Killing Fleets with Bombers

[HolKann]

how about 1 AC on italy2? Throw some German ftrs on it if needed. That’s 7 hits already, which would need at least 7 bmrs = UK4 if they bought 2 bmrs a turn. = 12*6= 72 IPC’s invested vs 14 for the Italians. I don’t think this is such a good strat. Better to build some fleet as brit (an AC and some DD), and kill the Italian navy this way. Remember that bmrs can’t land on carriers, nor do they defend on a 4 like fighters. As for Germany not building any fleet: bmrs are of no use against an U-boat-armada…

[toblerone77]

One of goals for AAR was to encourage combined arms. The bomber drop is a good thing. Lower cost brings up demand. The drop from AAR to AA50 is just a refinement of this ‘combined arms doctrine’. I’m all for it.

[crsluggo]

@HolKann:

As for Germany not building any fleet: bmrs are of no use against an U-boat-armada…

I agree with HolKann, airpower is of no use against a sub fleet. As long as the subs are sinking Allied hulls you effectivly cripple the Allies ability to invade Europe.

[Bardoly]

@toblerone77:

One of goals for AAR was to encourage combined arms. The bomber drop is a good thing. Lower cost brings up demand. The drop from AAR to AA50 is just a refinement of this ‘combined arms doctrine’. I’m all for it.

My group and I like the cheaper Bombers, but after playing several games, with them, we have basically come to the conclusion that either Heavy Bombers needs to be adjusted/eliminated, or the cost of Naval units need to be lowered even more.  There is such little interaction between Land units and Naval units, that lowering the costs shouldn’t hurt the game at all.  I mean, come on, compare 20 IPCs for a 2-hit 4  on attack/defense (Battleship) to 4 Tanks with 3 on attack/defense for the same price.  Where is the incentive to build navy versus land unless you must? (i.e. USA)  Germany was after a World Empire, not just a European one.

[TG Moses VI]

Bardoly,

I know.  It’s great isn’t it?  Every day I grow fonder and fonder of bombers.  It’s only historical.  The dramatic rise of airpower during the war signaled the eclipse of the world’s navies.

All jesting aside, I believe that the cost of SOME naval units should be lowered.  To me transports, subs, and destroyers are priced fine how they are.  By virtue of how essential the transport is, we should set that as the baseline for determining the value of units.  In that case, I believe Cruisers should cost 10 IPCs, Carriers 12 IPCs (and their defense bumped back up to 3), and Battleships cost 18 IPCs.  Sounds fair?

[DarthMaximus]

The thing about cruisers though is their endless supply of bombardments with no risk of loss.  Since the UK will routinely dropping off 8 units and has multiple targets in Europe, having 4 CA at your disposal might be better long term considering you’re probably going to lose 2-3 bombers taking out the Med fleet.  Also if the UK goes only bombers on UK1, that means no significant land forces until UK 3.  You still have to buy ships which includes capital ships and transports.
Germany will also see the purchase and can respond with a bomber of their own and I think really threaten the Atlantic with ftrs and boms as they blitz on Mos.  I think the early bombers put a ton of pressure on Moscow to hold out on their own which is difficult as it is.
I think with the 43 starting IPC, it might be better to get you base fleet of capital ships down in the water before Germany can stack ftrs in WE and before you start losing your ipcs to Japan.  UK drops to the 30’s by rd 2 and low 30’s by rd 3, then potentially high 20’s after that.

[Bardoly]

I know.  It’s great isn’t it?  Every day I grow fonder and fonder of bombers.  It’s only historical.  The dramatic rise of airpower during the war signaled the eclipse of the world’s navies.

All jesting aside, I believe that the cost of SOME naval units should be lowered.  To me transports, subs, and destroyers are priced fine how they are.  By virtue of how essential the transport is, we should set that as the baseline for determining the value of units.  In that case, I believe Cruisers should cost 10 IPCs, Carriers 12 IPCs (and their defense bumped back up to 3), and Battleships cost 18 IPCs.  Sounds fair?

I’m okay with this, although perhaps keeping the ACs at 2 defense is best, and Battleships could even go to 16-17 IPCs in my book.

The thing about cruisers though is their endless supply of bombardments with no risk of loss.  Since the UK will routinely dropping off 8 units and has multiple targets in Europe, having 4 CA at your disposal might be better long term considering you’re probably going to lose 2-3 bombers taking out the Med fleet.

The shore bombard rules have been somewhat nerfed in this version’s rules, so I don’t see this as a big problem.  Someone in another thread, I believe, suggested that if the naval costs for Cruisers/Battleships were lowered, then perhaps the shore bombards could also be lowered.  (i.e. Cruisers bombard at “2”, and Battleships bombard at “3”.)  I would also be okay with this to get the naval units’ price lower so that they are not so tempting to my opponent’s Bombers.

[DarthMaximus]

You can’t drop the price of cruisers, otherwise you will obsolete AC/ftrs in terms of naval defense.

3 ca @ 10 ipc = 30 ipc, att/def =  9/9

1 ac @ 14  (1/2)
2 ftrs @ 10  (3/4) = 34 ipc, att/def = 7/10

You’d have to drop the price of ac’s to about 10 to even make the ac/ftr combo worth it, or up the defense of acs, but even back at 3 defense (if price stayed at 12-14), I’d still probably go with the cheaper cruiser knowing that I still get the 9 for Att.

Also the bombardment (even if nerfed) is still very valuable, it essesntailly makes a cruiser a ftr for any coastal territory and for the UK that is gold.  Sz 12, 7, 6, 5 are all frequented by the UK and combined touch like 9 territories.  That is a lot of uses.  You also don’t have to worry about AA guns.

I also don’t think you can drop the price of BBs without obsoleting another naval unit.  Either the cruiser or ac/ftr combo will be phased out.  Unless the CA is so cheap it makes BBs pointless and if that is the case then DDs become useless.  In order to make an 18 BB, you’d need a 10 ipc cruiser but I think that just messes everything up, you’d have to drop the price of acs, ftrs and dds and then we are back to the same spot.

At some point you have to realize that navies only serve 1 purpose, to get land units from A to B.  So navies will always be the bare minimum needed to protect your trns.
You could make ships as cheap as possible but if there is no threat to your fleet they still won’t get built. (exception - trns)

[Jennifer]

Instead of dropping or raising prices, would it be possible to just prevent bombers from engaging in naval warfare?

Note, I did not say historically accurate.  I did not say best solution.  I just asked if it was perhaps a viable, simple, solution that could be implemented to negate the problem?

[Bierwagen]

Ah!  Cmdr J. the good old days of Billy Mitchell and the Ostfriesland.  You had to go pick at that scab, didn’t you… some wounds never heal!

One of the versions of AARHE has the rule of not allowing bombers to engage in naval warfare – I thought it played pretty well and made sense from a historical point of view as well.

In the few games of AA50 I’ve played I’ve found the German bombers to be very effective at keeping the Atlantic free of pesky ships trying to invade France. I’d hate to play without them, but it sounds like an option that might be worth exploring.

[Guest]

@Cmdr:

Instead of dropping or raising prices, would it be possible to just prevent bombers from engaging in naval warfare?

Note, I did not say historically accurate.  I did not say best solution.  I just asked if it was perhaps a viable, simple, solution that could be implemented to negate the problem?

I like that.  Or maybe just make aircraft weaker in the seas.

[Constantinople]

Did Bombers have any significant impact upon navies in WWII?

I thought that Bombers bombing carriers and battleships and cruisers and destroyers was non existent in WWII?

Was there any significant such encounters? If not, then ban the use of bombers against naval assets.

Perhaps they attack at 2’s not 4 agst naval targets??

[tin_snips]

germany used bombers against allied shipping

[toblerone77]

@tin_snips:

germany used bombers against allied shipping

Yup. Tin is absolutely correct the Germans used a relatively small ammount of Condor four-engined bombers in conjunction with the u-bootewaffe to attack shipping. The production of the Condor was small and they had chronic mechanical problems due to the fact that it was orginally designed as an airliner and had difficulty in dealing with the stresses of combat flying. That being said the low operational quantities played a big role.

[Jennifer]

Also, the American’s in World War II invented a technique called “Skip Bombing” where the bomber would basically throw the bomb out of it’s cargo bay, let it skip like a stone across the waves and impact an enemy ship.

I don’t know if it can account for any significant damage to the enemy or even if it was employed on a large scale at all.  I just remember from AFROTC that it was invented by an American Air Corps pilot in the early 1940s or maybe late 1930s.

Also, America at least, employed bombers in significant numbers in the Atlantic to locate and destroy German U-Boats.  The bombers would use sonar buoys to find them, and then drop depth charges from their bays.  It was significantly faster and cheaper then sending out thousands of destroyers to cover the same area.

However, this is a game, not a recreation of history.  If this was a recreation of history, then the axis would start in 1942 and never rise to power beyond their initial territories.  We don’t want to recreate history too well, but rather make the game more enjoyable.  Given that, I think it might be best suited to just exclude bombers from naval combat.  Not only do you negate the cost benefit of a bomber vs a pair of destroyers or a cruiser, but you also negate the effect of heavy bombers on fleets as well.

[DarthMaximus]

@Cmdr:

However, this is a game, not a recreation of history.  If this was a recreation of history, then the axis would start in 1942 and never rise to power beyond their initial territories.  We don’t want to recreate history too well, but rather make the game more enjoyable.  Given that, I think it might be best suited to just exclude bombers from naval combat.  Not only do you negate the cost benefit of a bomber vs a pair of destroyers or a cruiser, but you also negate the effect of heavy bombers on fleets as well.

See, I’d go the other route and continue to allow it for simplicity.

Although, I think it might be cool to package the game with “Basic” Rules (think 2nd-3rd Ed combat) and then a set of “Advanced” or “Historical” Rules (think AA50, maybe add anything else that might be unrealistic etc).
Make these indepth additions legitimate optional rules (kind of like tech), but also allow the simplified combat for new players or people that may just want to sit down for a game and not worry about can a bomber really kill a sub or needing a dd to see a sub, etc.

[TG Moses VI]

Did Bombers have any significant impact upon navies in WWII?

YES.

Jennifer already beat me to it, but bombers had a HUGE role attacking enemy navies, especially in the Pacific.  The role of skip bombing and dive bombing were two crucial elements in American tactical superiority over the Japanese shipping.  I’m can’t provide exact numbers, but medium bombers accounted for a large percentage of enemy shipping lost.  Search the Battle of Bismark Sea for an example of tactical of bombing when employed effectively.

Also, I believe the Luftwaffe had a role in sinking Allied shipping other than just the condor bomber.  Much less so, since they simply didn’t have the resources to commit to a land and sea operation at the time.

Personally, I don’t like the idea of air power not being able to attack naval units.  It limits the game and makes it less interesting, as well as being ahistorical.

[Lynxes]

These I think are the main reasons the cheapness of bombers won’t upset the game:

1. Bombers also do SBR, so throwing them at navies means you lose one turn of SBR and also might lose the bombers. Germany has bombed Russia with SBR very effectively in some of the games I’ve played, for example.
2. Transports are still needed for UK, USA and Japan to win the game. I actually think attacking over the Pacific vs. Alaska/West US might be the best strat for Japan, and then just land + air units + ICs won’t do it. You need lots of naval units to protect your transports= bombers won’t replace ships!
3. Air force is Germany’s main way of countering a KGF. Subs are not easy to use and any surface ships will probably be blown out of the water. So Germany being able to destroy Allied fleets is pretty much necessary otherwise it will just be a sitting duck waiting for SBR and invasions to wear it down.
4. Italy with NOs will get very strong if you can’t put them down, so cheap bombers here will be a counterbalance to an otherwise possible game-balance-upsetting big Italy.

Historically, enough has been said. The demise of the battleship was performed by aircraft.

[Jennifer]

Let me clarify, what I am saying is it might be beneficial to game play to prevent BOMBERS from attacking naval assets at sea.  Fighters would still be available both on offense and defense.

The only reason I am suggesting that bombers be limited to land only combat is because the bomber unit is significantly cheaper than it used to be after getting a 20% off discount.  Coupled with its range, range of uses and damage potential it almost seems unfair to have them in the same battle with other units.

Instead of raising the price up to 14 IPC (a much more reasonable price in my opinion) or even back to 15 IPC each, or trying to reduce the costs of naval units to ridiculously low levels to compensate, we could simply write a tournament rule that bombers cannot engage in naval combat.

This might even make submarines more valuable as assets to attack unprotected shipping in the back shipping lanes, now that bombers wouldn’t be allowed to exploit their long range and attack those assets, while submarines can ignore most surface vessels and slip through to attack anyway.

[Admiral_Yamamoto]

The Japanese also used the Betties to bomb ally shipping.