@Krieghund Thank you
Adding Tac Bombers from AAP40!
-
This is actually quite simple and easy. They cost 4. Air attack 1, Sea attack 2, Land attack 1. This simulates torpedo bombers. Range is 2. During setup, the carriers that start with 2 fighters should have one fighter exchanged for a tac bomber. After trying it out yesterday, it worked great!
-
good idea variable.
i think you should adjust your cost to 3. they move the same as fighters, have the same land attack as fighters. the only difference is they have one less air attack, but one more sea attack. because air attack is conducted before sea attack you could argue that the tactical bomber is slightly less powerful than the fighter.
-
The reason I believe they should be worth 4 is that sea attack strength is very important in this game, especially from the air. The extra range on the bombers is ideal for bombing runways and islands. This makes you pay for the ability to do both in a turn, but not as expensive as a second fleet of bombers. But I see your point as well. Hmm, you try it your way, I’ll try it mine. Then we’ll compare.
-
Great idea, Variable!
I do agree with Love, however, that tac bombers should only cost 3. They’re sitting ducks to air attacks without accompanying fighters.
Would be interested in seeing your take on how to best incorporate tanks into the game… Although I suspect that A:0 / S:0 / L:2 / Cost: 2 would be the best and easiest way to run it.
Mechanized Infantry really wouldn’t have any role in this battle system, unless they came up with non-island land territories. Which I hope they do! I’d love to see another game that used this system; it’s really innovative, would be great to see it resurface in sometime in the A&A family of games.
-
I think if you want to stick to historical accuracy at all, use your tank stats for the mech inf and leave out tanks. The only “tanks” used in this campaign were very light tanks, even then with limited mobility. The jungle terrain was not conducive to tanks at all. But mech inf kinda represents light tanks IMO, so that would be ok, in limited numbers. Also, any mech inf or tank should require all the space on a transport and should not be able to board a destroyer.
-
I think if you want to stick to historical accuracy at all, use your tank stats for the mech inf and leave out tanks. The only “tanks” used in this campaign were very light tanks, even then with limited mobility. The jungle terrain was not conducive to tanks at all. But mech inf kinda represents light tanks IMO, so that would be ok, in limited numbers. Also, any mech inf or tank should require all the space on a transport and should not be able to board a destroyer.
And with those stats (1 tank equals full transport) there is no reason at all to buy a tank over two INF. Same land attack, same space on transports, plus harder to destroy (two INF requires two hits). A possible idea would be to have the tank take up one space but keep the stats. That way it might have its uses.
-
I think if you want to stick to historical accuracy at all, use your tank stats for the mech inf and leave out tanks. The only “tanks” used in this campaign were very light tanks, even then with limited mobility. The jungle terrain was not conducive to tanks at all. But mech inf kinda represents light tanks IMO, so that would be ok, in limited numbers. Also, any mech inf or tank should require all the space on a transport and should not be able to board a destroyer.
And with those stats (1 tank equals full transport) there is no reason at all to buy a tank over two INF. Same land attack, same space on transports, plus harder to destroy (two INF requires two hits). A possible idea would be to have the tank take up one space but keep the stats. That way it might have its uses.
True. What about 1 tank and 1 inf? I just don’t think two tanks fit on a trans at this scale. And definitely not allowed on destroyers!
-
Sure. 1 tank and 1 inf on a transport, just like the base game. Only infantry are allowed to hitch a ride on the destroyers; this has been a house rule of mine since the game came out.
Had another couple of ideas on tactical bombers:
(1) Basic stats are A1/S1/L1, raise to A1/S2/L2 if supported by fighters on a 1:1 ratio.
and/or
(2) Basic stats are A1/S1/L1, get to pick their targets on land and/or sea if there are no enemy air units present.
-
Ah, picking targets… forgot about that option. That’s already in this game with the sub rules so that would fit best into the OOB stuff. That said, how about:
Cost 4, A1/S2/L1, pick sea and land targets. Now is it worth 4? I initially wanted an in-between air unit.
-
i think trying to introduce tanks into the game is a mistake. it does not add much strategy or fun to the game.
from the research(quick and unrealable sources) i have done there were no tanks involved in real life.
-
Hmm. Seems a little too good for 4. If the ability to pick targets is always on, it should have only have A1/S1/L1.
At 4, its the same price as a sub with its torpedo ability. Of course, because the tactical bomber is more flexible, i.e. can attack land and air and has more movement points, it shouldn’t have the sub’s pre-emptive strike ability: it should have to survive the ‘Attack Air Units’ phase before it drops its payload. Even then, you might want to say that the targeting ability only works when escorting fighters are present on a 1:1 ratio (kind of makes sense; without cover, they’d just have to drop their bombs on the nearest ship without being too picky, and beat their way back to the carrier).
A double-striking, targeting tactical bomber for 4 would be a nightmare, knocking out both fighters and bombers for purchasing points. On their own, either of the abilities are inoffensive, but together they would be nuts; especially remembering that Victory Points are directly derivable from sinking Capital Ships.
As for tanks, I agree that they don’t add a whole lot to this particular game. Nevertheless, I think that they would be viable units for other games that employ this great system (which I sincerely hope someone does).
-
Hmm, okay trying to take all this in…
How about this:
Torpedo bomber (Tac Bomber) has target selection, but attacks during normal attack phases. A1,S2,L0 Cost 4, Move 2.
Thoughts now? I really want to add these but need your expert opinions as I has not played a ton of games. Also, if VPs are an issue, I have no problem adjusting the number required. Playing to 15 almost seems too short anyway.
-
Hmm, okay trying to take all this in…
How about this:
Torpedo bomber (Tac Bomber) has target selection, but attacks during normal attack phases. A1,S2,L0 Cost 4, Move 2.
Thoughts now? I really want to add these but need your expert opinions as I has not played a ton of games. Also, if VPs are an issue, I have no problem adjusting the number required. Playing to 15 almost seems too short anyway.
I think you’ll find that this version is still incredibly powerful (and flavourful, too):
“Tactical Bomber has target selection during land and sea attack phases if supported by a fighter. A1/S1/L1, Cost 4, Move 2.”
Tactical Bombers will be worth it for Cost 4, but still need fighters at Cost 3 to work properly, and won’t knock the strategic bombers at Cost 5 out of business–they’ll still be unique with their ‘mass destruction’ 2x shots at land and sea units. Basically, tactical bombers will be in less demand than the cheaper fighters–and rightly so–but will still be very popular for their ability to hit precise targets (including AA guns and Aircraft Carriers!).
-
Some notes on in-game functionality:
Since you’re rolling tac bomber dice with all of the others, I recommend just counting the first few dice as your tac bomber hits or misses; e.g., if I have two tac bombers, the first two dice in the hopper count for tac bombers: if the first die is a ‘6’, and the second a ‘1’, then I have one miss and one targeted hit.
The air units casualty strip also needs to be modified to accomodate the new unit. I recommend the following pattern:
Fighter/Fighter/Tactical Bomber/Tactical Bomber/Strategic Bomber/Strategic Bomber
-
Oh right, the casualty strip. Yes, your pattern seems to fit the established system. Thanks for the reminder. That should work great.
-
I think if you want to stick to historical accuracy at all, use your tank stats for the mech inf and leave out tanks. The only “tanks” used in this campaign were very light tanks, even then with limited mobility. The jungle terrain was not conducive to tanks at all. But mech inf kinda represents light tanks IMO, so that would be ok, in limited numbers. Also, any mech inf or tank should require all the space on a transport and should not be able to board a destroyer.
More on the role of the tanks on Guadalcanal:
-
I find the idea of adding Tactical Bomber intriguing and given the fact that Axis & Allies Guadalcanal came out before the separation of bombers into Tactical and Strategic I think makes this a excellent concept. Given the details from A&A 40 that Tactical Bombers represent dive, and torpedo bombers it would make sense to add this unit to A&A Guadalcanal. For the record I have just recently purchased A&A Guadalcanal off ebay and have not yet been able to play the game other dabbling on my own.
That said there would need to be limitations set namely that Bombers (Betty and B-17) are now Strategic Bombers, and can only attack airfields and ground units no longer Sea Units. The new unit the Tactical Bomber is able to attack both Sea and Land units, and has targeting ability including supply tokens. The Tactical Bomber would also be both carrier and land based. The Tactical Bomber would move between the Strategic Bomber and Fighter units. And being that Air Combat is the first phase of combat it would have first strike ability on its target similar to the submarine.
Taking into consideration the historical aspect the SBD Dauntless dive bombers were very effective against the Imperial Japanese Navy during the Solomon Island campaign. Most naval battles were fought without either ships coming within firing range on each other.
In summary I think Tactical Bomber should be included with a cost of 4, Air Attack of 1, Sea Attack of 2, Land Attack of 2, and select target.
What are everyone else’s thoughts?
Thanks,
Suggested Topics
