[House Rules] Tactical Bombers and their use

@knp7765:

You guys think a tac bomber should have a higher defense factor than a fighter? I’m sorry, but that’s just crazy. I’m so sure that a Stuka could come up against a Spitfire and get the best of it.

True. But your talking air vs air.
The usual situation of casualty picking in A&A is aircrafts hitting ground targets, hence a Stuka is far more effective than a Spitfire to destroy a tank. And I should add that a Helldiver TcB is far better than a Hellcat Fgt to destroy a IJN Musashi Battleship.

If you haven’t take a look at my HR for planes, you will see how I give Air superiority to Fighter unit and Air-to-ground/naval superiority to TacB unit. No so complicated.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33229.msg1262270#msg1262270

@Baron:

The usual situation of casualty picking in A&A is aircrafts hitting ground targets, hence a Stuka is far more effective than a Spitfire to destroy a tank. And I should add that a Helldiver TcB is far better than a Hellcat Fgt to destroy a IJN Musashi Battleship.

Even if your facts are correct, and I agree with you most of the time, the trick will be to make a HR that is so smooth, elegant and simple, that the casual A&A player that happens to be in your basement, agree to play by it, and not the lame OOB rulebook.

Combat in the real world seems to have some kind of sequenced fire phases, where specialized weapon systems can target specific units, and kill them before they can return fire. A Battleship have big long range guns, and can sink a Cruiser before it reach the range to shoot back. The artillery barrage loop shells into the infantry trench, and there is no way the infantry can kill that artillery. Heavy Bombers can carpet bomb infantry from high altitude and the infantry have no way to defend against it.

We can of course use the rules from hex and counter games like WiF etc, and resolve air to air combat, then resolve air to ground combat, followed by artillery barrage phase, mechanized blitzkrieg phase, and at last the infantry charge phase. But then it will not be A&A any more. Should we let artillery target other artillery in duels, like in the real world ? Or let Tacs target Tanks, like they did in the real world ? Or should each unit have several different combat values, like the counter units that can have up to 4 values depending on what kind of unit it target in a battle. Give the infantry one value against air, and another value against tanks, and another value against other infantry ? Because it is obvious that the infantry is stronger against other infantry, than against Heavy Bombers. But then it will not longer be A&A

@knp7765:

You guys think a tac bomber should have a higher defense factor than a fighter? I’m sorry, but that’s just crazy. I’m so sure that a Stuka could come up against a Spitfire and get the best of it.

I agree knp. I’m all for people making whatever HRs they want. However Army, Navy, or Air force on defense is by default using defensive tactics no matter what scale were talking about. The logic behind giving tactical bombers a higher defense value, requires that you give strategic bombers a higher defense by default.

Bombers are offensive weapons. People can do as they wish with HRs. The only way any WWII bomber is able to effectively deliver it’s offensive power is through the support of fighters fending off other fighters that are trying to shoot bombers down.

In another House Rules thread (I can’t recall which one) where this whole subject came up, I expressed scepticism at the idea that a tac bomber could have a great defensive performance against a fighter.  As I recall, the two examples I cited were the Battle of Britain, from which the Luftwaffe’s Stukas were withdrawn when it became clear that they were being cut to pieces by RAF fighters, and the Battle of Midway.  At Midway, the American torpedo bombers were slaughtered by the defending Zeros, and the late-arriving American dive-bombers were greatly helped in striking their targets successfully by the fact that the Zeros had been pulled down from their combat air patrol stations by going after the early-arriving enemy torpedo bombers, thus leaving the carriers with no fighter cover.  One additional point that I’d like to add here, however, has to do with a somewhat different subject.  In this debate over whether or not such-and-such a set of A/D/M/C specifications for Tac Bombers is historically realistic, it’s important to be clear about whether one is viewing the TB game unit as a generic piece (whose performance is identical for all nations in all cases) or as a category standing for a whole array of specialized subtypes of aircraft (each with distinctive combat specifications).  The OOB TB sculpts represent a wide range of aircraft types, as is illustrated by the (admitedly debatable) designations that I used in my two TB unit identification charts: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=31982.0 .  The range of TB types becomes even larger when we throw in the ever-growing list of supplemental sculpts being provided by the folks at HBG.  And note by the way that the same consideration applies to fighters: the OOB ones fall into fewer categories that the OOB TBs, but the sculpts certainly don’t correspond to any kind of “universal standard fighter” with a single set of combat specifications, even though the OOB rules treat them as such.

@CWO:

In another House Rules thread (I can’t recall which one) where this whole subject came up, I expressed scepticism at the idea that a tac bomber could have a great defensive performance against a fighter.
I would be glad to read also that one.

As I recall, the two examples I cited were the Battle of Britain, from which the Luftwaffe’s Stukas were withdrawn when it became clear that they were being cut to pieces by RAF fighters, and the Battle of Midway.

At Midway, the American torpedo bombers were slaughtered by the defending Zeros, and the late-arriving American dive-bombers were greatly helped in striking their targets successfully by the fact that the Zeros had been pulled down from their combat air patrol stations by going after the early-arriving enemy torpedo bombers, thus leaving the carriers with no fighter cover.

Your historical examples are interesting and provides a specific historical background to see how does fit Fgs and TcBs inside the Strategical A&A game mechanism.

Maybe, I’m totally lost in the field, I’m open to revised my position.

But for now, I should admit I’m not convinced.
And I’d like you helped me, all of you, by explaining how you see
a) the historical planes, and operational tactics,
b) the game units, the game mechanisms and
c) to what extend one way of seeing Fg vs TcB give a better picture of WWII situation than the other.

First, I’m sure we all agree on the Classic Fighter unit A3D4M4C12 when it was the epitome of all small, fast, maneuverable, aircrafts (from pure Fg, Torpedoes Bombers, Dive Bombers to Fg-bombers) which were very different from  the long range heavy Strat Bombers unit A4D1M6C15.

And, on the principle that Fg aircrafts were better (for a lot of reasons) on defense than offense.

When splitting this Fg unit in two, then we all agree on the principle that in air-to-air Fighters are much better than any Tac Bombers.

Do we agree on that other principle (and almost by definition of the function of the unit itself): that a TacB is better in air-to-ground or air-to-sea tactical situation  than a Fg?

Then, we have to describe what is a defensive situation and an offensive one.

For instance:
I see the Battle of Britain as UK on defense and Germany on offense.

But, in Midway, I see the IJN on offense and the USN on defense.

@CWO:

As I recall, the two examples I cited were the Battle of Britain, from which the Luftwaffe’s Stukas were withdrawn when it became clear that they were being cut to pieces by RAF fighters, and the Battle of Midway.

I see the Battle of Britain as UK on defense and Germany on offense.

And in the game, it is depicted as 1 or 2 SBR with Fgs escorting Germans StBs and TcBs against UK’s Fgs having an interceptor role.

In G40, do Fgs unit have an advantage over TcB or even StB? Nope.
No difference. All the same.
Fg, TcB, StB A1 vs Fg D1.

We must turn toward 1942.2 SBR rule to better see the difference, but there is no TcB in it:
Fg/StB A1 preemptive vs Fg D2 regular.

Then we must look at the regular combat.
Which must happen during a Sea-Lion operations, which never arrived.

The Luftwaffe lost the air battle over south UK because their TcBs and StBs stop their bombardment over UK’s Fgs airfields and instead bombard London.
The reason? Because Berlin was bombarded and Hitler gives the order to retaliate on civilian’s targets.

And we cannot limit the TcB vs Fg to air-to-air combat here.
UK’s Fgs pilots were loosing the air war and were almost on the verge of collapsing:
a lot of their infrastructure to support and repair aircrafts were damaged and they didn’t catch up the rate of destruction vs rebuilding until…
Hitler urges to bombard London instead of military targets.

But just before, more and more Fighters were forced to get in the air from farther away airfields.

So we are describing StB A4 and TcB A4 with Fg A3. Fighting UK’s Fgs D4.

Basically, all bombers are at the same combat level than defending Fgs.

But this was an air battle with no ground troops involved.

A situation which cannot happen in our A&A Sea-Lion scenario…

I think these aspects must be taken into account at the strategical level.

A tactical bomber or any bomber of WWII is only as good as it’s air cover. The only reason any bomber of WWII was able to inflict maximum damage/firepower was because of ability to dominate airspace over enemy territory, either through air superiority or absence of sufficient defensive air-cover on the part of the defender.

TBs and StBs rely on the ability to bomb/attack at will. That will is only provided by the absence or inferior defensive measures of fighter aircraft on the part of the defender. Fighter aircraft are the essential key of air superiority. Bomber aircraft are strong because of their ability to attack ground targets from above, if they are harassed in the air, than they cannot be effective against ground targets. Hence the fighter, the defender of the airspace, can hamper the effectiveness of ground attack aircraft because any bomber is easily bested in any air-to-air combat, because their primary job is to harass ground targets not to dogfight with or against aircraft to whose primary job is to destroy other aircraft whether they are bombers of any type or fighter aircraft.

@CWO:

At Midway, the American torpedo bombers were slaughtered by the defending Zeros, and the late-arriving American dive-bombers were greatly helped in striking their targets successfully by the fact that the Zeros had been pulled down from their combat air patrol stations by going after the early-arriving enemy torpedo bombers, thus leaving the carriers with no fighter cover.

But, in Midway, I see the IJN on offense and the USN on defense.

In game terms, it means that Japanese Fighters are A3 and US TcB D3 also.
Same combat level.

Let’s suppose instead it was US Fgs which have found the carriers what have had happened?
The carriers would have been machine gun crippled, then Japanese Fgs would have come back and fight an air-to-air dogfight vs Wildcats.

I this situation, any TcBs units is more able to inflict bigger damage to naval units than any Fgs.

Hence why, I rather prefer a TcB A3-4D4 to depict air-to-naval combat at a strategical level.

I know, it is not over, you will probably have a different way of depicting this situation.

That’s what I’m hoping for.

I was just trying to show how grounds and naval military targets should be taken in account to describe the combat values of Fgs and TcBs and how they get an impact at a strategical level.
For further reference:
@CWO:

@Uncrustable:

I do not feel tactical bombers should be so weak on defense (2), as they are a fighter/bomber essentially and this makes no logical sense. And being so weak on defense they would no longer be the best all around fighting air unit.

Some WWII tac bombers were quite weak on defense.  The Stuka is perhaps the best example: it did great in Poland and France, where the Luftwaffe had air supremacy, but the Stukas that participated in the Battle of Britain were cut to pieces by RAF fighters (and were soon withdrawn from action) because they weren’t operating in a secure environment.  Torpdedo bombers such as the TBD Devastator were likewise extremely vulerable because their attack runs required them to fly low, level and straight towards their target; at Midway, the American TBDs who attacked the Japanese fleet had (as I recall) close to 100% casualties.  Both the TBD and the Stuka had rear-cockpit machine gunners for self-protection, but those gun positions didn’t seem to make much difference in their survivability.

As I’ve said before and many a time. HRs are HRs I as well as anyone else can love them or hate them; use them or leave them, and do what they please. You will never convince me at the tactical or strategic level that at tactical bomber is better at defense than a fighter. Just my opinion, but trying to bend the TB as this multi-role aircraft (IMO seems to be a modern connotation) is neither historical nor game balancing in any way and does not fit in any way to the game historically or balance-wise, even for the sake of just imagination. I’ve loved and studied WWII especially aircraft all of my life, there is no way in hell that any tactical bomber in WWII is better than a fighter of the same era in dogfighting than a fighter of the same era.

@toblerone77:

A tactical bomber or any bomber of WWII is only as good as it’s air cover. The only reason any bomber of WWII was able to inflict maximum damage/firepower was because of ability to dominate airspace over enemy territory, either through air superiority or absence of sufficient defensive air-cover on the part of the defender.

TBs and StBs rely on the ability to bomb/attack at will. That will is only provided by the absence or inferior defensive measures of fighter aircraft on the part of the defender. Fighter aircraft are the essential key of air superiority. Bomber aircraft are strong because of their ability to attack ground targets from above, if they are harassed in the air, than they cannot be effective against ground targets. Hence the fighter, the defender of the airspace, can hamper the effectiveness of ground attack aircraft because any bomber is easily bested in any air-to-air combat, because their primary job is to harass ground targets not to dogfight with or against aircraft to whose primary job is to destroy other aircraft whether they are bombers of any type or fighter aircraft.

I agree with what your saying.

Now consider this:

On offense StB A4 vs Fg D4, it is an even match.
Even a TcB get A4 if match with Tk, and it is still possibly almost an even match.

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 are killing ground units and, when it is the time for the attacker to lose precious planes, he will retreat.
Results?
Fighters unit on defense is clearly not depicting what your historical post describe of the tactical air superiority use of Fgs over TcBs.

Put them now on offense: Fg A3 vs TcB D3 and StB D1
Now the attacking Fgs have the chance to finish off the precious defenders units.
At least Fgs have a clear advantage over StB:  A3 vs D1.
That’s depict the StB vulnerability.
But again, vs TcB it is an even situation. Fg A3 are not better than TcB D3.
The game system didn’t simulate the tactical situation of air superiority you depicted in your post.

Finally, it comes to Fg A3 vs remaining Fg D4.
That is correct on air to air.
If you agree on air-to-air principle that defending Fgs have an advantage over offensive Fgs.

Do you see how introducing TacB didn’t work well with Fg+ground units vs TcB,  nor ground units vs Fgs on defense either?

The classic interaction or 1942.2 Fg and StB work a little better (at least for Fg on offence, but it is due to StB low D1 rather than to Fg unit A3 in itself), however.
But not the Global TcB and Fgs interaction.

@toblerone77:

As I’ve said before and many a time. HRs are HRs I as well as anyone else can love them or hate them; use them or leave them, and do what they please. You will never convince me at the tactical or strategic level that a tactical bomber is better at defense than a fighter. Just my opinion, but trying to bend the TB as this multi-role aircraft (IMO seems to be a modern connotation) is neither historical nor game balancing in any way and does not fit in any way to the game historically or balance-wise, even for the sake of just imagination. I’ve loved and studied WWII especially aircraft all of my life, there is no way in hell that any tactical bomber in WWII is better than a fighter of the same era in dogfighting than a fighter of the same era.

The G40 A&A strategical level, have a problem when describing the tactical use of TcB and Fg in combat.
And it is because I agree with you on the overwhelming advantage of Fgs over other air units in air-to-air that I see a problem.

In addition,
In A&A combat, there is much more chance that a Fg units come to face other planes when they are on offence over important target (with many grounds unit).
And this situation, of fighter units rolling on defense happen far less often because all players tends to keep planes behind the contested territory.

Going to the limit of this extreme line of reasoning:

It will be a better depiction of planes interaction in the actual game.
If you see Fg attacking to win territory A4D3 (knowing the casualty system will make them eventually fight planes when there will be no more ground units).

While TcB should get A3-4(when escorted by Fg) D4 because most of the time it is a ground casualty which is picked up and the attacker will withdraw when it will risk to loose costlier planes.

Probably too tired here to think straight on this complex interaction between
the symbolic value of a unit such as Fgs,
the strategical aspect of the game (giving it a high Defense @4) and
the tactical combat game mechanics of low value ground casualty taken first.

Compared to the real tactical combat value of Fgs,
and over all historical strategical value of Fgs in naval combat, ASW or Air defense over a territory.

And all the specific interactions with the TcB.

Sorry,

Okay, I think I see Baron’s problem with the attack/defense values of fighters, tac bombers and strat bombers in relation to the difference between air to air combat versus air units attacking ground targets. Yeah, if you look at one unit versus one other unit, perhaps the attack/defense values may not make as much sense in some cases. For example, a tac bomber or strat bomber attacking @ 4 against a fighter defending @ 4 does seem kind of ludicrous. Of course it seems equally ludicrous to think of an infantry defending @ 2 taking out a strategic bomber.
The problem is Axis & Allies had to provide a general attack and defense system to make the game playable and somewhat simple. To say unit A can attack unit B at this value but it can attack unit C at a different value and so on would simply make the combat too complicated and probably scare away all but the most hard core gamers.
Also, I’ve got to say increasing a tac bomber’s defense to 4 and lowering a fighter’s defense to 3 is just silliness. That is not the way to fix your problem, at least not with just general combat situations.
I think the best way to address air to air versus air to ground combat would be to have two separate combat phases (only if both sides have aircraft in the battle). First, you have a special air to air combat phase. Since fighters are definitely the superior craft in strictly air to air combat, perhaps they should attack and defend @ 4, tac bombers perhaps 2 or 3 because they do have some dogfighting ability, just not the same as fighters. Strategic bombers would be low, perhaps attack @ 1 or 0, defend @ 1 or 2. This air to air combat phase would continue until one side or the other has NO planes left.
Then, when the air to air combat phase is complete, then you go to the main battle. In this case, I could see fighters only attacking and defending @ 3 while tac bombers would attack @ defend @ 4. In fact, I would say that even defending strategic bombers could defend @ 4 because they would be defending the territory by flying over the attacking ground forces and bombing them from above (remember, at this point there would be NO attacking aircraft to pester the bombers).
In a case where it is aircraft vs. ground units, attacking or defending fighters would be less effective against ground targets than tac bombers or strat bombers so I could see changing their values now.
Another thing I have considered is the possibility of catching enemy aircraft on the ground. In a lot of the early blitzkrieg battles, one reason the Germans were so successful was that the Luftwaffe managed to strike at many enemy airfields thus eliminating effective air defense from their victims. The US was pretty successful at this as well in several of the later battles of the Pacific war (Philippines, Okinawa, New Guinea).
So, I was wondering if there were some way to incorporate that aspect into this game. Like if you attack an enemy territory that has aircraft, and you are attacking with aircraft, roll a die and if you get a “1”, you catch your enemy off guard and destroy their planes on the ground. A roll of 2-6 would accomplish nothing.
Would this be a good idea? Or too overpowering?

@toblerone77:

A tactical bomber or any bomber of WWII is only as good as it’s air cover. The only reason any bomber of WWII was able to inflict maximum damage/firepower was because of ability to dominate airspace over enemy territory, either through air superiority or absence of sufficient defensive air-cover on the part of the defender.

TBs and StBs rely on the ability to bomb/attack at will. That will is only provided by the absence or inferior defensive measures of fighter aircraft on the part of the defender. Fighter aircraft are the essential key of air superiority. Bomber aircraft are strong because of their ability to attack ground targets from above, if they are harassed in the air, than they cannot be effective against ground targets. Hence the fighter, the defender of the airspace, can hamper the effectiveness of ground attack aircraft because any bomber is easily bested in any air-to-air combat, because their primary job is to harass ground targets not to dogfight with or against aircraft to whose primary job is to destroy other aircraft whether they are bombers of any type or fighter aircraft.

It seems that main planes in WWII Naval warfare was the TcB.

Hence, the Classic Fighter A3D4 which was put on board carrier unit and was able to destroy many costlier warships seems to be mostly an historical TcB of somekind, fighter unable to carry bombs were not the majority of Carrier Air Group 1 fourth to 1 third of all planes,(at the end of WWII, it was a Fg-bomber F4U-Corsair which was the main planes on carriers):

Typical air group composition aboard the Yorktown Class carriers, at the beginning of World War II, consisted of approximately 72 aircraft:

1 fighter squadron (VF) composed of 18 Grumman F4F Wildcats
  1 bombing squadron (VB) composed of 18 Douglas SBD Dauntless dive bombers
   1 scouting squadron (VS) composed of 18 Douglas SBD Dauntless dive bombers
   1 torpedo squadron (VT) composed of 18 Douglas TBD Devastator, TBF or TBM torpedo bombers
During the course of the war in the Pacific the compositions of the air groups changed drastically. The scouting squadrons were disestablished by early 1943 and the number of fighter planes was increased continuously. Typically in 1943 an Essex class carrier carried 36 fighter planes, 36 bombers and 18 torpedo planes.

In addition, as I said earlier, it was the TcB which can go to the kill against a submarine, not a Fighters. So at a zoom out scale with a lot of different units interaction it seems to me that TcBs was the most useful plane. And the most able to inflict damage.

For example,  TBF Avenger torpedo-bomber was the ASW which provides cover for carriers in Pacific and Atlantic giving:

Besides the traditional surface role (torpedoing surface ships), Avengers claimed about 30 submarine kills, including the cargo submarine I-52. They were one of the most effective sub-killers in the Pacific theatre, as well as in the Atlantic, when escort carriers were finally available to escort Allied convoys. There, the Avengers contributed to the warding off of German U-Boats while providing air cover for the convoys.

So, when talking about A/D value it seems that only bombers can deliver the @4. Whether on offence or on defence situation.
Based on this I see at least a TcB unit as A3-4D3-4 on most of the A&A situation which rarely get to a real planes vs planes combat.

It is only in air-to-air defense which Fgs provides the superiority.

And as the Midway battle shows up, even without air-cover escorting Fgs, TacB (dive-bombers) were able to take down big targets.

So the main historical attribute of Fg is to give a bonus to TcB in combat situation.
Fg A3D3 giving +1 A/D when paired 1:1 to TcB.

And the main historical attribute of TcB is to receive this bonus at least on offence (OOB), which somehow depicted, at a tactical combat level bonus of this strategical game, the historical impact of having some escorted TcBs air-squadrons by Fighters in many missions:
TcB A3-4D3-4 get +1 A/D when paired 1:1 to Fg unit.

It is only in SBR which Fgs advantage should have been clear.
At least, you cannot use a TcB unit to protect IC, NB or AB.
Only Fgs can take off, but on offence all planes get to roll A1 vs the defending Fgs.

So, by elimination, since the game have no evident spot to rightly create an accurate place to an Air Supremacy unit, and since the name Strat or Tac “bombers” have a large symbolic “attacking” echo, hence give the best defense D@4 to the counter-part of TcB plane unit in the game.

As a matter of fact, there is some room to increase the place of a defensive Fgs put on Light Carriers for the defensive covers of Fleet Carriers while their own planes were on mission further away:

Each fast carrier was assigned an air group of two to four squadrons.  Heavy carriers accommodated approximately 100 aircraft while light carriers accommodated approximately 33.  After the navys TBD squadrons were decimated at Midway the TBF/TBM Avenger became the standard torpedo bomber on U.S. carriers.  A heavy carrier air group had between 12-18 Avengers and a light carrier air group had 9 Avengers.

The SBD was the standard dive bomber for the first half of the war and was replaced by the SB2C in 1944.  In 1943 a heavy group had 36 SBD and a light carrier group had 9 SBD.  **As fighters became more capable and the kamikaze threat emerged fighters were substituted for dive bombers so that by the end of the war the standard bomber complement of a heavy group was 15 SB2C and 15 TBM.  **

The F4F was the standard carrier fighter in 1942.  It was replaced by the F6F in 1943 which in turn was supplemented by the F4U in 1945.  The number of fighters on heavy carriers grew from 18 at the beginning of 1942 to 73 in 1945.  The fighter complement on light carriers grew from 12 in 1943 to 24 in 1945.  For Olympic, heavy carrier fighter complements were to be reduced to 56 and light carrier groups would contain only fighters.  The planned light carrier complement initially was three dozen F6Fs or F4Us with the ultimate goal of four dozen of the smaller F8Fs.  F8F equipped air groups were in the pipeline to the Western Pacific as the war ended.

http://alliedairforces.com/Fast Carriers/default.htm

See this post below:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33181.msg1268236#msg1268236

@knp7765:

Okay, I think I see Baron’s problem with the attack/defense values of fighters, tac bombers and strat bombers in relation to the difference between air to air combat versus air units attacking ground targets. Yeah, if you look at one unit versus one other unit, perhaps the attack/defense values may not make as much sense in some cases. For example, a tac bomber or strat bomber attacking @ 4 against a fighter defending @ 4 does seem kind of ludicrous. Of course it seems equally ludicrous to think of an infantry defending @ 2 taking out a strategic bomber.
The problem is Axis & Allies had to provide a general attack and defense system to make the game playable and somewhat simple. To say unit A can attack unit B at this value but it can attack unit C at a different value and so on would simply make the combat too complicated and probably scare away all but the most hard core gamers.
Also, I’ve got to say increasing a tac bomber’s defense to 4 and lowering a fighter’s defense to 3 is just silliness. That is not the way to fix your problem, at least not with just general combat situations.
I think the best way to address air to air versus air to ground combat would be to have two separate combat phases (only if both sides have aircraft in the battle). First, you have a special air to air combat phase. Since fighters are definitely the superior craft in strictly air to air combat, perhaps they should attack and defend @ 4, tac bombers perhaps 2 or 3 because they do have some dogfighting ability, just not the same as fighters. Strategic bombers would be low, perhaps attack @ 1 or 0, defend @ 1 or 2. This air to air combat phase would continue until one side or the other has NO planes left.

Then, when the air to air combat phase is complete, then you go to the main battle. In this case, I could see fighters only attacking and defending @ 3 while tac bombers would attack @ defend @ 4. In fact, I would say that even defending strategic bombers could defend @ 4 because they would be defending the territory by flying over the attacking ground forces and bombing them from above (remember, at this point there would be NO attacking aircraft to pester the bombers).
In a case where it is aircraft vs. ground units, attacking or defending fighters would be less effective against ground targets than tac bombers or strat bombers so I could see changing their values now.
Another thing I have considered is the possibility of catching enemy aircraft on the ground. In a lot of the early blitzkrieg battles, one reason the Germans were so successful was that the Luftwaffe managed to strike at many enemy airfields thus eliminating effective air defense from their victims. The US was pretty successful at this as well in several of the later battles of the Pacific war (Philippines, Okinawa, New Guinea).
So, I was wondering if there were some way to incorporate that aspect into this game. Like if you attack an enemy territory that has aircraft, and you are attacking with aircraft, roll a die and if you get a “1”, you catch your enemy off guard and destroy their planes on the ground. A roll of 2-6 would accomplish nothing.
Would this be a good idea? Or too overpowering?

Without talking directly on a topic about HR development, I could say that you describe many aspects which I consider about the game or the historical aspect. I bolded them.
When it covers some HR dimension, I just see it as an illustration of where it could have go, having much time to think about. And now, there is also the 1914 A&A mechanics which can give other kind of Larry Harris endorsement rules mechanisms.

For now, I’m mostly concerned about the way “we see offence and defence” for air units, and specifically TcB, at a strategical games which is not intended to be a total war simulation of WWII.

@Razor:

@Baron:

The usual situation of casualty picking in A&A is aircrafts hitting ground targets, hence a Stuka is far more effective than a Spitfire to destroy a tank. And I should add that a Helldiver TcB is far better than a Hellcat Fgt to destroy a IJN Musashi Battleship.

Even if your facts are correct, and I agree with you most of the time, the trick will be to make a HR that is so smooth, elegant and simple, that the casual A&A player that happens to be in your basement, agree to play by it, and not the lame OOB rulebook.

Combat in the real world seems to have some kind of sequenced fire phases, where specialized weapon systems can target specific units, and kill them before they can return fire. A Battleship have big long range guns, and can sink a Cruiser before it reach the range to shoot back. The artillery barrage loop shells into the infantry trench, and there is no way the infantry can kill that artillery. Heavy Bombers can carpet bomb infantry from high altitude and the infantry have no way to defend against it.

But then it will not longer be A&A

You are describing tactical situations which need to be translated somehow in a Strategical game.
I agree on this:
“the trick will be to make a HR that is so smooth, elegant and simple, that the casual A&A player that happens to be in your basement, agree to play by it, and not the lame OOB rulebook.”

It is not an easy task, very often as I revised some old ideas I saw easily how far I am from it.
But, sometimes a simpler solution arise. And I’m the most happy man because of the simplest joy of the discovery.  :-D

And now, there is also the 1914 A&A mechanics which can give other kind of Larry Harris endorsement rules mechanisms.

About this 1914 mechanisms, just an example,
1 Fg could be a unit A3D3M4 which can
provides an upgrade +1 A/D to Artillery or Destroyer when paired 1:1 or
+1 A/D to all Art in a territory/DD units in a SZ, if having an Air Supremacy (no plane on the other side).
Or an Air Superiority bonus : having more Fgs on one side (since the game mechanics do not allow direct hit from air to air when there is still ground units)

Hence, giving it a scout and patrol ability.
So, in itself Fg units with a cannon and machine guns on wings it is not more dangerous than a flying Tank but could provide a real advantage to his side.

I’m not discussing HR, I’m just showing some new direction which can be provided inside 1914, rules mechanics.

@CWO:

At Midway, the American torpedo bombers were slaughtered by the defending Zeros, and the late-arriving American dive-bombers were greatly helped in striking their targets successfully by the fact that the Zeros had been pulled down from their combat air patrol stations by going after the early-arriving enemy torpedo bombers, thus leaving the carriers with no fighter cover.

Does this tactical situation is sufficiently iconic to justify the defensive combat value of Fg units?

It is true that a part of the Fgs in Carrier Air Group (CAG) from the fleet carrier or other carriers in the Task Force was most of the time in the air for close protection of carriers naval group.

But someone can rationalize it as a Defensive roll of carrier A0D2.
The patrolling CAG is an intrinsic part of the defensive combat value.

If we forget about the fact, that on strategical level, it was a Japanese offensive and considered it on the reverse side as a USA military attack in a SZ nearby Midway SZ.

@Baron:

@Razor:

@Baron:

The usual situation of casualty picking in A&A is aircrafts hitting ground targets, hence a Stuka is far more effective than a Spitfire to destroy a tank. And I should add that a Helldiver TcB is far better than a Hellcat Fgt to destroy a IJN Musashi Battleship.

Even if your facts are correct, and I agree with you most of the time, the trick will be to make a HR that is so smooth, elegant and simple, that the casual A&A player that happens to be in your basement, agree to play by it, and not the lame OOB rulebook.

Combat in the real world seems to have some kind of sequenced fire phases, where specialized weapon systems can target specific units, and kill them before they can return fire. A Battleship have big long range guns, and can sink a Cruiser before it reach the range to shoot back. The artillery barrage loop shells into the infantry trench, and there is no way the infantry can kill that artillery. Heavy Bombers can carpet bomb infantry from high altitude and the infantry have no way to defend against it.

But then it will not longer be A&A

You are describing tactical situations which need to be translated somehow in a Strategical game.
I agree on this:
“the trick will be to make a HR that is so smooth, elegant and simple, that the casual A&A player that happens to be in your basement, agree to play by it, and not the lame OOB rulebook.”

It is not an easy task, very often as I revised some old ideas I saw easily how far I am from it.
But, sometimes a simpler solution arise. And I’m the most happy man because of the simplest joy of the discovery.  :-D

That is easily done if you leave the stats OOB, except allow TBs to defend at +1 when paired with a fighter. You could even do this with the StB if you really wanted to.

@Baron:

@CWO:

At Midway, the American torpedo bombers were slaughtered by the defending Zeros, and the late-arriving American dive-bombers were greatly helped in striking their targets successfully by the fact that the Zeros had been pulled down from their combat air patrol stations by going after the early-arriving enemy torpedo bombers, thus leaving the carriers with no fighter cover.

But, in Midway, I see the IJN on offense and the USN on defense.

In game terms, it means that Japanese Fighters are A3 and US TcB D3 also.
Same combat level.

Let’s suppose instead it was US Fgs which have found the carriers what have had happened?
The carriers would have been machine gun crippled, then Japanese Fgs would have come back and fight an air-to-air dogfight vs Wildcats.

I this situation, any TcBs units is more able to inflict bigger damage to naval units than any Fgs.

Hence why, I rather prefer a TcB A3-4D4 to depict air-to-naval combat at a strategical level.

I know, it is not over, you will probably have a different way of depicting this situation.

That’s what I’m hoping for.

I was just trying to show how grounds and naval military targets should be taken in account to describe the combat values of Fgs and TcBs and how they get an impact at a strategical level.

You could consider the US on offense as well. The US cracked the Japanese codes thus knowing they were planning an attack and essentially set up an ambush.