… why have people choose how to use their rtl when you can mathematically just figure out which type will get you the most hits and make all your rtl that type?
My Antiaircraft Artillery rule is not that bad! In my case both kind of units (antiair and regular) will be used in the same combat, some will go for air and some for land. That is what I wanted to achieve. If just two attacking fighters then no more than four artillery can be directed aginst air units. More over one has to consider air supremacy and the possibility of win or lose. These aspects bring balance to the game because it becomes more of an art than just statistics. I am talking about scenario analysis rather then just a static analysis of a singel scenario.
One can always mathematically figure out which type will inflict the enemy the biggest loss on average, but that is for a risk neutral case. The risk doeas play a role for people. You are smart enough to figure out a scenario your self, were one choose to go for a regular hit on 2/6 chance and not a hit on 1/6 chance. No matter if the lsmall chance case will inflict a lot more damage (a fighter) then the big chance case (infantry casualty). How ever it is more of an exception.
@Imperious:
Level Bombers cant hit ground targets with accuracy they invarable “carpet bomb” the entire place hoping to get close to something. Thats why they made Dive Bombers for close ground support combat because they can zoom in to the location and fly back up for another run.
The bomber is the last piece capable of this.
Well Impy, you are talking about heavy bombers, I am talking about the light and medium bombers that were more of all-purpose attack bomber or low-level strike attack bomber. The heavy bombers were used for Strategic Bombing but the light bombers were used for tactical bombing. How ever to reflect these different kinds of units in on piece, we let them have the ability of both! By the way, not all nations developed true heavy bombers.
For example A-20 Havoc called Boston by the RAF. It was not the fastest plane in its class, but it was extremly tough, handled well and was a popular and effective fighting machine, especially in the low-level attack role. Bombing with deadly accuracy Boston and Havocs were used to attack communications target in France and Belgium. They were also popular with the Soviet air force, which was the largest user of the Havoc. Other light and medium bombers were A-26 Invader B-25 Mitchell, Do 17Z, Ju 88 and Blenheim Mk IV.
P.S. The retreat loophole need to fixed and I will adress it later on when all air rules are play tested D.S.
Well Impy, you are talking about heavy bombers, I am talking about the light and medium bombers that were more of all-purpose attack bomber or low-level strike attack. The heavy bombers were used for Strategic Bombing but the light bombers were used for tactical bombing. How ever to reflect these different kinds of units in on piece, we let them have the ability of both! By the way, not all nations developed true heavy bombers.
I am not speaking about such planes. Only special planes that were could be used for close combat attack were capable and those comprised of Dive -Bombers and Fighter-Bombers NOT as YOU put it “Bombers”. The bomber piece thats in the game does not cover this function and is more close to the functions of the fighter unit. Light and medium bombers do not perform targeted close combat ground assault missions by and large . They were used to drop ordanance on fixed objects such as bridges and built up positions and not moving targets. Please research this stuff! Even the German Arado 234 Jet Bomber was designed as a fighter-bomber but could barely even hit a damm bridge!
Look at it this way: If the plane has a Payload of bombs….then it cant hit any selected targets, if it has only one bomb… then its more likely to have the capability of delivering this bomb in a manner thats targeted. Okay?
So if you want Histirical value fighters have to have this “targeted” thing you like, while the bombers are for mass “spraying” of some area with saturation. The nomenclature of “fighter-bomber” or “dive-bomber” does not make it a “Bomber class” unit. Its a fighter plane with a single bomb under its wing or fuselage . It may even have 2 bombs but its still under the fighter classification.
NOW… what about the “like for like” hits?? thoughts?
@Imperious:
I am not speaking about such planes. Only special planes that were could be used for close combat attack were capable and those comprised of Dive -Bombers and Fighter-Bombers NOT as YOU put it “Bombers”. The bomber piece thats in the game does not cover this function and is more close to the functions of the fighter unit. Light and medium bombers do not perform targeted close combat ground assault missions by and large . They were used to drop ordanance on fixed objects such as bridges and built up positions and not moving targets. Please research this stuff! Even the German Arado 234 Jet Bomber was designed as a fighter-bomber but could barely even hit a damm bridge!
Ok Impy, let me put it in this way. Those light and medium bombers were actually used in targeted attacks like shipping attacks and airfield attacks as well as in the antitank attacks (how ever the singel engine fighter-bombers were more exploited for this tankbuster role). These bombers did as well send bombs screaming earthward from high in the sky, but also attacked with speed and surprise down on the deck, strafing ships and troops with lethal nose guns. The payloads from these machines were being accurate and deadly. I think this is what the bomber pieces in the game are suposed to represent. You are right that the targets were more stationary and that is why bombers only attack (no defense value). More over bombers, in my optional rule, get an surprise effect represented by attacking in the opening fire step of combat, but only for the first cycle of combat (representing a tactical bombing raid). This rule of mine also bring a higher strategical level to the game when used in conjuction with air supremacy, since one can attack any defending fighters.
I would like to know what you think the 4 and 1 in attack and defense for a bomber represents. As you know bombers can be used for more than just SBRs in the original game. I tell you, they represents exactly what I have told you about those tactical bombing raids! :wink:
@Imperious:
NOW… what about the “like for like” hits?? thoughts?
I like it as it is, however the idea is fine! I will stick to the the system as it is today and just add optional rules. It is easier for people to accept new rules in portions. In swedish we have something that says “hast slowly”. I think your rules represent a new game, not just a refinement. If you still dont like the Bomber Strikes rule of mine, skip it and just stick to air supremacy and/or Antiaircraft Artillery rule. These other two rules are good enough to be used separately. The poll however just concerned the air supremacy rule, what did you vote (and why)?
@Imperious:
….another problem that still has to be addressed is retreats. The very idea of this thing were the attacker tries to take out all the defenders except for one then ends combat so as not to get stuck in the territory and destroyed on your opponents turn is totally unrealistic.
Either side should be able to retreat after any round. Now since you probably think this is too much of a change, then the “like for like” idea helps dissipate this problem as now you directly engage the goodies and can leave after getting some good licks in. Either way its more Historical and not more complicated.
As I said, I do agree that defensive retreats should be allowed. I have almost always played with the house rule were both attacker and defender can retreat. I like to add new optional rules as long as its simple and fits the purpose. And this rule really does.
Retreats
Whichever side retreats cannot fire during combat, during the cycle of combat it is declared. No partial retreats are allowed except for damaged Battleships, they cannot retreat.
If one use the optional rule for Antiaircraft Artillery, then any artillery directed against air (only defensive artillery units are allowed to do this) are considered to be captured by the attacking player.
I think your retreats are fine but this covers pretty much everything.Retreats occur after the combat round and attacking units dont get a free shot at defending units.Artillery may retreat. 1 turn is at least a few months so why do you allow them to get stuck and captured? It takes less than a day to “unlimber” your fixed artillery units.
RETREATS
Except for air and naval interception combat, where the defending intercepting units simply return home after one round, after any round of combat, the attacker may decide to withdraw and retreat. If the attacker does not retreat, the defender may choose to retreat. Retreating attacking units do not all have to retreat to the same territory, but it must be from original territories where the attack began. However, when retreating, all units in that territory or sea zone must retreat, if possible. Defending units that cannot retreat (such as air units out of range of a friendly territory, ground units on an island, or evacuating ground units in excess of transport capability) must remain and continue to fight.
Air Units
Attacking air units that are retreating “withdraw†from combat. They return to land during Returning Air Movement. Defending air units have to retreat to an adjacent friendly territory. If no adjacent friendly territories exist, retreating defending air units fly to the closest friendly territory within their flight range. If there are no friendly territories within their flight then these defending air units cannot retreat.
Naval Units
Naval units retreat by “withdrawing” and remaining in the combat sea zone. This may leave enemy naval units sharing the same sea zone. Retreating transports may not unload their units.
Ground Units
Ground units may retreat to any combination of friendly adjacent territories. Defending ground units must remain in the embattled territory and “fight to the death†only if no other retreat options are available. The ground units then take part in the battle. AA guns may not retreat.
Naval Evacuations
Attacking ground units in amphibious assaults may evacuate and retreat to their transports; however, each armor and artillery unit must first be converted to an infantry unit. Defending ground units may also retreat onto friendly transports in adjacent sea zones. Again, each armor and artillery unit must be converted to an infantry unit. In both cases, the evacuating transports may not move, but if possible, they may each transport up to three infantry units to an adjacent friendly territory. Ground units in excess of transport capacity may not retreat.
@Imperious:
I think your retreats are fine but this covers pretty much everything.
I will be more precise, but first a few Qs you did not answer:
I would like to know what you think the 4 and 1 in attack and defense for a bomber represents. As you know bombers can be used for more than just SBRs in the original game. If they are not to represent tactical bombing raids, then you tell me?
@Imperious:
NOW… what about the “like for like” hits?? thoughts?
I like it as it is, however the idea is fine! I will stick to the the system as it is today and just add optional rules. It is easier for people to accept new rules in portions. In swedish we have something that says “hast slowly”. I think your rules represent a new game, not just a refinement. If you still dont like the Bomber Strikes rule of mine, skip it and just stick to air supremacy and/or Antiaircraft Artillery rule. These other two rules are good enough to be used separately. The poll however just concerned the air supremacy rule, what did you vote (and why)? :o
I would like to know what you think the 4 and 1 in attack and defense for a bomber represents. As you know bombers can be used for more than just SBRs in the original game. If they are not to represent tactical bombing raids, then you tell me?
This is its potency rating in combat measured with the abilities of other units. Its contribution symbolizes the bombing raids of Dresden and central Germany 1943-45. The daily sorties flown by our pilots over germany. Nothing more than that because that is quite enough. Thats why the Bomber represents a B-17 or B-26… it has a payload of many bombs that carpet bomb an entire area. If you want tactical battlefield missions you call on the “smaller” planes what can actually DIVE and deliver that ONE bomb they are carrying IN A PRECISE MANNER. they are represented by smaller planes like the FIGHTER. the BOMBER is a strategic weapon used to fight a nations industry and lonf term investments, while a fighter is a tactical weapon that can destroy a tank which is something that was just built from a factory. SO bombers go after factories and fighters go after what the bombers missed that the factories built. It cant get simpler then that!
@Imperious:
…. SO bombers go after factories and fighters go after what the bombers missed that the factories built. It cant get simpler then that!
So you practically says that tactical bombing raids involving light and medium bombers (not your singel engined fighter-bombers) did not take place during WWII! So you think that I am lying when I say that those light and medium bombers were actually used in targeted attacks like shipping attacks and airfield attacks as well as in the antitank attacks. You better do your home work next time.
Ok, next perspective! If one stick to your point of view that bombers only were used to carpet bomb an entire area. What is the difference between a shore bombardment and an attack by a bomber. Nothing, right! So you simply say that it would be alright that bombers should attack in the opening fire step of combat or that shore bombardment should take place during normal combat! Which do you think would give a more balance and at the same time historical correct rule? You maybe like it as it is, for other reasons? I can live with the old rule, but I don’t like it in a historical perspective. However the Air Supremacy seems to be somthing in your taste, right? I think it will become a standard optional rule for A&A!
So you practically says that tactical bombing raids involving light and medium bombers (not your singel engined fighter-bombers) did not take place during WWII! So you think that I am lying when I say that those light and medium bombers were actually used in targeted attacks like shipping attacks and airfield attacks as well as in the antitank attacks. You better do your home work next time.
Your imagination is legendary! please look at the numbers (by type) of shipping loses and attacks on moving armored columns by your glorious light bombers and medium bombers by nation and compare them with all other planes that accomplished this same duty. Airfield attacks were fixed targets and fall under regular bombing attacks (unless your talking about a quick raid to take out planes with strafing attacks).
what the game needs in a new dive bomber piece for both naval and ground based missions.
Ok, next perspective! If one stick to your point of view that bombers only were used to carpet bomb an entire area. What is the difference between a shore bombardment and an attack by a bomber. Nothing, right! So you simply say that it would be alright that bombers should attack in the opening fire step of combat or that shore bombardment should take place during normal combat! Which do you think would give a more balance and at the same time historical correct rule? You maybe like it as it is, for other reasons? I can live with the old rule, but I don’t like it in a historical perspective. However the Air Supremacy seems to be somthing in your taste, right? I think it will become a standard optional rule for A&A!
Shore bombardment should occur before the battle and not be allowed each round of combat. Each infantry unit represents an entire army level unit so how can a group of ships simply destroy that many lifes? This is not reality, but in this game anything seems possible so only allow it to be of marginal value. The Bomber hits should be taken as loses preemtively each round. In fact bombers should not be allowed to attack every round, but should get to attack twice (roll two dice) when they do and again loses are taken before the remaining ground units can fire back. Also, bombers should be allowed to attack naval targets such as subs and transports only because a level attack required the bombers to fly in a direct flat pattern at a slow speed and the aa guns on warships would overwhelm them and cause too many causualties. The only event when your “Bombers” actually took out large naval targets was against the HMS Repulse and Prince of Whales which had no carrier support or CAP to protect them from jap bombers. otherwise “bomber” attacks were relegated to shipping, subs, and very small escort ships and not front line warships. Dive-bombers on the other hand had this duty.
I dont know whay you simply hate the idea of “fighters” having the job of striking against armor in the combat sequence with the attack bonus. Perhaps you want the pricy bombers to have more value so you will buy them. But its clear that their role is not exactly as you originally stated.
Shore bombardment should be changed consider:
Shore Bombardment and Infantry Support
During Ground Combat, for amphibious assaults, all surface warships with a combat value of four or higher have one “shore bombardment†attack. In order to support landings for each shot you roll for you must land four Land units. Defender losses do not fire back. In addition, similar to attacking artillery, each shore-bombarding warship improves one attacking infantry (class unit) to an attack die roll modifier of +1 on the first round only. Warships that participate in Naval Combat may not also shore bombard and provide infantry support for amphibious assaults.
@Imperious:
I dont know whay you simply hate the idea of “fighters” having the job of striking against armor in the combat sequence with the attack bonus. Perhaps you want the pricy bombers to have more value so you will buy them. But its clear that their role is not exactly as you originally stated.
You are right about, not exactly as I originally “stated”, when it comes to the importance of bombers. However I did not really state it! I stated that bombers were used in tactical bombing raids and you said something else! You are wrong! But this is not about thing like that, it is about what can be done to raise the playability. My suggestion if one does not like the bomber strikes rule to just continue with old ones! And when it comes to the antiaircraft rule, it would be better to say that the artillery unit may only be used for air in a SBR. That would make fighters even better. Especialy when used in conjunction with my air supremacy rule. What do you think? I do not agree with you about a D10 instead of a D6, since I speak game balance and you historic relevance! I was in that loop ones too, but I got over it for more than ten years ago.
Bombers and Fighters were used for many missions that either could accomplish. IN the case of Tactical ground support missions the “fighter” class unit representing the plane with a directed single bomb that is delivered against specific hard or soft targets should have the rule associated with targeted attacks against armor units, While the “bomber” piece representing the “strategic” bombing of mass targets such as “carpet bombing” or “air interdiction” such as in D-day should become the responsibility of these Bombers. The roles of each in this manner are more realistic (historically accurate) and dont negatively effect play balance.
@Imperious:
Bombers and Fighters were used for many missions that either could accomplish. IN the case of Tactical ground support missions the “fighter” class unit representing the plane with a directed single bomb that is delivered against specific hard or soft targets should have the rule associated with targeted attacks against armor units, While the “bomber” piece representing the “strategic” bombing of mass targets such as “carpet bombing” or “air interdiction” such as in D-day should become the responsibility of these Bombers. The roles of each in this manner are more realistic (historically accurate) and dont negatively effect play balance.
I dont really get what you are saying. Are you saying that the bomber should stay on a 4 in attack and a 1 in defense, where as fighters should target tanks???
Yes , yes just make your rule about “bombers” attacking armor units and substitute it with “fighters” so now fighters do this job. Bombers allready have too much to do (SBR, attack naval, Paratroopers, air transport, a- bomb dropers). That is all im saying again and again…
@Imperious:
Yes , yes just make your rule about “bombers” attacking armor units and substitute it with “fighters” so now fighters do this job. Bombers allready have too much to do (SBR, attack naval, Paratroopers, air transport, a- bomb dropers). That is all im saying again and again…
What do you think about only using artillery for air in a SBR (my variant, see below), not a regular attack? More over using the interceptor/escort rules for dogfights (in a SBR) from A&AP? Or this one: #1 Dogfight (intercepting fighters on a 3 and escorting fighters on a 2 and bombers on a 1) for 1 turn then #2 artillery may shoot on any surviving bombers only then #3 any surviving bombers may roll for IPC damage. :o
Antiaircraft Artillery
The regular antiaircraft gun unit is dismissed and replaced by a more versatile artillery unit. In addition to its normal combat ability, artillery can choose to defend against bombers in a strategic bombing raid during the first cycle of combat only. All regular antiaircraft guns on the game board are replaced by artillery units.
Your artillery may fire against abombers in a strategic bombing raid during the opening fire step of combat. Roll two dice for each artillery, but each attacking bomber may not be targeted by more than two artillery units. The total for each artillery’s two dice must add to 3 or less to shoot the targeted air unit down, a casualty cannot bomb the industrial complex. The artillery unit may fire again during combat.
Its just like mine except the “3 or less thing” so you roll two dice the total has to be 3 or less… hmmmm…too much especially with 2 artillery doing it. I like the fact that your rules are getting closer to the mark. good job!!
