The Fighter Ace & Luftwaffe Ace IPC cost is 11 IPC for each unit.
There was a flaw in the IPC cost in the original text in the rules.
This has now been corrected and updated in the rules attached to the first post in this thread.
Captain
G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)
-
I’m torn, the strategic bomber is definitely overpowered, but the more I sit with it, the more necessary the unit feels to pretty much every strategy of interest. It’s definitely the Queen of A&A pieces right now. The one unit that allows you to rapidly redirect from one theater to another and still be reasonably effective. I worry, given the large scale of the map and relatively small scale of the economy, that nerfing aircraft (and particularly the strategic bomber) overmuch will make the game kind of drag.
Well put. I don’t see the mass outcry in wanting to get rid of the strategic bomber… unless I missed something previously. I have never found it to be overpowered given that in the games I play its numerical representation on the board is fairly low. The only issue I have seen with it is the US stacking them in UK to strategic bomb the crap out of Germany. Much as I don’t like that, I can’t say it is wrong because that is exactly what happened during the war.
If you really want to limit some of their effectiveness, particularly in large battles where they can be shielded by lower end units, would be to institute the aircraft rules we talked about previously on this thread. Specifically as it relates to fighters. Fighters should always have their hits concentrated on enemy air units first (both in attack and defense). This makes sense because it is their actual role and because it doesn’t allow air formations to hide in the background of a battle and just punish every other unit on the board.
The one buddy I had who could be trusted to play a full game of global just got married, so he’s pretty much on lock down.
Hahaha! Nice choice of words.
I don’t play tripleA, but I sympathize. Playing in person with friends is always better if you can do so.
-
Been a while since I posted in this one, but since this thread has served as a general repository for ideas that don’t yet have a full implementation, I thought I’d mention one more regarding strategic bombers.
Most of the suggestions I’ve read regarding a redesign of the strategic bomber, have tried to retain some role for the unit in normal combat. For example, lowering it’s attack value and lowering it’s cost, or creating new costs/abilities for all 3 air units at a go. What I’d like to propose here is rather more simplistic…
Eliminate the stratBs role in normal combat, so that it’s only use in the game is to strategically bomb factories and bases.
Rather than trying to preserve a dual role for the strategic bomber unit (which seems to invariably favor normal combat over strat bombing) what if we made it exclusively for bombing? Basically I’m talking about a bomber unit with no hitpoints, and no attack or defense value, in normal combat. Instead we create an SBR phase and escort/intercept rules, that are unique, treating the unit a bit more like transports. The tactical bomber, would then replace the strategic bomber, as the game’s principle combat bomber, at whatever new attack/defense value makes sense for that role.
I was thinking that this new, much stricter and much more limited role, might recommend a sweet spot cost at 5 ipcs for the strategic bomber. The idea being that they would face a much higher rate of attrition than they currently do, under whatever new AAA/intercept rules would be required to achieve that. The players buy the unit with expectation that many will be lost as a matter of course, thinking about them more like infantry in that respect, doomed to die but with a purpose. Something like… player invests 5 ipcs, with an expected attrition rate of 50%, for the opperunity to damage enemy facilities.
This would effectively eliminate the strat bomber air umbrella (or dark skies) approach vs navies, restoring carriers + fighters/tacBs to the preeminent position on the water. It would also eliminate the 6 move normal combat unit from the game, preventing the rush defense bomber stack, or the rush attack airblitz, with this crazy unit that has both the attack 4 (best in the game) and move 6 (best in the game.) It’s a major change, but one which I think might produce a more realistic strategic bombing campaign, without such huge distortions to normal combat.
Anyone else think something like this could work?
-
IDK if it might work but it worth thinking on this original idea.
I like somewhat this idea. Just for easier implement in TripleA (for play-test) and smooth play, I believed it should remains able to do both regular combat and SBR, but at these values:
Redesign Strategic Bomber
Attack 1
Defense 1
Move 6-7
Cost 5… (I pray for, if only it could work.)
SBR damage 1D6When I got time, I will probably crunch on numbers, mostly cost, if SBR is as OOB to compare with OOB combat.
I see where you’re going with 5 IPCs StBs, it is such a sweet underused spot. :-D
Probably we should look at both: pure defenseless StB A0 D0 C5 and weakest StB A1 D1 C?
Redesign Strategic Bomber Defenseless
Attack 0
Defense 0
Move 6-7
Cost 5… (I pray for, if only it could work.)
SBR damage 1D6+2 -
Sounds interesting. Make them cheap and weak so fighters can hack them out of the sky and you could see some more sbr action and interaction I would think. Worth thinking about.
I’ve actually been using a lot of the ideas discussed on here from when this thread started. Sticking close to OOB, I’ve been using Bmbrs A3, +1 w/ftr D1 M6, +1 w/AB C12. Ftrs A2 D2 in SBRs. Also have AAguns at A0 D1 M1 C4 2AAshots, max 1 per plane.
The bombers are noticeably not as effective. For making decisions probably more than results. Using one bmbr to take out a solo inf or dstry blocker is more of a gamble now. As for the AAguns, it’s just like buying an artillery to me cost wise. They can block,kill,capture and if lucky slay a couple planes. Point is they get used more, which is what you’d hopefully get with a cheaper SBR.
There especially nice to have with a smaller counterattack force w/high unit survivability. Can’t just send a bunch of planes in with a couple infantry to take’m out. And since they only get two shots you need more of them to protect your stacks.Anyway back to your suggestion. I would think you’d want to leave a normal attack factor as well. People are used to them and it would affect a multitude of battles and limit some possibilities imo. I think a lower hit rate would likely be more acceptable to most payers. To me just dropping it to A3 makes me go “man I wish they hit at 4” a lot of times. :)
Besides it’d be nice to pull a “Doolittle” type raid if you want.A2 D1 same movement would give you at least a 50/50 shot at DDs and INF. Probably have to boost the cost. Maybe 7 or something. I’m sure Baron will crunch some numbers out.
Edit:Ahh…I see he already has :)
-
Here is the number, some numbers…but I need more time to make a comparative analysis.
Break even ratio:
OOB G40 SBR: 10/19= 0.526 StB/Fg
Cost 5 D6 damage: 16 StBs A1 vs 31 Fgs D2, 16/31= 0.516 StB/Fg
Cost 6 D6 damage: 19 Stbs A1 vs 29 Fgs D2, 19/29= 0.655 StB/FgCost 5: 1 StB A1 vs 1 Fg D2
1D6: +3.611 - 2.222 = +1.389 IPCs damage/SBR *2=2.778
1D6+2: +4.723 - 2.222 = +2.501 IPC damage/SBR
Cost 6
1D6: +3.611 - 2.667 = +0.944 IPCs damage/SBR *9= +8.496
1D6+2: +4.723 - 2.667 = +2.056 IPC damage/SBRCost 5: 1StB A1 vs 2 Fgs D2
1D6: +2.963 - 3.148 = -0.185 IPCs damage/SBR *15= -2.775
1D6+2: +3.704 - 3.148 = +0.556 IPCs damage/SBRCost 6:
1D6: +2.963 - 3.778 = -0.815 IPCs damage/SBR *10 = -8.15
1D6+2: +3.704 - 3.778 = -0.074 IPCs damage/SBRFighter Interception Threshold (FIT)
G40 OOB: from 1.55 StB/Fg and less
Cost 5: near 6 StBs vs 4 Fgs= from 1.5 StB/Fg and less
Cost 6: near 5 StBs vs 3 Fgs= from 1.67 StB/Fg and lessCost 5:
No intercept, 1D6 (avg 3.5 IPCs): +2.917 - 0.833 = +2.084 IPCs damage/SBR6= 12.504 IPCs
6 StBs vs 4 Fgs = 12.388 IPCs (Diff.: 0.116)
1 StB A1 vs 1 Fg D2
1D6: +3.611 - 2.222 = +1.389 IPCs damage/SBR2=2.778
2 StBs vs 1 Fg
1D6: +7.861 - 3.056 = +4.805 IPCs damage/SBR*2= 9.610Cost 6
No interception, 1D6 (avg 3.5 IPCs): +2.917 - 1 = +1.917 IPCs damage/SBR5= +9.585
5 StB vs 3 Fgs 9.332 IPCs damage (Diff.: +0.253 )
1 StB vs 1 Fg
1D6: +3.611 - 2.667 = +0.944 IPCs damage/SBR1=+0.944
2 StBs vs 1 Fg
1D6: +7.861 - 3.667 = +4.194 IPCs damage/SBR*2= +8.388Strategic Bomber in air-to-air combat SBR:
Attack 1
Bombard IC or AB or NB damage: 1D6Fighter in air-to-air combat SBR:
Attack 2
Defend 2Tactical Bomber in air-to-air combat SBR:
Attack 1
Bombard AB or NB damage: 1D6IC’s AAA: @1 against each Strategic Bomber
Naval Base or Air Base: @1 against each Strategic Bomber or Tactical bomber
Global40 SBR HRules : 1 StB doing SBR without interceptor, damage 1D6+2 / damage 1D6
Regular SBRs
5/6 StB survived *3.5 IPCs = +2.917 IPCs5/6 StB survived *5.5 IPCs = +4.583 IPCs
1/6 StB killed *5 IPCs = -0.833 IPCs
1/6 StB killed *6 IPCs = -1 IPCsCost 5
1D6 (avg 3.5 IPCs): +2.917 - 0.833 = +2.084 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2 (avg 5.5 IPCs): +4.583 - 0.833 = +3.750 IPCs damage/SBR
Cost 6
1D6 (avg 3.5 IPCs): +2.917 - 1 = +1.917 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2 (avg 5.5 IPCs): +4.583 - 1 = +3.583 IPCs damage/SBROOB G40: 4.583 - 2 = +2.583 IPCs damage/SBR
TripleA 1942.2 : 2.917 - 2 = +0.917 IPC damage/SBR
G40 SBR HRules :1 StB A1 regular vs 1 Fg D2
Cost 5
1D6: +3.611 - 2.222 = +1.389 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +4.723 - 2.222 = +2.501 IPC damage/SBR
Cost 6
1D6: +3.611 - 2.667 = +0.944 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +4.723 - 2.667 = +2.056 IPC damage/SBRG40 OOB: 1 StB A1 doing SBR against 1 Fg D1
D6+2: + 5.486 - 3.667 = +1.819 IPC damage/SBR
G40 SBR HR: 1 StB A1 regular doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D2
StBs rolls/interceptors Fgs roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties
Cost 5:
1D6: +2.963 - 3.148 = -0.185 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +3.704 - 3.148 = +0.556 IPCs damage/SBR
Cost 6:
1D6: +2.963 - 3.778 = -0.815 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +3.704 - 3.778 = -0.074 IPCs damage/SBRG40 OOB:StB A1 doing SBR against 2 Fgs D1
D6+2: +4.85 - 5.056 = -0.206 IPCs damage/SBR
G40 SBR HR: 1 StB A1 & 1 Fg A2 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D2
StB+Fg rolls/interceptors Fgs roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties
Cost 5
1D6: +7.593 - 3.148 = +4.445 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +9.074 - 3.148 = +5.926 IPCs damage/SBR
Cost 6
1D6: +7.593 - 3.407 = +4.186 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +9.074 - 3.407 = +5.667 IPC damage/SBR
G40 SBR HR: 2 StBs A1 regular doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D2
StBs rolls/interceptors Fgs roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties
Cost 5
1D6: +7.222 - 4.444 = +2.778 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +9.445 - 4.444 = +5.001 IPCs damage/SBR
Cost 6
1D6: +7.222 - 5.333 = +1.889 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +9.445 - 5.333 = +4.112 IPCs damage/SBR
G40 HR: 1 StB A1 & 1 Fg A2 doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fgs D2
StB+Fg rolls/interceptors Fgs roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties
Cost 5:
1D6: +7.361 - 1.389 = +5.972 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +9.027 - 1.389 = +7.638 IPCs damage/SBR
Cost 6:
1D6: +7.361 - 2.556 = +4.805 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +9.027 - 2.556 = +6.471 IPCs damage/SBR
G40 SBR HR: 2 StBs A1 regular doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fgs D2
StBs rolls/interceptors Fgs roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties
Cost 5:
1D6: +7.861 - 3.056 = +4.805 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +10.639 - 3.056 = +7.583 IPCs damage/SBR
Cost 6:
1D6: +7.861 - 3.667 = +4.194 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +10.639 - 3.667 = +6.972 IPCs damage/SBR
SBR HRules : 2 StBs doing SBR without interceptor
Regular SBRs
Cost 5:
1D6 (avg 3.5 IPCs): +5.834 - 1.667 = +4.167 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2 (avg 5.5 IPCs): +9.166 - 1.667 = +7.50 IPCs damage/SBR
Cost 6:
1D6 (avg 3.5 IPCs): +5.834 - 2 = +3.834 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2 (avg 5.5 IPCs): +9.166 - 2 = +7.166 IPCs damage/SBR
G40.2 SBR OOB
Bomber A1
Damage: 1D6+2
Cost 12Fighter A1 D1
Cost 101 StB A1 doing SBR against 1 Fg D1
D6+2: + 5.486 - 3.667 = +1.819 IPC damage/SBRStB A1 doing SBR against 2 Fgs D1
D6+2: +4.85 - 5.056 = -0.206 IPCs damage/SBR*9= -1.854, 9 vs 18
Net: (+1.819 - 1.854= ) -0.035
For 1 StB vs 1 Fg- 9 StBs vs 18 Fgs
Break even point: 10 StBs A1 C12 D6+2 vs 19 Fgs D1 C10
Break even ratio: 10/19= 0.526 StB/Fg
0.526*12=
6.32 IPCs/10 IPCs = 0.632 offense/defense cost ratio
Approximative Interception Threshold: from 1.55 StB/Fg and less
- 9 StBs vs 18 Fgs
-
Eliminate the stratBs role in normal combat, so that it’s only use in the game is to strategically bomb factories and bases.
Rather than trying to preserve a dual role for the strategic bomber unit (which seems to invariably favor normal combat over strat bombing) what if we made it exclusively for bombing? Basically I’m talking about a bomber unit with no hitpoints, and no attack or defense value, in normal combat. Instead we create an SBR phase and escort/intercept rules, that are unique, treating the unit a bit more like transports. The tactical bomber, would then replace the strategic bomber, as the game’s principle combat bomber, at whatever new attack/defense value makes sense for that role.
This would effectively eliminate the strat bomber air umbrella (or dark skies) approach vs navies, restoring carriers + fighters/tacBs to the preeminent position on the water. It would also eliminate the 6 move normal combat unit from the game, preventing the rush defense bomber stack, or the rush attack airblitz, with this crazy unit that has both the attack 4 (best in the game) and move 6 (best in the game.) It’s a major change, but one which I think might produce a more realistic strategic bombing campaign, without such huge distortions to normal combat.
This is very interesting. I haven’t seen it proposed before. It does make sense and would definitely solve some problems. I like that it emphasizes the tactical use of fighters and tac bombers as the primary combat air units. Your suggestions for price and attributes appear spot on at first glance.
I have been thinking about it more lately, having just gone back re-read multiple threads dealing with Dark Skies and how to defeat it. The simplest (and most appropriate) solution is simply to alter strategic bomber attributes. Though many people seem very reluctant to alter a significant unit function to solve a problem. The way strategic/heavy bombers function in this game is ridiculously incongruous to the functions they performed in real life. To the point that it skews the game significantly. As much as this would change the dynamics of gameplay, I think it may be a necessary and highly appropriate change. It would bring accuracy and a greater purpose/niche for strategic bombing that we don’t currently see… at least I don’t.
I won’t be able to test it out, but I would be very interested in the results if others did.
Anyway back to your suggestion. I would think you’d want to leave a normal attack factor as well. People are used to them and it would affect a multitude of battles and limit some possibilities imo. I think a lower hit rate would likely be more acceptable to most payers. To me just dropping it to A3 makes me go “man I wish they hit at 4” a lot of times. :)
Besides it’d be nice to pull a “Doolittle” type raid if you want.What exactly do you mean Barney? The Doolittle Raid was essentially a strategic bombing mission performed by medium (tactical) bombers. Unless you are comparing it to being able to using strategic bombers in a reverse role… Long shot attack on combat units with a poor offensive role?
-
The simplest (and most appropriate) solution is simply to alter strategic bomber attributes. Though many people seem very reluctant to alter a significant unit function to solve a problem. The way strategic/heavy bombers function in this game is ridiculously incongruous to the functions they performed in real life. To the point that it skews the game significantly.
Well said Hoffman.
Once I learned how poorly StBs were against regular targets, it seems a real aberration.
This is mostly because before TacBomber creation, StB unit was an all bomber unit.Now, TcB has been created, each bomber type need a specific and historically accurate role.
I see a lot a possibility coming from Black Elk idea.
I’m eager to compare all numbers to get some guidelines.
But definitely a breakthrough IMO.
From my HR POV both Fg A2 D2 C6 and StB A? D? will get same combat value in regular combat and in SBR escort and intercept.
It will be simpler.
I like this change. -
Got the numbers crunching already! Nice
Good to see Lhoffman weighing in too! I think we’re on the same page here. Feeling that the unit as currently used in game is a real stretch, when you try to match it up with the history.
:-DI guess I should say that the issue I see with maintaing a normal combat role for the stratB, coupled with a major price reduction, is the hitpoint spam. You can eliminate the air umbrella by lowering the attack value, but even a defense value of zero is problematic if it still has a hitpoint at such a low cost. Otherwise it could serve as a way to rush cheap fodder to a vulnerable territory (eg. Moscow) across 6 spaces, creating a kind of bizarre and gamey use on defense. This use already exists with the OOB unit, but the regular cost at 12 prohibits its effectiveness to a certain degree.
I think in this respect it is less complicated if we just made a clean break, so there is no confusion whatsoever about how the unit is to be used. The strat bomber is for strat bombing, and nothing more. I agree that this would take some getting used to, and I’m still trying to envision how it would look in practice. But it might be easier for players to just take a dive into a whole new dynamic, rather than trying to keep it familiar. I think if we preserve it’s role in normal combat, then there is a limit to how much we can reduce its cost, because the hitpoint and the move 6 (regardless of the attack/defense values) is just so potent in its own right.
The idea I had was to force a special air role exclusively for strategic bombers, so that they don’t participate in normal combat at all, but are set to the side of the battle board in such cases (similar to transports in a naval battle.) Rather than normal combat, they have their own form of specialized combat, which occurs only immediately preceding the raid (ie vs intercept/aaaguns.) This keeps things very cut and dry. When do you buy these bombers? Only when you want to SBR. That way there is no messing around. No suspension of disbelief or historical reimaginings of what the unit is intended to represent.
I think in some ways the sculpts have held us back, because they suggest that it is the type of aircraft rather than the mission/target, that defines whether “a bomber” is tactical or strategic. The game is admittedly over simplistic on this point, and the issue is somewhat compounded by the fact the Axis never really developed the kind of specialized long range strategic bombers en mass, that the Allies did. But I think for gameplay purposes it would be helpful to just create a sharp distinction by unit type, even if one might not necessarily exist in reality. Because this allows us to define the abilities and price the unit in a way that makes more sense for the intended use.
-
Hi Lhoffman
What I meant by “Doolittle” raid was a unit that can do a long range low probability of success attack. You would not have that option with a short ranged combat unit.
-
Got the numbers crunching already! Nice :-D :-D :-D
Good to see Lhoffman weighing in too! I think we’re on the same page here. Feeling that the unit as currently used in game is a real stretch, when you try to match it up with the history.
:-D :-) :-) :- :-)I guess I should say that the issue I see with maintaing a normal combat role for the stratB, coupled with a major price reduction, is the hitpoint spam. You can eliminate the air umbrella by lowering the attack value, but even a defense value of zero is problematic if it still has a hitpoint at such a low cost. Otherwise it could serve as a way to rush cheap fodder to a vulnerable territory (eg. Moscow) across 6 spaces, creating a kind of bizarre and gamey use on defense. This use already exists with the OOB unit, but the regular cost at 12 prohibits its effectiveness to a certain degree.
I think in this respect it is less complicated if we just made a clean break, so there is no confusion whatsoever about how the unit is to be used. The strat bomber is for strat bombing, and nothing more. I agree that this would take some getting used to, and I’m still trying to envision how it would look in practice. But it might be easier for players to just take a dive into a whole new dynamic, rather than trying to keep it familiar. I think if we preserve it’s role in normal combat, then there is a limit to how much we can reduce its cost, because the hitpoint and the move 6 (regardless of the attack/defense values) is just so potent in its own right.
The idea I had was to force a special air role exclusively for strategic bombers, so that they don’t participate in normal combat at all, but are set to the side of the battle board in such cases (similar to transports in a naval battle.) Rather than normal combat, they have their own form of specialized combat, which occurs only immediately preceding the raid (ie vs intercept/aaaguns.) This keeps things very cut and dry. When do you buy these bombers? Only when you want to SBR. That way there is no messing around. No suspension of disbelief or historical reimaginings of what the unit is intended to represent.
I think in some ways the sculpts have held us back, because they suggest that it is the type of aircraft rather than the mission/target, that defines whether “a bomber” is tactical or strategic. The game is admittedly over simplistic on this point, and the issue is somewhat compounded by the fact the Axis never really developed the kind of specialized long range strategic bombers en mass, that the Allies did. But I think for gameplay purposes it would be helpful to just create a sharp distinction by unit type, even if one might not necessarily exist in reality. Because this allows us to define the abilities and price the unit in a way that makes more sense for the intended use.
It seems a pretty good reason to not allow this little defense point @1.
So, do you still believe that even an hypothetical StB A1 D0 C5-6 M6, 1 hit could be too OP as a way to rise defense factor with such fodder?
If it is treated as an AAA for hit value with no defense point, could this be correct?
Do you believe Allies would spam 5 or 6 IPCs StB hit fodder unit?
Here, I’m just trying how far it goes to get a consistent combat value in both SBR and regular combat.
To me, it seems a good loss of money if it use as a last ditch defense. -
Also, good to see you Barney! Glad to know the gang is still around, even when I take long breaks.
I get what you mean, especially given the size of the game map.“Defenseless bomber” hehe, watch me spawn a thousand page thread if it ever happened officially and get torched to no end for suggesting it in the first place.
:-DI do see a couple of nice trade offs even if we lose the mobility of a combat unit with a reach of 6 spaces.
The first is that we create a much more historically realistic air combat radius vs fleets. Especially with respect to Europe and the Atlantic, but also for the Pacific side. I think we’d all have to acknowledge that the Axis never had a navy nuking bomber with the sort of reach we see demonstrated by the OOB strat unit. It’s range is entirely out of sync with the capabilities of Axis combat aircraft in 1940. You’d have to pretend it’s some kind of delta wing prototype, arriving on the scene well in advance of the game’s timeline.
The second is that it would be foolhardy to park a defenseless strat bomber stack anywhere other than a highly secure territory. So you’re unlikely to see a dozen of them suddenly show up in some narrowly defended frontline territory without solid ground/defensive fighters to back it up. You’d want them in a place that is relatively safe. Players would have to make some tougher choices about where to set up their bombing opperations. It’d be a lot harder to just race around the globe with defensive fodder as a way to prop up a pal on the far side of the map. So there is an effect both on the naval trade and in the defensive ground game, by having them defensless 0/0/0.
I think it could work to help the defenseless transport concept, since there would be another unit that used similar rules (reinforcing the basic idea), instead of just being the death of the defenseless transport (and the fleets protecting them) which is how strategic bombers are primarily used OOB.
Ps. To Barons last Q. I do think it would be abused with a hitpoint at a low cost. One possible alternative would be a defense value without a hitpoint (similar to what we imagined for transports at various times.) Like with a one time defense in the first round of combat. Though that sort of mechanic would be without precedent in the official game.
Perhaps I am over-valuing the hitpoint. It would certainly be simpler to implement if we didn’t have to remove it, but I do worry about bomber fodder. I’d hate to solve one problem only to create another even less historical one haha. I’m just thinking about the possibility of the US buying 10 per round and flying them to hotspots. It would be an easy way to distort the ground game in areas with a delicate balance of hitpoints. An alternative would be a higher cost, but then you have to lower the attrition rate, and definitely the sweet spot at 5 would be off the table.In my view it would just be less open to abuse or confusion if we didn’t have to deal with the unit in normal combat at all. I think the move 6 is very powerful at such a low cost, and people would game it, even if it was just 1 pip or 1 hitpoint, in the right place at the right time. I think players would fixate on how the unit could best be used in combat rather than SBR, which would kind of defeat the purpose of the change.
-
Good to see you as well Black Elk. I could see bmbr spam happening, which as you said we don’t want. What about A2 D0 ? I guess you’d still have to give it a hitpoint though, which is it’s strongest defense function anyway.
Hmm…SBR long range bombers only? It would definitely shake things up. :)
Just trying to visualize it in gameplay. Using Germany for example, they could build a strat fleet for use against UK and turn it against Russia when their objectives changed. Ftrs still hit at 2 with no bmbr defense ? You’d scramble every time with some success but a few would still get through. That would be in line with what really happened.
Even at 5 bucks, it’s still an investment. Especially with no hit soaking ability. Idk, I guess as you said they would be similar to transports then.
Have some other stuff I’m testing right now but I think I’ll give it a try. What do you think Baron ? SBR role only with transport no hit rule for 5 bucks ?
So Germany turn 1 will be affected the most, JPN 1 will be also. Then UK and Italy a little bit too. Think I’ll give germany 2 subs in 113 and a couple more inf for the yunann attack ? Should be close enough to get the ball running.
-
Hi Lhoffman
What I meant by “Doolittle” raid was a unit that can do a long range low probability of success attack. You would not have that option with a short ranged combat unit.
Hi Barney, thanks for the clarification. That is pretty much what I thought you were getting at.
Good to see Lhoffman weighing in too! I think we’re on the same page here. Feeling that the unit as currently used in game is a real stretch, when you try to match it up with the history.
:-DYup, I am always here. A good conversation will usually draw me out.
I guess I should say that the issue I see with maintaing a normal combat role for the stratB, coupled with a major price reduction, is the hitpoint spam. You can eliminate the air umbrella by lowering the attack value, but even a defense value of zero is problematic if it still has a hitpoint at such a low cost. Otherwise it could serve as a way to rush cheap fodder to a vulnerable territory (eg. Moscow) across 6 spaces, creating a kind of bizarre and gamey use on defense. This use already exists with the OOB unit, but the regular cost at 12 prohibits its effectiveness to a certain degree.
Perhaps I am over-valuing the hitpoint. It would certainly be simpler to implement if we didn’t have to remove it, but I do worry about bomber fodder. I’d hate to solve one problem only to create another even less historical one haha. I’m just thinking about the possibility of the US buying 10 per round and flying them to hotspots.
Agreed. Shucking aircraft back and forth to nations you are allied with has always rankled me. It is very useful for quick and powerful defensive measures if you get into desperate spots, but it is utterly ahistorical and given the political relations between each power, this type of move probably would have only occurred (and did only occur) between Germany and Italy and the USA and UK (England) + Australia.
The western Allies didn’t fly a bunch of aircraft over to aide in the defense of Moscow when the Germans were on the doorstep in 1941. I don’t know if you can completely fix that issue, but preventing the transfer of a bunch of cheap, free hitpoint units would be important. You are thinking a couple steps ahead which is great.
I think in this respect it is less complicated if we just made a clean break, so there is no confusion whatsoever about how the unit is to be used. The strat bomber is for strat bombing, and nothing more.
The idea I had was to force a special air role exclusively for strategic bombers, so that they don’t participate in normal combat at all, but are set to the side of the battle board in such cases (similar to transports in a naval battle.) Rather than normal combat, they have their own form of specialized combat, which occurs only immediately preceding the raid (ie vs intercept/aaaguns.) This keeps things very cut and dry. When do you buy these bombers? Only when you want to SBR. That way there is no messing around. No suspension of disbelief or historical reimaginings of what the unit is intended to represent.
What do you mean by the bold statement? Are you implying that strategic bombers and the raids would be treated like tech research dice/tokens? I can sort of see this working as long as you get to keep the bombers after using them. (i.e. not like a research token where once you use it, it disappears and you have to buy more.)
What I was imagining for this whole change is that Strategic bombers remain another physical unit, just like transports. You buy them with the rest of your purchases (like transports and AA guns), except now they are only used offensively in the Strategic Bombing phase. They should probably have their return moves made during non-combat with the rest of your units (though returning them in the strategic bombing phase would be fine too). Any bombers that did not conduct Strategic raids could also be moved during non-combat.
“Defenseless bomber” hehe, watch me spawn a thousand page thread if it ever happened officially and get torched to no end for suggesting it in the first place.
:-DYou might be crucified. But I will be the one beloved disciple at the cross with you. :wink:
The second is that it would be foolhardy to park a defenseless strat bomber stack anywhere other than a highly secure territory. It’d be a lot harder to just race around the globe with defensive fodder as a way to prop up a pal on the far side of the map. So there is an effect both on the naval trade and in the defensive ground game, by having them defensless 0/0/0.
Yes. I think this is already taken into account to some extent, since bombers are expensive units with abysmal defense. But making them completely defenseless would ensure that no gambles are taken.
I think it could work to help the defenseless transport concept, since there would be another unit that used similar rules (reinforcing the basic idea), instead of just being the death of the defenseless transport (and the fleets protecting them) which is how strategic bombers are primarily used OOB.
This is a good reason IMO. It reinforces the defenseless unit concept and balances it out to where there is an air unit in that category also.
Much as I too would like to give the Strategic Bomber the ability to conduct a low probability attack against combat units, like Barney suggested above, the more we talk about it, the more I think the mechanics just won’t work. Preventing the spam loopholes is too important. Even though strategic bombers were, on rare occasion, used against combat targets in the war, I do not believe their overall effectiveness warrants even affording them the possibility of doing so in A&A. The example that comes to mind most frequently is at the Battle of Midway, which someone has probably mentioned before. The US launched a strategic bomber force of B-17s from Midway Island against part of the attacking Japanese fleet. The bombers made no hits and were utterly ineffective.
Diving into the historical aspects a bit more…
From a physical standpoint, large strategic bombers were ill-suited to attack the mobile forces of the Second World War. These aircraft were large, heavy, relatively slow and had terrible maneuverability, compared to fighters and medium bombers. The advanced range and accuracy of anti-aircraft guns meant that a strategic bombers would be torn to pieces if flown at lower altitudes, so their best defense was to fly high and attack from far above. This itself almost entirely precluded a bomber’s use against moving battlefield targets. Bombs were completely unguided and their effectiveness from +20,000 ft was determined by the abilities of the bombardier and the weather. Not to mention that this inaccuracy could go both ways. Strategic bombers were not used in campaign level battles because they were slow and would be decimated by enemy fighters, but also because with confused front lines and mobile targets - coupled with poor accuracy, the odds of hitting friendly forces would have been far too high. -
Also, good to see you Barney! Glad to know the gang is still around, even when I take long breaks.
I get what you mean, especially given the size of the game map.“Defenseless bomber” hehe, watch me spawn a thousand page thread if it ever happened officially and get torched to no end for suggesting it in the first place.
:-DI do see a couple of nice trade offs even if we lose the mobility of a combat unit with a reach of 6 spaces.
The first is that we create a much more historically realistic air combat radius vs fleets. Especially with respect to Europe and the Atlantic, but also for the Pacific side. I think we’d all have to acknowledge that the Axis never had a navy nuking bomber with the sort of reach we see demonstrated by the OOB strat unit. It’s range is entirely out of sync with the capabilities of Axis combat aircraft in 1940. You’d have to pretend it’s some kind of delta wing prototype, arriving on the scene well in advance of the game’s timeline.
The second is that it would be foolhardy to park a defenseless strat bomber stack anywhere other than a highly secure territory. So you’re unlikely to see a dozen of them suddenly show up in some narrowly defended frontline territory without solid ground/defensive fighters to back it up. You’d want them in a place that is relatively safe. Players would have to make some tougher choices about where to set up their bombing opperations. It’d be a lot harder to just race around the globe with defensive fodder as a way to prop up a pal on the far side of the map. So there is an effect both on the naval trade and in the defensive ground game, by having them defensless 0/0/0.
I think it could work to help the defenseless transport concept, since there would be another unit that used similar rules (reinforcing the basic idea), instead of just being the death of the defenseless transport (and the fleets protecting them) which is how strategic bombers are primarily used OOB.Ps. To Barons last Q. I do think it would be abused with a hitpoint at a low cost. One possible alternative would be a defense value without a hitpoint (similar to what we imagined for transports at various times.) Like with a one time defense in the first round of combat. Though that sort of mechanic would be without precedent in the official game.
Perhaps I am over-valuing the hitpoint. It would certainly be simpler to implement if we didn’t have to remove it, but I do worry about bomber fodder. I’d hate to solve one problem only to create another even less historical one haha. I’m just thinking about the possibility of the US buying 10 per round and flying them to hotspots. It would be an easy way to distort the ground game in areas with a delicate balance of hitpoints. An alternative would be a higher cost, but then you have to lower the attrition rate, and definitely the sweet spot at 5 would be off the table.In my view it would just be less open to abuse or confusion if we didn’t have to deal with the unit in normal combat at all. I think the move 6 is very powerful at such a low cost, and people would game it, even if it was just 1 pip or 1 hitpoint, in the right place at the right time. I think players would fixate on how the unit could best be used in combat rather than SBR, which would kind of defeat the purpose of the change.
I will not try to implement such StB defending @1, then destroyed. It is out of any OOB game mechanic.
I don’t see any trouble with a @0 defense.
My concern is to be as much streamlined as possible with other unit.
I made some numbers assuming that in escort and intercept phase bomber still get A1 while Fg is D2.
Mobility seems an issue, do you intend to allow the +1M bonus from Airbase or something like M5 and 6 with bonus AB?On StB attack capacity in regular combat, I’m more inclined to a low @1 rather than @2, first to get same number than SBR, and to get a very low results from any Naval combat, so it will easily explained any missed B-17 raid on BB but still allows it to satisfy historical depiction.
One good point of a NO reg attack is about the impossiblity to destroyed undefended TP. I like this one.
I share the same belief that a Cost 5 works for a totally attackless/defenseless bomber and giving more reg attack punch and 1 hit need to rise to 6 at least.
-
@Baron:
I share the same belief that a Cost 5 works for a totally attackless/defenseless bomber and giving more reg attack punch and 1 hit need to rise to 6 at least.
Yeah… I agree. The only issue with giving them an attack value at all is that they can then be brought in on attacks as screening fodder, whereas if they had no attack value this would be prevented.
Cost at 6 may still be too low for A1 M6 unit. It is cheap enough that being used as fodder for naval battles in particular is highly likely, IMO.
-
@Baron:
I share the same belief that a Cost 5 works for a totally attackless/defenseless bomber and giving more reg attack punch and 1 hit need to rise to 6 at least.
Yeah… I agree. The only issue with giving them an attack value at all is that they can then be brought in on attacks as screening fodder, whereas if they had no attack value this would be prevented.
Cost at 6 may still be too low for A1 M6 unit. It is cheap enough that being used as fodder for naval battles in particular is highly likely, IMO.
Good point on Naval fodder.
Do you know if Triple A can easily change StB to A0 D0, 1 hit in regular combat? And still make dogfight A1 vs Fg ?
-
@Baron:
@Baron:
I share the same belief that a Cost 5 works for a totally attackless/defenseless bomber and giving more reg attack punch and 1 hit need to rise to 6 at least.
Yeah… I agree. The only issue with giving them an attack value at all is that they can then be brought in on attacks as screening fodder, whereas if they had no attack value this would be prevented.
Cost at 6 may still be too low for A1 M6 unit. It is cheap enough that being used as fodder for naval battles in particular is highly likely, IMO.
Good point on Naval fodder.
Do you know if Triple A can easily change StB to A0 D0, 1 hit in regular combat? And still make dogfight A1 vs Fg ?
That I do not know. Been a while since I played TripleA and never configured things when I did.
I mean you could add a transport-like rule in which bombers are picked last to circumvent the fodder issue, but that doesn’t really seem appropriate in this circumstance. Only works logically if it isn’t considered a combat unit.
-
Here is the basic numbers to make a comparison:
Break even ratio for x StB A1 vs y Fg D2:
**OOB G40 SBR: 10/19= 0.526 StB/Fg
Cost 5 D6 damage: 16 StBs vs 31 Fgs, 16/31= 0.516 StB/Fg
Cost 6 D6 damage: 19 Stbs vs 29 Fgs, 19/29= 0.655 StB/FgFighter Interception Threshold (FIT) and Fighter Interception Gap (FIG)
G40 OOB: from 1.55 StB/Fg and less (.526 to 1.55)
Cost 5: near 6 StBs vs 4 Fgs= from 1.5 StB/Fg and less (.516 to 1.5)
Cost 6: near 5 StBs vs 3 Fgs= from 1.67 StB/Fg and less (0.655 to 1.67)**G40 OOB D6+2, 1 StB vs 1 Fg: + 5.486 - 3.667 = +1.819 IPC damage/SBR
Cost 5: 1 StB A1 vs 1 Fg D2
1D6: +3.611 - 2.222 = +1.389 IPCs damage/SBR
Cost 6
1D6: +3.611 - 2.667 = +0.944 IPCs damage/SBRCost 5: 1StB A1 vs 2 Fgs D2
1D6: +2.963 - 3.148 = -0.185 IPCs damage/SBR
Cost 6:
1D6: +2.963 - 3.778 = -0.815 IPCs damage/SBR
So, from these numbers, I can easily say that StB C5 vs C12 SBR odds are similar:
StB A0 D0 C5 SBR A1 D6 vs Fg D2 C10, FIG (.516 to 1.5)
G40 OOB:
StB A4 D1 C12 SBR A1 D6+2 vs Fg D1 C10, FIG (.526 to 1.55)Such 5 IPCs attackless-defenseless StB will recreate the same odds but not exactly the same dynamics.
For interceptions, even a defending Fg @2 C10, double cost of StB !!!, is not an interesting option.
But this is actually the same OOB.
The difference is if there is escort Fgs, IMO it create a different dynamic because if a casualty must be taken, the attacker must choose between a 5 IPCs StB unit or a 10 IPCs Fg unit.
So, I believe most defender’s Fg hit will be allocated to StB instead of costlier escort Fgs.
That is a more accurate historical depiction of such air raid.So, players will get similar odds in SBR, a slighlty different dogfight dynamic, no more regular combat but more StBs for their money compared to OOB
(5 vs 12 IPCs).
Probably will not increase the number of interception compared to OOB.
OOB G40 are too much attacker bias, IMO.Just imagine 6 StBs A1, C30 vs 3 Fgs D2, C30, same points: A6 vs D6, odds will be high to not intercept.
2:1 ratio is already above FIT (Threshold), that way it is better to let StBs face AAA only, then bomb.But, Triple A can probably manage this change for a good play-test.
-
Has anyone ever proposed not giving bombers an/attack defense value during interception?
Example: Germany (5) StrBmb raiding London. UK scrambles (3) Ftrs. UK Ftrs can conduct one defensive combat roll @2. StrBmb have no defense roll. Those bombers which survive the UK scramble then deal with the IC AA and conduct their raid.
This would be predicated on the assumption that current mechanics favor the attacker in scramble air battles. I can’t tell if that is true or not, but if you have bombers(@1) + escort fighters(@1) vs 3 max defending fighters(@2), it seems like that battle favors attacker.
Further, if Germany were to bring escort fighters, the combat would be:
Germany (5) StrBmb + (3) Escort Ftr vs (3) Scramble UK Ftr. UK Ftrs roll one cycle @2. German Escort Ftrs roll one cycle @1. Remaining StrBmb face IC AA and make raid. Surviving German Ftrs return to base before facing IC AA.
I know that is a little different from existing game mechanics, but I like it on paper.
-
That’s how I would do it, LHoffman, if I were designing interception rules. The way I see it, there are three basic bombing systems you could aim for:
(1) invincible bombers that can’t be killed by any reasonable defense
(2) sturdy bombers that can be killed by a sufficiently large stack of defensive fighters
(3) fragile bombers that can be easily killed by an aa gun or a single fighterIf you go with option 1, then bombers have to be so expensive per unit of strategic damage that they’re only useful for projecting power (e.g. America can use bombers to cross the Atlantic). If you have a cheap but invincible bomber, then bombing is too easy, and nobody will bother building fleets.
If you go with option 2, then bombers (and escorts fighters) have to dogfight well enough to overwhelm one or two fighters, but not so well that they can break even against a max scramble. 3 fighters plus an aaa gun need to be able to wreak havoc on a mid-sized stack of bombers (e.g. 6 bombers + 1 escort), or else your bombers are effectively invincible, and nobody will bother to prepare or use a stack of interceptors.
If you go with option 3, then bombers need to be very cheap or very effective or both, so that you can force your opponent to build aaa guns even at minor factories like Baghdad or northeast Australia – otherwise your opponent will slap an aaa gun in Moscow and Berlin and London, and nobody will ever go on a bombing raid.
Suggested Topics
