@Baron:
@LHoffman:
I agree that cost is both complex and critical to proper gameplay.
Considering that your system should result in more hits on higher value units (esp if tacs “1” roll were to be assigned first to Armor), costs should probably be lowered to account for a greater need for replacements. I wonder if this would slow progress in any perceptible way… such that with fewer high-hitting units any advances will be slower and more battles comprising predominantly infantry-artillery will take place.
I didn’t address this point about assigning “1” roll to kill Tank.
I believe it opens an interesting option to how TcB interactions with Tank can be handled.
First, I can ditch the +1 A/D pairing bonus toward Tank. Maybe too strong? IDK.
But it was first intended to simulate the Tank Buster capacity of TcB. I used a known game mechanics but it requires some attention and manipulation on the battle board to keep the score right, whether because either a TcB or a Tank is taken as casualty.
If the “1” roll mechanics is introduced it can provide a way to picture how Air Supremacy gives a real advantage with TcBs.
Here is my change for TcBs :
On a “1” roll a hit must be assigned first on other planes, then AAA units.
If there is no such units remaining on the battle board, it is assigned on Tank.
When Air Supremacy (no enemy’s aircraft nor AAA) is gained with TcBs, on “1” or “2” roll a hit must be assigned on Tank.
That way, in specific conditions, TcBs have a similar special roll against Tanks on “1” and “2” as Fighter toward planes.
Is it better to your taste?
It seems that all considerations about Tank busting capacity of Tactical bomber is more mythical than historical…
Considering the Germans lost around 1 500 tanks, tank destroyers and assault guns in the Normandy campaign, less than 7% were lost directly to air attack.(8 ) The greatest contributor to the great myth regarding the ability of WWII aircraft to kill tanks was, and still is, directly the result of the pilot’s massively exaggerated kill claims. The Hawker Typhoon with its cannon and up to eight rockets was (and still is in much literature) hailed as the best weapon to stop the German Tiger I tank, and has been credited with destroying dozens of these tanks in the Normandy campaign. According to the most current definitive work only 13 Tiger tanks were destroyed by direct air attack in the entire campaign.(9) Of these, seven Tigers were lost on 18th July 1944 to massive carpet bombing by high altitude heavy bombers, preceding Operation Goodwood. Thus at most only six Tigers were actually destroyed by fighter bombers in the entire campaign. It turns out the best Tiger stopper was easily the British Army’s 17pdr AT gun, with the Typhoon well down on the list.
Indeed it appears that air attacks on tank formations protected by Flak were more dangerous for the aircraft than the tanks. The 2nd Tactical Air Force lost 829 aircraft in Normandy while the 9th USAAF lost 897.(10) These losses, which ironically exceed total German tank losses in the Normandy campaign, would be almost all fighter-bombers. Altogether 4 101 Allied aircraft and 16 714 aircrew were lost over the battlefield or in support of the Normandy campaign.(11)
http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/combat-aircraft-versus-armour-in-wwii/#Kursk 43: the Luftwaffe’s Story
So, it seems that insisting about TcBs targeting capacity is anachronistic at best.
It is not a worthy aspect to bother adding on a Redesign project.
It only adds complexity without deserving accurate historical depiction.
It seems better to keep +1 bonus to TcB attack factor when paired with Fighter or Tank.
What about increasing defense factor when paired with Tank and Fighter too?
Does TcB deserved to be less efficient against incoming ground attacker?
Or, they seems to be much better combat units against Naval units…
Maybe, this would imply to increase targeting on Carriers, Cruisers and Battleships.
Making them more dangerous at sea, somehow?
So, it leads to table top HR when “1” roll from TcB allows to hit either a plane (owner choice) or select a warship of TcB’s owner choice…
While Fg keeping the “2” or less allowing for hitting an enemy’s aircraft.
This would keep this general idea to allow plane to fight against plane.
It would be consistent with SBR dogfight values:
Fighter A2 D2
TcB A1 D1
StB no value.
But TcB would get a special niche against both Sub (for Anti-Sub attack and defense @1) and a special attack against warships.
Of course, it can not work in Triple A actually.
But, if working with 3 planes Carrier and more Air intensive such as:
Fg A2 D2 C7 hitting planes first.
TcB A2-3 D2 C8 hitting warship of your choice, this might be much more interesting.
This will keep the rock, paper, cisor dynamic if both Cruiser and BB have AA capacity and Carrier, being carrier for Fgs.
Alongside with a 3 IPCs scaled cost for CA 9$ and Carrier and BB at 15$.
It might not be unbalanced.
Just exploring a few consequences of this debunking…
:-)
