Coming back to the topic:
TcB and Tk seems more offensive kind of units, even if the basic value is for both off and def: A3D3.
Is it possible to understand the in-game aircrafts defense over own territory by TcB or Fg, as being nearer their airfields and nearer the front line (being more able to replenish with ease) than the aircraft on offense?
For example, during the Russian campaign, can we believe that Russian planes have a shorter distance to travel before engaging Luftwaffe over ground units?
(First part of Kursk Battle, when Germany launch the offensive?
2000 German’s planes vs 2700 Russian’s planes with many Sturmovik TcBs amongst them.)Can this be a sufficient justification to allow a +1 bonus for both situation A/D to Tk supported by TcB?
I’m still wandering how can we depict a defensive Tank maneuver supported by Tactical bombers.
Any ideas?
You could always just have TacB roll @4 in naval combat in all situations to simulate dive bomber / torpedo strikes. Or maybe simply 1st round sneak attack capability for dropping those torpedos.
There are probably synergies to be had pairing specific naval units together as certain naval units moved much faster than others creating the ability to attack and withdraw before the larger ships could navigate into position to retaliate. But, from by observation normally navies are kept in a big rolling mess so it would become overtly confusing to move up this cruiser to defend at 4, or this destroyer to attack @2.
One thing I always questioned was why aircraft in a zone were not on “patrol” and you could simply fly over them. I’ve suggested before that AB allow aircraft to basically be “on station” and “on patrol” and the defending nation could roll @2 or less to detect and intercept aircraft flying over the territory which would initiate combat and stop units from flying to their intended destination. If you didn’t have an AB, you could roll@1 to detect and intercept. Most of this use would probably be seen in the Pacific, but there are probably a few places in Europe where there could be strategic value for such a HR.
@Baron:
If not, then there is no compelling historical reason to not provide this:
**C-
- Give 1 Carrier unit 1 preemptive AA@1 on defense when paired with 1 Cruiser or 1 BB.
- Give 1 Carrier unit 2 preemptives AA@1 on defense when paired with 2 Cruisers or 2 BBs or 1 CA & 1 BB unit.**
This discussion is starting to look as if it could go on indefinitely without getting anywhere other than where you keep wanting it to go, so I’m not going to spend any more time on it. The simplest solution to your problem would be for you to just give your units whatever bonuses you’re eager to give them, without your going to the trouble of proposing one increasingly complicated theory after another to try to justify on historic grounds why they should get those bonuses.
@CWO:
@Baron:
If not, then there is no compelling historical reason to not provide this:
**C-
- Give 1 Carrier unit 1 preemptive AA@1 on defense when paired with 1 Cruiser or 1 BB.
- Give 1 Carrier unit 2 preemptives AA@1 on defense when paired with 2 Cruisers or 2 BBs or 1 CA & 1 BB unit.**
This discussion is starting to look as if it could go on indefinitely without getting anywhere other than where you keep wanting it to go, so I’m not going to spend any more time on it. The simplest solution to your problem would be for you to just give your units whatever bonuses you’re eager to give them, without your going to the trouble of proposing one increasingly complicated theory after another to try to justify on historic grounds why they should get those bonuses.
Sorry, if you got this impression that I have an agenda on this point. The 3 versions of HR were their to provide illustrations of different ways of trying to depict the historical situation of BB and CA providing Anti-Air support to carrier.
Excuse me if my last post was confusing, English is not my mother tongue and sometimes I have the impression of carving woods with a butter knife…
Trying to be straight to the point:
1- Cruisers and Battleships have a lot of Anti-air guns.
2- Both can be used to provide anti-air cover for the carriers,
in addition it was an explicit purpose and mission for fast US Battleship.
3- There is a special defensive formation develop during the war to provide a maximum air-cover to Carrier:
the concentrics rings going from the outward to the inward: DD, CAs, BBs, CVs.
Based on combined arms bonus as a way of depicting Fg providing escort and support to TcB, you applied this idea in the Carriers group and naval combat.
My interrogation was about these historicals points and the way to translate them in a significant way in game terms.
Do you know how effective the 4 concentrics rings of warships was and if one type in the group was missing it makes a difference or not? So, was it more accurate to give a better AAA cover to the full Carriers group Task Force or not?
Here a different illustration, and simplified, of what it can means in game:
Point 1 and 2 can be illustrated by
Version A-
“When 1 Cruiser or 1 BB is paired to a CV, give them an AAA cover @1 against up to 3 planes, as a regular AAA fire.”
vs
Point 3 can be more illustrated by
Version D-
" Only when both Cruiser and BB are paired to a CV, you give it, as a whole, an AAA cover @1 against up to 3 planes, as a regular AAA fire."
How far can we go to give a special AAA cover status to the 4 rings defensive formation?
I thought it was one of the main reason of the efficiency of the “Marianas Turkey’s shoot”, as the documentary seems to underlined it.
KISS Baron KISS. :-D
@Baron:
@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.
(…)
And we cannot limit the TcB vs Fg to air-to-air combat here.
(…)
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.
I’ve just read an interesting description of the 2 different ways for Fgs of doing escort mission.
This example here is based on the US SBR against Germany, but it can probably also apply to German’s SBR against UK, as describe in the first quote above:
Those fighters are talented; they can multi task. And honestly, this is exactly what the USA did when they were bombing Germany, yes strategically bombing them. At first they kept the escorts close to the bombers and the Luftwaffe would just hit and run at will and the fighters couldn’t pursue. When the americans gave the orders for the fighters to roam free, it helped them go from air superiority to air supremacy (edit) but it was hell on the bombers. Note that these fighters still came over as escorts, but once the interceptors showed up, their top priority was air superiority not bomber protection.
During Big Week in February of 1944, one of the purposes of the major series of bombing attacks was to use the bombers as bait to draw up the Luftwaffe defensive fighters to be engaged by the US fighter escorts. The purpose was to increase losses to the Luftwaffe fighter command prior to the D-Day invasion.
http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1669&hilit=dogfight+phase&start=16
If this tactical use of Fgs with StBs and TcBs is a genuine and historical one, was it somehow depicted or not by the new OOB SBR rules?
Is there a way to depict these historical Fgs escorting tactics inside SBR OOB rules or is it just another sacrifice made for game simplicity?
As I noted above, the depiction of Fg as an Air superiority weapon was given up in the second edition of G40 SBR interception rule.
Maybe it could be different with this other dual escort tactics?
The poster describe this tactical situation here (the OOB SBR, at that time, was based on the “StB and TcB are always choose as the first casualty”:
The old rule was that the escorts could never be taken as losses.
The new rule is that the escorts probably will be taken as losses, it’s the losing players choice.
My proposal is that if the escorts are restricted in their role, they have limited ability to score hits, however, by staying close to the bombers they make it more likely that they will be taken as a casualty, the losing player gets to decide their losses.
If on the other hand, the escorts are allowed to pursue interceptors, they are more effective at shooting them down (hit on a 2 or less), but in that case, they are not as effective at protecting the bombers, therefore, the interceptors get to choose their hits.
I can understand your objection to the firing player getting to choose the lost units as being un-axis and allies, but the reality is that we already had something like this in the old rules (at least the bombers were chosen as losses).
So if the escorts are allowed to pursue enemy interceptors, the losing player loses bombers first,
if the escorts are tight to the bombers, lose fighters first, that takes choice out of the equation, like it better?I guess what I’m hearing from you is that you like the idea of all fighters and bombers shooting at 1 at the same time, fair enough, you’re entitled to your opinion. It makes it almost impossible for the Battle of Britain to take place however, since it’s very easy for the German player to overwhelm the British air defence forces.
http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=6491&start=136
I think that Corriganbp try as best as he can to depict in game terms this historical situation.
Maybe, there is still a way to see the OOB SBR to fit in this description. IDK.
Any idea?
Otherwise, this guy picked up another element of inconsistency with the actual OOB Fg unit A1/D1 during SBR.
At least, the TcBs can be better describe as a victim of UK Air command (not exactly RAF fighters but better than nothing) while bringing them as “escorts” for StB. Especially when no AB or NB needed to be bombard (because already max-out damaged) but, and contrary to Fgs, nonetheless have to roll against the in-built AAA @1 of NB or AB.
@ChocolatePancake:
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.
@CWO:
As I recall (…) 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.
I played my first game with the new SBR system and I think it is perfect and should not be changed a bit. We saw more raids in the last game then all previous alpha 3 games combined. Both sides were conducting them. Even though I advocated for interceptors and escorts rolling at 2 or less, I like that everything rolls at a one. It makes me more willing to conduct raids that are out of my escorts range because the interceptors are only rolling 1s.
http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=6491&start=144
Maybe it is harder to have an accurate description of Fighters on escort mission and air superiority in SBR, at least the game have his way to depict the historical long range StB runs (move 6+1) without Fgs (move 4+1) escorts.
Trying to depict the two escorting fighters tactics with an additional HR inside the actual G40 OOB SBR escort and interception rules, I come to this:
It would be an attacker’s choice whether he chooses the close-escort mission or an Offensive Counter-Air mission.
Close-escort mission:
When playing as OOB SBR (all @1), it is like Fgs are providing close-escort to bombers.Offensive Counter-Air mission version A:
Air-to-Air combat phase in SBR with Fgs actively chasing intercepting Fgs :
All attacking Fgs can roll A@1. Remove casualties.
All other planes (TcBs, StBs and defending Fgs) roll A/D @1. Remove casualties.
Then, defending Fgs roll D@1 a second cycle inside the A-to-A phase.
And all hits in this second cycle are allocated to bombers. Remove casualties.Proceed to SBR over IC, NB or AB.
AAA fires against StB and TcB.
Then roll damage as OOB.I think it is a way to simulate the two tactics at a Strategical level game.
It can give a better historical feel and variation of attacking SBR strategy, at least on this point, than just the actual OOB.
Attacking Fighters get a preemptive strike, and any hit is also a way of protecting bombers,
while defending Fgs get special treatment on the second cycle: a second chance to make a hit @1 on bombers specifically.In addition, maybe the comparison can provide us a way to explain why Fgs are not better than bombers and stay A/D @1:
the escorts are restricted in their role, they have limited ability to score hits, however, by staying close to the bombers they make it more likely that they will be taken as a casualty, the losing player gets to decide their losses.
If on the other hand, the escorts are allowed to pursue interceptors, they are more effective at shooting them down, but in that case, they are not as effective at protecting the bombers, therefore, the interceptors get to choose their hits.
On one part, we can say that for escorting Fgs providing cover impaired all of them, moving at a slower pace and keeping an eye on bombers.
On the other part, defending interceptors are also somewhat impaired by the defensive formation of Bombers and Fgs, so they didn’t get any advantage of the “flying over homeland territory” would normally provide against less maneuverable target.
So, after all, Fgs get A1D1 while the rest of TcBs and StBs just getting A1 but D0.
(And based upon IPC cost, it is just enough to say a Fg unit is slightly better than the rest.)
In summary, about Offensive Counter-Air mission :
The first cycle is a regular for defending planes, because they have to scramble and can be caught off guard by attacking Fgs. They get the superiority once in the air.The first cycle of SBR interception phase is as OOB, except for attacking Fgs.
The second cycle is for surviving defending Fgs which get an advantage since there is no close-escort Fgs for Bombers.In addition, this can provide a distinctive ability toward Fgs vs TcBs.
This HR was only a way to depict in game term this historical tactics, but if there is already a way to rationalize it inside OOB rules, feel free to develop it, so it can add a layer of historical depiction and feeling toward Fighter unit.
EDIT:
Here is another way of depicting this Offensive Counter Air-Mission version B:What could happened historically?
A typical example from the Battle of Britain:
A flight of Ju88, He111 and Do17 Bombers sent in to bomb British ABs with a group of 109’s in support.
A group of Spitfires and Hurricanes comes up to intercept.
The 109s jump the interceptors.
The interceptors try to blow by the escorts and get at the bombers.Escorts are flying in ahead of the Bombers and meet the interceptors before the wing of Bombers.
Escorts and Interceptors fight one round.
Escorts and interceptors roll on A/D@1. Remove casualties.
Then, escorting and intercepting Fgs and Bombers all roll on A/D@1. Remove casualties, but Bombers are taken as casualties.
Then, AAA fire, remove casualties.
Proceed to bombing damage.
On one part, we can say that for escorting Fgs providing cover impaired all of them, moving at a slower pace and keeping an eye on bombers.
On the other part, defending interceptors are also somewhat impaired by the defensive formation of Bombers and Fgs, so they didn’t get any advantage of the “flying over homeland territory” would normally provide against less maneuverable target.
So, after all, Fgs get A1D1 while the rest of TcBs and StBs just getting A1 but D0.
(And based upon IPC cost, it is just enough to say a Fg unit is slightly better than the rest.)
Thinking about this, maybe a combined arms bonus for Fgs escorting TcBs and StBs should be provided in SBR, or a disadvantage of not a having Fgs on his side.
Example:
If there is no attacking Fgs, then all defending Fgs interceptors can roll a preemptive strike @1.
Once the casualties are removed, attacking TcBs and StBs can make there attack rolls against Fgs interceptors.
I also found something similar and interesting, developed by IL, about how Fg can negate some offensive capacity of a StB:
OK look at this:
perhaps bombers stay at normal values if the defense has no air support.
If planes are on both sides, the bombers effectiveness goes down to 3-1-6
Think of it like a reverse bonus.
Fighters and Tactical boost the tactical +1 on attack.
Bombers attacking against enemy force that includes fighters -1 on attack.
http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=9150&start=72
About the way of seeing TcB vs Fg and, even StB in an historical perspective, I must show an excerpt of this interesting post from Wild Bill, he briefly describes the evolution of units in A&A with the introduction of new ones.
In addition, it suggested an interesting way of giving more depth to Fg as an escorting unit with combined arms method in addition to an Air Base, but this time with a StB (I made some edit work on it):
BUT….strat bombers IN THE GAME are being used for everything BUT strat bombing. so i guess if players dont WANT strat bombing to be a viable tactic used in the game and they want to keep using strat bombers as the long arm of the seas…than leave it as is. it obviously works, the strat bomber has gotten us this far in the games history. why tweak it.
but if “economic warefare” is to ever be a viable and integral part of the game, the rules need to be tweaked because right now, strat bombing and convoy raiding either dont happen or are back a** wards.
no one does these tactics IN THE GAME with any real “plan” to do them; they are done some times but always as an after thought.
Thanks Yope, you have hit on several points.
The first being the game system itself. Each unit can have multiple roles, but has a blanket value for attack, def, and movement. The pairing of units allow for some modifications with-in the system (art giving inf an attack boost when paired, and the tac/ftr, tac/tank como etc…)
That’s why I thought that a ftr strictly doing escort duties for an SBR run could get +1 range. So the pairing rule would be for each strat bmr you have doing a bombing run, one ftr gets +1 range to escort it. That way a bmr/ftr pair could make it from UK (London) to W Germany and return together. They would have to both start in the same tt (London in this case), but could land separately if you want, (like a ftr lands on a carrier?). This would kinda bring the AB into play, because in the above situation the frt would need the +1 from the AB and +1 for bmr escort pairing to perform the mission and return to London (6 spaces).
The 6 sided dice also restricts these values a bit, but modifications like +2 for bmrs in SBR bandages that to a point.
As the game has evolved, new units have developed (art, cruiser, tac bmr) to give the game more dimension (or to fill a gap). Some of the original base units have had slight tweaks to allow for these new units to exists, or to mesh into the current system. Some revisions like when the cruiser was added called for a tweak to destroyers. DD no longer got bombardment, and its attack value & cost went down (2-2-2-8 unit) when the cruiser was introduced. Now the dd is used primarily vs subs (also as blockers, or as sea fodder). Anniversary (AA50) saw the cost of many units lowered, as some new units were added.
When the tac was added to the line up in G40, really nothing else was changed to the air units (cost of the bmer was already lowered in AA50). The other values for the bmr stayed the same. It could have been easier to make a change to the bmr back when the tac was introduced (might have been more exceptable by the masses), making it more of an SBR unit (like the dd primary use is vs subs). IDK, maybe the values and role of the strat bmr was looked at then, but was left as is (and here we are).
I will say that in the game we are in right now we lowered the attack value and cost of the bomber by one making it a 3-1-6-11 unit. We are only in the 3rd turn, but let me tell you the axis player(s) hate it. It was the unit of choice for a casualty for the Germans in the opening round sea battles (although he may regret it later losing a range unit). Every time a battle occurs that has a bmr in it all I here from the Japs is that should have been a hit etc….LOL. The Germans won’t be doing SBR runs, because he lost both starting bmrs G1 (I don’t see him buying any). Now we haven’t seen the other side of the coin yet, as the USA is still on the sidelines. I think lowering the cost was a mistake, maybe keeping it at 12 IPCs would make the German player think twice about keeping it, and the US won’t get a cost reduction if he decides to buy into them.
Yope, I agree that an AB restriction for the bmr shouldn’t happen. No other unit does this, and Larry doesn’t like exceptions. You certainly don’t want it in play for SBR, because it would hamper it even more.
As far as concentration of production/targets, G40 has more production ares (ICs) then any of the global games, and the intro of the bases gives new targets. Most of the high production territories have bases that can also be bombed which aids in SBR IMO because you can also bring in your tacs for the dog fight. I see what you mean though as far having to protect more tt’s if there were more factories etc… you would have to def more tt leaving some w/o interceptors. Fewer dog fights may lead to more SBR. Right now to bomb W Germany or London can be tough because it is also were the enemy air force is in most cases.
Maybe you should be able to somehow bomb these higher IPC producing tt w/o a facility. Like S Germany for instance is worth 3 IPCs. You know that the tt contributes to the German econ, but the only way for you to do something is to capture it. Could you do a limited SBR on such tt’s? IDK.
The recent changes to the function/role of the AA gun also makes its mark here. Facilities having built-in AA that is always on (even if the base/IC is rendered in operational) is contributory to the lack of SBR IMO. Built in AA should probably be limited to 3 shots (like regular AA is now), and if you shut down a facilities abilities then maybe its built-in AA gun also gets shut down. If they don’t fix it, you get to hit it again if you want w/o the risk of AA fire. In the old days if he moved his AA gun out, that was a great target of opportunity. At least allow a certain amount of damage to have the same effect (no AA fire) which leads me to my final point…
I believe that it is too easy to repair the damage of both minor ICs & bases to get their abilities back. It should cost more then 4 IPCs to get it running again when maxed out. I still contend that you should be able to bomb these facilities to 2/3’s of there cost just like a major IC. Everything else stays the same as far as 3 damage renders it in-operable.
http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=9150&start=96
All this let me believe that it is not only TcB and Fg which were not quite able to give a good symbolic historical feel, but even StB, as all the three planes interactions can be delineated and defined in a more consistent way with major historical components.
Just to add an interesting historical details on StB accuracy:
Bombers use their defence value of 1 when they attack ships. Remember that the UK Lancaster Heavy bombers used 2 years and more than 30 attempts before they sunk Tirpitz.
One thing I always questioned was why aircraft in a zone were not on “patrol” and you could simply fly over them. I’ve suggested before that AB allow aircraft to basically be “on station” and “on patrol” and the defending nation could roll @2 or less to detect and intercept aircraft flying over the territory which would initiate combat and stop units from flying to their intended destination. If you didn’t have an AB, you could roll@1 to detect and intercept. Most of this use would probably be seen in the Pacific, but there are probably a few places in Europe where there could be strategic value for such a HR.
This specific point of your post should be treated and develop in this thread on Airbase, it seems a way to enhanced its impacts by adding some historical aspects, I believe:
Planes from Airbases or carriers scrambling to defend adjacent territories.
@knp7765:
Okay, I know this goes against the rules, but it seems to me that your planes stationed on an Airbase or even on an Aircraft Carrier should be able to scramble to defend adjacent territories. Now, planes on a regular territory (no Airbase) could not do this because they are considered “in the field” and would not be available for a quick response (lack of communications, etc.).
(…)
You could always just have TacB roll @4 in naval combat in all situations to simulate dive bomber / torpedo strikes. Or maybe simply 1st round sneak attack capability for dropping those torpedos.
I believe the main historical objections against an A4D4 TcB is this kind of situation is described here:
@CWO:
In another House Rules thread (I can’t recall which one) where this whole subject came up, I expressed skepticism 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.
You need to provide some alternate historical rationalization for TcBs to allow an unescorted A4 to them against defending Fgs.
There are probably synergies to be had pairing specific naval units together as certain naval units moved much faster than others creating the ability to attack and withdraw before the larger ships could navigate into position to retaliate. But, from by observation normally navies are kept in a big rolling mess so it would become overtly confusing to move up this cruiser to defend at 4, or this destroyer to attack @2.
The one kind of combined arms which is the nearest of what you described here is about Submarines-only fleet working apart from the main surface warships and being more elusive and dangerous in wolf-pack.
A few months ago, I created a HR thread on this point for Subs, brought in by Cmdr Jen:
@Baron:
Some people have introduce the historical idea that BB unit can no more attack subs but can still defend @4.
If you wish to read the few posts and follow the links.
Cmdr Jen introduced, in an earlier tread, that subs that are attacking all by themselves get some advantage to pick up their casuality amongst surface vessels, if any.
And this is where it begun:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=31177.msg1149119#msg1149119
Here is an interesting documentary on a dogfight between A6M3 Zero Fighters (316 MPH, 2x20MM cannons, and 2 machine guns) and some US TcBs defending their carrier.
8 SBD Dauntless Dive bombers (262 MPH and 3 Machine guns) are doing air cover mission against IJN Torpedos Bombers for their CV-5 Yorktown carrier during the battle of Coral Sea.
At the start of the battle there is a wing of TcBs but they cannot hold their part: 4 SBDs are destroyed, except for 1 pilot.
From the beginning to the 18 minutes.
Dogfights - Episode 10: Long Odds (History Documentary)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MIRqe4ni_0
This other one, can provide some sense of historical depiction of how Fg provides air support and combined arms to TcBs.
It can be easily see as a two times mission:
1 Fg dogfights on first day, then bombers runs on the second day. (42 min. to 43 minutes)
From 31 minutes to the end. 1944 on the assault on Truk Atoll:
The Zero Killer - Ep 6 - Season 1 - Dogfights
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXbwKjOA1ho
I play this map on TripleA and use “LOW lUCK” ,so I think TacB is very uesful,they almost make up 50% of my air force,without them,airforce’s ATK was very poor.
I play this map on TripleA and use “LOW lUCK” ,so I think TacB is very uesful,they almost make up 50% of my air force,without them,airforce’s ATK was very poor.
LL and dice are VERY different game IMHO. You use different strategies and tactics with dice that you wouldn’t do with LL and the reverse is true.
I personally don’t like Low Luck. I just prefer rolling dice for everything. I guess I like the chance that I will get an unusually large amount of hits or my opponent will get a really bad roll.
I just really love that feeling when I roll and get a bunch of hits but my opponent just gets one or none. Of course, if it goes the opposite way it really SUCKS!
It does suck when the dice aren’t kind. But war isn’t just some scientific operation that you can calculate down to the T. Reacting to the differences in dice rolls are part of what makes A&A enjoyable. You can have two games with the same players where they use identical starting strategies and both games can be world’s apart in 3-4 turns depending on the dice.
Tac bomers are a niche, “sometimes” unit, similar to cruisers and mech infantry. They fill a gap, and don’t make sense for some of the countries most of the time when all other options are considered. And even the countries that can easily afford them, it’s strategy dependent.
Germany, I have purchased them. I try and maintain a 1/1 ftr/tac ratio when I’m on the offensive. If the US/UK is closing in, fighters > tac for defense. I sometimes buy more of them than fighters if I have a giant armor stack pushing for Moscow. 3 tac in the Ukraine happens quite often in that last minute push. Having extra 4’s in the big battle instead of 3’s is well worth the 1 IC if it means taking Moscow or not.
Russia, I rarely buy them, as you’re usually on the defensive for most of the game. I buy them more if London falls, which switches Russia to a more offensive position with typically more income due to a delayed/weakened German push into Russian tt.
Japan, I purchase them semi-regularly to help threaten the US fleet and keep them at bay. Especially when Japan starts out with enough fighters to pair them with, it’s an easy purchase. Not for several turns though, as Japan starts with so many planes, and their starting income is usually spoken for.
US, usually if I’m going on the offensive against Japan. If I just want to keep Japan in check, then less so.
UK, rarely. Their money is pulled in so many directions and locations, that tacs don’t come into play very often for them.
Italy. Nope. They have so little income at first it just doesn’t make sense. Maybe once in a while if I happen to have a factory on Egypt with tanks blitzing through Africa and the ME.
ANZAC. In the late game, yes. Early on, if I purchase a plane, it will be a fighter to soften the immediate Japanese threat. Then later on, I switch to tacs to so they can pair up and go on the offensive.
France. Heh, never.
I play this map on TripleA and use “LOW lUCK” ,so I think TacB is very uesful,they almost make up 50% of my air force,without them,airforce’s ATK was very poor.
LL and dice are VERY different game IMHO. You use different strategies and tactics with dice that you wouldn’t do with LL and the reverse is true.
You are right player,LL is very different from dice,but I like LL,because dice is impractical sometimes.(at least in TripleA)For example, I always ordered one Destroyer and one Figter to attack a enemy Destroyer,but more than one time,I failed,it’s ridiculous,I NEVER hear a such example in real battle, so I decide to use LL. :-)
