G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

[Black_Elk]

Personally I don’t have the same issue with a fighter based air umbrella strategy vs fleets under AB+2, that I do with an OOB Strategic Bomber proper “dark skies” strategy.

The strategic situation with fighters and AB+2 is sufficiently different from the OOB dark skies with OOB Bombers, that I don’t think you could really call it the same thing.

Fighters by themselves only offer an attack 3 on the water.

Fighters without an AB+2, don’t have anywhere near the same mobility over multiple turns, when compared against the OOB stratB. For example, fighters parked in W. Germany cannot reach Moscow in one move for an attack (even with the AB+2). They are 1 move shy of a landing spot. Even if they were close enough to fly across the continent to attack Moscow and land in an adjacent space, they won’t be able to immediatrly return to W. Germany the following round (because without the AB they only have 4 movement.)

Fighters can’t bomb factories.

Whether the OOB tacB is an attractive purchase vs the OOB fighter (either under normal or the new AB+2 conditions) is a somewhat separate issue. Suffice it to say I think players would balk at a cost increase for fighter units. The fighter is so central and so familiar, that I’d be very reluctant proposing changes to it, for fear that this new SBR only rule would never get up off the ground.

I think there is a general concensus that the OOB strat bomber is overpowered. Meaning a change to that unit has at least some chance of being widely acceptable.

I think there is also a general feeling that an odd number for aircraft movement creates a degree of complexity and weirdness in counting. And also that the OOB Airbase +1 doesn’t do a whole lot for islands (either from an SBR or combat perspective). So again I think there is at least some chance of AB+2 being widely acceptable.

I say we should start there, and see what we’re looking at.

After we have a solid footing for SBR and escort, we can move to more nuanced problems… Such as the general unattractiveness of TacBs as a purchase option. We face a similar issue with cruisers, battleships, and aaaguns. But again, I think it might better to pace ourselves here. I’m still just hoping the “SBR only” Strategic Bomber can take off, instead of getting strafed out of existence, while still fueling up on the runway lol.
:-D

[barney]

I agree with LHoffman as well. Tacs shouldn’t be allowed to sbr and remain oob otherwise. The fact that you can’t wack fleets and bomb Russia into the ground with the same unit, should be enough to slow down Dark Skies strategies, even with the range boost I would think. As Elk mentioned you don’t want to totally eliminate them.

I’m gonna be gone for a while. Be next week sometime before I can do anything. If someone else feels like doing it:

Under unitAttachments bomber add option name= isInfrastructure (look at the factory one for exact wording) and change attack and defense to 0. Air attack to 0 too. BuyBombers change to 5, (it’s somewhere near the beginning of the xml).

Under airfield in unitAttachments you’ll see where to boost movement to 2. Harbours for naval move change.

Actually just copy the current bomber, airfield and harbour if you want naval M3, to a non modded xml, from unitAttachments and you’ll just need to change the price for the bomber then.

One more thing under unitAttachments tactical_bomber delete or change to false isStrategicBomber. There’s also targets harbour airfield you can get rid of if it messes with ya. I don’t think it will.

[baron Münchhausen]

Fine.
TcB A4 D3 M4-6 C12, TcB A1, 1D6 vs AB or NB will provide something similar to OOB StBs without the bombing IC capacity, and is simpler of use without combined arms.

TcB A3-4 D3 M4-6 C11, +1A paired 1:1 with Fg or Tank,
keeps almost everything as OOB. And makes for a much weaker Dark Sky strat, than above.
Simpler for a play-test and to be implemented by casual player.

Both can be tested. I’m cool with it.

Fg A3 D4 M4-6 C10, SBR A1 D1 will be part of more Naval Defense Strategies considering its increase of power projection.

[barney]

@Baron
Tacs can bomb ICs right now in the mod. Think I’ll just leave it active and people can player enforce for testing. Might be able to get something out tonight

Which do you prefer ? No sbr for tac or can hit factories ? Or : ) ?

[baron Münchhausen]

@barney:

@Baron
Tacs can bomb ICs right now in the mod. Think I’ll just leave it active and people can player enforce for testing. Might be able to get something out tonight

Which do you prefer ? No sbr for tac or can hit factories ? Or : ) ?

Tacs can bomb ICs right now in the mod.
What I understand is that your XML files provide this possibility.
I don’t think it is necessary to make another game file.
Player can easily choose and agree on which one they want.
If they allows TcB to bomb or not IC. Once a TcB is part of the assault, it is easy to divert it on AB or NB only.

For play testing, I believe your versions are OK.
But I’m not the chief architect of it, here. Rather Black Elk may have another opinion. It is up to him.
No need to create a restricted one in that alpha testing stage.

[LHoffman]

@Black_Elk:

Personally I don’t have the same issue with a fighter based air umbrella strategy vs fleets under AB+2, that I do with an OOB Strategic Bomber proper “dark skies” strategy.

The strategic situation with fighters and AB+2 is sufficiently different from the OOB dark skies with OOB Bombers, that I don’t think you could really call it the same thing.

Fighters by themselves only offer an attack 3 on the water.

Fighters without an AB+2, don’t have anywhere near the same mobility over multiple turns, when compared against the OOB stratB. For example, fighters parked in W. Germany cannot reach Moscow in one move for an attack (even with the AB+2). They are 1 move shy of a landing spot. Even if they were close enough to fly across the continent to attack Moscow and land in an adjacent space, they won’t be able to immediatrly return to W. Germany the following round (because without the AB they only have 4 movement.)

Fighters can’t bomb factories.

Agreed on all counts. I think that with a base Attack of 4 for a Tac, the comparison would be much closer, but given the conclusion we have come to, I am comfortable with it personally.

@Black_Elk:

Whether the OOB tacB is an attractive purchase vs the OOB fighter (either under normal or the new AB+2 conditions) is a somewhat separate issue.

After we have a solid footing for SBR and escort, we can move to more nuanced problems… Such as the general unattractiveness of TacBs as a purchase option. We face a similar issue with cruisers, battleships, and aaaguns. But again, I think it might better to pace ourselves here.

Agreed here also. There is just so much to get into that it can be hard to do only a couple at a time.

[barney]

Right on Guys ! Baby steps as they say :)
M6 min for all air is powerful. No AB and your’e at a M4 though…and yea. : )

Think it represents the difference between land based and naval air as well.

[Black_Elk]

Right on. I think I’d prefer an OOB tacB for general testing. If only because it’s easier to float on the boards, like “grab this and go.” With less chance that players get confused or distracted by the tactical bomber. I’m kind of curious if the Strategic Bomber and Airbase changes alone might produce a game which is balanced by sides? Because that would be a major windfall and a great selling point for the HR. Get the Allies away from these 30+ bids that are needed OOB to realistically win against Axis experts, who know how to employ the OOB strat bomber to full effect.

No rush though. As of now it’s basically just like 5 of us in here, so it’s not as if we need to strike while the iron is still hot or anything. Hehe
:-D

[barney]

Heh Heh is right : )

Those German and JPN bombers, especially German, are missed. Idk about long term impact, but hey, why not find out ? :)

[barney]

@Black_Elk:

Right on. I think I’d prefer an OOB tacB for general testing. If only because it’s easier to float on the boards, like “grab this and go.” With less chance that players get confused or distracted by the tactical bomber. I’m kind of curious if the Strategic Bomber and Airbase changes alone might produce a game which is balanced by sides? Because that would be a major windfall and a great selling point for the HR. Get the Allies away from these 30+ bids that are needed OOB to realistically win against Axis experts, who know how to employ the OOB strat bomber to full effect.

No rush though. As of now it’s basically just like 5 of us in here, so it’s not as if we need to strike while the iron is still hot or anything. Hehe
:-D

Probably never balance it for everyone but … I’m seeing possibilities :)
It’s a good thing. Gonna try it soon.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Black_Elk:

Right on. I think I’d prefer an OOB tacB for general testing. If only because it’s easier to float on the boards, like “grab this and go.” With less chance that players get confused or distracted by the tactical bomber. I’m kind of curious if the Strategic Bomber and Airbase changes alone might produce a game which is balanced by sides? Because that would be a major windfall and a great selling point for the HR. Get the Allies away from these 30+ bids that are needed OOB to realistically win against Axis experts, who know how to employ the OOB strat bomber to full effect.

No rush though. As of now it’s basically just like 5 of us in here, so it’s not as if we need to strike while the iron is still hot or anything. Hehe
:-D

There is many good things with bombers and Fgs which make SBR not as destructive as OOB but noone will be scared of a flight of bombers. Intercept going to be normal thing to do.
Player will not be too desperate to loose 5 IPC unit. And may even add some Fg in hope of destroying an interceptor. @1 per Fg is not so high.
It is clearly better incentive than Balanced Mode SBR, not adressing any critic on other things which seems pretty good.
Maybe some will want more Fg A1 vs D2 to better depict the homeland advantage for interceptors.
But StB A0 vs Fg D1 is already a massive incentive and clearly depict how Fg can slaughter bombers.

Also, from attacker POV, bringing Fgs for a single combat round instead of ground support @3 for many rounds is not such a good investment: not knowing if defender will commit Fgs for defense. So A1 vs D1 remains a balanced choice, in that case.

TcB and Fg gains much air cover with +2 bonus and also be part of long range SBRs.
This provides also a better historical depiction about StBs vs Fgs escorts range.
Now Fgs can escort bomber from Iwo Jima. Or starting from Midway, can be escorted by Fgs at Iwo.
ABs in PTO now allow Fgs to bring ground support in adjacent island invasion.
Giving 8 move to armless StBs for regular combat have no impact.
That’s the beauty of this 0 hit bomber.

If eventually someone is longing for some attack factor for Bombers in SBR.
It will be easy to provide some idea coming from TP thread to add a weak attack, like:
Young Grasshopper 1A@1 for whole bombers group.
Or any and only shot down StB by Fg get a one shot last defense roll @1.

I’m very confident of this whole change.
And if A4 is missing to many, then you have TcB A4 D3 M4-6 C12 in back pocket.
It will not be exactly as StBs for sure. And in regular combat, it may shines with less projection of power and mobility.

[GeneralHandGrenade]

If you’re going to take the combat ability away from Str then perhaps consider allowing them to transport infantry too instead of just Strategic bombing missions. If you don’t want to add paratroopers then use as a transport only on non combat movement and make them land before infantry unloads at the end of Str movement.

Just a thought.

[General 6 Stars]

Yes with lower cost of Bomber and your lower cost of a fig will be buying more figs.

IN game now what do we do with the Heavy Bomber Values ? D12

HV Bomber A0 D0 C10 M7 1D6 +2  Can transport 2 inf only in NCM ? @2 dogfight ?

[baron Münchhausen]

@GeneralHandGrenade:

If you’re going to take the combat ability away from Str then perhaps consider allowing them to transport infantry too instead of just Strategic bombing missions. If you don’t want to add paratroopers then use as a transport only on non combat movement and make them land before infantry unloads at the end of Str movement.

Just a thought.

It is a possible optional feature in G40 I believe, 1942.2? not sure.
You can download files general Hand Grenade, and try a game.
I’m not sure it will be balanced however. Too many Infantry mobility, IMO.

[General 6 Stars]

I’d scrap the carry 2 inf on NCM. Air transport planes is 8 icps. Probably end up not buying any Transport planes in game.

[baron Münchhausen]

@SS:

Yes with lower cost of Bomber and your lower cost of a fig will be buying more figs.

IN game now what do we do with the Heavy Bomber Values ? D12

HV Bomber A0 D0 C10 M7 1D6 +2 Can transport 2 inf only in NCM ? @2 dogfight ?

My personnal feeling for your custom units:
Bomber A2 D0 C8 M6-8, 1 hit 1D6 +2 Can transport 1 inf only in NCM.
@2 dogfight, as AAA against up to two Fgs, 1 roll/interceptor max.
Only this bomber can transport 1 Inf.

[LHoffman]

I have been ignoring all the Tech Research upgrades as they relate to these modifications for a couple reasons. I think we can make them work in the new system if given enough attention. But the general consensus seems to be that people either don’t like or don’t play with Tech anyway, so not having an immediate answer for Tech like Heavy Bombers or Long Range Aircraft isn’t a huge deal.

[General 6 Stars]

@Baron:

@SS:

Yes with lower cost of Bomber and your lower cost of a fig will be buying more figs.

IN game now what do we do with the Heavy Bomber Values ? D12

HV Bomber A0 D0 C10 M7 1D6 +2� Can transport 2 inf only in NCM ? @2 dogfight ?

My personnal feeling for your custom units:
Bomber A2 D0 C8 M6-8, 1 hit 1D6 +2� Can transport 1 inf only in NCM.
@2 dogfight, as AAA against up to two Fgs, 1 roll/interceptor max.
Only this bomber can transport 1 Inf.

Are these values for Heavy Bombers ? Cost seems to low.

[baron Münchhausen]

@SS:

@Baron:

@SS:

Yes with lower cost of Bomber and your lower cost of a fig will be buying more figs.

IN game now what do we do with the Heavy Bomber Values ? D12

HV Bomber A0 D0 C10 M7 1D6 +2 Can transport 2 inf only in NCM ? @2 dogfight ?

My personnal feeling for your custom units:
Bomber A2 D0 C8 M6-8, 1 hit 1D6 +2 Can transport 1 inf only in NCM.
@2 dogfight, as AAA against up to two Fgs, 1 roll/interceptor max.
Only this bomber can transport 1 Inf.

Are these values for Heavy Bombers ? Cost seems to low.

The issue is about balancing between bomber (D12) A0 D0 C5, SBR @2, 1D6 damage vs Fg A4 D4 or 5 C7 and heavy bomber. At 10 IPCs, it is rather better to buy 2 bombers C5, 2D6 dmg than investing in a Heavy 1D6+2.
Since move is 6-8, rising to 7-9 will be unhistorical. So, the only increase seems OK is to introduce it as a combat unit with no defense for 3 IPCs higher than bomber, with small increase in firepower. (C8 is same as DDs)

[Black_Elk]

Technology hasn’t been a major factor in my games, since most people I play with think the game has enough going on already without this extra layer added on top of things. That said I do like that there is a tech option for G40 for those who want it. Personally I preferred the AA50 token system to what we have in 1940. It’s also been kind of interesting on occasion in the past, when some players have used auto tech with different options for each nation as a balancing alternative. Fixing the tech in G40 isn’t my top priority right now, but it would certainly be nice to have as part of the grand plan.

For the moment I don’t see a serious issue with the heavy bombers tech advance under the defensless bomber HR. That tech calls for rolling 2d6, and choosing the better result with heavies. So it still works here for a unit that is more effective at SBR for the cost.

The OOB paratroopers tech advance is associated with the Airbase unit rather than the bomber, so again its not really affected by the HR.

The question about whether the entire tech system deserves a rework is definitely still something to consider, and appropriate to the overall theme of this thread. But that’s looking a bit further over the horizon, than where my gaze is fixed at the moment. Not sure if I have any worthwhile insights to offer.