[House Rules] Tactical Bombers and their use

@toblerone77:

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.)

@toblerone77:

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.

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.)

I was curious to look what was the historical background and basis of this assumption about TacB against Fg vs Subs.
I was surprised that my intuitive thinking have some truth behind:
I just discovered that the Fighter F4F Wildcat was part of Antisubmarine Warfare and was able to sink 21 Submarines U-boats but never by itself. All of them were credited to another aircraft also.

Service in the Atlantic Ocean

Best known for their contributions in the Pacific, the Wildcats and Martlets also gave reputable service in the Atlantic. This usually took the form of operating from an escort carrier attached to a convoy or a hunter-killer group. These Wildcats were responsible for intercepting German bombers and, in conjunction with other types, finding and attacking U-boats. The six-gun armaments of the F4F-4, Martlet II, and Martlet IV were particularly effective in suppressing the anti-aircraft guns of the U-boats so that larger, slower bombers could more safely attack with depth bombs or homing torpedoes. The threat of strafing by a Wildcat would often persuade a U-boat to submerge, reducing the chance of catching a convoy. Additionally, the Wildcats could summon bombers and surface escorts to engage U-boats. Known to be rugged and forgiving, the Wildcat’s performance limitations were not a significant handicap in the Atlantic, where there were no enemy fighters to contend with.

U-boats lost to Wildcat/Martlet aircraft

(When fighting U-boat Wildcat normally shielded her larger sister the Avenger while the latter dropped depth charges or acoustic torpedoes. Both planes were given credit in such cases.)

http://uboat.net/allies/aircraft/wildcat.htm

On the contrary, TBF Avenger were clearly part of Submarine killing:

Service in the Atlantic Ocean

In the Atlantic, the Avenger was the obvious choice for use aboard British and American escort carriers in screening convoys and hunting down U-boats. Avengers would sight surfaced U-boats, and swoop down on them in a glide bombing approach, releasing multiple 250-pound, 325-pound, or (most often) 500-pound depth bombs. If the U-boat put up accurate flak, the Avenger pilot might choose to circle out of range wait for other aircraft to assist. Grumman Wildcat fighters, with either four or six heavy machine guns, were often effective at subduing the U-boat’s flak battery so that the Avengers could more safely make their attacks. Later the Avenger’s arsenal included rockets for use on surfaced U-boats and, after mid-1943, a super-secret anti-submarine homing torpedo known as the Mark 24 Fido (also called Zombie). Various versions of the Avenger were fitted with radar for finding submarines or surface ships, with sonobuoys to track submerged submarines, and with flares and searchlights for illuminating potential targets at night. Avengers were known to carry combinations of these devices, such as two 500-pound depth bombs, one Fido, radar, flares, and sonobuoys.

American escort carrier air groups sank, or assisted in sinking, 35 submarines in the Atlantic. Most, perhaps all, of these kills must have been made by Avengers. To this total must be added the achievements of British Avengers. Additionally, Avengers flew anti-submarine patrols from land bases, and laid mines.

http://uboat.net/allies/aircraft/avenger.htm

This means to me that, from an historical POV, against submarine unit, a TacB unit should be better over the Fg unit.
So I think there is room to improve the historical representation of TcB and Fg units in A&A G40.

Maybe TacBomber unit should have (along with StBs) a specific capacity against Submarine unit.
Or
While giving Fgs an Anti-aircraft capacity, at the same time, making them unable to destroy Submarine unit.
This could better reenact somehow the historical difference amongst these 2 G40 sculpts and sharpen the role of this new TcB unit, given each a more clearer identity, even with a strategical game level such as A&A G40.

As a side note, here someone talking from first hand:

Here is a canadian !!!  :evil: CVL HMCS Magnificent (a Majestic-class CVL-21) Launch in nov. 1944 but only commissionned 1948.
25 knots, 12 000 nmiles, 37 planes on board.
Around 4min. 40s. the captain of this Light Carrier unit says:
He had 2 types of planes on board:
anti-submarines aircrafts ASW (Avengers) and
fighters aircrafts against planes to protect the carrier.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Zvnz06-MRc

@Baron:

It is possible to get both world : fun, historical, and balance.
Fg A3D3C9 all the rest as OOB.
TcB A3D4C11 all the rest as OOB.

I think the game designers missed a great opportunity here. The new Tac should get the old fighters stats, A3D4 C10, just with a new name. Then the new fighter could be a A1D2 C8 unit, that was needed in the Air to air combat in SBR, and for scrambling, and fodder in big battles.

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.

@Razor:

I think the game designers missed a great opportunity here. The new Tac should get the old fighters stats, A3D4 C10, just with a new name. Then the new fighter could be a A1D2 C8 unit, that was needed in the Air to air combat in SBR, and for scrambling, and fodder in big battles.

Yes. That’s what I think too.

@Baron:

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.

@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?