G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

  • '17 '16

    @Black_Elk:

    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.
    :-D

    I 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.

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    @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.

  • '17 '16

    @LHoffman:

    @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 ?

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    @Baron:

    @LHoffman:

    @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.

  • '17 '16

    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/Fg

    Fighter 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/SBR

    Cost 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.

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    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.

  • 2023 '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    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 fighter

    If 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.


  • Would you be willing to make the AA gun shoot at planes after the escorts and interceptors are done, and then have the IC AA gun get a defense roll against the SBR attack bombing rolls ?

    3 bombers SBR and roll 1 die each with a +2 added to die roll. So bombers roll a R3 +2 =5  R4 +2 =6  R4 +2 =6  total of 17 damage.

    Then IC AA gun gets to roll 3 defense die, 1 for each plane. IC roll  2, 4, 1, = 7  Total damage to IC is 17 - 7 = 10.

    Am using this rule in my 40 game and its being tested now.

    This could deter more SBR’s because now the bombers have to pretty much bring escorts. If less SBR’s maybe make +3 to each die roll for Bomber damage.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Nice!  :-D

    @LHoffman:

    What do you mean by the bold statement? […]
    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.

    Yes, exactly that, as a defenseless physical unit, but one that you could still move around like the transport. Seems fitting since the sculpt already exists. It would certainly be ideal if the new system could work just as well in 1942.2 as 1940. In 1942.2 you don’t have the tactB in the roster by default, so the fighter unit would be considered to have taken on the role of tactical bomber. Or of course if you have the 1940 sculpts, just bring that tacB unit along for the ride, and back-load it into 1942.2, so you could have a unique combat bomber in the roster there too. I think it’d be good to have a system that can still produce the hit 4 on attack, other than the battleship, since we’d be taking that away from the stratB. The tactical bomber is nice because it still gets you the hit at 4, but doesn’t present the same problems with range.

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    @Argothair:

    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.

    Agreed. 3 scrambled fighters plus AA defense should pose a significant threat to a small to moderate sized SBR force. Of course, not every instance will see a max scramble, but the higher profile targets like Berlin and London usually should. The challenge here will be to predict the amounts of Strategic Bombers that will be seen under a A0 D0 C5 system. Spamming them should be mitigated by the fact that they would have no hit point or combat value at all. Buying one or two a turn with extra cash sounds appropriate, but I can’t see someone dropping 30-40 IPCs on StrBmbers if they have no tactical offensive or defensive attributes. Even with a spam amount of StrBmbers, there are already safeguards in place to limit their effectiveness (IC AA gun defense and a max damage that can be inflicted). So having 6 StrBmbers may be just as effective as having 20. You aren’t going to be able to inflict any more damage by having a massive bomber stack, you can just attack more ICs at one time.

    @SS:

    Would you be willing to make the AA gun shoot at planes after the escorts and interceptors are done, and then have the IC AA gun get a defense roll against the SBR attack bombing rolls ?

    3 bombers SBR and roll 1 die each with a +2 added to die roll. So bombers roll a R3 +2 =5� R4 +2 =6� R4 +2 =6� total of 17 damage.

    Then IC AA gun gets to roll 3 defense die, 1 for each plane. IC roll� 2, 4, 1, = 7� �Total damage to IC is 17 - 7 = 10.

    Am using this rule in my 40 game and its being tested now.

    This could deter more SBR’s because now the bombers have to pretty much bring escorts. If less SBR’s maybe make +3 to each die roll for Bomber damage.

    My comment above about having the escorts along for interception air combat and then returning them where they came from was based on the fact that (until late in the war) most bomber escorts didn’t have the range to follow their bombers all the way to the target and back… they would have to bug out early. That is something of a historical rationalization. My point in the game for having escorts exit the battle after interception phase is to simplify the rest of the raid and prevent the escorts from being shot down again by the IC AA gun.

    The method you are describing adds another layer to the phase… I assume this is your own house rule SS? The bombers already have to get through interceptors, plus survive normal AA fire, and then their rolls get cancelled out by the IC AA gun… with the difference being the final damage done. I understand the mechanic, but it doesn’t bear any resemblance to how the raids actually took place. First image it conjured for me was a point defense weapon; as though the AA gun was shooting at the bombs as they fell. It kinda seems like just adding another step and further eroding the StrBmbr effectiveness.

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    @Black_Elk:

    Yes, exactly that, as a defenseless physical unit, but one that you could still move around like the transport. Seems fitting since the sculpt already exists. It would certainly be ideal if the new system could work just as well in 1942.2 as 1940. In 1942.2 you don’t have the tactB in the roster by default, so the fighter unit would be considered to have taken on the role of tactical bomber. Or of course if you have the 1940 sculpts, just bring that tacB unit along for the ride, and back-load it into 1942.2, so you could have a unique combat bomber in the roster there too. I think it’d be good to have a system that can still produce the hit 4 on attack, other than the battleship, since we’d be taking that away from the stratB. The tactical bomber is nice because it still gets you the hit at 4, but doesn’t present the same problems with range.

    Glad I got the gist.  8-)

    I don’t see why this system wouldn’t work in 42, other than that the SBR dynamic with ICs and AA guns is slightly different and interceptors do not exist. Backfilling 1942.2 with the Tac sounds good to me. However, the Tac pairing with a tank or fighter to get the @4 attack should be maintained, otherwise you get more than half of what the StrBmbr was, but at one less IPC.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    I wonder if this change alone would balance G40 by sides?

    It alters the German and UK openers. Since their starting bombers would no longer be on fleet clearing duty. The G1 bombing blitz on London would probably be standard (since what else would you do with them? hehe) which would fit with the timeline exactly. The defensless stratB opens up the battle of Britain as part of the first round script.

  • '17 '16

    @LHoffman:

    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.

    Pretty interesting discussion going on. I’m all excited by the new perspectives it opens.

    From what I understand of numbers above, if the main attract is 5 IPCs unit for Strategic bomber, I believe it is better to make it totally toothless and clawless.
    Such as StB A0 D0 M6 C5, no hit value except in SBR combat with A0.
    Otherwise, all other factors will be unbalancing: A1 in SBR against Fg, a single hit value which can be used as fodder with a lot of mobility, A1 C5 in regular combat against Naval unit which can be used as better fodder than Sub or Destroyer.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Yeah fully zeroed out of the equation. Seems the easiest to understand :-D

    Then the game would have two properly “defenseless” units (with no hitpoints in normal combat), one on the water = transport and one in the air = stratB. There are two other oddball units in the game too, which have hitpoints but no attack/defense value in some cases, the carrier and the aaagun. So it all kind of pairs off in ways that make a certain sense.

    Just looking at the 1942.2 openers, the defenseless strat bomber would mean Egypt is basically out of contention on G1, the bomber can’t be used in attacks against the royal navy or fleet screening, so it bombs as a mater of course. (Probably either UK or Caucasus.)

    Similarly the UK can’t use their bomber for sinking the German battleship in the med, or in the airstrike vs Baltic, or to backtrack against Atlantic U-Boats. It likewise almost certainly bombs Germany in retaliation.

    Japan cannot viably launch an attack against Pearl without their stratB in combat, so the American pacific fleet is spared the worst of it. Their bomber likely goes to India or Moscow initially, but may end up in Karelia vs London at some point. I think some gamey plays with Japanese air in Europe are kind of hard to avoid, even when the bombers are defenseless, but at least they wouldn’t be contributing fodder in the process.

    USA comes out the best all things considered, and I suspect they’d be doing steady bomber purchases for use against Germany. Any easy investment at 5, for the chance to put a dent in German production.

    Russia will still face headaches, because unlike Germany, they can’t really function getting max damaged every round for very long. But at least if Germany and Japan are investing heavily in defenseless bombers to knee cap Russia, that’s less money spent on Axis combat units (the bombers can’t suddenly turn around and start killing fleets, or driving soldiers back into the sea.)

    Most players would probably content themselves with a pair of bombers, up to a half dozen towards the endgame (maybe more for the US/UK vs G, or if Axis are really trying to hammer Moscow.) 5 is cheap enough that even the Russians might make a last minute bomber investment, if Moscow collapse is immenant and unavoidable, so they can at least have a role to play strat bombing from exile in the postgame haha.

    I think there is a possibility that this might balance the game by sides there too.


  • @SS:

    Would you be willing to make the AA gun shoot at planes after the escorts and interceptors are done, and then have the IC AA gun get a defense roll against the SBR attack bombing rolls ?

    3 bombers SBR and roll 1 die each with a +2 added to die roll. So bombers roll a R3 +2 =5� R4 +2 =6� R4 +2 =6� total of 17 damage.

    Then IC AA gun gets to roll 3 defense die, 1 for each plane. IC roll� 2, 4, 1, = 7� �Total damage to IC is 17 - 7 = 10.

    Am using this rule in my 40 game and its being tested now.

    This could deter more SBR’s because now the bombers have to pretty much bring escorts. If less SBR’s maybe make +3 to each die roll for Bomber damage.

    My comment above about having the escorts along for interception air combat and then returning them where they came from was based on the fact that (until late in the war) most bomber escorts didn’t have the range to follow their bombers all the way to the target and back… they would have to bug out early. That is something of a historical rationalization. My point in the game for having escorts exit the battle after interception phase is to simplify the rest of the raid and prevent the escorts from being shot down again by the IC AA gun.

    The method you are describing adds another layer to the phase… I assume this is your own house rule SS? The bombers already have to get through interceptors, plus survive normal AA fire, and then their rolls get cancelled out by the IC AA gun… with the difference being the final damage done. I understand the mechanic, but it doesn’t bear any resemblance to how the raids actually took place. First image it conjured for me was a point defense weapon; as though the AA gun was shooting at the bombs as they fell. It kinda seems like just adding another step and further eroding the StrBmbr effectiveness.

    I get where your coming from. Ever think about after a certain turn in game you can’t bring any more escorts ?

  • '17 '16

    @Baron:

    @LHoffman:

    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.

    Pretty interesting discussion going on. I’m all excited by the new perspectives it opens.

    From what I understand of numbers above, if the main attract is 5 IPCs unit for Strategic bomber, I believe it is better to make it totally toothless and clawless.
    Such as StB A0 D0 M6 C5, no hit value except in SBR combat with A0.
    Otherwise, all other factors will be unbalancing: A1 in SBR against Fg, a single hit value which can be used as fodder with a lot of mobility, A1 C5 in regular combat against Naval unit which can be used as better fodder than Sub or Destroyer.

    Here is what makes a similar SBR odds of damage compare to G40 SBR.
    Almost same Break even point 0.522 StB/Fg (OOB 0.526 StB/Fg) but no FIT.

    Strategic bomber A0 D0 M6 C5, A0 SBR but D6 damage
    Fighter A3 D4 M4 C10, A1 D1 SBR

    In addition, for play-tests this can be put into Triple A SBR with less difficulty since Fg keeps A1 D1, same dogfight values as OOB.

    @Baron:

    1942.2 SBR Black Elk hypothesis

    Strategic Bomber
    Attack 0
    Damage 1D6, 1D6+2
    Cost 5

    Fighter
    Attack 1
    Defense 1
    Cost 10

    Break even point C5, 1D6 damage: near 1 StB vs 2 Fgs: 0.5 StB/Fg
    1 StB vs 2 Fgs : + 2.025 - 2.106 = -0.081 IPCs
    12 StB vs 23 Fgs: exactly 0.522 StB/Fg
    No FIT (Fighter Interception Threshold), always beneficial to Intercept.


    Down below here is a different values doing SBR for 1942.2 and G40

    Strategic Bomber in air-to-air combat SBR:
    Attack 0
    Bombard IC damage: D6 or 1D6+2

    Fighter in air-to-air combat SBR:
    Attack 1
    Defend 1

    IC’s AAA: @1 against each Strategic Bomber


    1942.2 SBR HRules with StB A0 and Fg A1 D1 : damage 1D6 or 1D6+2

    1 Strategic Bomber doing SBR against no interceptor

    AAA roll = odds casualties

    5/6 StB survived * 5.5 IPCs = +4.583 IPCs *3.5= +2.917 *6.5= 5.417
    1/6 StB killed *5 IPCs = -0.833 IPCs

    D6: +2.917-0.833= +2.084 IPCs
    D6+2: + 4.583 - 0.833 = +3.750 IPCs damage/SBR


    1 Strategic Bomber Att 0 doing SBR against 1 interceptor Def 1

    Interceptor Fg roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties

    1/66/6 = 6/36 1 StB killed by Fg
    5/6
    1/6 = 5/36 1 StB killed by AAA
    5/6*5/6 = 25/36 No casualty at all.

    Results:
    Bombard on IC 25/36* ((1+2)+(6+2) IPCs)/2= +5.5 IPCs) = + 3.819 IPCs *3.5= 2.431 *6.5=+4.514
    StB killed 11/36 *-5 IPCs = - 1.528 IPCs

    D6: + 2.431 - 1.528 = +0.903
    D6+2: + 3.819 - 1.528= + 2.291 IPC damage/SBR


    1 Strategic Bomber Att 0 doing SBR against 2 interceptors Def 1

    Interceptors Fgs roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties

    11/366/6 = 66/216 1 StB killed by Fg
    25/36
    1/6 = 25/216 1 StB killed by AAA
    25/36*5/6 = 125/216 No casualty at all.

    Results:
    Bombard on IC 125/216* ((1+2)+(6+2) IPCs)/2= +5.5 IPCs) = + 3.183 IPCs *3.5= 2.025 *6.5=+3.762
    StB killed 91/216 *- 5 IPCs = - 2.106 IPCs

    D6: + 2.025 - 2.106 = -0.081 IPCs
    D6+2: + 3.183 - 2.106 = +1.077 IPC damage/SBR


    1 Fighter Att 1 and 1 Strategic Bomber Att 0 doing SBR against 2 interceptors Def 1

    Fighter roll/interceptors Fgs roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties

    1/61/366/6 = 6/1296 1 Fg and 1 StB killed by Fgs vs 1 Fg
    1/610/361/6= 10/1296 1 Fg killed by Fg and 1 StB killed by AAA vs 1 Fg
    1/610/365/6= 50/1296 1 Fg killed by Fg vs 1 Fg
    1/625/361/6 = 25/1296 1 StB killed by AAA
    1/625/365/6 = 125/1296 No casualty vs 1 Fg

    5/620/366/6 = 600/1296 1 Fg and 1 StB killed by Fg vs no casualty
    5/616/361/6 = 80/1296 1 Fg killed by Fg and 1 StB killed by AAA vs no casualty
    5/616/365/6 = 400/1296 no casualty at all

    Results:
    Bombard on IC: 1050/1296 * ((1+2)+(6+2) IPCs)/2= +5.5 IPCs) = + 4.456 IPCs 3.5= +2.836 6.5=+5.266
    Killing 1 Fg: 216/1296 +10 IPCs = + 1.667 IPCs
    Fg killed: 300/1296
    -10 IPCs = - 2.315 IPCs
    StB killed: 150/1296
    -5 IPCs = - 0.579IPCs
    StB & Fg killed: 96/1296
    -15 IPCs = - 1.111 IPCs

    D6: +4.503 - 1.690 = +2.813 IPCs
    D6+2: + 6.123 - 1.690 = + 4.433 IPC damage/SBR


    1 Fighter Att 1 and 1 Strategic Bomber Att 0 doing SBR against 1 interceptor Def 1
    Fighter escort taking the casualty.
    Fighter roll/interceptor Fg roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties

    1/61/61/6= 1/216 1 Fg killed by Fg and 1 StB killed by AAA vs 1 Fg
    1/61/65/6= 5/216 1 Fg killed by Fg vs 1 Fg
    1/65/61/6 = 5/216 1 StB killed by AAA vs 1 Fg
    1/65/65/6 = 25/216 No casualty vs 1 Fg

    5/61/61/6 = 5/216 1 Fg killed by Fg and 1 StB killed by AAA vs no casualty
    5/61/65/6 = 25/216 1 Fg killed by Fg vs no casualty
    5/65/61/6 = 25/216 1 StB killed by AAA vs no casualty
    5/65/65/6 = 125/216 no casualty at all

    Results:
    Bombard on IC: 180/216 * ((1+2)+(6+2) IPCs)/2= +5.5 IPCs) = + 4.583 IPCs 3.5= +0.833 6.5=+5.417
    Killing 1 Fg: 36/216 +10 IPCs = + 1.667 IPCs
    Fg killed:30/216
    -10 IPCs = - 1.389 IPCs
    StB killed: 30/216
    -5 IPCs = - 0.694 IPCs
    StB & Fg killed: 6/216
    -15 IPCs = - 0.417 IPC

    D6: +2.500 - 1.111 = +1.389 IPCs
    D6+2: + 6.250 - 1.111 = + 5.139 IPC damage/SBR


    2 Strategic Bombers Att 0 doing SBR against 2 interceptors Def 1

    Interceptor Fgs roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties

    1/3636/36= 36/1296 2 StBs killed by Fgs
    10/36
    6/36 = 60/1296 1 StB killed by Fg and 1 StB killed by AAA
    10/6*30/36= 300/1296 1 StB killed by Fg

    25/361/36 = 25/1296 2 StBs killed by AAA
    25/36
    10/36 = 250/1296 1 StB killed by AAA
    25/36*25/36 = 625/1296 No casualty at all.

    Results:
    2x Bombard on IC 625/1296* ((2+4)+(12+4) IPCs)/2= +11 IPCs) = +5.305 IPCs *7=+3.378 13=+6.269
    1x Bombard on IC 550/1296
    ((1+2)+(6+2) IPCs)/2= +5.5 IPCs) = + 2.334 IPCs 3.5=+1.485 6.5=+2.758
    2 StBs killed 121/1296
    -10 IPCs = - 0.934 IPCs
    1 StB killed 550/1296
    -5 IPCs = - 2.122 IPCs

    D6: +4.863 - 3.056 = +1.807 IPCs
    D6+2: + 7.639 - 3.056 = + 4.583 IPCs damage/SBR


    2 Strategic Bombers Att 0 doing SBR against 1 interceptor Def 1

    Interceptor Fg roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties

    1/66/36 = 6/216 1 StB killed by Fg and 1 StB killed by AAA
    1/6
    30/36= 30/216 1 StB killed by Fg
    5/61/36 = 5/216 2 StBs killed by AAA
    5/6
    10/36 = 50/216 1 StB killed by AAA
    5/6*25/36 = 125/216 No casualty at all.

    Results:
    2x Bombard on IC 125/216* ((2+4)+(12+4) IPCs)/2= +11 IPCs) = +6.366 IPCs *7=+4.051 13=+7.523
    1x Bombard on IC 80/216
    ((1+2)+(6+2) IPCs)/2= +5.5 IPCs) = + 2.037 IPCs 3.5=+1.296 6.5=+2.407
    2 StBs killed 11/216
    -10 IPCs = - 0.509 IPC
    1 StB killed 80/216
    -5 IPCs = - 1.852 IPCs

    D6: + 5.347 - 2.361= + 2.986 IPCs
    D6+2: + 8.403 - 2.361 = + 6.042 IPCs damage/SBR

  • '17 '16

    @LHoffman:

    @Black_Elk:

    Yes, exactly that, as a defenseless physical unit, but one that you could still move around like the transport. Seems fitting since the sculpt already exists. It would certainly be ideal if the new system could work just as well in 1942.2 as 1940. In 1942.2 you don’t have the tactB in the roster by default, so the fighter unit would be considered to have taken on the role of tactical bomber. Or of course if you have the 1940 sculpts, just bring that tacB unit along for the ride, and back-load it into 1942.2, so you could have a unique combat bomber in the roster there too. I think it’d be good to have a system that can still produce the hit 4 on attack, other than the battleship, since we’d be taking that away from the stratB. The tactical bomber is nice because it still gets you the hit at 4, but doesn’t present the same problems with range.

    Glad I got the gist.  8-)

    I don’t see why this system wouldn’t work in 42, other than that the SBR dynamic with ICs and AA guns is slightly different and interceptors do not exist. Backfilling 1942.2 with the Tac sounds good to me. However, the Tac pairing with a tank or fighter to get the @4 attack should be maintained, otherwise you get more than half of what the StrBmbr was, but at one less IPC.

    Hi Hoffman,
    on an alternate SBR with no IC’s AAA able to destroy Bombers, as SS is play-testing:
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39189.msg1620459#msg1620459
    There is only 2 phases, not 3, as you believed.

    1. Interception and dogfight, where StB can be killed
    2. StBs bombing damage minus AAA rolls to reduce damage.

    A 1942.2 game would need TcBs to better increase attack options and a more historical depiction.
    But we need a Wizard of the code to introduce this unit in Triple A 1942.2.

    Why would you relinquish to give Attack @4 to such bomber to get
    TcB A4  D3 M4 C11 or 12 or 10?

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    @SS:

    I get where your coming from. Ever think about after a certain turn in game you can’t bring any more escorts ?

    I haven’t considered that, no. If anything, you should be able to take fighters all the way to the target as the game goes on (or if you use tech and get Long Range Aircraft). Any reason in particular for suggesting that you can’t use escort fighters after a certain turn?

    In fact, taking fighters all the way to the IC, where they would be subject to AA fire, could only be a liability with the StrBmbr revision we are talking about. You would be subject to losing Ftrs with C10 vs losing a StrBmbr C5.

    @Baron:

    @LHoffman:

    I don’t see why this system wouldn’t work in 42, other than that the SBR dynamic with ICs and AA guns is slightly different and interceptors do not exist. Backfilling 1942.2 with the Tac sounds good to me. However, the Tac pairing with a tank or fighter to get the @4 attack should be maintained, otherwise you get more than half of what the StrBmbr was, but at one less IPC.

    Hi Hoffman,
    on an alternate SBR with no IC’s AAA able to destroy Bombers, as SS is play-testing:
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39189.msg1620459#msg1620459
    There is only 2 phases, not 3, as you believed.

    1. Interception and dogfight, where StB can be killed
    2. StBs bombing damage minus AAA rolls to reduce damage.

    Thanks Baron, I see how this works now. Makes sense, interesting concept. How’s it working out?

    @Baron:

    A 1942.2 game would need TcBs to better increase attack options and a more historical depiction.
    But we need a Wizard of the code to introduce this unit in Triple A 1942.2.

    Why would you relinquish to give Attack @4 to such bomber to get
    TcB A4  D3 M4 C11 or 12 or 10?

    I am not sure that I understand your question. Are you asking what we would need to adjust to allow the Tac to attack @4 by default (without requiring combined arms)?

    Well… how much value to we assign to an Attack or Defense value of @4? It is the best roll in the game and the cost premium should match, IMO. Fighter has D4 with C10. Maybe keeping Tac at C11 is enough? I really don’t know. Given that the Tac is essentially a Ftr in reverse, it would seem inappropriate to make it much more than C10.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Probably anyone who is serious about making an HR bomber fix in 1942.2 would already own the G40 set. Though I don’t think a defenseless bomber necessarily requires tacBs to work, it does seem to balance better under intercept conditions. Those rules are optional in 1942.2 but probably necessary with defensless bombers to get the desired attrition (either that or you’d probably have to adjust the factories AAAfire so it hits at a higher rate.) I think intercept would be more fun, since OOB I don’t think intercept is very attractive for the defender, and this would give a reason for players to explore the concept.

    1942.2 already has a form of combined arms for artillery, so the idea isn’t too foreign. Although combined arms with tacBs are a bit weirder. With artillery it is the more expensive unit that boosts the cheaper unit (the artillery attack value doesn’t change mid-fight depending on whether infantry are lost.) With TacBs, it is the cheaper units that boosts the more expensive unit, and the tacBs attack value is subject to change mid-fight depending on whether the tanks or fighters are still alive.

    Combined arms for TacBs can be a little confusing for that reason, since there are occasions where it might make sense to take a casualty on a more expensive TacB, in order to keep a cheaper fighter unit alive into the next round of the combat phase, just to preserve the combined arms hit 4. Nothing like that happens with artillery. There’s never a reason to take a casualty on an artillery unit before an infantry unit mid-fight.

    I don’t know if it might be simpler to eliminate combined arms for the TacB, in favor of an attack 4 by default, and raising it’s cost to 12. This would certainly produce a cleaner battle board, with less unit relationships to track. What you lose in mobility for the cost (2 less movement than the OOB strat bomber), you gain on defense and overall ease of use. It would allow you to keep the 4 to 1 ratio (4 infantry to 1 combat bomber) with same basic attack value for the same cost.


  • I was just referring to your comment about escorts didn’t fly all the way with bombers later in war .

Suggested Topics

  • 6
  • 4
  • 3
  • 6
  • 1
  • 10
  • 133
  • 3
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

32

Online

17.4k

Users

39.9k

Topics

1.7m

Posts