Let me suggest this:
Fighters
8 IPC
Attack 2
Defense 3
Aircombat attack 2
Aircombat Defense 3
Tacticals
9 IPC
Attack 3, improved to 4 with paired fighter/tank
Defense 2
Aircombat attack 1, improved to 2 with paired fighter
Aircombat Defense 1
Strategics
10 IPC
Attack 4
Defense 1
Range 6, ability to bombard for 1d6
No Air combat
Let me suggest this:
Fighters
8 IPC
Attack 2
Defense 3
Aircombat attack 2
Aircombat Defense 3Tacticals
9 IPC
Attack 3, improved to 4 with paired fighter/tank
Defense 2
Aircombat attack 1, improved to 2 with paired fighter
Aircombat Defense 1Strategics
10 IPC
Attack 4
Defense 1
Range 6, ability to bombard for 1d6
No Air combat
Looks good to me. This is Uncrustable’s project though. I’m just contributing.
@Uncrustable:
It was a typo that i somehow didnt catch lol, it has been fixed. South Africa because of historical reasons. British Commonwealth countries of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Eire, and Newfoundland were considered autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
Yes, all six became (for most purposes) self-governing Dominions under the 1931 Statutes of Westminster, with the ability to decide on their own whether or not to declare war (rather than automatically going to war when the UK did, as happened in 1914). One qualifier, though, is that as a result of an economic collapse trigged by the Great Depression, Newfoundland asked the British government in 1934 to resume ruling it directly; it retained Dominion status, but in essence it was governed as a Crown colony.
MrRobot:
Under the current OOB model, strategic bombers are the dominent purchase over tactical bombers.
Current OOB chart:
120 IPC (the tacticals cost 121)
12 Fighter 36 attack | 48 defense
11 Tactic 33-44 attack | 33 defense
10 Strategic 40 attack | 10 defense
your chart:
120 IPC
15 Fighter 30 attack | 45 defense
12 Tactical 36-48 attack | 36 defense
10 Strategic 40 attack | 10 defense
my chart:
120 IPC (the strategics cost 117)
15 Fighter 30 attack | 45 defense
12 Tactical 36-48 attack | 36 defense
9 Strategic 36 attack | 9 defense
each unit now has a unique roll to fill…
Fighters - SBR escort and intercept. Best defense and cheapest. Best air stats.
Tacbomber - the best all around fighting air unit
Strategic bomber - comparable attack to tactical, not quite as good as escorted tacs, but long range and SBR, poor defense, cant scramble
So we have bombers at 12 IPC after a lengthy debate.
OP has been updated
What about the scramble air combat rules during a regular land attack?
Right now the defender has the option to scramble (cant scramble bombers)
All air units roll a 1, except fighters on defense roll a 2
The hits are divided by 2, rounded down.
AA hits are also allocated during (AAA get the AA dice on defense only)
@Uncrustable:
your chart:
120 IPC
15 Fighter 30 attack | 45 defense
12 Tactical 36-48 attack | 36 defense
10 Strategic 40 attack | 10 defense
Dude can you please calculate correctly? It is completely wrong, you made 3 calculation errors!
The chart looks like this:
120 IPC (Tacs costs only 117)
15 Fighter 30 attack | 45 Defense
13 Tacs 39-52 attack | 36 Defense
12 Strats 48 attack | 12 Defense
@Uncrustable:
BUT, each unit now has a unique roll to fill…
Fighters - SBR escort and intercept. best air stats by being cheapest and having defense of 2 in air. Best defense and cheapest.
Tacbomber - the best all around fighting air unit, best offense + good defense
Strategic bomber - same attack as unescorted tac, not quite as good as escorted tacs (AS IT SHOULD BE), but long range and SBR, poor defense
Dude, you are driving me mad. I told you already I know what you want to achieve. But your models just does NOT WORK THIS WAY.
You are not even responding to the facts that I showed you.
One last time, I hope you will read it and really think about it this time.
Your strategic bombers are just too weak. Fighters beat them in offense and of course in defense. I bolded that part in my last big post to you and you just ignored it. Unsupported Tacs beat them too.
Range alone won’t be enough to buy a Strategic bomber, if they are so much weaker in everything else than fighters and tacs.
@Uncrustable:
as OOB tacticals are a rare purchase (more rare than cruisers)
This is not even remotely true. Tacs are bought every single game, by more than one power. Cruisers are built absolutely never.
@Uncrustable:
Fighters - SBR escort and intercept. Best defense and cheapest. Best air stats.
Tacbomber - the best all around fighting air unit
Strategic bomber - comparable attack to tactical, not quite as good as escorted tacs, but long range and SBR, poor defense, cant scramble
All these roles are much better represented in my setup.
Since I’ve enhanced the air combat value of fighters and tacs (but fighters still got more), the purpose of fighters is mainly participating in air combats.
Please have a look at my setup again:
Fighters: Att|Def|Air-Att|Air-Def|Cost - 2 |3 | 2 |3 |8
Tacs: Att|Def|Air-Att|Air-Def|Cost - 3(4) |2 |1(2) |1 |9
Strats: Att|Def|Cost - 4 |1 | x | x|10
Now if you’re defending against air attacks, fighters are obviously the best choice. They are the best planes in defense against ground units, but still far, far worse than every ground unit.
But since they’re so good against air-attacks and still doing halfway okay against ground units, they are worth buying.
If you’re attacking with air only, you will need the fighters as well, since they boost your tacticals and also protect AND boost them in the air-combat.
Tacticals are the best attacking unit, when supported (just as you want it). They are better than strats, cause they cost 10% less. While they lack the range of the strats, they make up for it by having some small defensive capabilities against ground and air.
Strategics are pure glass cannons with high range. Their high range and very strong attack makes them worth buying. They serve for SBR and attacks that are far away.
Fighters: Cost 8 Attack 2 Defense 3 Range 4
Tacticals: Cost 10 Attack 3-4 Defense 3 Range 4
Strategic Cost 12 Attack 4 Defense 1 Range 4
Chart:
120 IPC
15 Fighter 30 attack | 45 defense
12 Tactical 36-48 attack | 36 defense
10 Strategic 40 attack | 10 defense
All air combat values 1 except fighters defend at 2
This DOES exactly what is wanted.
Fighters are the cheapest, best on defense, support tacticals, escort and intercept SBR
Tacticals are best all around fighting air unit in normal combat
Strategic bombers are better than naked tacticals, but not as good vs supported tacticals on offense, long range, can SBR, poor defense
You are insane if you look at that chart and say “fighters are better at offense”, they are not.
again reference the current OOB chart:
120 IPC (the tacticals cost 121)
12 Fighter 36 attack | 48 defense
11 Tactic 33-44 attack | 33 defense
10 Strategic 40 attack | 10 defense
Strategic bombers essentially now DO NOT change from OOB,
Tactical bombers received a slight buff to both offense and defense
Fighters received a nerf on offense, and a slight nerf on defense
How, when those 3 sentences are true, could you say fighters are better than bombers?
I do not feel tactical bombers should be so weak on defense (2), as they are a fighter/bomber essentially and this makes no logical sense.
And being so weak on defense they would no longer be the best all around fighting air unit.
I also think there needs to be more than a 1 IPC difference between the 3.
OP has been updated, removing all the red.
Also reworded 5. And added an example
5. Enhanced air combat (land combat only). New scramble option, a defender may scramble air units into a 1 round air defense battle vs incoming air units, the scrambling air units must be in the territory being attacked. (cannot scramble from adjacent territory). Strategic bombers may not scramble. All air units roll simultaneously. All air units roll 1 dice hitting on a 1, except fighters on defense hit on a 2 or less. The hits are totaled for each side and divided by 2 (rounding down). AAA units also fire during this round. AAA roll AA dice on defense only as per current OOB rules. Remove casualties before continuing to normal combat.
–Example, attacker rolls for 13 planes. Records 5 hits. =2 adjusted hits
-----------Defender rolls for 8 planes. Records 3 hits. Also rolls for 2 AAA (6 dice) and records 2 hits. =3 adjusted,combined hits (1 for planes +2 for AA dice)
-------------Attacker removes 3 planes (chooses own casualties), defender removes 2 planes. (also chooses own casualties)
Wish list:
-Enhanced Convoy raiding
-Enhanced Infantry purchasing
-Enhanced Neutral militias
-Multinational coordinated attacks
-True Blockades
@Uncrustable:
I do not feel tactical bombers should be so weak on defense (2), as they are a fighter/bomber essentially and this makes no logical sense. And being so weak on defense they would no longer be the best all around fighting air unit.
Some WWII tac bombers were quite weak on defense. The Stuka is perhaps the best example: it did great in Poland and France, where the Luftwaffe had air supremacy, but the Stukas that participated in the Battle of Britain were cut to pieces by RAF fighters (and were soon withdrawn from action) because they weren’t operating in a secure environment. Torpdedo bombers such as the TBD Devastator were likewise extremely vulerable because their attack runs required them to fly low, level and straight towards their target; at Midway, the American TBDs who attacked the Japanese fleet had (as I recall) close to 100% casualties. Both the TBD and the Stuka had rear-cockpit machine gunners for self-protection, but those gun positions didn’t seem to make much difference in their survivability.
@CWO:
@Uncrustable:
I do not feel tactical bombers should be so weak on defense (2), as they are a fighter/bomber essentially and this makes no logical sense. And being so weak on defense they would no longer be the best all around fighting air unit.
Some WWII tac bombers were quite weak on defense. The Stuka is perhaps the best example: it did great in Poland and France, where the Luftwaffe had air supremacy, but the Stukas that participated in the Battle of Britain were cut to pieces by RAF fighters (and were soon withdrawn from action) because they weren’t operating in a secure environment. Torpdedo bombers such as the TBD Devastator were likewise extremely vulerable because their attack runs required them to fly low, level and straight towards their target; at Midway, the American TBDs who attacked the Japanese fleet had (as I recall) close to 100% casualties. Both the TBD and the Stuka had rear-cockpit machine gunners for self-protection, but those gun positions didn’t seem to make much difference in their survivability.
Your statements are true both on offense and defense. Air supremacy can be gained both over home land and enemy land.
Just tougher to do it over enemy land. AA dice + fighters at 2 or less on defense in air battle represents this well.
A bomber is not going to be dogfighting regardless it if can help it, it will be strafing enemy ground positions and boats. (what its designed for)
A planned offensive vs a scrambled defense: slight (emphasized slight) advantage to offense of tactical bombers. Hence the +1 attack under combined arms rules (per OOB). But its not going to be that much worse at strafing enemy troops and boats in the scrambled defense, because it has radar and AA installations on its side.
If the defender chooses to scramble its fighters and tactical bombers in an effort to thin out enemy air, the attacking fighters are going to be screening for the attacking bombers, and at a slight disadvantage in the air. Intercepting fighters however have no such obligations, and in addition to home turf (radar + AA installations) would have the advantage. (hence everything rolls at 1 in the air except enemy fighters on defense)
All the attacking bombers have to do is survive the first round of air combat and AA guns to reach the ground fighting and begin ground attacks. At which point total chaos ensues.
Again remember: grand strategic game.
@Uncrustable:
15 Fighter 30 attack | 45 defense
10 Strategic 40 attack | 10 defenseYou are insane if you look at that chart and say “fighters are better at offense”, they are not.
Oh my. I begin to understand why it make no sense to argue with you. I am not insane. It is math. My statement is true.
15 hp, power 30 is BETTER than 10 hp, 40 power.
If you don’t know how to calculate that, you can easily put it in tripleA and let the software simulate 50.000 battles. Just put in 15 attacking destroyers (15hp, 30 power) against 10 defending fighters (10 hp, 40 power). It should be something like 63% for the 15hp/30power.
If you’re looking for more sophisticated, mathematical evidence:
24 IPC 24 IPC
3 Fighters vs 2 Strategic Bombers
6 Attack 8 Attack
The fighters score 1 hit averagely in round 1. The Bombers score 1 and 1/3.
Second round, Strats only scored one hit first round (2a):
2 Fighters 1 Strategic Bomber
4 Attack vs 4 Attack
Fighters win in 2/3 = 6/9 of the times directly
One fighter lost in 2/9 of the times (see 3a)
No one hits in 1/9 of the times.
Since no one hitting replays the round, the chances are:
Fighters win: 6 out of 8 times = 3/4
One fighter lost: 2 out of 8 times = 1/4
Third round (3a):
1 Fighter 1 Strat
2 Attack vs 4 Attack
Fighter win in (1/3)(1/3) = 1/9 of times
Draw in (1/3)(2/3) = 2/9 of times
Strat win in (2/3)(2/3) = 4/9 of times
No one hits in (2/3)(1/3) = 2/9 of times
So chances here:
Fighter win in 1 out of 7 cases
Draw in 2 out of 7 cases
Strat wins in 4 out of 7 cases
Overall chance after 2a (Strats only scoring 1 hit first round):
Fighters win in (3/4) + (1/28) = 22/28 times. (approx 78.5%)
Draw in 2/28 times (~7%)
Strat wins in 4/28 times (~14%)
Second round, Strats scored 2 hits first round (2b)
1 Fighter vs 1 Strat
2 Attack 4 Attack
This is the same as (3a):
Fighter win in 1 out of 7 cases
Draw in 2 out of 7 cases
Strat wins in 4 out of 7 cases
**So overall chances of the battle:
Fighter win in (2/3)(22/28) + (1/3)(1/7) = 12/21 times = ~57%
Draw in (2/3)(2/28) + (1/3)(2/7) = 3/21 times = ~14%
Strats win in (2/3)(4/28) + (1/3)(4/7) = 6/21 times = ~28.5%**
In TripleA, 20.000 battles will show:
Fighters win 58%
Draw 14%
Strats win 28%
So, you see - my calculation is indeed correct. Your fighters attack stronger than your strategic bombers.
@Uncrustable:
Strategic bombers essentially now DO NOT change from OOB,
Tactical bombers received a slight buff to both offense and defense
Fighters received a nerf on offense, and a slight nerf on defenseHow, when those 3 sentences are true, could you say fighters are better than bombers?
Because these 3 sentences are NOT true.
Fighters received a BUFF on offense. 8 IPC for 2 attack is BETTER than 10 ipc for 3 Attack!!!
In a direct duel, your new fighters are ahead in 60% of the time compared to the old fighter.
You can simulate this by putting into tripleA: 5 destroyers (5hp, 10 power) vs 4 defending cruisers (4 hp, 12 powers).
I URGE you to read my last post! It PROVES mathematically, that YOU are wrong and that I am right. I am calculating correct, you are not.
Also, you did not even mention the fact that you miscalculated the simple 120 IPC chart of mine.
It is not about opinion or believing. It is simple math, non-debatable truth. So you do not need to be convinced, you only need to understand the math. And the math says: In your proposal, fighters attack stronger than strategic bombers (a lot better, even). And that is a huge design flaw, given they also are better in defense (Air combat AND ground)
double post
6. Enhance naval units.
a) Cruisers cost reduced to 11 IPCs. Bombards at 4. Units hit by bombardment do no return fire (classic style bombard)
b) Battleships cost reduced to 18 IPCs. Classic style bombardment rules.
Well Jen if you invest your money in destroyers, instead of cruisers, you’re always off way better (WAY!!! better).
The sole and only argument for cruisers is, if you have exactly 12-15 IPC or 20-21 IPC and need to defend immediately against one attacking plane.
If it might make a difference if you can hold a seazone with 1 cruiser instead of 1 destroyer, maybe to defend transports, in the first case. Or 1cruiser+1 dd instead of 2 dd in the second case. Then yes, in these extremely rare cases, a cruiser purchase is slightly better.
At this actual cost:
4. Enhanced air units. a) Fighters cost 8, attack/defend at 2/3.
b) Tac bombers cost 10, attack/defend at 3/3, no change to combined arms rules. Does not SBR
c) Strategic bombers cost 12 attacking/defending at 4/1, SBR as per OOB rules (no change from OOB)
Cruiser is absolutely not a competitive purchase: it is required to cost 10 IPCs to be some kind of a competitive match with the aircrafts units.
Since BB are at 18 IPCs, it is OK
You could read my thread on the 10 IPCs Cruiser & 18 IPCs Battleship to get more reasons to keep this match.
Cruiser A3D3M3C10 Bombard @3. (Don’t break the harmony about number “3” for Cruiser vs “4” for battleship. It adds unnecessary oddity.)
2 Cruiser (20 IPCs) bombard 2x @3 vs 1 BB (18 IPCs) bombard 1 x @4.
Cruisers are already better in this domain.
That why I suggest to add another round of fire to BB to get a better match on IPCs basis to let BB have the better hand.
2 CAs bombard 2x @3 on first round vs 1 BB bombard 1@4 in 2 successive rounds.
To get a distinctive flavour vs Cruiser, you should think also about JEN’s:
long range preemptive Plunging fire 1@1 vs naval for Battleship (long range heavy guns) to get it.
Don’t let go bombard for them, it would be unhistorical.
BB A4D4M2C18 Bombard @4 (for 2 rounds? more guns, heavier guns, farther range: better ground support than cruiser.) / 2 hits / preemptive strike 1@1 vs 1 surface vessel ?.
Fighters: Cost 8 Attack 2 Defense 3 Range 4
Tacticals: Cost 10 Attack 3-4 Defense 3 Range 4
Strategic Cost 12 Attack 4 Defense 1 Range 4Chart:
120 IPC
15 Fighter 30 attack | 45 defense
12 Tactical 36-48 attack | 36 defense
10 Strategic 40 attack | 10 defenseAll air combat values 1 except fighters defend at 2
First off stop accusing me of miscalculating your chart.
As i did nothing of the sort.
It was assumed that 12 IPC bombers were your argument (instead of 13), so i labaled it yours. I never created a chart using your 8,9,10 cost.
Moving on.
It is you who are incorrect, your math shows only naked fighters vs naked bombers. But how about when part of a force…
Bombers are better than fighters in offense, and i will use MATH to prove it.
Lets say you are attacking a territory with some infantry and 24 IPC worth of planes.
Which would you rather have? 3 Fighters with 6 hit power? Or 2 bombers with 8 hit power?
The bombers are more efficient as a pure offensive unit, this is not even considering the increased range and SBR capabilities.
However, the fighters are better as a naked offensive unit than the bomber. (they are better at taking punishment, as they should be). But it is not by much.
2 bombers attacking 3 destroyers: the destroyers will win 50% if the time, bombers 40%, with a chance of a tie 10%.
3 Fighters attacking 3 destroyers: 48%/48% with a tie 4%
But again, this does not factor the increased range (something i think you vastly undervalue) and SBR capability.
Lets look at fighters + tactical bombers.
4 Fighters + 4 Tactical bomber vs 9 destroyers (72IPC)
using lowluck dice the air will win with atleast 1 fighters and 1 tacticals remaing. With about a 50% chance of a 2nd tactical remaining.
The same 9 destroyers vs 6 bombers (still 72 IPC), the destroyers will win with atleast one remaining and an above 50% chance of a 2nd)
4 Fighters and 4 Tacticals (24 hp) vs 6 Strategic bombers (24 hp). (72 IPC) As part of a larger force it is Equal hitting power. But again, the strategic posseses greater range and SBR. But as lone attackers the fighters and tacticals are better.
So if a nation wants an air unit for short range solo missions vs other units…a strategic bomber may not be the best choice (as it should not be)
This is true also in current OOB rules.
And it makes logical and historical sense.
6. Enhance naval units.
a) Cruisers cost reduced to 11 IPCs. Bombards at 4. Units hit by bombardment do no return fire (classic style bombard)
b) Battleships cost reduced to 18 IPCs. Classic style bombardment rules.
You should not do this.
It is not so historical or realism.
They bombard a lot of time in PTO but soldiers were protected in “Pillbox” and bunker.
Marines were hit hard upon landing even after intensive shore bombardment.
At a strategical level game, bombardment is not a surprise attack.
If you want to give more impact to Cruiser and BB, let them bombard on the first round even when they get a naval battle prior to the amphibious assault.
So, this capacity will be use more often.
Bombardment is preemptive. Fired before landing ships even begin the landings. So it is historical to remove the casualties before the battle. And it gives more incentive to purchase cruisers and battleships
I like your last idea though, allowing them to bombard even if they were in a battle. Worth thinking about anyhow
@Uncrustable:
Bombardment is preemptive. Fired before landing ships even begin the landings. So it is historical to remove the casualties before the battle. And it gives more incentive to purchase cruisers and battleships
I like your last idea though, allowing them to bombard even if they were in a battle. Worth thinking about anyhow
You should think about the meaning of this sentence:
“At a strategical level game, bombardment is not a surprise attack.”
Even at a tactical level, all soldiers on an island will see the ships coming and have time to duck and cover.
At a small scale, coastal bombardment kill soldiers before marines get to the beach but at the scale of representation of A&A unit it is unlikely to obliterate an army corps.
Just take a look about Iwo Jima or assault on Peleliu Island in the Palau.
An other game reason is that in ETO vs Germany, UK and USA could do a lot of damage to German’s Inf through bombardment without too much damage to the attacker.
That’s why they left the classic rules and introduce the limitation:
1 on 1 basis ratio for bombardment.
1 Inf= 1 shore bombardment, 2 grounds units from TT= 2 shore bombardment max, etc.
Just imagine 4 UK cruiser and 3 BB from USA= 4 hits on average.
So you send 7 Inf on Western Europe, then Germany already lost 4 Inf unable to roll on defense, first turn.
(It is an extreme scenario but in the plausible range.)
You can do this every turn you need to conquer or just causing attrition on the defender.
At this strategical level, do you see how it is a non-sense.
It is just like all army corps of a land territory are in gun range of warships.
As a Germany’s player, I would declare that there is a “bug” in this limited classic bombardment.
That’s why, IMO, Larry revised the rule to OOB 1940 bombardment rules. All units can still roll on defense.
If you hold on to this classic rule about defenseless casualty, you should at least limit further the number of shore bombardment:
1 shore bombardment per transport Max.
Example: 3 TTs = 3 attack = max 3 defenseless casualty.
I would add that in PTO, USA would do an easy Island hopping, just need to bring 2 TTs, 4 Inf, enough shore bombardment to kill 2 units.
4 Cruisers (48 IPCs) give 2 kills on average.
3 BBs (60 IPCs) kill the same.
No USA Inf lost.
You can conquer almost every island without need of Inf reinforcement.
Do you see the gap in classic bombardment rules?
@Baron:
I would add that in PTO, USA would do an easy Island hopping, just need to bring 2 TTs, 4 Inf, enough shore bombardment to kill 2 units.
4 Cruisers (48 IPCs) give 2 kills on average.
3 BBs (60 IPCs) kill the same.No USA Inf lost.
You can conquer almost every island without need of Inf reinforcement.Do you see the gap in classic bombardment rules?
Good point
