Thanks a lot for your explaination to adaption, you are all right Dreadnaught! I guess it was anyone of you (adaption or Dreadnaught) who voted that the article is just useful and not great or better than the original ones? It is alright with that, but I would like to know what you think is better in the original ones than mine (couse otherwise you would have voted “Great”)? But if you think my variants are better over all (that means you vote “Great”), It was some one else who voted that mine are worse than the original ones!
And adaption, the reason to let any fighters onboard on a carrier to protect, might seem too complex. But It is necessary to do that if kamikazes are able to pick target! Otherwise it will not be balanced, since any carrier loaded with any fighters will invite a kamikaze attack, cause it is a bargain for the Japanese player to go for it! This still apply to your suggestion that any kamikazes should hit on a 3 or less! One must not forget that the kamikaze rule is to increase the Japanese fighters range whithout LRA technology. And since kamikazes are just an advantage it cannot be as good as a technology, so kamikazes need to be a hinderance upon Japan! That means that the odds for an attack should be harder for a kamikaze than a regular fighter attack, to compensate for the increased range capability of kamikazes! But it should be balanced!
So if one want to let kamikazes pick their target, I recomand my variant. For those who think this variant is too complicated, I suggest to use the original one! :wink:
And about “An enemy antiaircraft gun can roll one die against only each attacking fighter.” This is just to say things twice, that superfortresses are immune to AA fire and that is no matter if it is a SBR or a regular combat. So if there is a combat with superfortresses and fihters and there is a AA gun in the area, then the AA gun can roll one die against only each fighter!
Mr. Andersson, I just wanted to let you know that I am glad that you made the choice that you did for the Tiger Tank NA. It seems to be the most balanced of them all, and it creates some interesting strategic challenges.
I highly approve of this combined list. I read it all, and it is definitely better than the previous set of articles. I do advise that you hold off on the book form until these are rigorously play-tested, though. :lol:
I don’t know why, but the Jet Fighters intercept abilities seem a little off. I can’t explain exactly why, but it just seems a little too powerful (then again, that may be my relative lack of experience talking). However, this is definitely progress at it’s finest. Keep up the fantastic work.
I will give it a shot,ima play a game soon,i will tell ya how it went :D
Oh btw,i voted useful,but it was an accident,when i pressed the vote button then i saw it was on useful i was like Ah shit and it was 2 late.
Pardon me :)
How about this variant for kamikazes???
Kamikazes Attacks
The Japanese developed a small rocket powered aircraft full of explosives guided by a suicide pilot. This aircraft was carried to the target area by a bomber. After being released, it would engage its rocket motors to make a high-speed dash to the target ship.
Your bombers may target enemy capital ships. Each bomber attacks during the opening fire step of combat, and the defender must chose aircraft carriers or battleships as casualties. If no capital ship is present then your bombers loses its opening fire and the enemy may chose any other unit as a casualty (casualties can fire back).
one thing i would change is for jet fighters … not in this articel, but in understanding the pocedure:
jetfighters do not attack before the aaguns do just because you have the order of battle beginning with the opening fire step (that is the aa gun) if the bomber is still on it’s SBR (or if it is a superfortress) than the jetfighter might fight one combat cycle against those bombers. however the defending player has to choose the number of defending jetfighters prior beginning the battle with the opening fire step, so there may be a situation where your aa guns hit and your jetfighter remain on a CAP without engaging enemies.
this way everything goes fine with the original rules concerning battle order and the like.
btw… good job mr.andersson ;-)
one thing i would change is for jet fighters … not in this articel, but in understanding the pocedure:
jetfighters do not attack before the aaguns do just because you have the order of battle beginning with the opening fire step (that is the aa gun) if the bomber is still on it’s SBR (or if it is a superfortress) than the jetfighter might fight one combat cycle against those bombers. however the defending player has to choose the number of defending jetfighters prior beginning the battle with the opening fire step, so there may be a situation where your aa guns hit and your jetfighter remain on a CAP without engaging enemies.
this way everything goes fine with the original rules concerning battle order and the like.btw… good job mr.andersson ;-)
Splending Kaladesh, that is alright and I will clarify it in an updated version together with Kamikazes and Dreadnoughts! I have included the 3 hit BB variant in the poll for Dreadnoughts so you can now vote for that, please vote in my polls and continue with your replies of inspirations!
one thing i would change is for jet fighters … not in this articel, but in understanding the pocedure…
How about this, will that do? :D
1. Jet Fighters
Your fighters are now jet fighters. Their defense increases to 5, and they may intercept bombers (including superfortresses) in a SBR.
Bomber Interception: This battle last for one cycle of combat only. The defender declares intercepting fighters before any defending AA guns fire. Intercepting fighters attack on a 3 were as the bomber defend on a 1, after any AA fire. Any fighters used in a interceptor role may not also defend in a regular land attack against that same territory on the same turn.
I have made a lot of research about the B-29 superfortresses, and I found the optional rule that american bombers cannot be hit by AA fire very unrealistic!
B-29 Superfortress
The B-29 was the first pressurised bomber to enter service, and was therefore able to operate over vaste distances and at safe heights to deliver huge bombloads onto the enemy.
Originally designed to bomb Germany from America during World War II, the B-29 entered service only at the end of the European war. This massive, revolutionary bomber was transferred to the fight against Japan, where it devastated cities in huge firebomb raids. Enola Gay was the superfortress, which dropped the first atomic bomb on Japan, hitting the port city of Hiroshima on 6 August 1945.
The B-29 was a revelation when it first flew. Easily the biggest bomber of World War II, it flew faster than any of its predecessors, and at an altitude it could outpace most of the Japanese fighters that were its principal foes. The B-29’s had a standard load of over 9000 kg of bombs, compared to its counterparts that rarely flew combat missions with more than 3000 kg. The only exception would be Avro Lancaster, the RAF’s main bomber that had a normal combat load of about 6300 kg.
How to revise the Superfortresses advantage?
This background states that a Superfortresses advantage could imply the following:
6. Superfortresses (revised)
The B-29 Superfortress carried the biggest standard bomb load of any wartime bomber.
Your bombers each roll one additional die when conducting a strategic bombing raid.
This means that if the U.S. player want to have the true B-29 Superfortress, the U.S. player would have to develop Heavy Bombers and Long Range Aircraft. Then U.S. would get bombers that would be anything but lousy, especially in a SBR! To counter that I suggest my revised Superfortresses should be used in conjunction with the revised Jet Fighter development! Verry much more balanced and realistic as well!
Jet Fighters
About the special move as an interceptor – Jet fighters performed well in high altitudes much better than piston-engine-driven propellers (other high-altitude fighters). It is no surprise that the Me 262 (Germanys best jet fighter) was primarily designed as a bomber-destroyer! Me 262 was easily the fastest fighter in the world: with guns and unguided R4M rockets, this fighter of the future had the potential to knock down Flying Fortresses almost impunity. Too late and not always used in the best way, the ME 262 frightened the Allies but could not alter the outcome of the war!
1. Jet Fighters
Your fighters are now jet fighters. Their defense increases to 5, and they may intercept bombers (including superfortresses) in a SBR.
Bomber Interception. : This battle last for one cycle of combat only. The defender declares intercepting fighters before any defending AA guns fire. Intercepting fighters attack on a 3 were as the bomber defend on a 1, after any AA fire. Any fighters used in a interceptor role may not also defend in a regular land attack against that same territory on the same turn.
They sound good. I’ve always just played by the book, but I will have to see if I can get a group willing to try these revised rules.
2 things:
1: Are you sure the Superfortresses aren’t too strong? Then again, it is historically accurate.
2: what happens as you lose tanks with the Ger. heavy tanks?
I know you tested all these new rules, and I’m sure you made a decision. I assume that the first is a heavy tank, and then every 4th after that.
1: Are you sure the Superfortresses aren’t too strong? Then again, it is historically accurate.
2: what happens as you lose tanks with the Ger. heavy tanks?
I know you tested all these new rules, and I’m sure you made a decision. I assume that the first is a heavy tank, and then every 4th after that.
1. The superfortresses advantage is now counterable for the Axis, but cost a lot to develop Jet Fighters! However to old rule of mine that I have in these revised NAs may be a better choice since now the U.S. needs to develop heavy bombers as well. This variant with one additional die per bomber in a SBR is not really playtested! But compared to the original one, I am sure it wont be worse to the Axis as long as they can counter it with jets! :wink:
Damage caused by heavy superfortresses (Heavy Bombers development and Superfortresses advantage) against an IC protected by jets (Jet Fighter development):
5/63(1/61+1/62+1/63+1/64+1/65+1/66) + 5/61/610 IPCs = 10,1 IPCs
Damage caused by AA fire and intercepting jets (on a 1:1 ratio for fighters and bombers) on bombers in a SBR:
1/615 + 3/615 = 10 IPCs
This means that the German and Japanese player needs to develop Jet Fighters to an average cost of 30 IPCs and have as many fighters protecting each IC as there are U.S. heavy superfortresses within reach for a potential SBR! The allies would just have a slight advantage to the axis if conducting a SBR with heavy superfortresses, it is even less then for a regular bomber that conducts a SBR on an IC only protected by an AA gun!
2. this is from another thread about “Heavy Tanks”:
First cycle of combat:
Put the first 2 tanks on 3 and every third tank on 4. Repeat this until all tanks are on your battleboard. At the end of the combat remove casualties.
Second cycle of combat:
Remove all remaining tanks from battleboard and redeploy them by putting the first 2 on 3 and every third tank on 4. Repeat that until all your remaining tanks are on the battelboard… and so on!
