That’s what I thought.
[House Rules] Tactical Bombers and their use
-
A Tactical Bomber is described as an 11 IP credit costly unit, wich attackers value is to 3 and defending value is to 3 of a dice roll and is allowed to move 4 spaces.
How do you put your tactical bombers in your play (any nation), what do you like about it the most. What experience you have, gained with them in your gameplay?
Do you more then frequently buy them, in order to achieve your goals in your Strategy?Any thoughts?
Moderator’s edit: added prefix [House Rules] to title
-
Yeah, I buy tactical bombers. Usually Germany, Japan, Russia and USA buy the most of them and actually plan things with them. For UK, Italy and ANZAC, they usually only get tactical bombers if they want a plane and have 11 left after other purchases (as opposed to 10 left for a fighter).
I try to always pair them with either tanks or fighters on attacks to get the bump up to 4 attack value. Otherwise I might just as well use fighters for 1 less IPC…
Sometimes, as Germany, I will also use my Stukas to blast England’s air base while the strategic bombers go after the factory. I don’t do a lot of SBRs with tactical bombers however.
Also, when I have a battle involving a lot of aircraft and it comes to taking casualties, particularly if I am expecting some sort of counterattack, I will choose tactical bombers before losing fighters even though they are more expensive. I figure I might need that extra defense provided by fighters. Plus, if you are in a battle with equal amounts of fighters and tactical bombers, if you lose a fighter as a casualty then one of the matching tactical bombers will drop down to 3 anyway. -
Usually fighters are better. 1 IPC cheaper and bette defense value which is always valuable.
Buying Tacs usually only makes sense in case you want to make a big attack with US, Germany or Japan.
Germans: to maximize the amount of air to attack moscow
Japan: Tacs are build rarely. You do so if you want to maximize the threat on the US/Anzac fleet
US: To maximize the threat on the Japanese fleet. I also rarely buy them. Sometimes 1-2 for the Pacific or max 1 for the Atlantic. I rather spend 22 IPC for 1 Bomb and 1 Fig instead of 2 tacs^^UK should imo always prefer fighters because they have the potential to land in Chinese and US liberated territories to defend!
-
I most commonly buy Tacs with Germany. Especially the round before I plan to attack Moscow, I always try to get 3 in Novgorod to help out, but I find them to be regularly useful with Germany.
For one, Germany usually has lots of tanks and is on the offensive. Tacs pair really well with your tanks and can catch up with a highly mobile force of tanks & mechs to give you a lot of extra punch.
Granted, I don’t usually buy a LOT of them, maybe 3-5 over the first 6 rounds, but I find them useful. If I can, I like to find the extra 1 IPC to get a strategic bomber though.With Japan, since they start with so many already, I rarely buy them, and when I do, it’s usually only to replace losses.
With USA, I will buy them when I’m going heavy on the offensive in the Pacific. When I do that, I like to get an even number of fighters & tacs on my carriers for maximum offensive punch. Even so, this usually only means an investment of 3 tacs in the first couple of rounds. Once your carriers are full, and you don’t need TOO many carriers usually, then I find bombers to be a much more effective buy.
I can’t remember ever buying a tac with any other power, except maybe near the end of a game just for fun.
-
I do not buy them. Fts all the way!
-
@wittmann:
I do not buy them. Fts all the way!
Poor TacB, poor TacB, poor little TacB… :cry:
:-D
-
Tactical bombers could be much, much, better. Of course this usually means house ruling for those with the inclination. Just IMO people get fighter-bomber confused with tactical bomber and additionally confuse more modern connotations with those of WWII. However with our friends at HBG we may alas have the ability to remedy this. :wink:
-
Tactical bombers could be much, much, better. Of course this usually means house ruling for those with the inclination. Just IMO people get fighter-bomber confused with tactical bomber and additionally confuse more modern connotations with those of WWII. However with our friends at HBG we may alas have the ability to remedy this. :wink:
Okay, but in our game, wouldn’t fighter-bombers pretty much be considered tactical bombers? I mean, if you get really in depth and start giving units special values and abilities or if you are playing something like A&A miniatures, then yeah I could see the difference. But in our more strategic level games, it seems to me like they would be pretty much the same plane.
Of course, there are planes like the Mustang, which excelled at both fighter vs. fighter dogfights and wrecking ground targets.
So what are we talking here? A plane that has the strong defense of a fighter (4) yet can also pair with tanks on attack (4). -
I think a fighter-bomber is critacally different from tacs in this A&A game.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I think in A&A, a ftr-bmr would be able to intercept raids (tac cannot), bomb facilities or escort bombers on a raid (not both escorting and bombing at the same time of course).In a gamey way a tac can ‘escort’, by sending them with other raiding planes but that would make them susceptible to AAA-fire. The way I see it, they must attack a facility if sent into an area.
I could not find it anywhere in the rules so this looks like a good place to ask my question:can a tac be sent raiding a territory if there are no targets left that it can damage?? For example: London. Both the AB and the NB are maxed out and only the IC is left undamaged. GE sends in their 3STR for a raid, accompanied by 5FTR. However, GB has 10FTR ready to intercept so GE also sends 5tac to increase its airpower over GB. After the 1 round dogfight, the tac can only attack the already maxed out NB and AB and must do so to have the AAA fire upon them, even though they cannot damage those facilities anymore. That is how we play it, but is that the way its supposed to be?!
Regarding their usefulness in normal combat, I think any1 planning an attack should consider building some, IF they can afford it. More often than not, being able to hit 1 more unit per combat round can tip the scale in your favour. I remember a land combat where I accidentally entered 8FTR into my lowluck calculator to estimate my chances and it returned a loss to me. The defender would have 5 surviving units left. I checked what I entered and found my error, corrected it and now with 8TAC instead, the calculator returned a victory for me with 5units left. Of course this is lowluck and the dice still need to be rolled. I still see the impact of the tac though :-).
-
That’s how we play tac bomber’s too. Even if the naval and airbases are fully damaged, you can still go on the raid, and they are still shot at by AAA.
It’s just territories like, say, Ukraine that don’t have a naval or airbase that you couldn’t send them on a raid. -
Would be an idea to build one there hum??
-
Tactical bombers could be much, much, better. Of course this usually means house ruling for those with the inclination. Just IMO people get fighter-bomber confused with tactical bomber and additionally confuse more modern connotations with those of WWII. However with our friends at HBG we may alas have the ability to remedy this. :wink:
Okay, but in our game, wouldn’t fighter-bombers pretty much be considered tactical bombers? I mean, if you get really in depth and start giving units special values and abilities or if you are playing something like A&A miniatures, then yeah I could see the difference. But in our more strategic level games, it seems to me like they would be pretty much the same plane.
Of course, there are planes like the Mustang, which excelled at both fighter vs. fighter dogfights and wrecking ground targets.
So what are we talking here? A plane that has the strong defense of a fighter (4) yet can also pair with tanks on attack (4).That’s true. But something like the Stuka, SBD etc. are more dedicated dive bombers than say a Thunderbolt is. I’ve seen some suggestions before of making tacs have nearly or better defensively than a fighter. Personally I don’t care.
-
Tactical bombers could be much, much, better. Of course this usually means house ruling for those with the inclination. Just IMO people get fighter-bomber confused with tactical bomber and additionally confuse more modern connotations with those of WWII. However with our friends at HBG we may alas have the ability to remedy this. :wink:
Okay, but in our game, wouldn’t fighter-bombers pretty much be considered tactical bombers? I mean, if you get really in depth and start giving units special values and abilities or if you are playing something like A&A miniatures, then yeah I could see the difference. But in our more strategic level games, it seems to me like they would be pretty much the same plane.
Of course, there are planes like the Mustang, which excelled at both fighter vs. fighter dogfights and wrecking ground targets.
So what are we talking here? A plane that has the strong defense of a fighter (4) yet can also pair with tanks on attack (4).That’s true. But something like the Stuka, SBD etc. are more dedicated dive bombers than say a Thunderbolt is. I’ve seen some suggestions before of making tacs have nearly or better defensively than a fighter. Personally I don’t care.
I could not agree with that at all. If you made tacs defense as good or better than a fighter, then there would be no reason to buy fighters anymore except for spending 1 IPC less. Also, I think it would make tacs way overpowered.
It’s just fine the way it is. If you want good defense, then you buy fighters. If you are planning more offense, you buy tacs. -
It is possible to get both world : fun, historical, and balance.
Fg A3 D3 C9 all the rest as OOB.
TcB A3-4 D4 C11 all the rest as OOB.
The cheaper Fg still interesting and competitive unit.
Historically cheaper also and not that good against ground than TcB.
TcB same price as OOB better defense against ground or naval.
In addition, in naval combat you will prefer sacrifice Fg instead of TcB, this not the case actually.Do you see a problem in this?
I played it once and I will do it next time.
A HR just like I like them.
Simple.
Balanced.
Historically correct.
And funny.For purists, Fg can even keep the 10 IPCs!
-
Tactical bombers could be much, much, better. Of course this usually means house ruling for those with the inclination. Just IMO people get fighter-bomber confused with tactical bomber and additionally confuse more modern connotations with those of WWII. However with our friends at HBG we may alas have the ability to remedy this. :wink:
Okay, but in our game, wouldn’t fighter-bombers pretty much be considered tactical bombers? I mean, if you get really in depth and start giving units special values and abilities or if you are playing something like A&A miniatures, then yeah I could see the difference. But in our more strategic level games, it seems to me like they would be pretty much the same plane.
Of course, there are planes like the Mustang, which excelled at both fighter vs. fighter dogfights and wrecking ground targets.
So what are we talking here? A plane that has the strong defense of a fighter (4) yet can also pair with tanks on attack (4).That’s true. But something like the Stuka, SBD etc. are more dedicated dive bombers than say a Thunderbolt is. I’ve seen some suggestions before of making tacs have nearly or better defensively than a fighter. Personally I don’t care.
I could not agree with that at all. If you made tacs defense as good or better than a fighter, then there would be no reason to buy fighters anymore except for spending 1 IPC less. Also, I think it would make tacs way overpowered.
It’s just fine the way it is. If you want good defense, then you buy fighters. If you are planning more offense, you buy tacs.If you want an attack factor @4, you need Fg.
If you want to intercept SBR and TBR, you cannot do it with TacB.
Fgs are still needed -
Tactical bombers could be much, much, better. Of course this usually means house ruling for those with the inclination. Just IMO people get fighter-bomber confused with tactical bomber and additionally confuse more modern connotations with those of WWII. However with our friends at HBG we may alas have the ability to remedy this. :wink:
Okay, but in our game, wouldn’t fighter-bombers pretty much be considered tactical bombers? I mean, if you get really in depth and start giving units special values and abilities or if you are playing something like A&A miniatures, then yeah I could see the difference. But in our more strategic level games, it seems to me like they would be pretty much the same plane.
Of course, there are planes like the Mustang, which excelled at both fighter vs. fighter dogfights and wrecking ground targets.
So what are we talking here? A plane that has the strong defense of a fighter (4) yet can also pair with tanks on attack (4).That’s true. But something like the Stuka, SBD etc. are more dedicated dive bombers than say a Thunderbolt is. I’ve seen some suggestions before of making tacs have nearly or better defensively than a fighter. Personally I don’t care.
Do you imply that some people simply put TcB A3-4D4C11 , all the rest as OOB?
-
A tactical bomber is nothing more than a small bomber. In reality they are large and lightly armed compared to a fighter. They are also very much less maneuverable than a fighter. Planes like the Thunderbolt were already designed as fighters but could function in the role of a tactical bomber.
As for stats the tac bomber should absolutely never be equal to fighters on defense.
-
The fighters and tac bombers defense values can be silly on some ocassions. If a battle comes down to a fighter and an Tac Bomber vs 2 Cruisers for example, the tac bomber really shouldn’t have a harder time scoring a hit. It should have a much easier time really. A&A isn’t really that realistic as a whole anyway so it’s okay.
I wish there was more incentive to purchase Tacs though. From what I’ve seen, its only good to buy them when you already have
a superior force that doesn’t need that defensive boost fighters provide. They’re a better buy than Cruisers, but that’s not saying much. -
Playing as the Germans, if I get a bad roll on the G1 expedition to sink the UK fleet, I’ll give up fighters before Tac. I prefer having those Tac to roll @ 4 over my armor as I march to Moscow.
As the Japanese, those Tac go very well with all the starting Ftr, bringing some UMPF. I’ll generally trade Ftr before Tac if Japan gets diced somewhere, because its cheaper to spend 10 IPC to keep those Tac rolling @4.
In both cases, I rarely purchase more than I start with. If I DO buy aircraft, they will be bombers. The extended range and guaranteed roll @4 creates all sorts of chaos across the board.
If Italy survives the KIF and starts making money, I’ll get a second bomber with her to fly over Armor/Mech that backfill German advances in Moscow.
As the Americans, its a bit different because theres a large expanse of territory to cross that bombers can’t always support dictating a balance of Tac and Ftr to support any land advances she makes. Rarely do I buy bombers with her unless I am trying to lure Japan to Hawaii so I can sink a part of her fleet with a combination of bombers and subs.
I do enjoy purchasing bombers with the UK in the mid game. It puts a damper on German production once Germany’s aircraft move deep into Russia. Early game I’m buying Ftr with the UK to land on carriers later to control the English Channel. Nothing beats absorbing a few hits with carriers to simply land the Ftr in London for the carrier to turn back off its side and re-land the Ftr on them again. Those Ftr also provide amazing coverage for a US landing where Germany would re-consider a suicide blitz to clear the US units out of France because tehre are 3-6 UK Ftr landing atop of 8-10 US fodder.
In short, I rarely buy Tac for any nation and only enough to keep the US extension of power in the Pacific a viable threat to a loosely defended Japanese fleet.
They have their purposes, but you’re usually better served to buy an Inf and a Bomber instead of an Art and a Tac.
-
I think a fighter-bomber is critacally different from tacs in this A&A game.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I think in A&A, a ftr-bmr would be able to intercept raids (tac cannot), bomb facilities or escort bombers on a raid (not both escorting and bombing at the same time of course).In a gamey way a tac can ‘escort’, by sending them with other raiding planes but that would make them susceptible to AAA-fire. The way I see it, they must attack a facility if sent into an area.
I could not find it anywhere in the rules so this looks like a good place to ask my question:can a tac be sent raiding a territory if there are no targets left that it can damage?? For example: London. Both the AB and the NB are maxed out and only the IC is left undamaged. GE sends in their 3STR for a raid, accompanied by 5FTR. However, GB has 10FTR ready to intercept so GE also sends 5tac to increase its airpower over GB. After the 1 round dogfight, the tac can only attack the already maxed out NB and AB and must do so to have the AAA fire upon them, even though they cannot damage those facilities anymore. That is how we play it, but is that the way its supposed to be?!
Regarding their usefulness in normal combat, I think any1 planning an attack should consider building some, IF they can afford it. More often than not, being able to hit 1 more unit per combat round can tip the scale in your favour. I remember a land combat where I accidentally entered 8FTR into my lowluck calculator to estimate my chances and it returned a loss to me. The defender would have 5 surviving units left. I checked what I entered and found my error, corrected it and now with 8TAC instead, the calculator returned a victory for me with 5units left. Of course this is lowluck and the dice still need to be rolled. I still see the impact of the tac though :-).
That’s how we play tac bomber’s too. Even if the naval and airbases are fully damaged, you can still go on the raid, and they are still shot at by AAA.
It’s just territories like, say, Ukraine that don’t have a naval or airbase that you couldn’t send them on a raid.So you can throw Tactical Bombers as escorts for StBs, as long as there is an NB or AB (even maxed out) in the territory and you accept to throw them against an additionnal AAA fire.
Once the escort and interception phase over, you cannot choose to come back home earlier instead of submitting to this useless AAA?
Is Chocolate response a kind of official answer?
Suggested Topics
