Okay, it sounds reasonable then. As Escorts primary purpose (from a game play perspective) is to take interceptor hits instead of bombers (the ability to shoot down interceptors seems incidental in comparison), I’m inclined to pair it with a rule that escorts can each protect one bomber, but any unprotected bombers take interceptor hits first. This way at least you have a reason for intercepting escorted bombers.
Rethinking Strategic Bomber and Tactical Bomber Roles
-
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!
-
@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 12You 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. -
@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. -
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.
-
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 D0If the bomber gets a +1 on attack paired with a Fig, then how does that increase the Str bombers accuracy?
-
@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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
Okay, I don’t like the D6 damage idea, but I like the one pass idea. I think all the OOB stats should stay the same, but in battles against units bombers only participate in one round. If attacking and they survive, they retreat, and if defending they become like AAAs.
-
I do appologize for causing the confusion it appears that I have caused. My way of thinking about SBR’s on a territory that you are about to attack is not intended to have so many strategic bombers launched at one territory. The ipc value hinders production of 10 bombers. You have to have the ground units. I believe that AAA would be more widly used in this game play. I also think that if the strategic bombers are going to “fly” over an enemy territory that has an air base and intercepters available and radar tech (for those that play with tech), then they should be able to scramble. I agree that there were massive waves of strategic bombers used but for game play, I was suggesting limiting it to one pass just as you have one pass at any other SBR.
As a side note, our gaming group has house ruled that intercepters and escorts attack and defend at their normal attack/defense values. Still only one pass in the air combat but it didn’t make sence to deminish the fighter’s or tactical bomber’s capabilities because they are escorting or intercepting. It has made SBR’s more challenging. As for the SBR on a territory that your about to attack, it is a suggestion to consider. One last thing, if your bombers are close enough to hit an enemy target like was suggested by Shadow Hawk, they may be close enough to have the enemy’s strategic bombers repay the favor. I will have to play this rule and see what kind of difference it makes.
-
I do appologize for causing the confusion it appears that I have caused. My way of thinking about SBR’s on a territory that you are about to attack is not intended to have so many strategic bombers launched at one territory. The ipc value hinders production of 10 bombers. You have to have the ground units. I believe that AAA would be more widly used in this game play. I also think that if the strategic bombers are going to “fly” over an enemy territory that has an air base and intercepters available and radar tech (for those that play with tech), then they should be able to scramble. I agree that there were massive waves of strategic bombers used but for game play, I was suggesting limiting it to one pass just as you have one pass at any other SBR.
As a side note, our gaming group has house ruled that intercepters and escorts attack and defend at their normal attack/defense values. Still only one pass in the air combat but it didn’t make sence to deminish the fighter’s or tactical bomber’s capabilities because they are escorting or intercepting. It has made SBR’s more challenging. As for the SBR on a territory that your about to attack, it is a suggestion to consider. One last thing, if your bombers are close enough to hit an enemy target like was suggested by Shadow Hawk, they may be close enough to have the enemy’s strategic bombers repay the favor. I will have to play this rule and see what kind of difference it makes.
This thread was specifically made in response to discussion of Germany using very large numbers of Strategic Bombers (I believe 40 was the maximum number discussed). With that many, both OOB bombers and the bombers you described (dealing D6 damage), the bombers are practically broken (more so with the D6 Bombers… even with one pass, they could kill up to 120 infantry…).
If you use the regular values for intercepting fighters, what does radar do?
-
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.
I think deeper about this Strategic and Tactical Bomber issue.
I believe the right historically inspired rules for them should have been the following, but the StB was too iconic to make such a change:TACTICAL BOMBER
ATTACK 4
DEFENSE 3
MOVE 4
COST 11
Paired 1:1 with Tank, gives +1D to Tank (an historical point which I kept on defense to counter-balance the Attack @4 in all situations.)
TBR Attack 1 Damage 1D6STRATEGIC BOMBER
Attack 3 rise to 4
when no enemy’s plane (+1 Attack due to Air Supremacy bonus) or
when paired 1:1 with Fighter
Defense 1
Move 6
Cost 12
SBR Attack 1 Damage 1D6+2That way, when StBs are attacking a SZ without any Fighter support, then their attack value will be 3 while the defending Fg will keep their high Defense @4.
It will be only when they are paired with 1 Fighter escort per StB, that they can rise to an even combat Attack 4 against Defense @4.
I said more historical combat value because between TcBs and StBs, it seems to me that StBs were much more sitting duck than TcBs. So, it should have been StB which clearly needs a combined arms for Fighter support. Many TacBs types of Fg-bomber or Light-Bomber were able to fly without escort.
Here is what I would prefer as Fg unit to fix the other balance issue in SBR:
FIGHTER
Attack 3
Defense 4
Move 4
Cost 10
Gives +1A to StB when paired 1:1
SBR Attack 2 Defense 2 -
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.
**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.
I would agree with you only if their was a specific unit for medium bomber.
It is not the case. German’s JU88 and Japanese’s Betty Medium twin-engine bombers were used in tactical missions.
That’s why I think, as long as there is no 4 fourth air units in A&A (Fg, TcB, MedB and Heavy Bombers), Strategic bomber can do both types of missions (Regular and SBR), since this units included both medium and heavy bombers.Above are the small changes which can gives more historical feel to both TcB and StB IMo.
-
I’ve been think’in on it too Baron. REALLY like it! :)
But not so sure about A4 give +1 D to tank for TACs. Wouldn’t that give Germany the biggest boost? Guess I don’t see the historical aspect either. Maybe CWO will chime in on that?
Haven’t had a chance to playtest yet but will soon.Good Action!
-
Thanks Barney.
Thinking about sturmovik and hawker typhoon as tank killer from above.Maybe Germany would put TcB in Dead Zone but I think this can allow Russia to buy a Tac or two without too much compromising defense compared to Fg at 10 IPCs.
-
Ahh… hadn’t thought about Russia. Hmmm…:)
-
@Baron:
[q
I would agree with you only if their was a specific unit for medium bomber.
It is not the case. German’s JU88 and Japanese’s Betty Medium twin-engine bombers were used in tactical missions.
That’s why I think, as long as there is no 4 fourth air units in A&A (Fg, TcB, MedB and Heavy Bombers), Strategic bomber can do both types of missions (Regular and SBR), since this units included both medium and heavy bombers.Above are the small changes which can gives more historical feel to both TcB and StB IMo.
[/quote]If SB’s represent both heavy and medium bombers then their movement should be reduced to 5. My interpretation is that TB’s represent all light and medium bombers with a battlefield role while SB’s represent heavy bombers intended for destroying infrastructure. In their current form SB’s trump TB’s and make them all but superfluous: for one piffling extra IPC they are better attackers, have a longer range and are better at strategic bombing (the only thing they should be good at). They can’t defend as well (but who buys SB’s or TB’s for defence?) or land on a carrier but with their long range and the right base SB’s can be positioned to threaten any strategically important sea area. So who’s buying TB’s instead of SB’s? It’s no wonder that it’s not the players doing extreme SB strategies!
-
@Baron:
I would agree with you only if their was a specific unit for medium bomber.
It is not the case. German’s JU88 and Japanese’s Betty Medium twin-engine bombers were used in tactical missions.
That’s why I think, as long as there is no 4 fourth air units in A&A (Fg, TcB, MedB and Heavy Bombers), Strategic bomber can do both types of missions (Regular and SBR), since this units included both medium and heavy bombers.Above are the small changes which can gives more historical feel to both TcB and StB IMo.
If SB’s represent both heavy and medium bombers then their movement should be reduced to 5. My interpretation is that TB’s represent all light and medium bombers with a battlefield role while SB’s represent heavy bombers intended for destroying infrastructure. In their current form SB’s trump TB’s and make them all but superfluous: for one piffling extra IPC they are better attackers, have a longer range and are better at strategic bombing (the only thing they should be good at). They can’t defend as well (but who buys SB’s or TB’s for defence?) or land on a carrier but with their long range and the right base SB’s can be positioned to threaten any strategically important sea area. So who’s buying TB’s instead of SB’s? It’s no wonder that it’s not the players doing extreme SB strategies!
I see it in the opposite way.
If StBs sculpts OOB were made only of 4 engines heavy bombers, then I would have given them a 7 spaces move. So, with Air Base, such High Altitude Heavy Bombers would be able to go 4 TTs away and come back.
Suggested Topics
