Alternative way of integrating Air combat in regular combat- For Review

@Uncrustable:

Yes tactical bombers no longer SBR anything, bases or IC. (they would be too powerful)
It may not be perfect historical realism (not the only case in this game imo)…
But it gives each air unit a very distinctive role in the game, each are important…

1-Fighters are needed to protect friendly bombers from enemy air (fodder/escort SBR) and friendly facilities from SBR (intercept SBR).
-Fighters are also needed to vie for air dominance. (air supremacy bonus for tacs and taking out enemy air)

2-Tactical bombers are the meat of the air so to speak, they need fighters (protection + air supremacy bonus), but they are the best at destroying enemy units.

3-Strategic bombers are long range heavy hitters on offense, and can SBR. But they need both fighters and airbases to perform efficiently. Next to worthless on defense.

All these rules, taken along with 12IPC bases, will greatly increase the use/importance of airbases.

There is much historical realism here.

Keeping in mind all these principles, I think the last option 2 fit very well in these requirements.

@Uncrustable:

Option 2 is worse than we have now OOB
pay 1 more IPC and get the tac that defends at +1 and can attack at +1
fighters will be a rare purchase indeed

your going to beat this dead horse into a creamy pulp lol

i dont even think anyone is following it anymore

And now the zombie is walking…

After all the different roads explored,
I think it is the last one which is nearer the OOB and, at least, the easiest to implement as a singular House Rule with your principles in it (without too much affecting the overall balance).

And for G40e, I don’t want to convince you at all cost to implement the TcBA3D4C11 in G40e.
IMHO, if you searching for a wider acceptance, you must keep OOB Fg and TcB (-1 IPCs).

However, if you want something like the principles below, at least think about it.
Just read it as it was the first solution suggested instead of the last of a long exchange.
(If it had come to my mind earlier, be sure I would had submited it.)

But at least, you keep reading and comments that help a lot find better and simpler HR (IMO) like this one below.

@Uncrustable:

But it gives each air unit a very distinctive role in the game, each are important…

1-Fighters are needed to protect friendly bombers from enemy air (fodder/escort SBR) and friendly facilities from SBR (intercept SBR).
-Fighters are also needed to vie for air dominance. (air supremacy bonus for tacs and taking out enemy air)

2-Tactical bombers are the meat of the air so to speak, they need fighters (protection + air supremacy bonus), but they are the best at destroying enemy units.

3-Strategic bombers are long range heavy hitters on offense, and can SBR. But they need both fighters and airbases to perform efficiently. Next to worthless on defense.

There is much historical realism here.

TcB A3D4C11, +1A when paired 1:1 with Fg and Armor
Fg A3D3C9, any “1” rolled hit a plane.

The problem, as you show, was in the cost: TcB at 10 IPCs too low or Fg at 9 IPCs too high.
And, reading your thread on a revised cost calculation, it becomes clear to me that TcB must be at 11 IPCs: A3-4+D4+M1**+3**= 10.5 rounded up = 11 IPCs

It works with OOB.
It is better balance with a carrier at 16 IPCs with a BB at 19 IPCs and CA 11 IPCs (because of BB and CA having already a cost problem).

It can also works with either a carrier at 15 or 14 IPCs and BB and CA at minus 2 IPCs (18 and 10).

In carrier operation, you also get a progressive improvement with higher cost units (which wasn’t the case with a OOB TcB at 11 IPCs: a kind of singular aberration!) and, most of all, the A/D value for a full loaded carrier doesn’t change vs OOB.

CV-A: 2 Fgs
A6D6C18, A/D sums 12 pts (as was 2 x OOB TcB A3D3= 12 A/D pts but at 22 IPCs)

CV-B: Fg+TcB
A7D7C20, A/D sums 14 pts (as was OOB Fg+TcB: A7D7 = 14 pts but at 21 IPCs)

CV-C: 2 TcBs
A6D8C22, sums 14 pts (as was 2 x OOB Fgs: A3D4C20 same A/D pts but at 2 IPCs higher)

And it is clear to me that this is the HR I will suggest on my next A&A board game.
It will allow to observe the Fg and TcB new interraction (following the principles above) with a minimal change to units value.

I liked the Fg A2D3C8 and TcB A3-4D3-4C10, there is more variability and stategy in it but it had greater impact on balance.

So, no cost change for the TcB stay at 11, just an upgraded D4.

But Fg still the best in air combat fight with A3D3 because it is now cheaper.
11 Fg A3C9 vs 9 TcB D4C11 = same cost 99 IPCs
61% vs 36%

9 TcB A3C11 vs 11 Fg D3C9 = same cost 99 IPCs
11% vs 87%

@Uncrustable:

TcB A3D4C11, +1A when paired 1:1 with Fg and Armor
Fg A3D3C9, any “1” rolled hit a plane.

With these, now tacs will rarely be purchased lol
pay one more IPC and get always A4 and range 6 + better SBR (bomber)

2 less IPCs and only 1 less defense with same offense much of the time (meaning fighter is far more efficient at both attacking and defending)

lol sorry to keep raining on your parade

After the rain, the sunshine! lol
And rains help it get cleaner.

So it means that your Air Supremacy for TcB must be incorporated to get A4.

Air Supremacy: no enemy’s air + at least 1 Fg on your side. And no more armor pairing.
So Fg will still be needed.
Will not change much in carrier operation (since without Fg, TcB stay A3),
but on land operation, it will becomes very often A4.

Does it improve the balance vs Fg and StB?

@Uncrustable:

Fighter: cost 8 A2D2 R4, hits to air units first, intercepts SBR @2, defends from operational AB @3 (not during SBR)
Tactical: cost 10 A3D3 R4, A4D4 if no enemy units and atleast 1 friendly fighter, cannot SBR
Bomber: cost 12 A3D1 R6, SBR at 1D6, operational AB gives +1 to SBR and attack aswell as range

Baron this is far superior to anything you have come up with.
There is very good reason to purchase all 3, none of which are OP relative to the others.
You need fighters pretty much for everything, but they are weak by themselves. Requiring tactical or strategic bombers.
If you go tactical bombers you need fighters to give them air supremacy and to protect them from enemy fighters.
If you go strategic bombers you need fighters to protect your airbases so the bombers get their attacking bonus, without constantly dishing out IPCs to repair them. Aswell as protecting the bombers during shorter range missions.
Show me the flaw of this.

Is it the ONE you will finally implement in G40e?
You kept A2D2 in your pocket and finally coming back with it?  :-D

It must be tested, I think it is viable but will need a different opening set-up.
The main problematic aspect (as discussed previously) to look at is the effect of A2D2 fighter on carrier operation vs naval units.
It could work. And it have no Fg with alien to A&A system: “1” rolled hit something.

You don’t answer my last question: can Air Supremacy correct somehow the flaw you pointed to me vs Fg and StB cost?

I’m in a different perspective, don’t want to shake everything at the same time.
My friends must make little step at a time: too much change will get a NO for answer, and they will want to play OOB on this topic, that’s it.

@Uncrustable:

Well yours involves no less change, and is broken.

Probably better to just change tac to 10 nothing else for your friends then lol.

If I follow you it is broken because:
a TcB A3-4D4 C11 cost too high when you can buy a Fg A3 C9 only (on attack Fg is better on an IPC basis),
and a TcB A3-4D4C10 cost too low vs Fg D3 C9 (only 1 IPC higher to get D4).

And since a Fg A3D3C8 is too OP, I’m screwed. lol
Did I catch your reasoning (and the “Uncrusty” style)?

So I’m left with only one option, giving more offensive power to TcB C11 to be competitive with this unit:
Fg A3D3C9, on “1” rolled destroyed 1 plane.
TcB A3-4D4C11
1- When paired with Fg, TcB get A4.
2- Air supremacy: when no enemy’s plane then TcB get also A4, need no Fg presence.

@Uncrustable:

The main problematic aspect (as discussed previously) to look at is the effect of A2D2 fighter on carrier operation vs naval units.

I disagree, i think you look at it the wrong way or something, because i see no problem here.
Carriers reduced to 15 IPC.
1 fighter + 1 tac = 5-6 attack value, 5-6 defense value with 3 less cost
a fighter + 1 tac (OOB) = 6-7 attack value, 7 defense value 3 more cost

carrier is reduced 1 IPCs, and you only lose 1-2 combat value of the whole.
so thats 4 IPCs cheaper for carrier + fighter + tac, losing just 1-2 combat value.
If anything carriers gain a little strength (im ok with it, historically realistic to have carriers the powerhouse anyhow)

it is just OOB, you will most likely, if not always, purchase only fighters for carriers.
now you have good reason to keep combined forces.

If, big if (since OOb have the better hand actually), you everplay with this Fg, you will have to be careful about Global OOB distortion vs this possible G40e fighter:

G40e Fgs on an AB 3D@3 won’t be able to protect as much as OOB scrambled Fgs 3D@4.

When a fleet with only 1 loaded carrier unit will be attack, it will be less powerful (but also cheaper: meaning you could have more other warships) on defense than reg OOB CV+2 Fgs.
For example: 3 cruisers (C10)= 30 IPCs will be a bit more dangerous to CV G40e (15+8+10=33 IPCs) than they were vs OOB CV (A6D10C36 IPCs).
3 CA A9D9C30 vs TcB+Fg: A6D8C33 4 hits, even worse A/D with 2 Fgs: A4D6C31 4 hits.

It still works as I said, just to be cautious of the lesser A/D value for carrier when planning a naval combat.