Oh…
I’ve been playing wrong this entire time???
:disappointed:
Thanks for clarifying though. I’ll take that into my next physical game.
G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. -
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 ?
-
@Baron:
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 SBRIn 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 5Fighter
Attack 1
Defense 1
Cost 10Break 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+2Fighter in air-to-air combat SBR:
Attack 1
Defend 1IC’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 IPCsD6: +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
5/61/6 = 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 IPCsD6: + 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
25/361/6 = 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 IPCsD6: + 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 Fg5/620/366/6 = 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 allResults:
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 IPCsD6: +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 casualties1/61/61/6= 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 Fg5/61/61/6 = 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 allResults:
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 IPCD6: +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
10/366/36 = 60/1296 1 StB killed by Fg and 1 StB killed by AAA
10/6*30/36= 300/1296 1 StB killed by Fg25/361/36 = 25/1296 2 StBs killed by AAA
25/3610/36 = 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 IPCsD6: +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
1/630/36= 30/216 1 StB killed by Fg
5/61/36 = 5/216 2 StBs killed by AAA
5/610/36 = 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 IPCsD6: + 5.347 - 2.361= + 2.986 IPCs
D6+2: + 8.403 - 2.361 = + 6.042 IPCs damage/SBR -
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.- Interception and dogfight, where StB can be killed
- 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? -
@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:
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.- Interception and dogfight, where StB can be killed
- 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.
-
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 .
-
@Baron:
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.- Interception and dogfight, where StB can be killed
- 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?
I’m eager to learn from SS, what incentive this alternate SBR provides.
The actual idea seems better because it use OOB mechanics in different ways for bombers.
@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.
You understood. It seems easier to rise TacBomber to 12 IPCs to get a pure Attack @4, with no more pairing with Tank or Fighter. I’m just asking if there is some issues to deny such value to TacB.
However, the actual D6 damage seems low for a high 12 IPCs compare to 1D6 for a 5 IPCs StB.
If it is agreeable to prefer StB A0 D0 M6 C5, SBR: A0 & D6 damage
I see no reason to use TcB for Tactical bombing raid anymore. Too risky for little result.
Black Elk provides positive reasons for change, below. I was asking for negative reasons to such change.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 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.
This is true and probably most equitable.
@SS:
I was just referring to your comment about escorts didn’t fly all the way with bombers later in war .
Oh… I think you may have mistaken what I said for the opposite. Early in the war, fighters did not tend to accompany bombers all the way to their targets because they didn’t have the range to do so. Obviously that depended on specifically where; I am primarily referencing the Allies bombing Germany. By late 1943 and into 1944, Allied fighters were introduced (P-51, P-38) which had the range to stick with Allied bombers all the way to Germany and back.
-
@Baron:
You understood. It seems easier to rise TacBomber to 12 IPCs to get a pure Attack @4, with no more pairing with Tank or Fighter. I’m just asking if there is some issues to deny such value to TacB.
Okay, yeah. Based on the way Black_Elk explained it, I am on board with that.
@Baron:
However, the actual D6 damage seems low for a high 12 IPCs compare to 1D6 for a 5 IPCs StB.
If it is agreeable to prefer StB A0 D0 M6 C5, SBR: A0 & D6 damage
I see no reason to use TcB for Tactical bombing raid anymore. Too risky for little result.I agree. Some instances may require it, but that would be a judgement call for the player.
Somewhat unrelated… I just re-read the G40.2 rules about strategic/tactical raids and saw that there is no limit to the number of escort fighters or scrambled defenders for any given raid.
Is this a change from G40.1? For some reason I thought there was a (3) fighter scramble limit on the books. Or is that only for scrambling to defend an adjacent sea zone?
-
@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.
My mind is mostly sets on these SBR values for 5 IPC attackless-defenseless StB:
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 SBRBut if I prefer to keep combat values, and hit point, do you see some issues with these 8 IPCs StB
Weak Strategic bomber:
Attack 1, SBR A1 damage 1D6+2
Defense 0
Hit 1
Move 6
Cost 8Fighter A2 D2 in SBR
It would be a second option for player which dislike defenseless combat unit but enjoy TP bombing.
8 IPCs is the basic cost of naval fodder DD, 2 IPCs higher than Sub.
Also, why would anyone add such low attack unit in Naval Combat?
It becomes a last chance effort which might become a turkey shoot for defending Naval fleet.
I’m just trying to figure what kind of combat values can work before crunching numbers.
I don’t want to make a random guess and make unuseful calculations.In my own HR,
StB A1 D0 M6 C8 would be at same cost than my
TcB A3 D2 M4 C8 (Target ground unit) and
Fighter A2 D2 C7 (hit enemy’s plane first, then AAA).
Do you see some issues which can arise? -
@Baron:
My mind is mostly sets on these SBR values for 5 IPC attackless-defenseless StB:
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 SBRBut if I prefer to keep combat values, and hit point, do you see some issues with these 8 IPCs StB
Weak Strategic bomber:
Attack 1, SBR A1 damage 1D6+2
Defense 0
Hit 1
Move 6
Cost 8Fighter A2 D2 in SBR
It would be a second option for player which dislike defenseless combat unit but enjoy TP bombing.
8 IPCs is the basic cost of naval fodder DD, 2 IPCs higher than Sub.
Also, why would anyone add such low attack unit in Naval Combat?
It becomes a last chance effort which might become a turkey shoot for defending Naval fleet.
I’m just trying to figure what kind of combat values can work before crunching numbers.
I don’t want to make a random guess and make unuseful calculations.Upping the cost to 8 IPCs looks like a good balance to A1 value and hitpoint. Makes it in the expensive range for fodder. Honestly, I can only give you my opinion as it pertains to an ‘eye test’. Your calculations are great and are the most important justifications for any changes we propose. Let’s see what others think about it.
@Baron:
In my own HR,
StB A1 D0 M6 C8 would be at same cost than my
TcB A3 D2 M4 C8 (Target ground unit) and
Fighter A2 D2 C7 (hit enemy’s plane first, then AAA).
Do you see some issues which can arise?I like the secondary targeting attributes for these. Been wanting to implement something similar. I don’t see an issues right away.
Does TacB targeting ground unit also include targeting naval units? If so, should TacB be allowed to target Transports?
-
Ok just going to put this out there.
Let’s say the move 6 strat B, is removed from a combat role, defensless as I suggested earlier.
Players lament, 'but the global map is so large, we need a mobile air unit!" Possible solution, increased movement bonus from the airbase unit from +1 to +2.This does several things at once. First it means that a move 4 fighter or TacB can have their range boosted to 6 from an opperation airbase (this is still 1 less than an OOB stratB from an OOB airbase.) Limits the total possible range from +7 to +6. Allows escort aircraft to fly farther, and be better at fleet screening. Simplifies the counting of movement considerably by eliminating the the odd number.
This way it’s either 2 moves out and 2 back, or 3 out and 3 back if taking off from an AB.
To offset the extended air coverage on the water, I would seriously consider just doing the same for the naval bases. A movement of +2 from an operational NB would open up more shuck options, and accelerate the pace overall.
This keeps things very simple, both bases at +2 movement, making them a much stronger purchase option for the cost at 15, and a more significant target for SBR.
Then you’d have a game where both the defensless transport and defensless bomber are able to shine. Still provides the entertainment of mobile combat air units (since both fighters and tacBs would get a boon of +1 to movement over OOB if taking off from an AB) and would be way more useful in the escort intercept role. The new defensless stratB definitely doesn’t get a hitpoint here, but with a potential
+8 movement the SBR options are way more glorious 4 out and 4 back.On the water, the whole naval game would get a reset. Any takers?
:-D -
Upping the cost to 8 IPCs looks like a good balance to A1 value and hitpoint. Makes it in the expensive range for fodder. Honestly, I can only give you my opinion as it pertains to an ‘eye test’. Your calculations are great and are the most important justifications for any changes we propose. Let’s see what others think about it.
I crunch some numbers on StB A1 D0 C8 1D6+2 damage vs Fg D2 C10.
It appears that Break even point is around 2 StBs for 3 Fgs giving 0.667 StB/Fg.
This is slightly less efficient than OOB G40 0.526 StB/Fg but compared to Balanced Mode (1.156 StB/Fg) it is far much better to get more SBRs.
(Break even point: 89 StBs A1 C12 D6+2 vs 77 Fgs D2 C10 : 1.156 StB/Fg)
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37653.msg1521517#msg1521517IMO, this may work. And it can be easily tried on a modified Balance Mode XML files.
It only requires to change the Strategic bomber combat values A1 D0 and cost 8 in regular combat.
SBR in BMode is already adjust for Fighter A2 D2 and bombers A1 (both StB and TcB).@Baron:
In my own HR,
StB A1 D0 M6 C8 would be at same cost than my
TcB A3 D2 M4 C8 (Target ground unit) and
Fighter A2 D2 C7 (hit enemy’s plane first, then AAA).
Do you see some issues which can arise?I like the secondary targeting attributes for these. Been wanting to implement something similar. I don’t see an issues right away.
Does TacB targeting ground unit also include targeting naval units? If so, should TacB be allowed to target Transports?
There is no issue with TcB ground unit targeting capacity as I playtested. (Your idea, remember?)
But never tried with Naval unit.
May probably slow down combat phase and increase the TcB power to destroy Capital warships. -
Ok just going to put this out there.
Let’s say the move 6 strat B, is removed from a combat role, defensless as I suggested earlier.
Players lament, 'but the global map is so large, we need a mobile air unit!" Possible solution, increased movement bonus from the airbase unit from +1 to +2.This does several things at once. First it means that a move 4 fighter or TacB can have their range boosted to 6 from an opperation airbase (this is still 1 less than an OOB stratB from an OOB airbase.) Limits the total possible range from +7 to +6. Allows escort aircraft to fly farther, and be better at fleet screening. Simplifies the counting of movement considerably by eliminating the the odd number.
This way it’s either 2 moves out and 2 back, or 3 out and 3 back if taking off from an AB.
To offset the extended air coverage on the water, I would seriously consider just doing the same for the naval bases. A movement of +2 from an operational NB would open up more shuck options, and accelerate the pace overall.
This keeps things very simple, both bases at +2 movement, making them a much stronger purchase option for the cost at 15, and a more significant target for SBR.
Then you’d have a game where both the defensless transport and defensless bomber are able to shine. Still provides the entertainment of mobile combat air units (since both fighters and tacBs would get a boon of +1 to movement over OOB if taking off from an AB) and would be way more useful in the escort intercept role. The new defensless stratB definitely doesn’t get a hitpoint here, but with a potential
+8 movement the SBR options are way more glorious 4 out and 4 back.On the water, the whole naval game would get a reset. Any takers?
:-DAlways interesting idea coming from nowhere. :-) :-o :-D
I like how you can get a better historical depiction of escorting bombers dynamics with +2 Movement bonus.
Attackless-Defenseless Bombers can reach 4 TTys and going back while Fgs reach only 3 TTys.
It clearly provides more targets from UK/USA POV in Great Britain against Germany.
It allows Fgs and TcBs to fly over France, Western Germany but StBs can reach Germany, Greater Southern Germany, Northern Italy.
IDK if Southern France was within range for Fighters and TcBs…
But at least you get an interesting mobility if someone want to recreate Allies Strategic bombing and escort operations.I insist on to these values to be somewhat balanced for the cost:
StBomber A0 D0 M6-8 C5 SBR 0 Damage 1D6 and
Fighter A3 D4 M4-6 C10, SBR A1 D1It nicely solve the lack of mobility for higher attack @4 if TcB is A4 D3 M4-6 C12 Damage D6.
From Airbase you get 6 spaces move, but it can be a one way ticket if not landing on an Air Base.For Naval Base, it is a very different beast since Naval units cannot NCM to a starting NB.
Going in this direction, I suggest you give all Naval units a basic 3 Move and keep NB+1 bonus.
Probably easier to adjust in XML files.
Otherwise, some fleet action will remain moving from NB to NB, knowing that going where there is no NB, a NO Man’s land for Warships, will totally screwed up the overall fleet mobility compared to an enemy fleet in NB’s SZ. -
Seems reasonable enough to me. I’m sure I’m not alone in feeling that naval units are a bit hamstrung OOB. In a period where ships could cross oceans in a month, and the game round is imagined to represent roughly the same or greater lengths of time. Ships don’t have quite the same issue with odd movement numbers that aircraft do. Move 3 as the standard on the water would be a lot more dynamic, and the NB+1 would still be very useful. You’d have better shucks all around for your transports, and carriers would be easier to use in tandem with NB + 1 for ships and AB + 2 for fighters/tacs.
This still isn’t the silver bullet for the zero ipc islands (which is another issue), but I do think it would make those islands with operational bases more attractive all around.
Suggested Topics
