i like to ues tac bomber and tank destroyers. i always wonder why the “new” aa games miss these units. :-P
Too expensive to make the sculpts, which according to the designer provide a minimal impact on the game compared to the cost of adding new units like this.
But self propelled artillery could be a 3-3 unit costing 6 and kills enemy tank or artillery on a roll of 1
Fighter Bomber is the generic term for all the tactical bombers… cost 8 move 2, attacks land at 4 and fights at 2 if enemy planes are present. You can make these SBR effective at 1/2 damage rounded down, but for that option the cost will have to go up to 10 IPC
@Imperious:
Fighter Bomber is the generic term for all the tactical bombers… move 2…
Move 2? 1/2 of OOB fighter?
Yes the range was shorter. These had the wingspan of a fighter, except had to carry a heavy bomb, so this cut out the range. But stukas were used over London, so perhaps they can move 4. The problem is moving 4 makes them really too powerful.
so perhaps these are 3-1 units moving 4 cost 8 and SBR at 50% ( rounded down)
so you will need escorts because of the weak defense
But I don’t recall the dive bomber being really effective in the SBR role…
I’d be tempted to say they can’t do SBR to promote their use as ground attack… although you could (if pressed) use them for escort duty within their reduced range… just put your Chaplains on standby for Notification Duty.
Mind you, I’d also reduce the ground attack value of heavies to nudge them into the SBR role where they belong and the mission loads they usually took up.
C’est moi.
But I don’t recall the dive bomber being really effective in the SBR role…
The Stuka ju-87 bombed most of the cities in the early period of the war. They bombed cities ahead of attacking troops, taking out factories, buildings etc…
They were used in the Battle of Britain to do the same and experienced many loses. They were not for dogfighting. They were not used like conventional bombers, but were utilized in destroying the same types of buildings but were used in daylight ( most models). A divebomber can bomb most anything except it only has one bomb so it must count.
I value this at 50% rate of damage to account for the quantities. So they are less effective than bombers, but i dont think it should be like 23.5% for AA you got to round things up or down.
The idea of divebomber also includes light bombers classes in some cases where some of these were used in the same role.
Its a nifty concept to get a few of these if your a poor nation and cant afford 12 IPC, you can buy a 8 IPC plane and still have a little sbr.
@Imperious:
But I don’t recall the dive bomber being really effective in the SBR role…
The Stuka ju-87 bombed most of the cities in the early period of the war. They bombed cities ahead of attacking troops, taking out factories, buildings etc…
They were used in the Battle of Britain to do the same and experienced many loses. They were not for dogfighting. They were not used like conventional bombers, but were utilized in destroying the same types of buildings but were used in daylight ( most models). A divebomber can bomb most anything except it only has one bomb so it must count.
Indeed.
I’m just not sold that it even does 16.7% of the damage to industrial production that a roughly equivalent number of medium bombers could inflict.
Yes but the volume in numbers of these can contribute to some measure of success. Its the key plane ( the JU-87) that gutted some many early war cities engulfed by war. It had a psychological effect on the population employed by how it was used.To me this is also strategic because its destroying the morale and producing chaos. So i put fighter-bombers into the classification of light bombers, with medium level bombers as the 12 IPC unit and heavy bombers as late war bombers of superior payload.
