Would this be at the beginning of game turn or each players turn?
Each players turn.
Tactical Bombers (Dive & Torpedo Bombers)
-
i would use version 2 :-P
-
Dive bomber
att = 3 (4 in the first round)
def = 1
move = 4
cost 8torpedo bomber
att = 2 (3 in the first round and can choose his target)
def = 1
move = 4
cost = 8 -
it should be def:2 Because real dive and torpedo bombers had 50 cal or 7.62 cal machine guns
-
No…… most of the dive bomber (as Stukas) was poor defensively)
Torpedo bombers were easy preys against fighters but this type of planes must have a kind of first shot attack capability. -
but SBD’s were superior and had 8 50 cal MG’s and could house 4 torpedos
-
Dive bomber
att = 3 (4 in the first round)
def = 1
move = 4
cost 8torpedo bomber
att = 2 (3 in the first round and can choose his target)
def = 1
move = 4
cost = 8Crusaderiv/450th
Thanks for your input. However, I’m not sure I would agree with the attack values for the torpedo bombers. Just looking back at what the Swordfish aircraft did to the Italian fleet would be a good argument against that.
Anyway, for simplicity, I’m just going to combine both dive & torpedo as one type of aircraft. Because on a strategic level I don’t really think there is a big difference between the two.
As for defensive value, I see good arguments for both a “2” and “1”. What needs to be considered here is what is the average defensive value for all tactical bomber aircraft? If I were to go with a Def-1 though, I would almost feel compelled to reduce the IPC value to 7. Maybe my “Version-2” option is the best solution.
-
i think its a good idea to reduce fighters to 7 ipcs. keep tacs at 10 or 11 ipcs. these planes need to be cheaper to encourage people to buy them. once your airforce is gone its too hard to replace them. reducing cost on planes will have more aircraft on your carriers and on the board in general. that makes for a better game. people would take more chances with fighters, like tanks and destroyers.
-
also, stratigic bombers should be 15 ipcs.
fighters = 7 ipcs
torpedeo/dive bomers = 10 ipcs
strategic bombers = 15 ipcs
heavy bombers = ?
what do you think? -
but SBD’s were superior and had 8 50 cal MG’s and could house 4 torpedos
You’re right…but without fighter escort SBD is easy prey. (For example just take a look on the US first strike during the battle of midway).Anyway, for simplicity, I’m just going to combine both dive & torpedo as one type of aircraft. Because on a strategic level I don’t really think there is a big difference between the two.
I used both because in my game I split the aircraft in two type (air force (dive bomber) and naval air force (Dive bomber and torpedoes bomber).
That’s why the attack capability is different.also, stratigic bombers should be 15 ipcs.
fighters = 7 ipcs
torpedeo/dive bomers = 10 ipcs
strategic bombers = 15 ipcs
heavy bombers = ?
what do you think?Two years ago a reduce the price of aircraft with great result. My friends love that.
After all, planes are the most strongest pieces in A&A games.
Personnaly I don’t like the startegic bomber term.
I prefer light bomber.FT = 8
LB = 12
DB/TB = 10
HB = 15 -
i think its a good idea to reduce fighters to 7 ipcs. keep tacs at 10 or 11 ipcs. these planes need to be cheaper to encourage people to buy them. once your airforce is gone its too hard to replace them. reducing cost on planes will have more aircraft on your carriers and on the board in general. that makes for a better game. people would take more chances with fighters, like tanks and destroyers.
Yes, my thoughts exactly.
It is the main reason why I wanted to create a second class of aircraft that is more economical. There are areas of the map that could use fighters but simply don’t get it because of cost. The Pacific islands are one example. In the games I’ve played, I’ve never seen a player base a plane there that was not in transit. Most of the time there are just one or two infantry on an island and most people don’t want to spend 12 or 10 IPC to protect 3 or 6 IPC.
One of my reasons for giving the tactical bomber a Def-2 is to make it more playable. If you included ground attack aircraft in the tactical bomber group, it give a stronger reason to give a Def-2 and it would not at all be unreasonable. Because ground/dive & torpedo bomber on a strategic level are all primarily built to attack ground/surface target. If it is left at def-1 then they will always be in the rear with heavy protection. With a Def-2, there would be more incentive to use them closer to the front line or for protection for more remote areas such as Australia.
-
also, stratigic bombers should be 15 ipcs.
fighters = 7 ipcs
torpedeo/dive bomers = 10 ipcs
strategic bombers = 15 ipcs
heavy bombers = ?
what do you think?Strategic & heavy bombers are one and the same. A heavy and even a medium bomber are both capable of strategic and tactical bombing. The only bomber that was ever restricted to strategic bombing was the B-29. Although it did see some tactical use in the Korean war.
I think bombers should be left at 12 IPC. It makes them more playable. At 15 IPC, they are very difficult to replace. I would make a super bomber, such as a B-29, 15 IPC.
In my game use the following when it comes to bombers.
Super Bomber 4-1-6-15 (2 dice for strategic bombing)
Heavy Bombers 4-1-6-12 (1 dice for strategic bombing)
Medium Bombers 3-1-6-10 (1 dice for strategic bombing, divide by 2 and round up).Fighters at 7 IPC & T/D bombers at 10 IPC would throw the game out of whack. Fighters are just too strong for 7IPC and would pretty much would make buying T/D bombers worthless. Why buy a plane that cost more but does less.
-
Strategic & heavy bombers are one and the same.
I agreeA heavy and even a medium bomber are both capable of strategic and tactical bombing.
Yes but the heavy bomber is more power ful than a medium.
So you must make a category if you want a realistic game.
For example, Germany cannot build heavy bomber at the beginning of the game whatever you play 39,40,41 or 42.I agree with you that 7 IPc for a fighter is cheap. 8 or 9 sounds good to me.
-
Strategic & heavy bombers are one and the same.
I agreeA heavy and even a medium bomber are both capable of strategic and tactical bombing.
Yes but the heavy bomber is more power ful than a medium.
So you must make a category if you want a realistic game.
For example, Germany cannot build heavy bomber at the beginning of the game whatever you play 39,40,41 or 42.I agree with you that 7 IPc for a fighter is cheap. 8 or 9 sounds good to me.
I was rewriting my last post and you posted before I finished.
In my game use the following when it comes to bombers.
Super Bomber 4-1-6-15 (2 dice for strategic bombing)
Heavy Bombers 4-1-6-12 (1 dice for strategic bombing)
Medium Bombers 3-1-6-10 (1 dice for strategic bombing, divide by 2 and round up). -
hes right strat and heavy bombers are the same thing
-
I was rewriting my last post and you posted before I finished.
:-D sorry if I’m fasterSuper Bomber 4-1-6-15 (2 dice for strategic bombing)
Heavy Bombers 4-1-6-12 (1 dice for strategic bombing)
Medium Bombers 3-1-6-10 (1 dice for strategic bombing, divide by 2 and round up).I think medium must be: defend at 2 and movement 4.
Also medium may attack sub and warship but heavy and super bomber can’t -
I was rewriting my last post and you posted before I finished.
:-D sorry if I’m fasterSuper Bomber 4-1-6-15 (2 dice for strategic bombing)
Heavy Bombers 4-1-6-12 (1 dice for strategic bombing)
Medium Bombers 3-1-6-10 (1 dice for strategic bombing, divide by 2 and round up).I think medium must be: defend at 2 and movement 4.
Also medium may attack sub and warship but heavy and super bomber can’tNo, medium, bombers move at 6. When you look at the average stats of medium & heavy bomber in WWII carrying a full bomb load (and this is the key point), both had about the same combat rage. The only difference was that medium bombers typically carried half to 2/3 of what a heavy bomber could.
-
heavy bombers had side top rear foward bottom gunners to
-
_No, medium, bombers move at 6. When you look at the average stats of medium & heavy bomber in WWII carrying a full bomb load (and this is the key point), both had about the same combat rage. The only difference was that medium bombers typically carried half to 2/3 of what a heavy bomber could.
Yes but not before 1943.
So if you want a medium bomber with better performance (mosquito is a good example) that must be a special unit or a special weapons._ -
heavy bombers had side top rear foward bottom gunners to
That’s a defensive issue and it’s already at 1. Medium bombers had guns too and you really can’t go lower than that and zero is not an option. Personally I would give heavy bombers a Def-2.
-
i would to
Suggested Topics
