Kay, I thought so, but got confused between all the readings.
Can Japan make a major industrial on Kiangsu? etc? Japan starts the game with them and the map is yellower than the rest of china. Rules not clear.
@Cow:
Can Japan make a major industrial on Kiangsu? etc? Japan starts the game with them and the map is yellower than the rest of china. Rules not clear.
They have the Chinese roundel on them, which leads me to believe that they are liberated as if a Chinese territory. This implies that Japan cannot build a Major complex on them.
Correct.
So subs as a warship negect the Italian NO in the Med?
And… when doing SBR. It says escorts fire, then interceptors and bombers fire.
Does bombers fire - INCLUDE tactical and strategic bombers?
No, because the Italian NO specifically excludes enemy submarines.
“Collect 5 IPCs per turn if there are no Allied surface warships in the Mediterranean Sea (sea zones 92 through 99).”
Submarines, by definition, are not surface warships.
And… when doing SBR. It says escorts fire, then interceptors and bombers fire.
Does bombers fire - INCLUDE tactical and strategic bombers?
Of course it does. Tactical Bombers and Strategic Bombers are both BOMBERS. Tactical Bombers can also never be escorts. So the only time they CAN fire is with bombers and obviously only when being used to bomb an air base or a naval base. Which makes perfect sense - they’re bombers after all.
Really, I thought Tacticals were basically fighters that defended on 3 instead of 4, cost 1 more and could attack naval/air bases….interesting.
@Cmdr:
Really, I thought Tacticals were basically fighters that defended on 3 instead of 4, cost 1 more and could attack naval/air bases….interesting.
The way I see it, it’s a problem relating to naming conventions and historic unit roles. Tactical bombers represent many types of planes: heavy fighters, night fighters, ground attack, dive bombers, torpedo bombers, etc, etc. They’re far less maneuverable than an air superiority fighter (though sometimes faster), more heavily armed, and capable of carrying a small payload of bombs (like, 3x500 lb or so) or torpedos. Strategic bombers (which used to represent many of the tactical bomber roles) are now basically medium & heavy aircraft, long range, multiengine (usually) that carry a reasonably large payload.
Originally in A&A, as I’m sure you know, Strategic Bombers were just called Bombers, and were renamed to Strategic Bombers in AA1940 to differentiate from Tactical Bombers. But at that point, only Strategic Bombers could be used in SBRs. And now both types can.
That means a Strategic Bombing Run (which used to be limited to Strategic Bombers) has a name that seems to confuse everyone because Tacticals can now perform an SBR as well. And Tactical Bombers can scramble like fighters (which still makes sense if you know the aircraft roles in naval combat), but is confusing from an abstract view of the rules where tactical BOMBERS can perform some functions with Fighters (scrambling) and some functions with Strategic bombers (SBRs on bases) but NOT as an escort (because they areno air superiority fighters).
On one level, that makes sense. However, why is their defense value so high if they are not that maneuverable? I would suspect a defense of 2 then. (They do 1 less attack dmg than a strategic bomber, they do one defense more than a strategic bomber.)
Just a thought.
@Cmdr:
On one level, that makes sense. However, why is their defense value so high if they are not that maneuverable? I would suspect a defense of 2 then. (They do 1 less attack dmg than a strategic bomber, they do one defense more than a strategic bomber.)
Just a thought.
Probably because “defense” and “offense” are abstractions as well. a strategic bomber is not useful in defending a territory because you’re bombing your own territory. Ouch.
A tactical bomber has a bit more homefield advantage - it’s still pounding smaller targets with more precision - torps on naval units ala midway, ground attack on infantry formations, etc. Manueverability is abstracted more as a restriction of their use (cannot escort) and less as a factor in their defensive rolling, though arguably has some impact - they’re not quite as useful as an air superiority fighter.
When I think aircraft I think:
Fighter: Air to Air Fighter, may be equipped with rockets, 2 bombs (one under each wing) or 1 torpedo under the belly of the plane. akin to a Zero
Tactical Bomber: A dive bomber. More heavily armored than a fighter, but still an Air to Air Superiority plane. Akin to the Stuka
Strategic Bomber: High Range carpet bomber, akin to the B-17.
Are my opinions of these craft not in line with their physical abilities in the game?
@Cmdr:
When I think aircraft I think:
Fighter: Air to Air Fighter, may be equipped with rockets, 2 bombs (one under each wing) or 1 torpedo under the belly of the plane. akin to a Zero
Tactical Bomber: A dive bomber. More heavily armored than a fighter, but still an Air to Air Superiority plane. Akin to the Stuka
Strategic Bomber: High Range carpet bomber, akin to the B-17.Are my opinions of these craft not in line with their physical abilities in the game?
I’d say your opinions are in line with their abilities of the game (as dogfighting rules are nonexistant) but not really inline with physical abilities or roles in real life.
Dive bombers etc are not air to air superiority - in fact that’s where they fail. Stukas, Il-2s, Vals, Dauntless, Mosquitos etc were hardly capable of engaging fighter aircraft. Heavy attack fighters were designed under the assumption that more armour, more guns (and often more engines in the case of the me-110) would make them more of a match against single engine planes. In actuality, they were incredibly vulnerable to single engine fighters and failed miserably in air superiority roles (the me-110 in the battle of britain is a good example of this). However, where they excelled was in ground attack roles (or strategic bomber interception) as they could bring more to bear against targets less maneuverable than themselves. And Mosquitoes were designed specifically to outrun fighters.
So yes, dive bombers are tac bombers (as are torpedo bombers like the dauntless or mosquito or tank killers and ground attack like the Il-2). But they are not air superiority fighters. And in general, fighters like the zero could not carry bombs without serious impact on their dogfighting ability. In fact, most air superiority were no effective at carrying hardpoint loads. Small bombs at the most. Rarely torpedos (I don’t believe the Zero could actually carry a torpedo - that’s the Val or Kate). Drop tanks usually needed to be released before engaging enemy fighters as well. Late war models like the corsair had enough power to carry rockets and bombs and maintain their air superiority but they’re were not tactical bombers (ground attack) until the Korean war when they could no longer effectively engage modern jet fighters.
Yea, I was thinking 2 small bombs or a torpedo on a plane like a zero. We know the zero carried a torpedo, it was used in Pearl Harbor, so they had the technology early in the game.
I am supposing a tarctical bomber would be a P-38 lightning instead of a P-51 mustang? Or is the P-38 still too fighterish to qualify?
@Cmdr:
Yea, I was thinking 2 small bombs or a torpedo on a plane like a zero. We know the zero carried a torpedo, it was used in Pearl Harbor, so they had the technology early in the game.
I am supposing a tarctical bomber would be a P-38 lightning instead of a P-51 mustang? Or is the P-38 still too fighterish to qualify?
Sorry, the zeros at pearl harbor were escorting fighters they did not carry bombs or torpedos. The p-51 was a decent fighter bomber in asia but was used as an escort and pursuit plane in Europe because of the heavy ground fire of the axis. The mustang was also used as an escort on those long over water missions to escort B-29s to Japan. The P-38 was used in all roles in both theaters. The leading U.S. ace of the entire war was a P-38 pilot. ( In the Pacific.)
And so you feel the fighter, tactical bomber and strategic bombers (for the US) were what?
And I thought the Zeroes had torpedoes, they designed a special one for the shallow depths at pearl too!
@Cmdr:
And so you feel the fighter, tactical bomber and strategic bombers (for the US) were what?
And I thought the Zeroes had torpedoes, they designed a special one for the shallow depths at pearl too!
The navy SBD dive bomber is the one represented in the AA games as a tactical bomber. The B-17 is the one in the AA games representing the stratigic bomber. The navy F6F and the army P-38 are the AA fighters.
@Cmdr:
We know the zero carried a torpedo, it was used in Pearl Harbor, so they had the technology early in the game.
Ummm… No. The A6M2 (Mitsubishi Navy Type 0 Carrier Fighter) did not carry torpedoes during the attack on Pearl. The Zekes/Zeros/A6Ms escorted the B5N Kates (with torpedoes or bombs) and D3A Vals (with bombs). The Zero was used for fighter interception and airfield strafing. It probably couldn’t have carried a torpedo on a bet.
@Cmdr:
I am supposing a tarctical bomber would be a P-38 lightning instead of a P-51 mustang? Or is the P-38 still too fighterish to qualify?
The P-38 is a strange case. It was technically a heavy long range fighter, and excelled in the pacific almost in spite of itself. It’s most similar to an Me 110, and in Europe was outclassed by the single engine planes that could outmaneuver it. In the Pacific, it didn’t matter quite as much because it could usually kill a Japanese plane in one pass because
A) it had all it’s cannons centered on the nose with 0 convergence zone, so it was as accurate at 100 yards as it was at 400
B) Japanese planes had no armour and no selfsealing tanks.
C) it (and the P40, but that had it’s own set of issues) were the only US planes faster than the zero in the first half of the war.
the P38 is still more of an air superiority fighter, but it did do some ground attack. And it may have seen more use in a ground attack role had it not been for it’s fatal flaw (at least in early models till the J, I believe) which suffered from compressibility - once in a fast dive it was nearly impossible to get out of it.
The P-51 is absolutely NOT a tactical bomber - it’s a born and bred dogfighter. And the Corsair wasn’t considered primarily a tactical bombing until the Korean War, where it no longer could serve as air superiority as it was now too slow, though it did serve well in ground attack in late WW2 (and EXCELLED in air superiority).
@Cmdr:
And so you feel the fighter, tactical bomber and strategic bombers (for the US) were what?
Fighter: P40, F4F, F6F, P38, P51, F4u, P47. Oh, yes, and the P39, but it was horrid at dogfighting, and per the game standards of tac bombers including the Il-2, the P39 could probably be considered a tac bomber as well.
Tacs: Dauntless, Avenger, Helldiver, Vindicator, A26 Invader… the list goes on. Anything that couldn’t hold its own in a dogfight and wasn’t bristling with gun turrets… Max crew of maybe 3? Although while the B25 and B26 can almost be called a tactical bomber, but in this game it’s probably more appropriate to think of as a strategic bomber.
Strategics: B17, B24, B25, B26, B29, etc etc etc.
In the Pacific the P-38 could not turn with a zero. They could survive by holding at a high altitude and then diving on a zero with its heavy firepower. If it missed then the pilot could just keep going as they were faster in a dive. After outrunning the zero the P-38 could just come back around for another pass.
