[House Rules] Tactical Bombers and their use

Thanks Marc,
it was exactly what I needed to see straight.
It will clearly help me.
Even if it is not gospel, it is still a very good reference IMO.

And what is funny about your accurate description on the combat situation of TcB tactical (named strike-aircraft) is it helped me name a feel faint about the TcB and Tank interaction:

Their common characteristic is that their mission involves attacking very specific (and often fairly small) individual targets (such as a tank, a train or a ship) with a high degree of precision, usually from a very low altitude. In WWII, strike aircraft carried such ordnance as bombs (small to medium sized) and/or rockets, and some were equipped with heavy automatic cannons (around 35mm).  Their weapon load was almost always very limited in quantity.  They had good aerodynamic performance at low altitude (where the air is denser that at high altitude) and at low speeds (which was necessary to allow them to aim accurately at their targets, especially when these were very small).  Strike aircraft often provided direct, on-the-spot support to friendly forces, and thus often operated close to the front lines. They had some ability to defend themselves against other aircraft, but were not optimized for that role and hence were typically at a disadvantage when engaging fighters…

These many characteristics don’t seem to be depict at their best in the “when paired 1:1 with a Tank, TcB get A4”.

This capacity given to TcB seems to put the tactical situation upside down.
It is the supporting weapon (TcB) which receives the bonus instead of the supported (Tank) unit.
It was clear about our Fg discussion, that it was Fg which get a supporting role toward TcB.
Hence, Fg gives +1A to TcB.

Based on this preceeding OOB rule and the historical description you just provided, it should be the TcB which give +1A to Tank, not the contrary.

Don’t you think?

Do you have any idea, why it finished the other way around?

Based on this change, it would have give this:
Fg gives +1A when paired 1:1 to TcB,
TcB gives +1A when paired 1:1 to Tank.

Maybe it was too easily confusing, because someone with 1 Fg, 1 TcB and 1 Tank on offence could have think this way:
1 Fg A3D4C10 + 1 TcB A4D3C11 + 1 Tk A4D3C6.
So, 1 TcB unit would have given +2A bonus.

Otherwise, I can not see why they didn’t make it that way.

However, it is also a way to create an HR which can somehow boosted a little more the TcB at 11 IPCs and create an incentive to buy more of them.
So, instead of just working in pair, it could work in trio:
1 Fg is protecting a TcB (can be matched with) on offence, give TcB A4.
this TcB is also protecting (can also be matched to) a Tk on offence, give Tk A4.

Of course, at first glance, nothing forbid to give also these bonus on defence.
In this case Fg-TcB-Tk (A11D12C27) become a dangerous triumvirate on the battlefield.

And this raise the question of balance between units:
4 Inf+Art= A16D16C28. 7 Art= A14D14C28. 9 Inf= A9D18C27.
Would you find the triumvirate too overpowered?

EDIT:
I add this different description of the TcB and StB by kcdzim for completeness and comparison:

Part of this stems from simplified game mechanics and part of it certainly stems from earlier versions.

In the previous games, they weren’t called Strategic Bombers. They were bombers.
And “Bombers” certainly included more than just high altitude heavy bombers.

The nomenclature changed but their roles haven’t: Strategic Bombers still include medium bombers. The fact that Tactical bombers are compatible with carriers, implies they represent smaller planes. Yes, the Mitchell flew off a carrier for the Doolittle Raid, but that was a VERY specialized use of a medium bomber that was essentially stripped to even get off the flight deck. So Strategic bombers still include medium bombers like the Mitchell, and Tactical bombers are more akin to heavy fighters, ground attack, dive bombers, torpedo bombers, etc., which were more often single engine or single pilot or pilot/navigator, and not manned with a substantial crew, didn’t carry substantial loads.

Historically, medium Bombers like the Mitchell, Invader, Havoc, etc., were effective in low altitude bombing/torpedo attacks on naval units. Torpedoes obviously worked well, but Skip bombing was also very effective against transport and warship alike and used extensively by the allies in the south pacific (battle of the Bismarck sea being a good example). B17’s even got in on the action. It’s just not a high altitude bombing run that you imagine from “strategic bombers” and movies like Memphis Belle.

Look at the Tac bombers we have: a ground attack tank killer (Sturmovik), 3 dive bombers (Stuka, Dauntless, Val) and a Mosquito, which is a blurred recon/day and night fighter/torp bomber/fast bomber/pest. None of those are really close to the role of the Mitchell (which is certainly a “tactical bomber” by any standard definition EXCEPT this game). There’s no good single name that covers the roles of aircraft in between Air superiority Fighter and Strategic Bomber. Tactical Bomber is what we have, but you NEED to imagine it means heavy fighter/dive bomber/torpedo bomber/ground attack/night fighter/fighter-bomber as well. And NOT medium bomber.

Until the game differentiates further with medium bombers vs high altitude bombers (it’s not likely to as that favours the allies), then “strategic bombers” is still somewhat accurate as they don’t simply represent Heavy Bombers alone and it’s acceptable to use them to represent the role of Medium bombers in Naval warfare.

http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=5629

CWOMarc explained already a lot of what I meant.
But to be more detailed and precisley:
I meant you need DD’s to detect subs, any airplanes can’t detect SS unless they had been given orders to fly to a certain sz by Bletchley Park and start their search.
As CWOMarc already mentioned, catalinas could take off and land on sea and didn’t need much of a performance to drop their load like TacB to destroy Subs.
I added Carrier along with DD’s to detect SS, but was more thinking of detecting SS in touching sz (recon planes for example, I don’t know). A nice and need adding for a HR.
The Subs greatest benefit was to be silence. As long nobody knew that there was a sub around, it was the deadliest weapon around.
These are all abilities a TacB does not quiet fit in I think.
If I recall correctly, there may be confirmed sinkings of German subs by Spitfires at Gibraltar, but I might err.
Thanks, I will look into it.

On the carrier as ASW, I retrieve this from an older thread about light and escort carrier, you can follow the link to get the whole picture:
@Baron:

@toblerone77:

I’m thinking more like “cheap carrier”. One IPC (9 total) over the half price of a regular fleet carrier, otherwise you may as well just buy a fleet carrier. As far as ASW I’m thinking that it should have destroyer-like abilities only when paired with a tactical bomber.

So if we stay in Global,
CVE : A0D1C9, 1 hit, carry1 plane, become ASW when paired with a TacB.
vs
CV A0D2C16, 2 hits, carry 2 planes.

And from an historical point of view,
are you sure Fg have no attack capabilities against Subs, even non-submerge one?
I find this more simple to give ASW to the CVE, whether Fg or Tac inboard.
Besides, it is a less powerful ASW than DD because it has only @1. Their real strength still lies in the plane.

Even in a HR game in which StB and TcB can directly hit subs without DD, Destroyer would stay necessary to block Subs capacities.
A StB unit flying over a bunch of German U-boats could do nothing to sink them.
So, even in this situation, Subs are not sitting duck in the ocean. They stay an efficient weapon.

In fact, allowing some planes to directly hit subs is making the subs a more useful unit as a cheaper fodder (6 IPCs instead of 8 IPCs for DD) to protect any fleet against all kind of attackers units.

You can read this discussion to better understand how Subs replaces DDs “when planes can hit subs”.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=14344.msg1265585#msg1265585

@CWO:

@Baron:

On historical background, the question is which type of planes was used on mission patrol against Subs: Fg or TcB?

For whatever this information might be worth, the aircraft which were most involved in antisubmarine warfare in the Atlantic in the second half of WWII, when the Allies finally closed the mid-Atlantic air gap, were the PBY Catalina (a seaplane), the Wellington (a medium bomber) and the Liberator (a heavy bomber).  An effective and successful configuration for these aircraft was to equip them with ASV air-to-surface radar and with Leigh Light floodlamps.  This combination of equipment allowed them to pick up a surfaced U-boat on radar at night, approach undetected until they were virtually on top of the sub, then floodlight it and hit it with bombs before it had time to submerge.

I’ve just revised the list of IJN Submarines to find if there is many of them which were sink by planes. It appears that there is not much. Most of them were sunk by destroyers or submarines. A few by Patrol Squadron compose of similar aircrafts as you mention above.
A special case, is the I-52 destroyed by an Avenger from the Escort Carrier USS Bogue by dropping a Mark 24 “mine” torpedo:

It also had 9 FM-2 Wildcats and 12 TBF-1C Avenger of VC-69 on board. The task force, on its way from Hampton Roads to Casablanca, had sunk another Japanese submarine, the Type IX RO-501 (formerly U-1224) on 13 May 1944. This was a very effective force, sinking 13 German and Japanese submarines between February 1943 and July 1945.

So, even if this seems contrary to the intuition, no Wildcat nor any other fighters seems to be able to kill by itself a Submarine, always an Avenger is needed.
I found a detail description about how TcB and Fg works against subs in a Hunter-killer groups:
http://www.uboat.net/allies/ships/uss_guadalcanal-4.htm

So, inside the basic OOB rule which said “Plane cannot hit subs”, and based on this more careful examination, and as far as I know, it would be a better depiction if the game rules allows only:
TcB and StB to be able to hit subs when a DD is present.
and on the other part, a Fg can never hit subs.

This could have been a real incentive to buy TcB unit on carrier to protect them from Submarines, and it would have give to Fg and TcB a more delineated capacity to both of them.
Regardless of the A/D value between them.

And, via this symbolic depiction of war, adding a “correct WWII tactical and strategical impression” on all G40 players.

Now, do you think there is a glimpse of truth about my first statement, made much earlier?

Once this said, I think TacB is the newest (except for AAA guns) unit introduced and can have a better place and much more historical feel in relation to SBR escort and intercept (air vs air combat) rules, and vs regular combat: ground and naval.
(As for now, I’m just thinking that TacBs should have a combat value against Subs (not Fighters), even without DDs, they represent Dive and Torpedos bombers after all.)

So to summarize in a game description, the various point develop amongst the thread to create a different TcB and Fg unit, more rooted on the historical background:

TcB A3-4D3-4M4C11 (as OOB can hit subs when paired to DD),
when teamed to 1 Tank, TcB gives +1A/D to this unit.
TcB**can still received +1A/D, if also paired to a Fg.**

Fg A3D4M4C10 Can never hit subs.
When teamed 1:1 to 1 TcB, give +1A/D to this unit.

Is this kind of units too complicated for Global player? I don’t think.

The three units coordination, too unbalancing: probably, but this wasn’t the point.
It was simpler to give it A/D than giving to attack only.

But, when you look at this units, you clearly see how Tank should need TcB support, and how TcB should need Fg escort.

Even on ASWarfare mission attacking for Subs, it becomes plausible to let Fg units give a support bonus to TcB without being able to directly hit subs. Another historical tactical depiction feel.

Finally, Fg unit A3D4 kept is distinctive defensive symbolic value.
It is the most valuable unit on defense.
And Fgs provides to TcB an air advantage which allows it to reach the symbolic “4”, never by itself.

Making TcB inferior (A3D3) offence and defence compared directly to Fg unit and because of the additional 1 IPC.
However, all this matching bonus make them a very dangerous pair on the battlefield.
As it was in WWII.

Adding to this that Fg can intercept on an SBR while the TcB cannot.

I can also provide an additional but simple aspect to help Fg be a better aircraft during SBR: an air superiority aircraft over TcB and StB units.

Inspired by 1914 dogfight phase, simply

allows a second cycle @1 to Fgs units, both attacking and defending. (Where StBs and TcBs are limited to a first cycle A@1.)

And if you feel that defending plane should have a better hand over attacking one

then, on this second cycle, roll the defending Fgs first, pick the casualty.
Then, roll for the attacking Fg, then remove the defenders casualty.

This first strike for defending Fgs on a second cycle, would clearly make a small difference.

Now we have a whole picture, of small but accurate aspects which can provide a better “feeling” of both Fgs and TcBs functions and usefulness during WWII.

And all this, playing near the actual OOB game system.

That’s just some kind of rules (intended to be as much simple as possible) based on what inspired the different historical and accurate description of WWII situation.

I still think the depiction of the reality can somehow find a large consensus.

But this never implied a large consensus over any rules trying to translate in game terms some interesting features draw from this historical vision.
That is where the fun begin about HR comparison, there goal, there game implications, there historical value, etc.

I won’t get into the subject of specific A/D/M/C values for units, because I’m no good at translating real-world weapon performances into A&A combat values, but here are a couple of comments on some points you’ve mentioned:

Based on this preceeding OOB rule and the historical description you just provided, it should be the TcB which give +1A to Tank, not the contrary. Don’t you think? <<

Precisely.  Tactical aircraft support tanks (and other ground units) in ground combat.  Tanks don’t support tactical aircraft.  Stukas used to be nicknamed “flying artillery”, which is a pretty good description of their role, but it would be absurd for a tank to be regarded as a “grounded aircraft”.

I’ve just revised the list of IJN Submarines to find if there is many of them which were sink by planes. It appears that there is not much. Most of them were sunk by destroyers or submarines.  <<

And there’s a good reason for this.  Japanese subs in the Pacific and German subs in the Atlantic played almost completely different roles.  The Japanese considered that the primary mission of a sub was to sink enemy warships, and IJN subs therefore wasted a lot of time trying to do so rather than attacking the USN’s supporting transport ships (which, being slower than warships, would have made much easier targets).  The USN therefore didn’t have to devote a huge effort to ASW in the Pacific.  In the Atlantic, Germany considered the primary mission of a sub was to sink enemy transport ships.  The cargos being convoyed by these ships were vital to the Alllied war effort, so the Allies placed more and more priority on defending them as the war went on.  In other words, German subs were a high-priority target for the Allies, whereas Japanese subs were not.  A related factor was that the Atlantic is only about half the size of the Pacific, and that the Allied convoys sailed on fairly well-defined routes, so these elements made combat encounters with subs much more likely in the Atlantic than in the Pacific.  The Americans, interestingly, used their own subs in the Pacific much as the Germans did in their Atlantic: the USN’s submarines concentrated on attacking the Japanese shipping routes bringing oil and other critical supplies to the Japanese home islands.  USN subs might have suffered considerable casualties in the process if the Japanese had taken this threat seriously, but Japan – despite being a maritime nation – gave astonishingly little importance to convoying their merchant ships and to developing their ASW capabilities.  So in a nutshell, Japan had a faulty understanding of how Japanese submarines should be used for maximum effect against the Americans, and a faulty understanding of how effectively the Americans were using their own submarines against Japan.

CWO Marc,
You make a VERY good point. It was the tactical bombers that supported the tanks, not the other way around. Perhaps it would be a better idea to boost each tank that is paired 1 on 1 with a tactical bomber +1 in combat.
The tank/tac bomber combo is considered an example of combined arms.
The fighter/tac bomber combo is considered an example of air superiority. Do you think perhaps in those combos, it is the fighter that should be boosted +1 on attack while the actual tac bomber remains attacking @ 3? A fighter is after all a better example of air superiority than a tactical bomber I think.

Thanks CWO Marc for your analysis.
It underlines some inconsistency between the game rules and what it is supposed to depict of the tactical combined arms.

@knp7765:

CWO Marc,
You make a VERY good point. It was the tactical bombers that supported the tanks, not the other way around. Perhaps it would be a better idea to boost each tank that is paired 1 on 1 with a tactical bomber +1 in combat.
The tank/tac bomber combo is considered an example of combined arms.
The fighter/tac bomber combo is considered an example of air superiority.

Do you think perhaps in those combos, it is the fighter that should be boosted +1 on attack while the actual tac bomber remains attacking @ 3? A fighter is after all a better example of air superiority than a tactical bomber I think.

You have a good question Knp.

I don’t really based my view of Fg and TcB interaction on this air superiority, but mostly on the bonus given to TcB by Fg.
Air superiority between aircrafts is rather difficult to show in the actual game mechanics because all these costlier units are protected behind piles of ground units.

Most of the time after the first turn, all vulnerable Fgs which were on the front line are put behind and kept in reserve and used rather on attack (paired with TcB) than defense.

It is a hard decision to put a Fg in jeopardy, knowing that with sufficient resources of attacking ground troops, it can be lost after only 1 or 2 rolls @4 on defense, trading a 10 IPCs unit for 1 or 2 Inf, at best.

Except for a revised SBR escort and interceptor with 2 rounds or cycles for Fgs, there is not many ways to translate the Fg Air Superiority in actual game mechanics.

Maybe it is better to look into Air-naval battle because there is costlier Cruiser, Carrier and Battleship units which needs protection so a cheaper Fg unit will be taken as casualty instead, from both sides: attacker and defender.

Is there other way to simulate the Air Superiority of Fg? IDK
Letting any 1 Fg paired 1:1, giving +1A to another Fg or TcB indifferently?

Otherwise, you have to houserule a dogfight phase prior to the regular combat phase (in which anyone can give a real advantage to Fg.)

Actually, I just see this Air superiority by the fact that Fg gives the +1A bonus, and that both Fg and TcB have an A3 value, but Fg get it at 10 IPCs rather than 11 IPCs.

On a face to face and same IPCs basis, 11 Fg A3 are better than 10 TcB A3:  71% vs 27%.
Almost 3 times better.

@knp7765:

CWO Marc, You make a VERY good point. It was the tactical bombers that supported the tanks, not the other way around. Perhaps it would be a better idea to boost each tank that is paired 1 on 1 with a tactical bomber +1 in combat. The tank/tac bomber combo is considered an example of combined arms. The fighter/tac bomber combo is considered an example of air superiority. Do you think perhaps in those combos, it is the fighter that should be boosted +1 on attack while the actual tac bomber remains attacking @ 3? A fighter is after all a better example of air superiority than a tactical bomber I think.

In my opinion, a good way to determine what unit should realistically get what kind of boost in a combined arms situation is to examine how those units were used together in real life (IF they were really used together) and to ask yourself “which is the supporing unit and which is the supported one?”  In a tank + tactical bomber situation, the tac bomber is supporting the tank, so it’s the tank’s capabilities that should get a boost.  The tank is the unit being supported because the tac bomber is supporting a ground combat operation, and thus is making the tank’s work more effective.  (As further proof, consider how ridiculous it would be to imagine that the tannk is supporting the tac bomber in air combat.)

In a fighter + tac bomber situation, it’s the fighter which is supporting the tac bomber.  The fighter’s job is to provide protective cover to the tac bomber while it attacks its target, because tac bombers (being slower and less maneuverable) are vulnerable to enemy fighter attack.  That’s the reason the American dive bombers at Midway got slaughtered: not only did they run into the defending Japanese Zeros (which was bad enough), they also did so without any friendly fighter protection of their own (because, due to various factors, the American bomber and fighter groups became separated during the outward flight and didn’t arrive over the target at the same time).  So in a fighter + tac bomber situation, it’s the tac bomber which should get the boost.

To carry this principle one step further, I’d argue that in a fighter + tac bomber + tank situation, both the tac bomber and the tank should both get a boost because the fighter is supporting the tac bomber and the tac bomber is supporting the tank.  A perfect example of why combined arms techniques – when correctly used – were so valuable during WWII.

That’s the reason the American dive bombers at Midway got slaughtered <<

Oops, I meant the torpedo bombers.  Sorry.

@Baron:

Maybe it is better to look into Air-naval battle because there is costlier Cruiser, Carrier and Battleship units which needs protection so a cheaper Fg unit will be taken as casualty instead, from both sides: attacker and defender.

It would be an interesting exercise to go through the official OOB rules and check all of the combined-arms bonuses to see how they hold up to the “which is the supporting unit and which is the supported one?” test which I mentioned in my earlier post today.  For example, when I saw the part of your text that I’ve just quoted, it made me think about the two roles which the US Navy’s battleships played in the Pacific in WWII.  One role was to provide shore bombardment to support amphibious landings, but another role (especially for the fast battleships) was to provide anti-aircraft defense for the fleet carriers.  In AA& terms, this would translate into providing carriers with a defense boost against air attack when the carriers are paired with battleships.  Generally this would mean a boost against attacks by tac bombers, but it would also apply to kamikaze attacks (since some of these attacks were carried out by small fighter-type planes).

@CWO:

It would be an interesting exercise to go through the official OOB rules and check all of the combined-arms bonuses to see how they hold up to the “which is the supporting unit and which is the supported one?” test which I mentioned in my earlier post today.  For example, when I saw the part of your text that I’ve just quoted, it made me think about the two roles which the US Navy’s battleships played in the Pacific in WWII.  One role was to provide shore bombardment to support amphibious landings, but another role (especially for the fast battleships) was to provide anti-aircraft defense for the fleet carriers.  In AA& terms, this would translate into providing carriers with a defense boost against air attack when the carriers are paired with battleships.  Generally this would mean a boost against attacks by tac bombers, but it would also apply to kamikaze attacks (since some of these attacks were carried out by small fighter-type planes).

Wanting to give a boost by adding an AAA capacity to cruiser and based on this documentary, I provided a combined arms for Cruiser with BB and for Cruiser with BB and Carrier.

Around 3min. 25 s.: they explain how a fleet defensive formation was organized.
From outer circles/rings, to the most inner circles/rings: DDs, cruisers, BBs, fleet carriers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxhzWUhBJgE

Between cruiser and battleship is it correct to consider that both provide a kind of anti-air cover for carriers?
Mainly Cruiser (mostly light cruisers with AA batteries)?
Mainly BB?

What is your opinion?

@Baron:

Between cruiser and battleship is correct to consider that both provide a kind of anti-air cover for carriers? Mainly Cruiser (mostly light cruisers with AA batteries)? Mainly BB? What is your opinion?

US battleships and US cruisers both carried a decent number of 5-inch dual-purpose guns (typically 5-inch/38-caliber models), which had good performance both as surface-attack weapons and as anti-aircraft weapons.  Anti-aircraft light cruisers, I think, carried even more of them than light and heavy cruisers or battleships. In addition to the 5-inchers, battleships and cruisers also carried large numbers of 40mm and 20mm anti-aircraft autocannons and of .50 caliber heavy machine guns, so they could put up quite a wall of AAA fire of assorted calibers when all of that stuff was fired all at once.  (Interestingly, when the kamikaze attacks started, it was found that only the shells from the 5-inch guns had enough kinetic energy and explosive power to have a good chance of stopping an approaching kamizaze plane dead in its tracks, assuming that a hit could be scored.  The machine guns, the 20mm Oerlikons and even the 40mm Bofors could kill the pilot and/or set the plane on fire, but wouldn’t necessarily blow it out of the sky, so kamikaze planes would sometimes continue flying in the general direction of the target even though the pilot was dead.)  So yes, I’d say that both battleships and cruisers should confer an anti-aircraft defensive bonus to carriers when paired with them.  American carriers and destroyers carried 5"/38cal guns too, but in much smaller numbers than battleships and cruisers – so those weapons don’t need to be taken into account because of their small numbers.  For the carriers, I’d regard the presence of these guns as already built into their standard defense values.  For destroyers I wouldn’t see them as giving any anti-aircraft bonus to carriers.

@CWO:

@Baron:

Between cruiser and battleship is correct to consider that both provide a kind of anti-air cover for carriers? Mainly Cruiser (mostly light cruisers with AA batteries)? Mainly BB? What is your opinion?

US battleships and US cruisers both carried a decent number of 5-inch dual-purpose guns (typically 5-inch/38-caliber models), which had good performance both as surface-attack weapons and as anti-aircraft weapons.  Anti-aircraft light cruisers, I think, carried even more of them than light and heavy cruisers or battleships. In addition to the 5-inchers, battleships and cruisers also carried large numbers of 40mm and 20mm anti-aircraft autocannons and of .50 caliber heavy machine guns, so they could put up quite a wall of AAA fire of assorted calibers when all of that stuff was fired all at once.  (Interestingly, when the kamikaze attacks started, it was found that only the shells from the 5-inch guns had enough kinetic energy and explosive power to have a good chance of stopping an approaching kamizaze plane dead in its tracks, assuming that a hit could be scored.  The machine guns, the 20mm Oerlikons and even the 40mm Bofors could kill the pilot and/or set the plane on fire, but wouldn’t necessarily blow it out of the sky, so kamikaze planes would sometimes continue flying in the general direction of the target even though the pilot was dead.)  So yes, I’d say that both battleships and cruisers should confer an anti-aircraft defensive bonus to carriers when paired with them. American carriers and destroyers carried 5"/38cal guns too, but in much smaller numbers than battleships and cruisers – so those weapons don’t need to be taken into account because of their small numbers.  For the carriers, I’d regard the presence of these guns as already built into their standard defense values.  For destroyers I wouldn’t see them as giving any anti-aircraft bonus to carriers.

I’m amazed by the precision and details you get out of your hat. I really like reading your post. :-)

I truly agree with you on DDs and Carriers.

Did you take a look at the documentary?
Is it accurate ?

On the combined arms, is there some pairing which shouldn’t work?
BB + CV? You already suggested it.
Cruiser + CV ? It is implied in your post.
Cruiser + BB + CV? It is the heavier combination, so it is for sure.

But about Cruiser + BB ?
**Can they have a combined arms by themselves when put together?

Or Carrier should be needed absolutely in the mix?
Or is it just a matter of game preference and HR?**
As my old HR was intended to create an incentive for buying more cruiser units.

On the other side, does this defensive formation based on 3 concentric rings of units cannot simply be part of the OOB values of BB, CA and CV?
I’m wandering, does UK or Japan did the same thing with their warships?

Or is it a distinctive coordination of USN warships working in a Task Force or a Carrier group?
Hence, justifying the in game combined arms bonus for an AAA umbrella cover.

@CWO:

To carry this principle one step further, I’d argue that in a fighter + tac bomber + tank situation, both the tac bomber and the tank should both get a boost because the fighter is supporting the tac bomber and the tac bomber is supporting the tank.  A perfect example of why combined arms techniques – when correctly used – were so valuable during WWII.

So keeping the OOB as the basic scenario:
does this way of using 1 TcB unit and being able to get 2 +A1 bonus should be considered unbalance or not?

So, instead of just having a combined arms in pair, it could work in trio:
1 Fg is protecting a TcB (can be matched with) on offence, gives TcB A4.
this TcB is also protecting (can also be matched to) a Tk on offence, gives Tk A4.

If someone have to choose to give the bonus +1 on attack only.
Or giving the bonus +1 for both A/D.
Is there some historical objection against a combined arms able to work on defense or not ?
Fighter should be the best on defense of a territory, so why it couldn’t do it?

Of course, at first glance, nothing forbids to give also these bonus on defence.
In this case Fg-TcB-Tk (A11D12C27) become a dangerous triumvirate on the battlefield.

And this raise the question of balance between units:
4 Inf+Art= A16D16C28. 7 Art= A14D14C28. 9 Inf= A9D18C27.
Would you find the triumvirate too overpowered?

But TcB and Tk seems more offensive kind of units, even if the basic value is for both A3D3.

Is it possible to understand the game aircraft defense over a territory by TcB or Fg, as being nearer their airfields and nearer the front line (being more able to replenish more easily) than the aircraft on offense?

For example, during the Russian campaign, can we believe that Russian planes have a shorter distance to travel before engaging Luftwaffe over ground units?
(First part of Kursk Battle, when Germany launch the offensive?
2000 German’s planes vs 2700 Russian’s planes with many Sturmovik TcBs amongst them.)

Can this be a sufficient justification to allow a +1 bonus for both situation A/D to Tk supported by TcB?

I’m still wandering how can we depict a defensive Tank maneuver supported by Tactical bombers.
Any ideas?

We can also look at this usual offense/defense situation:

During any A&A regular attack, what will happen?
The defender will take ground casualties as long as possible.
The attacker will do the same.

Basically, Fighters and TcBs on defense are killing attacker’s ground units and, when it is the time for the attacker to lose precious planes, he will retreat.

Such situations, usually didn’t turn into an Air-to-air only fight.
When attacker is pushing all-in, it needs to keep at least 1 ground unit to conquer the territory.
So there is very few situation when a boosted up TcB D@3+1 by combined arms with a Fg will seems to directly dogfight other attacker’s planes.

So there is so few counter-intuitive game situation that a TcB D3 gaining D4 paired with a Fg can be easily integrated in the game without creating a big turmoil.

But, it is slightly different for TcB supporting Tk.
As far as I understand their combined arms on the battlefield, TcBs were mostly used to destroy enemy’s armored units which were more or less out-of-reach for Guns on Tk and other armor units.

If I’m correct, this would imply that bonus to a Tk should be given only if there is attacking armored units at the beginning of the battle.
For instance, if an attacker send only Inf and Art, the defending Tk shouldn’t receive any bonus from the TcBs because enemy unit weren’t MechInf or Tk.

So, to reflect this historical situation, which should apply on offense and defense:
Tk can get +1A/D when paired to a TcB and only if there is at least 1 enemy’s MechInf or Tank at the start of the battle.

But here we have the contrary of the “presence of x enemy units, such DD, forbid something”, it becomes: the presence of x type of enemy units, allows a bonus A/D.

That become more difficult to deal with and it is stretching the OOB A&A game mechanics.

As a reference, I found this documentary about Stuka used on various campaign (very interesting and rarely develop angle on the WWII):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrsvKh9GBZc

@Baron:

Did you take a look at the documentary? Is it accurate ?
[…]
But about Cruiser + BB ?
Can they have a combined arms by themselves when put together?
Or Carrier should be needed absolutely in the mix?
Or is it just a matter of game preference and HR?
As my old HR was intended to create an incentive for buying more cruiser units.

As I said before, I won’t comment on the specific details of your proposed house rules because I’m no good at converting real-life combat performance into A&A statistics, and also because I’ve never been much interested in working my way through long, intricate HR proposals, especially when they get into the specific details of things like +2 bonuses for such-and-such a unit.  I prefer to just stick with discussing very general concepts related to how units in WWII actually functioned (and I don’t really have the time for anything else).

One general comment that I’ll make has to do with your “my old HR was intended to create an incentive for buying more cruiser units” remark.  I would recommend that you be very cautious about modifying unit combat values for the purpose of encouraging purchases.  The danger here is that you could end up distorting reality by approaching combat values from the wrong direction.  By “the wrong direction”, I mean proceeding in the following order:

1. Deciding that you want to encourage the purchase of a particular unit

2. Adjusting combat values (for example through combined arms bonuses) to produce the intended encouragement, regardless of whether or not the adjustment reflects how those units actually worked in real life

There’s nothing wrong with this approach as long as you’re clear in your own mind (and in the way in which you present your proposed HRs to others) that historical accuracy is not your primary consideration.  If historical accuracy is your primary consideration, then you need to work in the opposite direction:

1. Study the actual performances of WWII weapon systems, both individually and in combination with each other

2. Adjust the combat values of the corresponding A&A units to reflect this reality

In following this alternate method, you may end up discovering some combined arms pairings that are very cool from a gaming point of view…but you may also find that it creates situations that don’t encourage the purchase of some particular unit that you’re very fond of.  And at that point you have to decide between two options: accepting historical reality and going along with the combat values that the historical evidence has generated, or ignoring the historical evidence and creating a house rule that makes the units behave the way you want them to behave.  As I said, either approach is perfectly legitimate, but you need to be clear about which approach you’re following.  This is why I think Toblerone77 gave you excellent advice in Reply #76 when he recommended that you start each HR project by doing some background reading about the units that you want to modify, to see what their actual function in combat was, what their basic characteristics were, and how they interacted with other units (both friendly and enemy).

@CWO:

@Baron:

Did you take a look at the documentary? Is it accurate ?
[…]
But about Cruiser + BB ?
Can they have a combined arms by themselves when put together?
Or Carrier should be needed absolutely in the mix?
Or is it just a matter of game preference and HR?
As my old HR was intended to create an incentive for buying more cruiser units.

As I said before, I won’t comment on the specific details of your proposed house rules because I’m no good at converting real-life combat performance into A&A statistics, and also because I’ve never been much interested in working my way through long, intricate HR proposals, especially when they get into the specific details of things like +2 bonuses for such-and-such a unit.  I prefer to just stick with discussing very general concepts related to how units in WWII actually functioned (and I don’t really have the time for anything else).

That’s the way I understood the nature of all of your intervention.

One general comment that I’ll make has to do with your “my old HR was intended to create an incentive for buying more cruiser units” remark.  I would recommend that you be very cautious about modifying unit combat values for the purpose of encouraging purchases.  The danger here is that you could end up distorting reality by approaching combat values from the wrong direction.  By “the wrong direction”, I mean proceeding in the following order:

1. Deciding that you want to encourage the purchase of a particular unit

2. Adjusting combat values (for example through combined arms bonuses) to produce the intended encouragement, regardless of whether or not the adjustment reflects how those units actually worked in real life

There’s nothing wrong with this approach as long as you’re clear in your own mind (and in the way in which you present your proposed HRs to others) that historical accuracy is not your primary consideration.  If historical accuracy is your primary consideration, then you need to work in the opposite direction:

1. Study the actual performances of WWII weapon systems, both individually and in combination with each other

2. Adjust the combat values of the corresponding A&A units to reflect this reality

Your two steps describes mostly my main guidelines while trying to introduce an HR.
In following this alternate method, you may end up discovering some combined arms pairings that are very cool from a gaming point of view…but you may also find that it creates situations that don’t encourage the purchase of some particular unit that you’re very fond of.  
Exactly. That’s why I mention about my old HR on cruiser. If BB and Cruiser cannot combine arms, then I’ll have to consider the followings options you describe below:

And at that point you have to decide between two options: accepting historical reality and going along with the combat values that the historical evidence has generated, or ignoring the historical evidence and creating a house rule that makes the units behave the way you want them to behave.
You explained the dilemma very well. At one point or another, there is a necessary compromise which is taken. Whether toward history over game balance, mechanics, details, simplicity, etc. or the reverse.

As I said, either approach is perfectly legitimate, but you need to be clear about which approach you’re following.  
We are on the same page here.

This is why I think Toblerone77 gave you excellent advice in Reply #76 when he recommended that you start each HR project by doing some background reading about the units that you want to modify, to see what their actual function in combat was, what their basic characteristics were, and how they interacted with other units (both friendly and enemy).

If I hadn’t started it, there will be no link toward Stuka documentary. But usually, I’m more a game driven-guy than an historical-driven. It is a game topics which create an incentive to make some research and rarely the other way around. Unless I fall on something big.

However, I can’t resist asking questions toward people which have a lot more experience and understand of the historical aspects of WWII. It helps to get a better picture more rapidly, or provides some appropriate links, as Toblerone did. Before this thread I have no idea of the complexity and all variations about WWII aircrafts. Now I’m little bit more aware of.

So are we on the same page? I believe so.

And that’s why I was asking about these points:
Did you take a look at the documentary?
Is it accurate ?

On the combined arms, is there some pairing which shouldn’t work?
BB + CV? You already suggested it.
Cruiser + CV ? It is implied in your post.
Cruiser + BB + CV? It is the heavier combination, so it is for sure.

But about Cruiser + BB ?
Can they have a combined arms by themselves when put together?
Or Carrier should be needed absolutely in the mix?
Or is it just a matter of game preference and HR?
(Meaning that there is no decisive clues toward one way or another.
BBs and Cruisers have a lot of the AA guns and both worked with CV.)

I explained the background:
the cruiser HR I developed give a combined arms bonus (a naval AA fire) when combined with either a CV or a BB. And a bigger one if combined with both.
However, (and in contradiction about your first suggestion) a BB paired to a CV cannot had AA bonus until he is paired to a Cruiser.
So BB+CV is no bonus.
Cruiser +  CV get a bonus AA.
Cruiser + BB+ CV get a bigger bonus,
but, contrary to you, 1 BB + 1 Cruiser get a AA gun bonus.

Hence my historical questions about BB and CA working together.
Because the documentary didn’t provide enough details on them to make a decision.
Is the AAA umbrella fire air cover was somehow a defensive formation which can be done by both warships, after all they were with the most AA guns?

Or is it necessary to paired one or the other to a Carrier, because only Carrier received a support combined arms  according to history?

Said otherwise, does it happen that Cruisers provides a sufficient Air Support cover for Battleship?

Or it is just the weakness of Carriers which allows the development of specific air protection by warships for them.

@Baron:

But about Cruiser + BB ?
Can they have a combined arms by themselves when put together?

No.  Cruisers and battleships have similar anti-aircraft armament and can both defend themselves satisfactorily against air attack, so pairing them changes nothing because doing so doesn’t give either of them any ability that they don’t already have on ther own.  Pairing a cruiser and a carrier, or a battleship and a carrier, or a cruiser and a battleship and a carrier, does give the carrier enhanced anti-aircraft protection because carriers don’t carry a lot of anti-aircraft guns or cannons.

@CWO:

@Baron:

But about Cruiser + BB ?
Can they have a combined arms by themselves when put together?

No.  Cruisers and battleships have similar anti-aircraft armament and can both defend themselves satisfactorily against air attack, so pairing them changes nothing because doing so doesn’t give either of them any ability that they don’t already have on ther own.  Pairing a cruiser and a carrier, or a battleship and a carrier, or a cruiser and a battleship and a carrier, does give the carrier enhanced anti-aircraft protection because carriers don’t carry a lot of anti-aircraft guns or cannons.

Thanks, true. I understand.
CA or BB has no need of a special defensive formation since each individual has enough guns to fight planes.

Here is a kind of compromise which can be made to a full historical depiction while keeping an incentive toward cruisers:

1. Give cruiser 1 preemptive AA@1 on defense when paired with 1CV.
2. Give cruiser 2 preemptives AA@1 on defense when paired with 1BB and 1CV.

That would imply that 1 BB and 1 CV doesn’t get any 1 preemptive AA@1.
A cruiser unit would be needed first.

And here is the historical twist:
the in-built A4D4 and second hit is enough to show how it protected carrier.
Many light Cruiser units were outfitted specifically with only AA batteries.

Is there many occasions in which Carriers and Battleship were without Cruiser warships?

But if it was true.
And if Navy relies more on Battleship to provide AA gun cover than Cruiser.

Then this kind of HR becomes counter-intuitive from an historical perspective.

What do you think?
Can an historical description can go this far in the details to provide the decisive argument?

I cannot based my answer on Midway for IJN since, carriers were separated from Battleships and cruisers. So Japan didn’t provide a good AA gun cover during this battle.
But US Carriers have cruisers with them as I could read on it.

In my opinion, it should make no difference whether you pair a carrier with a cruiser alone, with a battleship alone, with a cruiser and a battleship together, with two cruisers, with two battleships, or any other such combination.  The type of anti-aircraft defensive bonus given to the carrier should remain the same in all cases.  Why?  Because cruisers and battleships both have the same type and roughly the same quantity of anti-aircraft firepower.  Cruisers don’t have any special anti-aircraft ability that battleships don’t have.  Battleships don’t have any special  anti-aircraft ability that cruisers don’t have.  Neither therefore brings to the carrier any unique bonus, so I disagree with the notion that cruisers should be treated any differently from battleships in that regard.  If you want to treat them differently anyway, that’s up to you.  I’m just giving you my personal view of what I think is historically realistic.

My above opinion is based on the premise that, for A&A OOB rule purposes, all units represent a single generic type with a common set of abilities for all nations.  In other words, “cruiser” in A&A OOB terms means a generic cruiser.  A cruiser is a cruiser is a cruiser, with a single set of combat abilities, and with no distinction made between heavy cruisers, light cruisers, anti-aircraft cruisers, early-war cruisers, late-war cruisers, American cruisers, Japanese cruisers, or whatever.  If the house rule system you’re creating makes such distinctions, that introduces a potentially huge jump in the level of complication for a game which (in its Global 1940 version) is already pushing the limits of practicality.  You’re free to do so if you wish, but I’m not going to offer any opinions about combat bonuses at that level of detail because I think it’s excessive to fracture units into too many sub-types in a strategic-level game.

Regarding your question “Is there many occasions in which Carriers and Battleship were without Cruiser warships?”, the question is too broad to answer definitively for the entire sweep of WWII.  All I can say for certain is that the USN’s standard and most effective configuration for a carrier-based naval task force was the put the carriers in the middle of the formation, to dispose the battleships around the carriers, to dispose the cruisers around the battleships, and to dispose the destroyers around the cruisers, similarly to the concentric rings of an archery target, so that as you go further out from the bull’s eye (the carriers) the surrounding ships become smaller in size but greater in number.

@CWO:

In my opinion, it should make no difference whether you pair a carrier with a cruiser alone, with a battleship alone, with a cruiser and a battleship together, with two cruisers, with two battleships, or any other such combination. The type of anti-aircraft defensive bonus given to the carrier should remain the same in all cases. Why? Because cruisers and battleships both have the same type and roughly the same quantity of anti-aircraft firepower. Cruisers don’t have any special anti-aircraft ability that battleships don’t have. Battleships don’t have any special anti-aircraft ability that cruisers don’t have. Neither therefore brings to the carrier any unique bonus, so I disagree with the notion that cruisers should be treated any differently from battleships in that regard. If you want to treat them differently anyway, that’s up to you. I’m just giving you my personal view of what I think is historically realistic.

I was almost sure that neither BB or CA should have a different treatment. So it would be a breaking point between an in-game incentive and balance of units vs historical realism.

My above opinion is based on the premise that, for A&A OOB rule purposes, all units represent a single generic type with a common set of abilities for all nations. In other words, “cruiser” in A&A OOB terms means a generic cruiser.  A cruiser is a cruiser, with a single set of combat abilities, and with no distinction made between heavy cruisers, light cruisers, anti-aircraft cruisers, early-war cruisers, late-war cruisers, American cruisers, Japanese cruisers, or whatever.

If the house rule system you’re creating makes such distinctions, that introduces a potentially huge jump in the level of complication for a game which (in its Global 1940 version) is already pushing the limits of practicality. You’re free to do so if you wish, but I’m not going to offer any opinions about combat bonuses at that level of detail because I think it’s excessive to fracture units into too many sub-types in a strategic-level game.

Regarding your question “Is there many occasions in which Carriers and Battleship were without Cruiser warships?”, the question is too broad to answer definitively for the entire sweep of WWII. All I can say for certain is that the USN’s standard and most effective configuration for a carrier-based naval task force was the put the carriers in the middle of the formation, to dispose the battleships around the carriers, to dispose the cruisers around the battleships, and to dispose the destroyers around the cruisers, similarly to the concentric rings of an archery target, so that as you go further out from the bull’s eye (the carriers) the surrounding ships become smaller in size but greater in number.

You have a gift to clearly formulate  overall principles of depiction of game units.

I made a kick search about US Cruisers and Battleships to see what was their respective function.

All that I could find was about the introduction of the fast BB (Iowa-class?, I can’t remember.) which have 2 purposes: shorebombardment and AAA air cover.

Based on this someone may prefer give AAA combined arms only for BB and CV since it their is no sign of a Navy doctrine which specified the AAA purpose for Cruiser, right?

But, in one of your post above you showed that Cruisers and BB have similars weapons against aircrafts and the main difference is the sheer numbers, am I right? Hence, both can give AAA cover in combined arms with CV.

An other aspect is about the kind or degree of AAA cover provided by BB and Cruiser.
You said this:

it should make no difference whether you pair a carrier with a cruiser alone, with a battleship alone, with a cruiser and a battleship together, with two cruisers, with two battleships, or any other such combination. The type of anti-aircraft defensive bonus given to the carrier should remain the same in all cases.

And that the best defensive formation was the concentric ring of an archery target, from outside to inside: DDs, Cruisers, Battleships then Carriers.

My intuitive impression based on this historical defensive formation was that, keeping the same ratio number of real warships / game unit, a ring with DDs & CVs was weaker agains aircrafts than DDs, CAs & CVs or DDs, BBs & CVs, and both were weaker than the full Carriers group Task Force: DDs, CAs, BBs & CVs.

And because of this, it was more accurate to give a better AAA cover to the full Carriers group TF.
To provide HR illustrations:

**A- “When 1 Cruiser or 1 BB is paired to a CV, give them an AAA cover @1 against up to 3 planes, as a regular AAA fire.”
vs
B-

1. Give 1 Carrier unit 1 preemptive AA@1 on defense when paired with 1 Cruiser or 1 BB.
2. Give 1 Carrier unit 2 preemptives AA@1 on defense when paired with 1 Cruiser and 1 BB.**

Another question, does this concentrated ring formation would have been as much efficient if there was no smaller warships such as cruisers in the outer perimeter but another group of Battleships?

Because in the doc mentioned above Battle 360 E8 D-Day in the Pacific Part 3/6, they suffer a lot about friendly cross-fire.
Does the problem would have become worse with double the number of BBs?

If not, then there is no compelling historical reason to not provide this:

**C-

1. Give 1 Carrier unit 1 preemptive AA@1 on defense when paired with 1 Cruiser or 1 BB.
2. Give 1 Carrier unit 2 preemptives AA@1 on defense when paired with 2 Cruisers or 2 BBs or 1 CA & 1 BB unit.**

In other words, does the combined arms of Cruiser unit and Battleship with CVs could have provided a better AAA defensive cover?