@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%
