Rethinking Strategic Bomber and Tactical Bomber Roles

[Chrisx]

The recent thread on OP bombers got me thinking that when the game had only one type of bomber unit it performed a composite of strategic, anti-naval and tactical battlefield roles. However, the introduction of actual tactical (TB) bombers to perform the anti-naval and battlefield functions should have reduced the role of strategic bombers to, well, strategic bombers. Consequently, they should have an attack and defence of 1 each, making them of little use in battles and more or less requiring an escort to keep them safe on strategic bombing runs (as was usually the case historically). Their ability to conduct strategic bombing should remain unchanged and, with the reduced attack factor, will be their primary function in the game. TB’s, while great at attacking surface targets, were weak against enemy fighters so should have a defence of 2. Also, TB’s, with their heavy bomb loads, generally had shorter ranges than fighters so should have a movement range of 3. To provide a fighter escort for strategic bombers, a new rule will probably be needed to allow fighters to move at the same rate as bombers that they escort throughout a strategic bombing mission (starting and returning to the same area). As these changes give each air unit type more clearly defined roles they should probably all cost the same, say, 11 IPC’s

[barney]

I understand the thinking behind it Chrisx, but you have to be careful when tweaking the game otherwise it ends up throwing other things out of wack.
Usually increments of small changes work best.

[Chrisx]

Currently strategic bombers have a better battlefield attack than unsupported tactical bombers and are also capable of attacking defending fighters on an equal footing. Is this feasible? When new units are introduced into the game the role and function of some of the older units must be reconsidered. Another example is the introduction of mech infantry, a good thing that allows blitzing tanks to have ground support. But the introduction of mech infantry should have also provided the option for mech artillery/self propelled artillery.

[knp7765]

So strategic bombers would pretty much only be used for SBRs. Is that pretty much what you are suggesting?
Well, I tend to agree on some points. It is kind of silly having strategic bombers attacking naval ships and I have never liked the idea of an attacking strategic bomber being on the same level as a defending fighter (even though I have done it myself).
One thing a lot of people here have mentioned is bombers are too overpowered now and should be more expensive, like back to 15 IPCs.
If we were to take away the strategic bomber’s combat attack abilities and basically relegate them to just strategic bombing raids, I think their price would need to be drastically cut, like maybe in half (6 IPCs). Otherwise, there would be no SBRs because no one would ever buy bombers because they have no attack values. This is another reason some think bombers are overpowered and perhaps should have their price raised. Bombers are very flexible and useful in many situations.
If bombers could no longer attack enemy units and could only perform SBRs, I doubt people would order them much unless a strong SBR attack happens to be their strategy.

As for fighters escorting the bombers for SBRs, you can’t increase the fighters range like that. If you want your bombers escorted, then it is up to you to find a place for your fighters so they can do the job with their limited range or the bombers have to do it by themselves. The US bomber program had to do without escort fighters until 1944 when the P-51B Mustangs were available in decent quantities. They suffered terrible losses because of it too.

[Witt]

Interceptors should hit on a 2 and Bombers should only do D6 or D6 halved plus 2, when doing a SBR. I believe 15 was a good price for them too.

[Chrisx]

@knp7765:

So strategic bombers would pretty much only be used for SBRs. Is that pretty much what you are suggesting?

Yes, they are called strategic bombers so that’s what they should be. The introduction of tactical bombers means that strategic bombers are no longer an abstract composite of all types of bombers (heavy, naval and light tactical bombers) and so should be treated just as heavy strategic bombers whose function is to destroy enemy infrastructure. Bombers should be primarily represented on the battlefield by the tactical bomber, otherwise what is the point of introducing the latter when strategic bombers are currently better battlefield units. Whether players would want to buy strategic bombers in their proper role is up to them. Not all units are popular: how often are cruiser and AA units purchased?

[General 6 Stars]

You could make strategic bombers SBR’s 1 D6, attack ground A2 D2, intercept D1, and cannot attack naval units. Raise cost to 15 icp’s.
From what I’ve read , bombers never really attacked naval. Unless I’m wrong.

If you have bombers attack naval, make it like A2 D0.

[wheatbeer]

@wittmann:

Interceptors should hit on a 2 and Bombers should only do D6 or D6 halved plus 2, when doing a SBR. I believe 15 was a good price for them too.

I agree with everything you said except maybe I’d say 14.

It’s not economically feasible to truly deter SBR with the current rules because even in large dogfights, the attacker only needs a handful of fighters for fodder and can typically guarantee the bombers survive the dogfight. Letting interceptors hit at 2 would actually make deterrence a feasible strategy.

[General 6 Stars]

Sorry. Hit the wrong number keys on couple of attack values.

[Witt]

I think we understood, SS.

Wheatbeer, thank you. I am sure Anniversary was hit on a two. Will look it up, when I can be bothered to get off my backside!

Introducing Tacs was a great move and we love the extra unit, but a bigger rethink was necessary on SBs, I believe. The added range is their main perk, so throwing in hitting on a 3 too, proves it is too powerful a unit to avoid buying in numbers.
We all know the 4-1 Bomber goes  back to original games, when there were fewer units and it was fine for those games. Not any more.

[Witt]

Actually, when SBR took money off a player seemed mean at the time, but was it a better system? Hard to tell, I suppose.
Having a two tier Factory system seems to suit the new method of SBR. That said, perhaps, a Major IC should always be  able to produce 3 units, regardless of the damage. In reality, SB never truly worked. And the Major IC represents an industrial area, built up over centuries in some cases. (Norway messes up this notion.)

I love a good whinge!

[baron Münchhausen]

@wittmann:

Interceptors should hit on a 2 and Bombers should only do D6 or D6 halved plus 2, when doing a SBR. I believe 15 was a good price for them too.

All these points have impact on SBR and Bombers usefulness.
Rising interceptors efficiency and reducing the damage on IC/AB/NB drastically affect the statistical damage per each SBR run.
Such SBR tactics will becomes uninteressing for any optimal play.
So, instead of making Strategic Bombers more useful for what it was built (historically), it will becomes mainly as the ChrisX criticize a Bomber doing mainly combat mission, as it was an (historical kind of) tactical bomber.

On the other part, a 15 IPCs cost affects both regular combat and strategic bombing raid.
In this situation, a player will have to ponder about the cost and combat value against other units.
This will definitely outline the specific range of 6 spaces, as the main criteria which influence the decision.

---

There is another way to reduce the impact of StB in general combat without radically changing their combat value and cost: rise the attack value in specific circumstances but reduces the basic attack value.

STRATEGIC BOMBER
ATTACK 3 rise to 4 when no enemy’s plane (+1 attack due to Air Supremacy bonus)
DEFENSE 1
MOVE 6
COST 12

You can also add an escort bonus slightly different than the Fg-TcB bonus, more like DD bonus.
Attack rise to 4 when at least 1 Fighter is on the StBs side, acting like escort.
So, as long as there is at least 1 Fg with them, StB can get ATTACK @4.

That way, when StBs are attacking a SZ without any Fg support, then their attack value will be 3 while the defending Fg will keep their high Defense @4.

It will be only when they have Fighter escort with them, that they can rise to an even combat Attack 4 against Defense @4.

Also, don’t forget that with Fg, it costs 10 IPCs to get a defense @4 while it costs 12 IPCs (and at least 1 Fg) to reach the same @4 as attack factor.

---

For Damage on IC, in G40 SBR I prefer to rise Fg defense to 2 (and also escorting Fg at 2) than reducing Bombers damage to D6 and keep all planes @1.
But I would do only one change, not both.

---

Another change which can have radical impact is to make the AAA fire before the interceptor and escort phase (as it is in Anniversary edition rule).
(Instead of seeing AAA fire as IC’s AA gun, it would be seen as a territory’s AA gun fire.)
All AAA hits will reduce the number of attacking (StB) roll @1 and escort (Fg @2, in my HR) against interceptors defending @2 (in my HR).
Once pre-emptive AAA casualties removed, the regular combat is made.
Casualties from both sides are removed.
Then damage on IC followed.

With such a change to AAA phase, there is no need to change cost or D6+2 damage.

---

One last point on Strategic bombers compared to Tactical.
The actual sculpts of Germany and Japan showed Medium bombers.
As far as I understand, these twin-engine bombers were able to do some tactical raids as their smaller brothers (such as US SBD-Dauntless, tactical dive-bomber, or UK’s De Havilland Mosquito).
So, OOB Strategic Bomber is not only made of High Altitude Heavy Bombers (such as B-17 Flying Fortress).
That’s why, it still make sense in game perspective that StBs performs some kind of tactical regular combat.

[baron Münchhausen]

@SS:

You could make strategic bombers SBR’s 1 D6, attack ground A2 D2, intercept D1, and cannot attack naval units. Raise cost to 15 icp’s.
From what I’ve read , bombers never really attacked naval. Unless I’m wrong.

If you have bombers attack naval, make it like A2 D0.

I think you would have written : make it like A1 D0.
It is the only number you didn’t edit.
Since you were in D12 combat value, I infer that is the real number you have in mind.
Isn’t it?

Making such a change is clearly messing with opening tactics and combat.
I played with a bomber A4 as long as there is naval target but A1 against aircrafts.
A radical change occurs during combat when the last survivor was a Fighter unit.
What was a victory becomes a lost after the second round, since my attack factor suffer a drop from 4 to 1.

Such a change in combat value during regular combat appears too radical.
Smaller change +1 or -1 seems correct but higher drop in values is too much.

[barney]

I like the idea of bomber A3  +1 when paired with a fighter Baron. It’s the same way TACs are used. Also like the idea of fighter intercepts and escorts A2.
The increased range would be bombers greatest asset as well as being able to hit factories.

Nothing too radical and should be easy to adjust to.

I also like the  +1 when no enemy planes are present as well.

[General 6 Stars]

No, I was thinking 6 value die and the reason for lower values is do to the str bombers accuracy.
If you keep cost at 12 those numbers are good. If cost is 15 then raise values maybe 1 and SBR 1 die roll plus 2.
If you have Str Bombers attacking naval make it A1  D0

If the bomber gets a +1 on attack paired with a Fig, then how does that increase the Str bombers accuracy?

[amanntai]

@SS:

You could make strategic bombers SBR’s 1 D6, attack ground A2 D2, intercept D1, and cannot attack naval units. Raise cost to 15 icp’s.
From what I’ve read , bombers never really attacked naval. Unless I’m wrong.

If you have bombers attack naval, make it like A2 D0.

The German battleship Tirpitz was sunk by RAF Bombers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_battleship_Tirpitz)

Also, German aircraft in the North Sea in 1940 attacked their own destroyers in error and sunk them.

[amanntai]

Shouldn’t this thread be in House Rules? It deals with changing unit values and abilities…

All in all, I think Strategic Bombers should be reduced in attack to 3, and allow AAA units to participate in Strategic bombing raids. Maybe allow fighters to scramble when an adjacent territory or seazone is getting attacked (not strategic bombing) by Strategic bombers. This would reduce the effectiveness of using Strategic bombers in regular attacks.

[Dafyd]

After reading all of the comments I beleive that the Strategic bomber should be just that.  It was designed to deliver a heavy payload on a designated target.  It was not flown like a fighter and you did not use it in a dive bombing manuever.  It flew level and high.  Let the escorts and intercepters fight it out and give the bombers a defence of one.  The B17 did shoot enemy intercepters down.  Leave the D6 roll as its damage value and their cost at 12ipc’s.  The only thing I would change is its mission peramiters.  The strategic bomber was used in industrial targets, rail stations, air and naval bases.  Tactical bombers like the Stuka and the P47 did not attack air and naval bases like and SBR but they attacked the planes, ships, and trains.  Stragegic bombers would carpet bomb a battlefield but this manuever was done prior to launching an attack and was one pass over the field.  It did not stay and engage in the battle.  If you use a strategic bomber on  a battlefield it should be limited to one pass over the field prior to the combat phase and the D6 total applied to the damage to the units in the field.  Say a stragegic bomber is going to be used in Western Ukraine.  The German player would launch all of his SBR’s to hit London’s I/C and air base and one to Western Ukraine.  All of the SBR’s are done prior to any combat rolls.  The Western Ukaraine bomber rolls a 5,  if the Soviet player has 4 infantry, 2 artillery, and two tanks; 5 points of damage would be inflicted on the Soviet’s forces.  One tank and one infantry (defense of 3 & defense of 2) would need to be taken as casualties (or any combination that would equal the amout the bomber inflicted).  Unless there is AAA in that territory, the bomber flies away unscathed.  The ground forces involved are not going to shoot a stargegic bomber down.  The casualties would be removed and the ground combat phase would begin.  I don’t think the Stategic bomber should continue dropping fours in a ground or naval battle.  This just wasn’t their function.  My humble opinion only.

[Chrisx]

@Dafyd:

Stragegic bombers would carpet bomb a battlefield but this manuever was done prior to launching an attack and was one pass over the field.  It did not stay and engage in the battle.  If you use a strategic bomber on  a battlefield it should be limited to one pass over the field prior to the combat phase and the D6 total applied to the damage to the units in the field.  Say a stragegic bomber is going to be used in Western Ukraine.  The German player would launch all of his SBR’s to hit London’s I/C and air base and one to Western Ukraine.  All of the SBR’s are done prior to any combat rolls.  The Western Ukaraine bomber rolls a 5,  if the Soviet player has 4 infantry, 2 artillery, and two tanks; 5 points of damage would be inflicted on the Soviet’s forces.  One tank and one infantry (defense of 3 & defense of 2) would need to be taken as casualties (or any combination that would equal the amount the bomber inflicted).  Unless there is AAA in that territory, the bomber flies away unscathed.  The ground forces involved are not going to shoot a strategic bomber down.  The casualties would be removed and the ground combat phase would begin.  I don’t think the Strategic bomber should continue dropping fours in a ground or naval battle.  This just wasn’t their function.  My humble opinion only.

This sounds like a good idea but would make massed SB’s even more powerful than they currently are. As you’ve described it, 20 SB’s could inflict up to 120 points of damage on defending ground units without any danger to themselves. At least you’ve seen the point that SB’s should be SB’s and not TB’s. Most of the other posters can’t seem to see that there is a great distinction between the two types of bombers and that the battlefield role essentially belongs to short range TB’s not long range SB’s. I’m not advocating the removal of bombers from battle - they will still be there but as TB’s not SB’s. The latter will be used to perform their historical role of attacking infrastructure rather than enemy units. On a side note, reading about how difficult it was to destroy the Turpitz, makes me think that battleships should have an attack and defence of 5 and 5 hit points!

[CWO Marc]

This is just a comment on the Tirpitz element of this thread.  The comment isn’t to argue in favour of any particular combat values for the A&A strategic bomber (since I don’t have any particular opinion on the subject) – it’s simply because WWII battleships are one of my areas of interest.

The Tirpitz was attacked by strategic bombers – specifically, by British Lancasters – because the weapon that was to be used, the 12,000-pound Tallboy, was too big and too heavy to be carried by a tactical bomber.  Its even larger cousin, the 22,000-pound Grand Slam, was so big and heavy that the Lancaster was (as I recall) the only Allied bomber with the fuselage length and lift capacity to carry it.

WWII horizontal bombers weren’t as well suited to hitting warships (particularly ships that are steaming at sea) as tactical bombers because the precision with which they could hit targets at that time wasn’t high enough to guarantee good results against such small targets.  A few of them would sometimes get lucky, but those were the exceptions: I think one of the Japanese level bombers at Pearl Harbor managed a direct hit on a stationary battleship, but by contrast the American B-17s which attacked the Japanese fleet at Midway scored no hits as far as I know.

On the other had, I guess you could argue that the Tirpitz was such a major asset that it counted as a strategic target rather than a tactical one.  (Just look at how many ships the British threw into the hunt for Tirpitz’s sister ship Bismarck.)  Also, the raids against the Tirpitz capitalized on the fact that the RAF had a Lancaster-equiped unit, 617 Squadron, a.k.a. The Dambusters, which specialized in precision (and sometimes unorthodox) attacks against high-value targets.  Even with their skill, however, it took multiple raids dropping multiple bombs before the Tirpitz was put out of action because most of the bombs missed the target.