier target), while Tactical Bomber also received his specific capacity (being a better hitter on ground targets, but not necessarily on costlier targets).
The other way of creating somekind of dogfight between planes is to allow “1” or “2” rolled by aircrafts to destroy enemy’s.
The mechanic can work but doesn’t seems to increase the strategic depth as much as the former.
Fighter and Tactical have similar abilities, (carrier operation, regular hit, special roll) one have more of this and the other less of that (Fg on “1” or “2” / TcB on “1” only, cannot intercept in SBR).
Do you agree on this last point?
Here is a complete roster with a different Fighter unit (A2 D2 M4 C6) combined with an entirely 3 planes Fleet Carrier for either Fighter or Tactical Bomber units.
Even with a radical change in cost, I think it brings a much better interactions between units and mainly aircrafts from a gameplay perspective than the one I suggested in the opening post and poll of this actual thread.
You should take a look.
Baron Munchhausen’s G40HR Roster for 3 planes carrier & 6 IPCs 1914 Fighter
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35222.msg1370798#msg1370798
