IC in Egypt

[orcageo]

OK the subs can do damage but have roll 2 and there is a destroyer is SZ 110. The tactical bombers is a good move but what can the Bomber do does it attack fleets? I do not know this.
What about the fighters in the UK can’t the UK scramble them?

[orcageo]

The last sentence was a question I wanted to clarify.

[calvinhobbesliker]

@orcageo:

OK the subs can do damage but have roll 2 and there is a destroyer is SZ 110. The tactical bombers is a good move but what can the Bomber do does it attack fleets? I do not know this.
What about the fighters in the UK can’t the UK scramble them?

Bombers can attack fleets and the UK fighters can’t scramble since UK is not an Island(borders a land territory and multiple sea zones).

Here is one set of attacks:
SS and fighter against destroyer and transport in Z109
fighter, cruiser, and battleship against 2 cruisers in Z112
2 SS, 2 ftr, tac against battleship and cruiser
2 SS, 2 tac, bmr against destroyer and battleship

[orcageo]

Thanks for the plan and the answer about the fighters is logical, but I find no logic in the bomber being able to fire upon ships. In real war strategic bombers bombed cities and facilities not ships, they fly very high up in the sky in order to aim a ship. If that is in the rules its unrealistic and I am afraid that I will not play it my game. Thank though for your quick answers and debate calvin.

[radar231]

Are you really serious  :-o

1- A&A is an unrealistic war game…

2- What kind of planes do you think sank the British BBs in the pacific ? ( in the real WWII )

3- If you read all the msgs in all the forums, lots of players are trying unrealistic ways to win…

4- I would like to play against you, since you won’t use bombers against me and I will against you  :lol:

5- This is only a wargame, enjoy it and use your bombers, scare your ennemies.  :-D

Cheers

J.  8-)

[orcageo]

Were they strategic bombers or stukas you tell me.
Do you think I do not know its an unrealistic game!!!
The thing is though that the game is based on real events, a real war with the real political situations of that time. Anyway thats the way I see it. Bombers bomb from thousands of feet off the ground, tactical bombers can bomb ships, that’s how the American and Japanese fleet lost ships. If I am wrong then I apologize.
Anyway we wouldn’t play with each other I think because we have different philosophies. Thank you though for your opinion.

[calvinhobbesliker]

@orcageo:

Were they strategic bombers or stukas you tell me.
Do you think I do not know its an unrealistic game!!!
The thing is though that the game is based on real events, a real war with the real political situations of that time. Anyway thats the way I see it. Bombers bomb from thousands of feet off the ground, tactical bombers can bomb ships, that’s how the American and Japanese fleet lost ships. If I am wrong then I apologize.
Anyway we wouldn’t play with each other I think because we have different philosophies. Thank you though for your opinion.

You can play with the rule that bombers can’t hit ships but I have a feeling that will make the game unbalanced towards the allies, who need bombers to kill the Japanese, Italian, and German fleets

[calvinhobbesliker]

Alos, a strategic bomber may not be accurate enough to hit a single ship, but keep in mind 1 battleship piece represents multiple battleships and their escorts, which a strategic bomber can kill

[special forces]

@orcageo:

Thanks for the plan and the answer about the fighters is logical, but I find no logic in the bomber being able to fire upon ships. In real war strategic bombers bombed cities and facilities not ships, they fly very high up in the sky in order to aim a ship. If that is in the rules its unrealistic and I am afraid that I will not play it my game. Thank though for your quick answers and debate calvin.

mmm… will your infantry shoot back when attacked by fighters?

[radar231]

@orcageo:

Were they strategic bombers or stukas you tell me.
Do you think I do not know its an unrealistic game!!!
The thing is though that the game is based on real events, a real war with the real political situations of that time. Anyway thats the way I see it. Bombers bomb from thousands of feet off the ground, tactical bombers can bomb ships, that’s how the American and Japanese fleet lost ships. If I am wrong then I apologize.
Anyway we wouldn’t play with each other I think because we have different philosophies. Thank you though for your opinion.

Hi,

I had to go to work, that’s why I didn’t answer you right away. You are right about the IJ planes that sunk the British BBs in the pacific. They were tactical bombers, G4M Bettys I think. As far as I know, the IJAF didn’t have strategic bombers. Same with the German, beside Kondors. You don’t have to apologize, we were just ’ arguing ’ about our own feelings of the game. It is nice to have people with different philosophies. But game wise, you are losing good units if you only use strat bombers for strat attacks on IC and others. But we do live in a free world, so as long as we enjoy the game, we do as we like.

J. 8-)

[xzorn]

The Egypt IC gives UK no forces immediately and commits them to spending more later. I prefer to buy a transport off South Africa with a ground unit or two and use the rest in the Atlantic.

It doesn’t work if Germany goes all in for Sealion, but not spending 12 on a minor leaves enough money to hold off a feint.

[Razor]

Off topic, but I just want to tell you that Tirpitz was sunk by Lancaster strategic bombers.

[moralecheck]

@orcageo:

Were they strategic bombers or stukas you tell me.
Do you think I do not know its an unrealistic game!!!
The thing is though that the game is based on real events, a real war with the real political situations of that time. Anyway thats the way I see it. Bombers bomb from thousands of feet off the ground, tactical bombers can bomb ships, that’s how the American and Japanese fleet lost ships. If I am wrong then I apologize.
Anyway we wouldn’t play with each other I think because we have different philosophies. Thank you though for your opinion.

Strategic bombers were regularly used tacticly.  It is simply a matter of what payload they are carrying.  The German strat bombers had a remote control torpedo bomb that could be steered by a guy in the left side of the bomber to try and hit the big ships smack dab in the middle, for example.  And yes they had to fly lower for this.

Sealion comment: I see some of you are focusing on the royal navy on turn 1.  I’ve been using the luftwaffe to hit england and take out those 3 fighters while they only have 2 infantry cobering them.  This also blocks the need for a german carrier as the brits lose their planes and the german fleet hides in the baltic.   I think this strategy is more costly to both sides by turn 3 (after the naval battle ensues), but Germany can afford it more.  Maybe it needs a few more tries though.

[orcageo]

Sorry i didn’t answer earlier but I went to sleep and had to work because I live in Greece and we have a big hour gap. Ok I agree that some BB may have been hit by strategic bonbers but mainly when they were in naval bases. I didn’t know that with the guided torpedo, I was unaware they had that technology. Did they use it widely?
Whatever, if we agree that strategic bombers bomb BB’s shouldn’t they have an attack less than 4 because they for surely aren’t that accurate as the tactical bombers?

[calvinhobbesliker]

@moralecheck:

@orcageo:

Were they strategic bombers or stukas you tell me.
Do you think I do not know its an unrealistic game!!!
The thing is though that the game is based on real events, a real war with the real political situations of that time. Anyway thats the way I see it. Bombers bomb from thousands of feet off the ground, tactical bombers can bomb ships, that’s how the American and Japanese fleet lost ships. If I am wrong then I apologize.
Anyway we wouldn’t play with each other I think because we have different philosophies. Thank you though for your opinion.

Strategic bombers were regularly used tacticly.  It is simply a matter of what payload they are carrying.  The German strat bombers had a remote control torpedo bomb that could be steered by a guy in the left side of the bomber to try and hit the big ships smack dab in the middle, for example.  And yes they had to fly lower for this.

Sealion comment: I see some of you are focusing on the royal navy on turn 1.  I’ve been using the luftwaffe to hit england and take out those 3 fighters while they only have 2 infantry cobering them.  This also blocks the need for a german carrier as the brits lose their planes and the german fleet hides in the baltic.  I think this strategy is more costly to both sides by turn 3 (after the naval battle ensues), but Germany can afford it more.  Maybe it needs a few more tries though.

Umm, that means you leave at least a Battleship and another ship alive. If you keep your transports in the Baltic, I can block Z112 on turn 3, or, if you move your fleet to Z112, I can attack it with the BB and whatever fleet I built.

[moralecheck]

Again, it may need more plays.  The idea is that germany’s G1 builds are mostly aircraft.  The RAF is toasted on G1 (as is a lot of the luftwaffe).  The new German planes and ships move into z112 on G2 and engage the the Royal Navy if its there.  If it’s not, hopefully the aircraft and subs can reach it. If the UK is building ships instead of infantry that may backfire for them.  The G2 builds should also include a destroyer or 2 (or maybe now is the time to build the carrier).  I’ll try it a few more times anyway.  I’m beginning to think sealion is a bad prospect anyway.  It’s a lot of cost for one victory city and the USA will attack it relentlessly.  It also leaves the germans exhausted for barbarossa and its 3 russian cities.  I love the possibilities in this game.  Sorry for the threadjack.

[WILD BILL]

I don’t think I like the UK Egyptian IC, to many mouths to feed for UK. I could see doing it though if Germany poses no real threat to England itself, and most of the Italian navy is gone (it is rare now a days that Germany doesn’t at least threaten some kind of amphib). That’s what is so cool about this game, you can try different things. Some will work, and some won’t. I don’t like to get locked into the same strats every time.

The others are right though, if UK builds additional IC’s it could defiantly backfire. UK only has so much money, and if you cut off the head, all those minors are useless (until US gets involved).

[KurtGodel7]

@orcageo:

Sorry i didn’t answer earlier but I went to sleep and had to work because I live in Greece and we have a big hour gap. Ok I agree that some BB may have been hit by strategic bonbers but mainly when they were in naval bases. I didn’t know that with the guided torpedo, I was unaware they had that technology. Did they use it widely?
Whatever, if we agree that strategic bombers bomb BB’s shouldn’t they have an attack less than 4 because they for surely aren’t that accurate as the tactical bombers?

You have a good point here. Fighters were single engined aircraft intended to destroy enemy aircraft. Single-engined bombers–such as Kates and Stukas and so forth–were intended to destroy enemy tanks and ships and so forth; while holding their own against enemy aircraft. Large, four-engined bombers were intended to destroy enemy cities.

Capturing that distinction was one of my primary goals in creating the Flames and Steel rules set.

I employed the following definitions for aircraft:

Fighter
    * Air combat value: 4
    * Land combat value: 1
    * Naval combat value: 1
    * Hitpoints: 4
    * Movement: 4
    * Cost: 10 PUs

Dive bomber
    * Air combat value: 2
    * Land combat value: 3
    * Naval combat value: 3
    * Strategic bombing value: 1 PU
    * Hitpoints: 4
    * Movement: 4
    * Cost: 10 PUs

Strategic bomber
    * Air combat value: 1
    * Land combat value: 1
    * Naval combat value: 1
    * Strategic bombing value: 3 PUs. Plus a permanent, 1 PU reduction in the territory’s value.
    * Hitpoints: 6
    * Movement: 6
    * Cost: 16 PUs

As you can see, I gave strategic bombers some ability to be used tactically; on the theory that they could be used that way in a pinch. But it’s not what they’re best at or intended for.

[orcageo]

I agree with you Kurt and I am playing the game that way. But what do you mean by hitpoints?

[KurtGodel7]

@orcageo:

I agree with you Kurt and I am playing the game that way. But what do you mean by hitpoints?

In my rules set, most units take multiple hits to destroy. Normally, whichever player is inflicting the hits gets to decide how to allocate them. That means that wounded units will get finished off before hits get allocated to healthy units.

As an aside, a land combat value of 2 means that when firing against land units, you roll two dice. Each die roll hits on a four or less. The extra hits help balance out the extra hitpoints.