I am closing this topic now. Participants are invited to continue at the respective forum categories / topics. Thank you.
[House Rules] Tactical Bombers and their use
-
On one part, we can say that for escorting Fgs providing cover impaired all of them, moving at a slower pace and keeping an eye on bombers.
On the other part, defending interceptors are also somewhat impaired by the defensive formation of Bombers and Fgs, so they didn’t get any advantage of the “flying over homeland territory” would normally provide against less maneuverable target.
So, after all, Fgs get A1D1 while the rest of TcBs and StBs just getting A1 but D0.
(And based upon IPC cost, it is just enough to say a Fg unit is slightly better than the rest.)Thinking about this, maybe a combined arms bonus for Fgs escorting TcBs and StBs should be provided in SBR, or a disadvantage of not a having Fgs on his side.
Example:If there is no attacking Fgs, then all defending Fgs interceptors can roll a preemptive strike @1.
Once the casualties are removed, attacking TcBs and StBs can make there attack rolls against Fgs interceptors.I also found something similar and interesting, developed by IL, about how Fg can negate some offensive capacity of a StB:
OK look at this:
perhaps bombers stay at normal values if the defense has no air support.
If planes are on both sides, the bombers effectiveness goes down to 3-1-6
Think of it like a reverse bonus.
Fighters and Tactical boost the tactical +1 on attack.
Bombers attacking against enemy force that includes fighters -1 on attack.http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=9150&start=72
-
About the way of seeing TcB vs Fg and, even StB in an historical perspective, I must show an excerpt of this interesting post from Wild Bill, he briefly describes the evolution of units in A&A with the introduction of new ones.
In addition, it suggested an interesting way of giving more depth to Fg as an escorting unit with combined arms method in addition to an Air Base, but this time with a StB (I made some edit work on it):BUT….strat bombers IN THE GAME are being used for everything BUT strat bombing. so i guess if players dont WANT strat bombing to be a viable tactic used in the game and they want to keep using strat bombers as the long arm of the seas…than leave it as is. it obviously works, the strat bomber has gotten us this far in the games history. why tweak it.
but if “economic warefare” is to ever be a viable and integral part of the game, the rules need to be tweaked because right now, strat bombing and convoy raiding either dont happen or are back a** wards.
no one does these tactics IN THE GAME with any real “plan” to do them; they are done some times but always as an after thought.
Thanks Yope, you have hit on several points.
The first being the game system itself. Each unit can have multiple roles, but has a blanket value for attack, def, and movement. The pairing of units allow for some modifications with-in the system (art giving inf an attack boost when paired, and the tac/ftr, tac/tank como etc…)
That’s why I thought that a ftr strictly doing escort duties for an SBR run could get +1 range. So the pairing rule would be for each strat bmr you have doing a bombing run, one ftr gets +1 range to escort it. That way a bmr/ftr pair could make it from UK (London) to W Germany and return together. They would have to both start in the same tt (London in this case), but could land separately if you want, (like a ftr lands on a carrier?). This would kinda bring the AB into play, because in the above situation the frt would need the +1 from the AB and +1 for bmr escort pairing to perform the mission and return to London (6 spaces).
The 6 sided dice also restricts these values a bit, but modifications like +2 for bmrs in SBR bandages that to a point.
As the game has evolved, new units have developed (art, cruiser, tac bmr) to give the game more dimension (or to fill a gap). Some of the original base units have had slight tweaks to allow for these new units to exists, or to mesh into the current system. Some revisions like when the cruiser was added called for a tweak to destroyers. DD no longer got bombardment, and its attack value & cost went down (2-2-2-8 unit) when the cruiser was introduced. Now the dd is used primarily vs subs (also as blockers, or as sea fodder). Anniversary (AA50) saw the cost of many units lowered, as some new units were added.
When the tac was added to the line up in G40, really nothing else was changed to the air units (cost of the bmer was already lowered in AA50). The other values for the bmr stayed the same. It could have been easier to make a change to the bmr back when the tac was introduced (might have been more exceptable by the masses), making it more of an SBR unit (like the dd primary use is vs subs). IDK, maybe the values and role of the strat bmr was looked at then, but was left as is (and here we are).
I will say that in the game we are in right now we lowered the attack value and cost of the bomber by one making it a 3-1-6-11 unit. We are only in the 3rd turn, but let me tell you the axis player(s) hate it. It was the unit of choice for a casualty for the Germans in the opening round sea battles (although he may regret it later losing a range unit). Every time a battle occurs that has a bmr in it all I here from the Japs is that should have been a hit etc….LOL. The Germans won’t be doing SBR runs, because he lost both starting bmrs G1 (I don’t see him buying any). Now we haven’t seen the other side of the coin yet, as the USA is still on the sidelines. I think lowering the cost was a mistake, maybe keeping it at 12 IPCs would make the German player think twice about keeping it, and the US won’t get a cost reduction if he decides to buy into them.
Yope, I agree that an AB restriction for the bmr shouldn’t happen. No other unit does this, and Larry doesn’t like exceptions. You certainly don’t want it in play for SBR, because it would hamper it even more.
As far as concentration of production/targets, G40 has more production ares (ICs) then any of the global games, and the intro of the bases gives new targets. Most of the high production territories have bases that can also be bombed which aids in SBR IMO because you can also bring in your tacs for the dog fight. I see what you mean though as far having to protect more tt’s if there were more factories etc… you would have to def more tt leaving some w/o interceptors. Fewer dog fights may lead to more SBR. Right now to bomb W Germany or London can be tough because it is also were the enemy air force is in most cases.
Maybe you should be able to somehow bomb these higher IPC producing tt w/o a facility. Like S Germany for instance is worth 3 IPCs. You know that the tt contributes to the German econ, but the only way for you to do something is to capture it. Could you do a limited SBR on such tt’s? IDK.
The recent changes to the function/role of the AA gun also makes its mark here. Facilities having built-in AA that is always on (even if the base/IC is rendered in operational) is contributory to the lack of SBR IMO. Built in AA should probably be limited to 3 shots (like regular AA is now), and if you shut down a facilities abilities then maybe its built-in AA gun also gets shut down. If they don’t fix it, you get to hit it again if you want w/o the risk of AA fire. In the old days if he moved his AA gun out, that was a great target of opportunity. At least allow a certain amount of damage to have the same effect (no AA fire) which leads me to my final point…
I believe that it is too easy to repair the damage of both minor ICs & bases to get their abilities back. It should cost more then 4 IPCs to get it running again when maxed out. I still contend that you should be able to bomb these facilities to 2/3’s of there cost just like a major IC. Everything else stays the same as far as 3 damage renders it in-operable.
http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=9150&start=96
All this let me believe that it is not only TcB and Fg which were not quite able to give a good symbolic historical feel, but even StB, as all the three planes interactions can be delineated and defined in a more consistent way with major historical components.
Just to add an interesting historical details on StB accuracy:
Bombers use their defence value of 1 when they attack ships. Remember that the UK Lancaster Heavy bombers used 2 years and more than 30 attempts before they sunk Tirpitz.
-
One thing I always questioned was why aircraft in a zone were not on “patrol” and you could simply fly over them. I’ve suggested before that AB allow aircraft to basically be “on station” and “on patrol” and the defending nation could roll @2 or less to detect and intercept aircraft flying over the territory which would initiate combat and stop units from flying to their intended destination. If you didn’t have an AB, you could roll@1 to detect and intercept. Most of this use would probably be seen in the Pacific, but there are probably a few places in Europe where there could be strategic value for such a HR.
This specific point of your post should be treated and develop in this thread on Airbase, it seems a way to enhanced its impacts by adding some historical aspects, I believe:
Planes from Airbases or carriers scrambling to defend adjacent territories.
@knp7765:Okay, I know this goes against the rules, but it seems to me that your planes stationed on an Airbase or even on an Aircraft Carrier should be able to scramble to defend adjacent territories. Now, planes on a regular territory (no Airbase) could not do this because they are considered “in the field” and would not be available for a quick response (lack of communications, etc.).
(…) -
You could always just have TacB roll @4 in naval combat in all situations to simulate dive bomber / torpedo strikes. Or maybe simply 1st round sneak attack capability for dropping those torpedos.
I believe the main historical objections against an A4D4 TcB is this kind of situation is described here:
@CWO:In another House Rules thread (I can’t recall which one) where this whole subject came up, I expressed skepticism at the idea that a tac bomber could have a great defensive performance against a fighter. As I recall, the two examples I cited were the Battle of Britain, from which the Luftwaffe’s Stukas were withdrawn when it became clear that they were being cut to pieces by RAF fighters, and the Battle of Midway. At Midway, the American torpedo bombers were slaughtered by the defending Zeros, and the late-arriving American dive-bombers were greatly helped in striking their targets successfully by the fact that the Zeros had been pulled down from their combat air patrol stations by going after the early-arriving enemy torpedo bombers, thus leaving the carriers with no fighter cover.
You need to provide some alternate historical rationalization for TcBs to allow an unescorted A4 to them against defending Fgs.
-
There are probably synergies to be had pairing specific naval units together as certain naval units moved much faster than others creating the ability to attack and withdraw before the larger ships could navigate into position to retaliate. But, from by observation normally navies are kept in a big rolling mess so it would become overtly confusing to move up this cruiser to defend at 4, or this destroyer to attack @2.
The one kind of combined arms which is the nearest of what you described here is about Submarines-only fleet working apart from the main surface warships and being more elusive and dangerous in wolf-pack.
A few months ago, I created a HR thread on this point for Subs, brought in by Cmdr Jen:
@Baron:Some people have introduce the historical idea that BB unit can no more attack subs but can still defend @4.
If you wish to read the few posts and follow the links.
Cmdr Jen introduced, in an earlier tread, that subs that are attacking all by themselves get some advantage to pick up their casuality amongst surface vessels, if any.And this is where it begun:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=31177.msg1149119#msg1149119 -
Here is an interesting documentary on a dogfight between A6M3 Zero Fighters (316 MPH, 2x20MM cannons, and 2 machine guns) and some US TcBs defending their carrier.
8 SBD Dauntless Dive bombers (262 MPH and 3 Machine guns) are doing air cover mission against IJN Torpedos Bombers for their CV-5 Yorktown carrier during the battle of Coral Sea.
At the start of the battle there is a wing of TcBs but they cannot hold their part: 4 SBDs are destroyed, except for 1 pilot.
From the beginning to the 18 minutes.Dogfights - Episode 10: Long Odds (History Documentary)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MIRqe4ni_0This other one, can provide some sense of historical depiction of how Fg provides air support and combined arms to TcBs.
It can be easily see as a two times mission:
1 Fg dogfights on first day, then bombers runs on the second day. (42 min. to 43 minutes)From 31 minutes to the end. 1944 on the assault on Truk Atoll:
The Zero Killer - Ep 6 - Season 1 - Dogfights
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXbwKjOA1ho -
I play this map on TripleA and use “LOW lUCK” ,so I think TacB is very uesful,they almost make up 50% of my air force,without them,airforce’s ATK was very poor.
-
I play this map on TripleA and use “LOW lUCK” ,so I think TacB is very uesful,they almost make up 50% of my air force,without them,airforce’s ATK was very poor.
LL and dice are VERY different game IMHO. You use different strategies and tactics with dice that you wouldn’t do with LL and the reverse is true.
-
I personally don’t like Low Luck. I just prefer rolling dice for everything. I guess I like the chance that I will get an unusually large amount of hits or my opponent will get a really bad roll.
I just really love that feeling when I roll and get a bunch of hits but my opponent just gets one or none. Of course, if it goes the opposite way it really SUCKS! -
It does suck when the dice aren’t kind. But war isn’t just some scientific operation that you can calculate down to the T. Reacting to the differences in dice rolls are part of what makes A&A enjoyable. You can have two games with the same players where they use identical starting strategies and both games can be world’s apart in 3-4 turns depending on the dice.
-
Tac bomers are a niche, “sometimes” unit, similar to cruisers and mech infantry. They fill a gap, and don’t make sense for some of the countries most of the time when all other options are considered. And even the countries that can easily afford them, it’s strategy dependent.
Germany, I have purchased them. I try and maintain a 1/1 ftr/tac ratio when I’m on the offensive. If the US/UK is closing in, fighters > tac for defense. I sometimes buy more of them than fighters if I have a giant armor stack pushing for Moscow. 3 tac in the Ukraine happens quite often in that last minute push. Having extra 4’s in the big battle instead of 3’s is well worth the 1 IC if it means taking Moscow or not.
Russia, I rarely buy them, as you’re usually on the defensive for most of the game. I buy them more if London falls, which switches Russia to a more offensive position with typically more income due to a delayed/weakened German push into Russian tt.
Japan, I purchase them semi-regularly to help threaten the US fleet and keep them at bay. Especially when Japan starts out with enough fighters to pair them with, it’s an easy purchase. Not for several turns though, as Japan starts with so many planes, and their starting income is usually spoken for.
US, usually if I’m going on the offensive against Japan. If I just want to keep Japan in check, then less so.
UK, rarely. Their money is pulled in so many directions and locations, that tacs don’t come into play very often for them.
Italy. Nope. They have so little income at first it just doesn’t make sense. Maybe once in a while if I happen to have a factory on Egypt with tanks blitzing through Africa and the ME.
ANZAC. In the late game, yes. Early on, if I purchase a plane, it will be a fighter to soften the immediate Japanese threat. Then later on, I switch to tacs to so they can pair up and go on the offensive.
France. Heh, never.
-
I play this map on TripleA and use “LOW lUCK” ,so I think TacB is very uesful,they almost make up 50% of my air force,without them,airforce’s ATK was very poor.
LL and dice are VERY different game IMHO. You use different strategies and tactics with dice that you wouldn’t do with LL and the reverse is true.
You are right player,LL is very different from dice,but I like LL,because dice is impractical sometimes.(at least in TripleA)For example, I always ordered one Destroyer and one Figter to attack a enemy Destroyer,but more than one time,I failed,it’s ridiculous,I NEVER hear a such example in real battle, so I decide to use LL. :-)
-
. . . I always ordered one Destroyer and one Figter to attack a enemy Destroyer,but more than one time,I failed,it’s ridiculous,I NEVER hear a such example in real battle, so I decide to use LL. :-)
I can’t remember the exact Japanese order of battle for the battle off Samar. But the USN had 3 destroyers, 4 escort destroyers (even smaller and less capable than a dd), and 6 escort carriers of ‘Taffy 3’ directly involved and within gun range of 3-4 IJN battleships (including the great Yamato), 4-6 heavy cruisers, 2 light cruisers, and 10-12 destroyers. The Yamato itself easily outmassed the combined weight of all the task force’s screening DDs and DEs.
To compound this discrepancy, the Japanese had complete surprise and all the carrier planes were loaded out for ground support operations, so they were loaded with light bombs vs torpedoes or armor piercing munitions. They had to launch immediately as they feared the carriers would soon be sunk and were unable to change their load outs. The DDs and DEs charged in straight into teeth of the IJN formation in order to launch their torpedoes and then dueled with their little 5" guns vs the enemy fleet and their 8" or larger caliber guns.
Air from Taffy 2, a similar task force as Taffy 3, had time to properly load out for ship killing and helped beat the Japanese forces back. Other than Taffy 2, Taffy 3 really didn’t get support from anywhere else as Taffy 1 dealt with large Japanese air attacks during the battle and all the fleet carriers and BBs of the USN were too far north chasing IJN carriers or too far south plugging a strait as the north ‘should’ have been covered by Halsey’s 3rd fleet.
A battle that should have resulted in the complete and immediate destruction of Taffy 3 lasted for over two hours before the Japanese forces withdrew. 3-4 USN DDs and DEs and one CVE were sunk by the IJN that morning and most of the other screen units were heavily damaged as well. Against that, Taffy 3 sunk/heavily damaged 4 of the heavy cruisers and damaged several other Japanese ships. On paper escort carriers, destroyers, and destroyer escorts should not have survived such a close encounter against that much firepower. So there’s one very real and dramatic example of heavier forces suffering a defeat against an outmatched force. And don’t think that it’s just an isolated case either, Midway comes to mind and there are plenty of other examples from WWII or history in general.
Returning to A&A, in a regular dice game just think of how many dice are rolled over the course of a single game. Sure one battle might have 90% odds. But if you string enough 90+% battles together you’re going to run into one that you lose. Say in one turn you perform 7 battles that each have exactly 90% odds of you winning. The mathematical odds that each of those turns out in your favor are actually only 47%. Which means there’s about a 50-50 shot that one of those battles will result in a loss. That doesn’t take into account battles that maybe you should have won with say three fighters left and instead you go home with only a single fighter.
And us being human, we’re going to focus on those times when the dice ‘screwed’ us because that was a 90% battle! I do it quite a bit myself before I get back to rolling some more dice.
-
I will offer up a rationale for the tac/tank combo. Think about Panzers and Stukas for a moment. The Panzers are used to pin down the enemy in known locations. Then Stukas are sent in to finish off enemy defensive positions before the Panzers blitz the line. If it weren’t for the Panzers pinning the enemy units, they would be harder for the Stukas to hit.
I may be talking out my a$$ though…
Is it a realistic depiction of Tank bonus toward Tactical bomber?
What do you think? -
I read this about Stuka:
The dive-bomber was a purpose-built aircraft, designed to drop bombs with pinpoint accuracy on frontline battlefield targets. To support their panzer offensives, the Germans developed close air support into an art form and the Stuka was central to this effort. The secret of German successes in this field was the close integration between air and ground units. Stuka squadrons worked hand-in-hand with ground units so they could intervene rapidly at the decisive point of the battlefield. These highly specialist squadrons were in the thick of the action and developed an impressive reputation. The need to fly deep into the heart of battle meant Stuka pilots suffered some of the highest casualty rates in the Luftwaffe, and as a consequence became some of the most highly decorated German servicemen. Hans-Ulrich Rudel was the most famous Stuka pilot and squadron commander of the war. He was also the most highly decorated German soldier of the war, being the only serviceman to receive the Knight’s Cross with Golden Oak Leaves with Swords and Diamonds.
This give the general tactics. Does Variable depiction a special case of the above Stuka tactics?
Suggested Topics
