Usually fighters are better. 1 IPC cheaper and bette defense value which is always valuable.
Buying Tacs usually only makes sense in case you want to make a big attack with US, Germany or Japan.
Germans: to maximize the amount of air to attack moscow
Japan: Tacs are build rarely. You do so if you want to maximize the threat on the US/Anzac fleet
US: To maximize the threat on the Japanese fleet. I also rarely buy them. Sometimes 1-2 for the Pacific or max 1 for the Atlantic. I rather spend 22 IPC for 1 Bomb and 1 Fig instead of 2 tacs^^
UK should imo always prefer fighters because they have the potential to land in Chinese and US liberated territories to defend!
I most commonly buy Tacs with Germany. Especially the round before I plan to attack Moscow, I always try to get 3 in Novgorod to help out, but I find them to be regularly useful with Germany.
For one, Germany usually has lots of tanks and is on the offensive. Tacs pair really well with your tanks and can catch up with a highly mobile force of tanks & mechs to give you a lot of extra punch.
Granted, I don’t usually buy a LOT of them, maybe 3-5 over the first 6 rounds, but I find them useful. If I can, I like to find the extra 1 IPC to get a strategic bomber though.
With Japan, since they start with so many already, I rarely buy them, and when I do, it’s usually only to replace losses.
With USA, I will buy them when I’m going heavy on the offensive in the Pacific. When I do that, I like to get an even number of fighters & tacs on my carriers for maximum offensive punch. Even so, this usually only means an investment of 3 tacs in the first couple of rounds. Once your carriers are full, and you don’t need TOO many carriers usually, then I find bombers to be a much more effective buy.
I can’t remember ever buying a tac with any other power, except maybe near the end of a game just for fun.
I do not buy them. Fts all the way!
@wittmann:
I do not buy them. Fts all the way!
Poor TacB, poor TacB, poor little TacB… :cry:
:-D
Tactical bombers could be much, much, better. Of course this usually means house ruling for those with the inclination. Just IMO people get fighter-bomber confused with tactical bomber and additionally confuse more modern connotations with those of WWII. However with our friends at HBG we may alas have the ability to remedy this. :wink:
Tactical bombers could be much, much, better. Of course this usually means house ruling for those with the inclination. Just IMO people get fighter-bomber confused with tactical bomber and additionally confuse more modern connotations with those of WWII. However with our friends at HBG we may alas have the ability to remedy this. :wink:
Okay, but in our game, wouldn’t fighter-bombers pretty much be considered tactical bombers? I mean, if you get really in depth and start giving units special values and abilities or if you are playing something like A&A miniatures, then yeah I could see the difference. But in our more strategic level games, it seems to me like they would be pretty much the same plane.
Of course, there are planes like the Mustang, which excelled at both fighter vs. fighter dogfights and wrecking ground targets.
So what are we talking here? A plane that has the strong defense of a fighter (4) yet can also pair with tanks on attack (4).
I think a fighter-bomber is critacally different from tacs in this A&A game.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I think in A&A, a ftr-bmr would be able to intercept raids (tac cannot), bomb facilities or escort bombers on a raid (not both escorting and bombing at the same time of course).
In a gamey way a tac can ‘escort’, by sending them with other raiding planes but that would make them susceptible to AAA-fire. The way I see it, they must attack a facility if sent into an area.
I could not find it anywhere in the rules so this looks like a good place to ask my question:
can a tac be sent raiding a territory if there are no targets left that it can damage?? For example: London. Both the AB and the NB are maxed out and only the IC is left undamaged. GE sends in their 3STR for a raid, accompanied by 5FTR. However, GB has 10FTR ready to intercept so GE also sends 5tac to increase its airpower over GB. After the 1 round dogfight, the tac can only attack the already maxed out NB and AB and must do so to have the AAA fire upon them, even though they cannot damage those facilities anymore. That is how we play it, but is that the way its supposed to be?!
Regarding their usefulness in normal combat, I think any1 planning an attack should consider building some, IF they can afford it. More often than not, being able to hit 1 more unit per combat round can tip the scale in your favour. I remember a land combat where I accidentally entered 8FTR into my lowluck calculator to estimate my chances and it returned a loss to me. The defender would have 5 surviving units left. I checked what I entered and found my error, corrected it and now with 8TAC instead, the calculator returned a victory for me with 5units left. Of course this is lowluck and the dice still need to be rolled. I still see the impact of the tac though :-).
That’s how we play tac bomber’s too. Even if the naval and airbases are fully damaged, you can still go on the raid, and they are still shot at by AAA.
It’s just territories like, say, Ukraine that don’t have a naval or airbase that you couldn’t send them on a raid.
Would be an idea to build one there hum??
Tactical bombers could be much, much, better. Of course this usually means house ruling for those with the inclination. Just IMO people get fighter-bomber confused with tactical bomber and additionally confuse more modern connotations with those of WWII. However with our friends at HBG we may alas have the ability to remedy this. :wink:
Okay, but in our game, wouldn’t fighter-bombers pretty much be considered tactical bombers? I mean, if you get really in depth and start giving units special values and abilities or if you are playing something like A&A miniatures, then yeah I could see the difference. But in our more strategic level games, it seems to me like they would be pretty much the same plane.
Of course, there are planes like the Mustang, which excelled at both fighter vs. fighter dogfights and wrecking ground targets.
So what are we talking here? A plane that has the strong defense of a fighter (4) yet can also pair with tanks on attack (4).
That’s true. But something like the Stuka, SBD etc. are more dedicated dive bombers than say a Thunderbolt is. I’ve seen some suggestions before of making tacs have nearly or better defensively than a fighter. Personally I don’t care.
Tactical bombers could be much, much, better. Of course this usually means house ruling for those with the inclination. Just IMO people get fighter-bomber confused with tactical bomber and additionally confuse more modern connotations with those of WWII. However with our friends at HBG we may alas have the ability to remedy this. :wink:
Okay, but in our game, wouldn’t fighter-bombers pretty much be considered tactical bombers? I mean, if you get really in depth and start giving units special values and abilities or if you are playing something like A&A miniatures, then yeah I could see the difference. But in our more strategic level games, it seems to me like they would be pretty much the same plane.
Of course, there are planes like the Mustang, which excelled at both fighter vs. fighter dogfights and wrecking ground targets.
So what are we talking here? A plane that has the strong defense of a fighter (4) yet can also pair with tanks on attack (4).That’s true. But something like the Stuka, SBD etc. are more dedicated dive bombers than say a Thunderbolt is. I’ve seen some suggestions before of making tacs have nearly or better defensively than a fighter. Personally I don’t care.
I could not agree with that at all. If you made tacs defense as good or better than a fighter, then there would be no reason to buy fighters anymore except for spending 1 IPC less. Also, I think it would make tacs way overpowered.
It’s just fine the way it is. If you want good defense, then you buy fighters. If you are planning more offense, you buy tacs.
It is possible to get both world : fun, historical, and balance.
Fg A3 D3 C9 all the rest as OOB.
TcB A3-4 D4 C11 all the rest as OOB.
The cheaper Fg still interesting and competitive unit.
Historically cheaper also and not that good against ground than TcB.
TcB same price as OOB better defense against ground or naval.
In addition, in naval combat you will prefer sacrifice Fg instead of TcB, this not the case actually.
Do you see a problem in this?
I played it once and I will do it next time.
A HR just like I like them.
Simple.
Balanced.
Historically correct.
And funny.
For purists, Fg can even keep the 10 IPCs!
Tactical bombers could be much, much, better. Of course this usually means house ruling for those with the inclination. Just IMO people get fighter-bomber confused with tactical bomber and additionally confuse more modern connotations with those of WWII. However with our friends at HBG we may alas have the ability to remedy this. :wink:
Okay, but in our game, wouldn’t fighter-bombers pretty much be considered tactical bombers? I mean, if you get really in depth and start giving units special values and abilities or if you are playing something like A&A miniatures, then yeah I could see the difference. But in our more strategic level games, it seems to me like they would be pretty much the same plane.
Of course, there are planes like the Mustang, which excelled at both fighter vs. fighter dogfights and wrecking ground targets.
So what are we talking here? A plane that has the strong defense of a fighter (4) yet can also pair with tanks on attack (4).That’s true. But something like the Stuka, SBD etc. are more dedicated dive bombers than say a Thunderbolt is. I’ve seen some suggestions before of making tacs have nearly or better defensively than a fighter. Personally I don’t care.
I could not agree with that at all. If you made tacs defense as good or better than a fighter, then there would be no reason to buy fighters anymore except for spending 1 IPC less. Also, I think it would make tacs way overpowered.
It’s just fine the way it is. If you want good defense, then you buy fighters. If you are planning more offense, you buy tacs.
If you want an attack factor @4, you need Fg.
If you want to intercept SBR and TBR, you cannot do it with TacB.
Fgs are still needed
Tactical bombers could be much, much, better. Of course this usually means house ruling for those with the inclination. Just IMO people get fighter-bomber confused with tactical bomber and additionally confuse more modern connotations with those of WWII. However with our friends at HBG we may alas have the ability to remedy this. :wink:
Okay, but in our game, wouldn’t fighter-bombers pretty much be considered tactical bombers? I mean, if you get really in depth and start giving units special values and abilities or if you are playing something like A&A miniatures, then yeah I could see the difference. But in our more strategic level games, it seems to me like they would be pretty much the same plane.
Of course, there are planes like the Mustang, which excelled at both fighter vs. fighter dogfights and wrecking ground targets.
So what are we talking here? A plane that has the strong defense of a fighter (4) yet can also pair with tanks on attack (4).That’s true. But something like the Stuka, SBD etc. are more dedicated dive bombers than say a Thunderbolt is. I’ve seen some suggestions before of making tacs have nearly or better defensively than a fighter. Personally I don’t care.
Do you imply that some people simply put TcB A3-4D4C11 , all the rest as OOB?
A tactical bomber is nothing more than a small bomber. In reality they are large and lightly armed compared to a fighter. They are also very much less maneuverable than a fighter. Planes like the Thunderbolt were already designed as fighters but could function in the role of a tactical bomber.
As for stats the tac bomber should absolutely never be equal to fighters on defense.
The fighters and tac bombers defense values can be silly on some ocassions. If a battle comes down to a fighter and an Tac Bomber vs 2 Cruisers for example, the tac bomber really shouldn’t have a harder time scoring a hit. It should have a much easier time really. A&A isn’t really that realistic as a whole anyway so it’s okay.
I wish there was more incentive to purchase Tacs though. From what I’ve seen, its only good to buy them when you already have
a superior force that doesn’t need that defensive boost fighters provide. They’re a better buy than Cruisers, but that’s not saying much.
Playing as the Germans, if I get a bad roll on the G1 expedition to sink the UK fleet, I’ll give up fighters before Tac. I prefer having those Tac to roll @ 4 over my armor as I march to Moscow.
As the Japanese, those Tac go very well with all the starting Ftr, bringing some UMPF. I’ll generally trade Ftr before Tac if Japan gets diced somewhere, because its cheaper to spend 10 IPC to keep those Tac rolling @4.
In both cases, I rarely purchase more than I start with. If I DO buy aircraft, they will be bombers. The extended range and guaranteed roll @4 creates all sorts of chaos across the board.
If Italy survives the KIF and starts making money, I’ll get a second bomber with her to fly over Armor/Mech that backfill German advances in Moscow.
As the Americans, its a bit different because theres a large expanse of territory to cross that bombers can’t always support dictating a balance of Tac and Ftr to support any land advances she makes. Rarely do I buy bombers with her unless I am trying to lure Japan to Hawaii so I can sink a part of her fleet with a combination of bombers and subs.
I do enjoy purchasing bombers with the UK in the mid game. It puts a damper on German production once Germany’s aircraft move deep into Russia. Early game I’m buying Ftr with the UK to land on carriers later to control the English Channel. Nothing beats absorbing a few hits with carriers to simply land the Ftr in London for the carrier to turn back off its side and re-land the Ftr on them again. Those Ftr also provide amazing coverage for a US landing where Germany would re-consider a suicide blitz to clear the US units out of France because tehre are 3-6 UK Ftr landing atop of 8-10 US fodder.
In short, I rarely buy Tac for any nation and only enough to keep the US extension of power in the Pacific a viable threat to a loosely defended Japanese fleet.
They have their purposes, but you’re usually better served to buy an Inf and a Bomber instead of an Art and a Tac.
I think a fighter-bomber is critacally different from tacs in this A&A game.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I think in A&A, a ftr-bmr would be able to intercept raids (tac cannot), bomb facilities or escort bombers on a raid (not both escorting and bombing at the same time of course).In a gamey way a tac can ‘escort’, by sending them with other raiding planes but that would make them susceptible to AAA-fire. The way I see it, they must attack a facility if sent into an area.
I could not find it anywhere in the rules so this looks like a good place to ask my question:can a tac be sent raiding a territory if there are no targets left that it can damage?? For example: London. Both the AB and the NB are maxed out and only the IC is left undamaged. GE sends in their 3STR for a raid, accompanied by 5FTR. However, GB has 10FTR ready to intercept so GE also sends 5tac to increase its airpower over GB. After the 1 round dogfight, the tac can only attack the already maxed out NB and AB and must do so to have the AAA fire upon them, even though they cannot damage those facilities anymore. That is how we play it, but is that the way its supposed to be?!
Regarding their usefulness in normal combat, I think any1 planning an attack should consider building some, IF they can afford it. More often than not, being able to hit 1 more unit per combat round can tip the scale in your favour. I remember a land combat where I accidentally entered 8FTR into my lowluck calculator to estimate my chances and it returned a loss to me. The defender would have 5 surviving units left. I checked what I entered and found my error, corrected it and now with 8TAC instead, the calculator returned a victory for me with 5units left. Of course this is lowluck and the dice still need to be rolled. I still see the impact of the tac though :-).
That’s how we play tac bomber’s too. Even if the naval and airbases are fully damaged, you can still go on the raid, and they are still shot at by AAA.
It’s just territories like, say, Ukraine that don’t have a naval or airbase that you couldn’t send them on a raid.
So you can throw Tactical Bombers as escorts for StBs, as long as there is an NB or AB (even maxed out) in the territory and you accept to throw them against an additionnal AAA fire.
Once the escort and interception phase over, you cannot choose to come back home earlier instead of submitting to this useless AAA?
Is Chocolate response a kind of official answer?
A tactical bomber is nothing more than a small bomber. In reality they are large and lightly armed compared to a fighter. They are also very much less maneuverable than a fighter. Planes like the Thunderbolt were already designed as fighters but could function in the role of a tactical bomber.
As for stats the tac bomber should absolutely never be equal to fighters on defense.
I think this precision about historical point should be added:
Tac bomber should absolutely never be equal to fighters on defense when fighting against each others.
Fighters have some machines guns and sometimes a cannon, but their main use wasn’t to destroy infantry, tanks or warships.
They were mainly used as a air superiority unit to intercept and protect against other planes.
While, TcB units (Dive bombers, Torpedoes planes and ???) were mainly used against Infantry, Tanks or Warships.
The actual A&A system always destroyed cheaper units (Grounds, Subs, Transports, DDs, cruisers) before expensive and useful ones such as planes and Cvs, BBs.)
It is only on some rare occasion (except for SBR) that planes only are against planes only. (And in which Fg are @1 on par vs TcB@1.)
( Another inaccuracy which I try to solve on many occasions. And the simplest way I found is this:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33210.msg1260829#msg1260829)
And more recently this:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34676.msg1338630#msg1338630
On offence, usually there is at least a few ground units with planes against surviving Fighters (because they gets @4).
If attacker put enough units, it will end with some ground units destroyed and all the defending planes crashed down.
Which is still the regular plane vs ground situation.
Because of this A&A combat system rare occurrence (air vs air), it is a weirdo situation that Fighters could inflict such damage to grounds units.
I think, from this POV, that the main situation of air vs ground units is better represented by the offensive A4 of TacB+Tank/Fg pairing, than giving Fg D4.
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.) No need to put this thread in HR please, it is not my goal to start a discussion, just a way to show an inconsistency.)
A tactical bomber is nothing more than a small bomber. In reality they are large and lightly armed compared to a fighter. They are also very much less maneuverable than a fighter. Planes like the Thunderbolt were already designed as fighters but could function in the role of a tactical bomber.
As for stats the tac bomber should absolutely never be equal to fighters on defense.
I am curious about your way of seeing TacBombers.
I found this documentary on Hell Divers against the BB IJN Musachi.
It give the historical background of my thinking about giving @4 to TacB (more than Fg):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWBcghOcUuM
Hope you will like it around 38.5 min to the end.
On an historical POV what do you think of this HR about TcB and Fg interaction?
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33229.msg1262270#msg1262270
I also created another thread with a similar way of representing TcBs and Fgs but with weaker combat value (probably nearer their historical value in combat) on a 3 places Carrier. Don’t hesitate to make a commentary, if you wish.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33226.msg1262224#msg1262224
I don’t want to derail this thread but both HRs explained better my way of seeing TcBs specificity.
