[House Rules] Tactical Bombers and their use

@toblerone77:

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.

Yep. Done that here:
@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.

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.

@toblerone77:

I get the line of thought also knp. As I see the discussion the TB is almost being given preferential treatment vs. other units by essentially considering it “always on offense” in this line of thought you may as well consider both sides as “always on offense”.

It’s true you can’t simply judge a sculpt by saying “Oh that’s a Stuka and that’s an SBD” There’s many different types but they all have the same concept and job in battle. The general idea and overall concept of the TB is that it is designed to attack specific surface targets with relative precision.

I’m not a fan of the 1914 air superiority mechanic being used in G40 as is. However I believe that if someone wanted you could adapt it. The whole concept of 1914 vastly different from all other editions and the air superiority concept is also very integrated with ground units so you would need to consider those factors as well.

I think the discussion of TBs defending at such a high defense value is giving them their cake and eating it too.

As for your idea on the air battle phase, I like it and have been thinking about similar ideas. Yours is different but I like the way it’s simplistic and pretty balanced.

There is probably some truth in this, having a blind-angle at considering TcB in offensive tactical combat situation.

Then what could be a situation where TcBs are on defense?

About the Tac getting something like a basic A3-4D4M4C11 or A3-4D3-4M4C11,
the first idea was mainly to make a permutation of combat value.
Because of the game mechanics which provides a lot of ground casualties to defending planes before reaching any air-to-air vs incoming enemy.

For the sake of the argument, let’s think about a Sea-Lion situation.
The lasts cycles may left defending side with Fgs only while the attacker will keep a Tank and starting losing some planes.
Going all-out and willing to sacrifice planes, it will be a lot of paired TcB-Fg to take as casualties.

1TcB A4+ 1 Fg A3 vs 2 Fgs D4. (Or 2 TcBs D4).
In that rare situation, (because it is a main combat over Capital and an IC territory) it seems weird that defending TcBs could really do a great job on defense.
It will imply dropping bombs on the last attacking Tank division (since their is no landing fields in UK for Luftwaffe) while taking Germans Fgs as casualties.
I agree here it is a weirdo case when Fgs must have the upper hand.

However this rare situation appears mostly as the climatic exception of combat over IC ttry or Capitol ttry.

The rest of the time, as I tried to show, the mechanics is always putting cheaper ground units as casualties for the hits got by Fg and TcB.

However, it reveals that we put Air Interdiction over homeland territory as the symbolic paradigm which emphasis the most important defensive aspect of warfare.

Hence giving Fg D4 and having fantasy dreams of a big A&A air-to-air battle over a ttry, which a rather exceptional in regular combat and is neither accurate in G40 SBR.

Is there a way to recreate better accurate A&A combat interaction for TcB and Fg?

@Baron:

@toblerone77:

I get the line of thought also knp. As I see the discussion the TB is almost being given preferential treatment vs. other units by essentially considering it “always on offense” in this line of thought you may as well consider both sides as “always on offense”.

It’s true you can’t simply judge a sculpt by saying “Oh that’s a Stuka and that’s an SBD” There’s many different types but they all have the same concept and job in battle. The general idea and overall concept of the TB is that it is designed to attack specific surface targets with relative precision.

I’m not a fan of the 1914 air superiority mechanic being used in G40 as is. However I believe that if someone wanted you could adapt it. The whole concept of 1914 vastly different from all other editions and the air superiority concept is also very integrated with ground units so you would need to consider those factors as well.

I think the discussion of TBs defending at such a high defense value is giving them their cake and eating it too.

As for your idea on the air battle phase, I like it and have been thinking about similar ideas. Yours is different but I like the way it’s simplistic and pretty balanced.

There is probably some truth in this, having a blind-angle at considering TcB in offensive tactical combat situation.

Then what could be a situation where TcBs are on defense? It’s just my opinion but the OOB stats already reflect much of what you’re trying to create by raising the defense stats based upon the idea that TBs are attacking ground targets. If it were purely based on the concept of what a TB does, the conclusion would result in an even lower defensive stat at 1 or 2. The TB is purely an offensive weapon just like the StB. So basically the TB with a defense of 3 already reflects a strategic level of defense. The fighter’s offensive power is also an accurate depiction at A3 of the strategic level.

About the Tac getting something like a basic A3-4D4M4C11 or A3-4D3-4M4C11,
the first idea was mainly to make a permutation of combat value.
Because of the game mechanics which provides a lot of ground casualties to defending planes before reaching any air-to-air vs incoming enemy.

For the sake of the argument, let’s think about a Sea-Lion situation.
The lasts cycles may left defending side with Fgs only while the attacker will keep a Tank and starting losing some planes.
Going all-out and willing to sacrifice planes, it will be a lot of paired TcB-Fg to take as casualties.

1TcB A4+ 1 Fg A3 vs 2 Fgs D4. (Or 2 TcBs D4).
In that rare situation, (because it is a main combat over Capital and an IC territory) it seems weird that defending TcBs could really do a great job on defense.
It will imply dropping bombs on the last attacking Tank division (since their is no landing fields in UK for Luftwaffe) while taking Germans Fgs as casualties.
I agree here it is a weirdo case when Fgs must have the upper hand.

However this rare situation appears mostly as the climatic exception of combat over IC ttry or Capitol ttry.

The rest of the time, as I tried to show, the mechanics is always putting cheaper ground units as casualties for the hits got by Fg and TcB. Unless you’re going to create a complicated system of how combat and casualty allotment is conducted it’s going to be difficult to ever get away from this mechanic. It’s just the way Axis & Allies is played. The more realism you go for the more you would weaken the TB in any case.

However, it reveals that we put Air Interdiction over homeland territory as the symbolic paradigm which emphasis the most important defensive aspect of warfare.

Hence giving Fg D4 and having fantasy dreams of a big A&A air-to-air battle over a ttry, which a rather exceptional in regular combat and is neither accurate in G40 SBR.

Is there a way to recreate better accurate A&A combat interaction for TcB and Fg? By giving the TB bonuses to attack defense when accompanied by fighters, you simulate the optimum air cover for TBs to operate. The Battle of the Bulge and Germany’s campaign against Russia are excellent examples of how air cover is essential for a successful ground campaign. TBs just can’t do it alone. Just like a naval vessel needs escorts.

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.

Are you saying Fg paired 1:1 give +1 A/D to TcB or StB on defense?

Making it a StB A4D1-2M6C12?

This bonus is interesting for StB but what StB are doing in defense is much like carpet bombing his home territory, which is not surgical strike bombing and can have some collateral damage.
Hence we can manage to rationalize the D1 of StB.

But, at least, it is a way to depict the escorting role of Fg by giving a pairing bonus.

As mentioned, an Air phase prior to regular combat can be a way to give a better role to this Air superiority units.

Can we not imagine some kind of game mechanics which can emphasized putting Fg in frontiers territories to be more often part of a defensive pattern in which air interdiction can have some interest or incentive?

Thinking out loud:

I saw some extended defense zone with AB in which Fgs only can scramble in adjacent land territory, not just SZ (scrambling in SZ stay allowed for TcB also).

Air Superiority bonus: having more Fgs on one side, or
Air Supremacy: no Fg on the other side,

• allows somekind of Artillery upgrade (as in 1914):
  D+1 for 1 Art unit if Air Superiority / or D+1 for all Art units, if Air Supremacy.

Air Supremacy could:

• allow each Fg to reduced on a 1:1 basis 1 enemy’s plane Attack value.
  Such 2 TcB+2 Tk getting 2A4+ 2A3 but 2 Fgs reduced attacking TcB to 2A3.
  1 StB A4 and 1 TcB A3 could be lower down by 2 Fgs to 1StB A3 + 1 TcB A2.

This can be different ways to give Fgs this defensive Air Cover for ground units, without having to HR a dogfight phase (in a game which set-up and cost wasn’t intended to do more direct casualties to planes unit) : just the sheer number and the presence/absence of Fgs could give some modifiers.

Then what could be a situation where TcBs are on defense?

It’s just my opinion but the OOB stats already reflect much of what you’re trying to create by raising the defense stats based upon the idea that TBs are attacking ground targets. If it were purely based on the concept of what a TB does, the conclusion would result in an even lower defensive stat at 1 or 2. The TB is purely an offensive weapon just like the StB. So basically the TB with a defense of 3 already reflects a strategic level of defense. The fighter’s offensive power is also an accurate depiction at A3 of the strategic level.

I was talking about an historical situation in which we can consider TacB in defense mode, not in the board game.
For example, TcB Avenger Air Patrol against Subs around an Escort Carrier can be seen as defensive stance.
In this historical situation they were far better than Fighters against Subs.
So it would be TcB which should get D4 not the Fg in ASW.

Is there a way to recreate better accurate A&A combat interaction for TcB and Fg?
By giving the TB bonuses to attack defense when accompanied by fighters, you simulate the optimum air cover for TBs to operate. The Battle of the Bulge and Germany’s campaign against Russia are excellent examples of how air cover is essential for a successful ground campaign. TBs just can’t do it alone. Just like a naval vessel needs escorts.

I agree your suggestion is an interesting addition, to promote something which depicts the escorting role of Fgs: TcB A3-4D3-4M4

Or just simply rise TcB defense to D4 when they have Air Supremacy, no need of Fg pairing.
It will represent the home-land defending advantage. No enemy’s Fg, then D4 upgrade against ground units for TcB.
In counter-part, it creates an incentive to throw attacking Fgs in the battle to reduce this TcB bonus.

So, coming back to this Subs only attacking fleet vs Escort carrier, DD and some APs, at least Fg and TcB would have the same Defense @4.

@Baron:

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.

Are you saying Fg paired 1:1 give +1 A/D to TcB or StB on defense? I see it as either or +1 Attack to StB could be too much. I see the +1 for TBs when paired fighters as a reasonable way to reflect the ideas posters have stated

Making it a StB A4D1-2M6C12? As I said it could be a bit much.

This bonus is interesting for StB but what StB are doing in defense is much like carpet bombing is home territory, which is not surgical strike bombing and can have some collateral damage.
Hence we can manage to rationalize the D1 of StB. Agreed. The idea is just for fun. Someone may want to do this based on the bonus to TBs.

But, at least, it is a way to depict the escorting role of Fg by giving a pairing bonus.

As mentioned, an Air phase prior to regular combat can be a way to give a better role to this Air superiority units.

Can we not imagine some kind of game mechanics which can emphasized putting Fg in frontiers territories to be more often part of a defensive pattern in which air interdiction can have some interest or incentive?

Thinking out loud:

I saw some extended defense zone with AB in which Fgs only can scramble in adjacent land territory, not just SZ (scrambling in SZ stay allowed for TcB also).

Air Superiority bonus: having more Fgs on one side, or
Air Supremacy: no Fg on the other side,

• allows somekind of Artillery upgrade (as in 1914):
  D+1 for 1 Art unit if Air Superiority / or D+1 for all Art units, if Air Supremacy.

Air Supremacy could:

• allow each Fg to reduced on a 1:1 basis 1 enemy’s plane Attack value.
  Such 2 TcB+2 Tk getting 2A4+ 2A3 but 2 Fgs reduced attacking TcB to 2A3.
  1 StB A4 and 1 TcB A3 could be lower down by 2 Fgs to 1StB A3 + A TcB A2.
   
  This can be different ways to give Fgs this defensive Air Cover for ground units, without having to HR a dogfight phase (in a game which set-up and cost wasn’t intended to do more direct casualties to planes unit) : just the sheer number and the presence/absence of Fgs could give some modifiers.

I forget to add this, to better depict Fg as Air Superiority unit:
Give something to both escorting and defending Fgs in SBR so they can be better than StB and TcB.

Actual OOB put them all on the same attack level.

I already provided something, not too complicated, in HR for Fgs during SBR.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33210.msg1260829#msg1260829

The biggest problem I have is giving the TB a large defensive boost of 4 without some kind of caveat. It feels like giving subs or carriers an amphibious bombardment. I’d rather give a TB A3/D3/M4/C8 (no bonuses) if we’re going to view it as a “flying tank/submarine” which seems more like the over all concept of TBs as depicted in the game.

I would even go as far as keeping OOB cost remaining the same but allowing TBs a first strike against armor and subs. Possibly limiting this to the first round only. And/or allowing TBs to hit subs without a DD.

@toblerone77:

The biggest problem I have is giving the TB a large defensive boost of 4 without some kind of caveat. It feels like giving subs or carriers an amphibious bombardment.

I’d rather give a TB A3/D3/M4/C8 (no bonuses) if we’re going to view it as a “flying tank/submarine” which seems more like the over all concept of TBs as depicted in the game.

I would even go as far as keeping OOB cost remaining the same but allowing TBs a first strike against armor and subs.

Possibly limiting this to the first round only. And/or allowing TBs to hit subs without a DD.

Some interesting ways to develop a distinctive capacities for TcBs.
The capacity to hit subs vs Fgs should be examin closer.

I think I finally find a solution to give both Fgs and TcBs their own capacities:
Fighter being smaller, faster, cheaper, but weaker against ground target but always have the better hand in dogfight against any bombers (TcB or StB).
TcB being a bigger, slower, costlier and heavier hitter against ground targets but clumsier against Fg in air-to-air combat.
In addition, attacking Fgs should be less effective than defending ones.
And this principle, I think, should be maintain for TcB: at least a defending TcB should be as effective than an attacking one.
Because, the same reasoning applied to TcBs and pilots about distant targets, less fuel, less time in the air above targets, more tired pilots, less accurate bombing, etc.

The main problem with Fgs at reduce combat values and cost was in carrier operation: the limited place for planes makes carriers weaker.
It was difficult to get such a defensive units like a full carrier with Fgs: 2 Fgs A6D8C20.

But just take a look at this HR thread, to see how it is resolved:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33334.msg1268768#msg1268768

Compared these two units now:

Fg A1First StrikeD2M4C7, 1 hit, all hit destroy an enemy plane first, if there is any.
Give +1A/D to any TcB paired with.

TcB A3-4D3-4M4C10, 1 hit, gain +1 A/D when paired 1:1 with any Fg.
Can do a Tactical bombing raid vs AB and NB.

Don’t they fit the description above?
TcBs will get the best of them when escorted by Fgs. When escorted, the stats will be almost like those of the old OOB Fg at 10 IPCs.

On the other side, a cheaper Fighter can be more easily buy and used as fodder to protect costlier units.
In itself a A1FS / D2 /M4 / C7 doesn’t seems as good as a A3D4C10, but it is as good unit on an A/D and hit per IPCs.
In addition, this lower value, for one part, by targeting planes directly makes them more dangerous against bombers, since they hit ground units (as per the OOB rule casualty mechanics), and for the other part, doesn’t make Fg a too good weapon against other units, which keeps the needs of having bombers in his own fleet to make substantial hits against ground and naval units.

Do you see where I’m going now?

These two units make a better pair and better depict their relative functions.

I realized that my view on both Fg and TcB come mostly from my numerous exchanges with Uncrustable.
Here is the principles which were my guidelines:
@Uncrustable:

But it gives each air unit a very distinctive role in the game, each are important…

1-Fighters are needed to protect friendly bombers from enemy air (fodder/escort SBR) and friendly facilities from SBR (intercept SBR).
-Fighters are also needed to vie for air dominance. (Air supremacy bonus for Tacs and taking out enemy air).

2-Tactical bombers are the meat of the air so to speak, they need Fighters (protection + air Supremacy bonus), but they are the best at destroying enemy units.

3-Strategic bombers are long range heavy hitters on offense, and can SBR. But they need both fighters … to perform efficiently. Next to worthless on defense.

There is much historical realism here.

If you think it needs some improvement on the historical parts, I’m all open to it.

I’m all for HRs for whatever reason people may want to apply them to thier games. I guess I’m just not finding it all that attractive to strengthen TBs automatically while nerfing the fighter even at a lower cost.

I think that there are many players who would like to see a different way of allocating casualties between air and surface units as well as how they interact since 1914 has come out. I also think this would essentially need to go further than a few stat changes and or house rules. I am of the belief that to do this you would need to create a variant.

There are a lot of posts suggesting an entire change to how combat is conducted in order to make combat more realistic and make players allocate casualties based on type of unit rather than simply taking the weakest cheapest unit as a casualty.

I personally think that it requires a variant that departs from the OOB methodology.

@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.
The cheaper Fg still interesting and competitive unit.
Historically cheaper also and not that good against ground than TcB.
TcB same price as OOB better defense against ground or naval.
In addition, in naval combat you will prefer sacrifice Fg instead of TcB, this not the case actually.

Do you see a problem in this?
I played it once and I will do it next time.
A HR just like I like them.
Simple.
Balanced.
Historically correct.
And funny.

For purists, Fg can even keep the 10 IPCs!

Keeping the A&A game mechanics,
I still maintain that this kind of stat will better depict the relation between Fg and TcB.
On attack, Fg A3C9 vs TcB D4C11, on the same IPC basis give this:
11 Fg vs 9 TcB = 63% vs 33% on AACalc
Meaning that, for the same cost, a Fg unit on offence is twice superior to a TcB even with a Def @4.

If someone really want to improve Fg vs TcB, you can lower Fg to A3D3C8.
11 Fg A3 vs 8 TcB D4 = 85% vs 13%. Becoming around 5.5 superior to TcB. (But not sure if anyone will want to buy a TcB…)

So even without giving the @4 to Fg, it is still the better plane and the cheaper, whether you choose a cost of 8 or 9 IPCs.
So with Fg you get more A/D for your IPCs.

Taking in itself 1 Fg A3D3 vs 1 TcB A3-4D4, we have the impression that TcB is a bigger hitter, true.
But when you can buy many planes, you get more with the cheaper Fg.

All is inside the actual A/D pts, hit, IPCs cost.

Of course a TcB A3-4D3-4, get +1 A/D when paired to Fg, is even weaker.

Giving a direct D4 without any other unit, can be easily explained by the advantage of being on defense of the homeland territory to hit ground troops.

@toblerone77:

I’m all for HRs for whatever reason people may want to apply them to thier games. I guess I’m just not finding it all that attractive to strengthen TBs automatically while nerfing the fighter even at a lower cost.

I think that there are many players who would like to see a different way of allocating casualties between air and surface units as well as how they interact since 1914 has come out. I also think this would essentially need to go further than a few stat changes and or house rules. I am of the belief that to do this you would need to create a variant.

There are a lot of posts suggesting an entire change to how combat is conducted in order to make combat more realistic and make players allocate casualties based on type of unit rather than simply taking the weakest cheapest unit as a casualty.

I personally think that it requires a variant that departs from the OOB methodology.

This is an interesting point you raise, and it’s made me wonder something about the long-running debates we’ve seen on this message board about the combat values and the purchase prices that should be allocated to particular units (notably in the case of the TacBomber, over which there has been much heated argument).  Some of these arguments have revolved around the question of whether such-and-such a set of combat values is historically accurate, either when the unit is examined on its own or when it’s paired with another unit.  I’ve had moments of frustration over these debates because, at times, I’ve found myself wondering how on earth it’s possible for so many different people to have such radically different views of what does (and does not) constitute a “historically accurate” house rule.  I think that Toblerone’s post points to a possible explanation.  Global 1940 is a strategic-level game, which therefore (appropriately) depicts the performance of weapon systems at an extremely high level of abstraction and also features a very abstract combat-resolution mechanism.  Given that level of abstraction, is it any wonder that there have been disagreements about whether a particular set of unit combat values is realistic or not?

Combat values, by their nature, involve specific numbers (such as A1/D1/M1/C1, to use a random example), but that specificity creates the misleading illusion that it has a one-to-one relationship with the real-world performance characteristics of real-world weapons.  These weapon performances are described by specific numbers too, but with the difference that those figures are incredibly complex.  Just looking at the performance of a single battleship main gun for instance (and ignoring the rest of the ship, including the fire-control system), we run into such variables as caliber, barrel length, rifling twist rate, bagged propellant weight and composition, projectile characteristics (shape, casing composition, ballistic cap design, proportion of explosive charge to overall mass, type of explosive charge, fusing mechanism), and so on and so forth.  Modeling all of these things accurately – and in combination with all the other components of a weapon platform – is virtually impossible in a tactical-scale game, let alone in a strategic-level one.

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t strive to come up with house rules that are historically credible; goodness knows that I’ve argued for historical accuracy time after time in the comments I’ve made in HR dicussion threads.  What I’m realizing now, however, is that there’s very little point in trying to prove that a particular set of combat values is (or is not) historically accurate because, given A&A’s high level of abstraction, such a thing can’t be proven in an empirically demonstrable way.  The argument has occasionally been made that A&A is an inaccurate depiction of history (and thus that we don’t need to worry about whether a particular house rule is historically accurate), but I’d phrase that concept differently.  I’d say that A&A is an impressionistic depiction of history (due to its high level of abstraction), and I’d say that this has been a fundamental reason for some of the disagreements we’ve seen here: because, in the absence of demonstrably accurate fine-scale modeling, a person’s reaction to a particular HR will hinge on whether it feels right to them, on whether it fits their personal conception of whether Method X of depicting combat at such a high level of abstraction is more realistic than Method Y.

I could agree with that Marc. One point I’ve tried to explain with difficulty at times, in different conversations on the board, is that the way the game functions is not totally concrete and fluctuates with the flow of events. Also that time is not concrete nor linear at all times.

The first turn for example is linear in time in comparison to the second turn. However during the first turn all the nation’s turns are  sometimes occurring at the same time, not in real life but the representation of the game. Larry once stated that in game term time is more like a rubber band rather than strictly linear.
Like we know in global Germany is probably going to attack France first, which is linear. We also know that the German player will probably attack elsewhere, and may roll that battle first. The way the mechanics of the game work, it’s possible that both battles are actually happening at the same time the way time is simulated in the game.

The other thought is about units. 2 infantry fighting in Midway don’t necessarily represent 2 infantry fighting in Moscow. What I mean is, is that 2 infantry in Midway may represent 4000 troops, but 2 infantry in Moscow may represent 40,000 troops. They don’t really represent all troops just mostly what that unit consists of. Either way in game terms, two infantry are two infantry.

Now we could suppose that if those troops moved to Moscow we could assume that along their travel they gained supply and reinforcements which is not represented by anything in the game. The same could be said for supply in general. It happens or is assumed to happen in the game but there really is no way to quantify it within the game. The IPC system is a good example of this.

So yes CWO Marc, your points are well taken and I agree with them. I must say I still like to hose rule and modify the game, but I don’t think we can ever say with absoluteness why any idea is good or bad pertaining to concrete figures that don’t necessarily exist. I think it is all subject to our view of the abstract.

@CWO:

@toblerone77:

I guess I’m just not finding it all that attractive to strengthen TBs automatically while nerfing the fighter even at a lower cost.

This is an interesting point you raise, and it’s made me wonder something about the long-running debates we’ve seen on this message board about the combat values and the purchase prices that should be allocated to particular units (notably in the case of the TacBomber, over which there has been much heated argument). Some of these arguments have revolved around the question of whether such-and-such a set of combat values is historically accurate, either when the unit is examined on its own or when it’s paired with another unit.

I’ve had moments of frustration over these debates because, at times, I’ve found myself wondering how on earth it’s possible for so many different people to have such radically different views of what does (and does not) constitute a “historically accurate” house rule. I think that Toblerone’s post points to a possible explanation. Global 1940 is a strategic-level game, which therefore (appropriately) depicts the performance of weapon systems at an extremely high level of abstraction and also features a very abstract combat-resolution mechanism. Given that level of abstraction, is it any wonder that there have been disagreements about whether a particular set of unit combat values is realistic or not?

Combat values, by their nature, involve specific numbers (such as A1/D1/M1/C1, to use a random example), but that specificity creates the misleading illusion that it has a one-to-one relationship with the real-world performance characteristics of real-world weapons.

These weapon performances are described by specific numbers too, but with the difference that those figures are incredibly complex.

Just looking at the performance of a single battleship main gun for instance (and ignoring the rest of the ship, including the fire-control system), we run into such variables as caliber, barrel length, rifling twist rate, bagged propellant weight and composition, projectile characteristics (shape, casing composition, ballistic cap design, proportion of explosive charge to overall mass, type of explosive charge, fusing mechanism), and so on and so forth. Modeling all of these things accurately – and in combination with all the other components of a weapon platform – is virtually impossible in a tactical-scale game, let alone in a strategic-level one.

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t strive to come up with house rules that are historically credible; goodness knows that I’ve argued for historical accuracy time after time in the comments I’ve made in HR dicussion threads.

What I’m realizing now, however, is that there’s very little point in trying to prove that a particular set of combat values is (or is not) historically accurate because, given A&A’s high level of abstraction, such a thing can’t be proven in an empirically demonstrable way. The argument has occasionally been made that A&A is an inaccurate depiction of history (and thus that we don’t need to worry about whether a particular house rule is historically accurate), but I’d phrase that concept differently. I’d say that A&A is an impressionistic depiction of history (due to its high level of abstraction), and I’d say that this has been a fundamental reason for some of the disagreements we’ve seen here: because, in the absence of demonstrably accurate fine-scale modeling, a person’s reaction to a particular HR will hinge on whether it feels right to them, on whether it fits their personal conception of whether Method X of depicting combat at such a high level of abstraction is more realistic than Method Y.

There is many interesting points in your long, and probably time-taken to write, post. I bolded what IMO are important points, some of which I will comments freely.

Your perspective on the topics, is what I called a “meta-langage”.
We take a pause on the “what” of the discussion (the topics), to better look at the “how” (the process of investigation).
Usually it happens when people are name-callings, but this time, as everyone is having polite interventions, it is more a way to find an escape road between what could become irreductible POVs on the topic. I don’t think we are at this limit but your post help to think about this:

How do we decides that a OOB rules or units is more or less historically accurate than an other OOB units or HRuled?

Clearly, we have our guts feeling at first, this intuitive response cannot be neglect.
It is like anyone can have while typing a word and suddenly doesn’t feel comfortable with a specific way of writing a word.
It is based on the knowledge of the game, of WWII and all the weapons and combat at all level.
It takes often time to translate in appropriate words what this feeling was revealing about our understanding of all these aspects.

Once this said, I will try to suggest additional criterias:
it is overall symbolic depiction and consistency.

The units and rules give us somekind of description (more or less distorted) of the interaction between real WWII units and situations.
The more we can associate an individual, a tactical and a strategical caracteristics to it, the more we feel the accuracy of a rule or unit.

Once this done, here come the consistency criteria which play a role, because all aspects cannot be taken into account in any abstract game.
The more elements we can keep, within a simple rule, the better. The other(s) is (are) a left-over for additional HR, enhancement, etc.

Now, coming back to the topic on TcB (vs Fg), I’m almost sure we can get a general agreement on the main traits which describe Fg and TcB.

However, what someone prefer to keep to create the best historical depiction, and at what level and within what kind of game mechanics.
Here is a lot of debatable questions.

I’m sure it possible to continue this thread by, at least, sharing are different historical view and see what kind of consensus we can obtain.

Well taking everything into account on the topic. SBs get an attack boost from fighters and tanks already. This could be extended to cruisers and also apply to TBs on defense when combined with any of the three units. It makes a case to buy cruisers. It makes the case for surface/air coordination at the strategic level both offesively and defensively without too much complication.

@toblerone77:

Well taking everything into account on the topic. SBs get an attack boost from fighters and tanks already. This could be extended to cruisers and also apply to TBs on defense when combined with any of the three units. It makes a case to buy cruisers. It makes the case for surface/air coordination at the strategic level both offesively and defensively without too much complication.

Are you on fire? You seem to have a lot of ideas in the last few days.

This idea about extending the pairing bonus to cruiser is original.
This give me an example about the symbolic depiction I was talking about.
From a game perspective, it is a legitimate goal to provide some incentive to buy cruiser unit.
(Symbolic level: I think it was historically the core ship of all navies, I may be wrong.
But if it is the case, then the actual OOB cost creates distortion since it is a seldom buying.
And give the false impression it was not a worthy weapon during WWII compared to destroyers, submarines, and carriers.)

However, at first glance, it seems wrong (my guts feeling) to provide Cruiser the capacity to boost TacB on attack.
To agree with you on this specific point, I would need more explanations on the historical background of the use of Torpedoes and Dive Bombers with Cruisers, and how it provides a real case for surface/air coordination at the strategic level both offensively and defensively without too much complication. Because, I don’t see how a plane going far away from his carrier group can need or provide helps to cruisers (tactical level, here)

About a coordination between warships and planes unit I have another situation to analyze.
It is about the historical capacity of Fgs to sink subs vs the TcB (thinking Avenger Torpedo Bomber).

If what I learned about the ASW on U-boat is true,
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33181.msg1263095#msg1263095
so no Fg (F4F-Wildcat) were able to destroy and sink all by itself any Submarine and always need is bigger brother Avenger, it provides an historical background to get specific attribute to both.

For example, we can say: keeping the Fg give +1A to TcB when paired 1:1
Fg (A3D4) can never hit subs. And the presence of a destroyer change nothing.
TcB (A3-4D3) can always hit subs even without a destroyer, but is not an ASW and cannot forbid sub’s submerge and first strike.
In other words, TcB is attacking as any cruiser or battleship.

Example, a TcB A3D3 unit attacking a bunch of Subs,
TcB needs a Destroyer to keep them from submerging before the attack.
It can still bring with him a Fg unit, so it will raise is attacking factor to A@4.
However, Fg cannot hit subs.

This can be easily explained by the historical background.
Fg unit provide an additionnal “eye” on the ocean, Subs can be more easily seen and destroyed by the Fg and TcB coordination.

So, just changing the ability to hit or not to hit subs can modify the interest of player toward this unit. A carrier group compose of DDs and Fgs only will be much more vulnerable to a Subs attack than a mix group of Fgs and TcBs.

It can also be seen on defense against attacking Submarine, like you suggested: letting TcB D3-4.
Any Fg paired 1:1 can give +D1 to TcB.

This way, the Anti-sub warfare is simplified: Fg can never hit subs, TcB always can.
And the historical Air coordination ASW between Fg and Tc is easily depicted by this rule.

We could think also about an ASW Air to warships coordination with Fg.
Example: Fg paired 1:1 with a Destroyer unit could give +1A to Destroyer when attacking Subs.

However, this one can imply much more complication on both parts: historical bakground and game rules depiction.

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

If is is mostly TcB, then do we really need to add a bonus from TcB toward DD or the reverse?
Because the DD ASW is already needed in the game so TcB can be able to hit subs unable to submerge.

@aequitas:

@Baron:

Some interesting ways to develop a distinctive capacities for TcBs.
The capacity to hit subs vs Fgs should be examin closer.

The capacity to hit subs via any Airplane is a diffrent Type/Art of war wich will be very difficult to bring to a HR.
Just because there would be a Sub present in a selected Sz, doesn’t give you as an attacker the same opportunity to hit the same one.
If a DD is present and a Carrier, diffrent story (maybe).
But as long the Sub remains silent how would you know?

Adding a HR to hit a sub via Airplanes means that you don’t need to buy any more subs at all!

I provide a more extensive view of ASW with Fg and TcB on my previous post.

Sorry, I don’t clearly understand or cannot see all the implications you draw in your post. Help me, please.

@Baron:

@toblerone77:

Well taking everything into account on the topic. SBs get an attack boost from fighters and tanks already. This could be extended to cruisers and also apply to TBs on defense when combined with any of the three units. It makes a case to buy cruisers. It makes the case for surface/air coordination at the strategic level both offesively and defensively without too much complication.

Are you on fire? You seem to have a lot of ideas in the last few days. LOL…maybe.

This idea about extending the pairing bonus to cruiser is original. Even though historically the TB could potentially get a boost from almost any ship, In game terms the cruiser is lacking in reasons to purchase.
This give me an example about the symbolic depiction I was talking about.
From a game perspective, it is a legitimate goal to provide some incentive to buy cruiser unit. I think so.
(Symbolic level: I think it was historically the core ship of all navies, I may be wrong.
But if it is the case, then the actual OOB cost creates distortion since it is a seldom buying.
And give the false impression it was not a worthy weapon during WWII compared to destroyers, submarines, and carriers.)

However, at first glance, it seems wrong (my guts feeling) to provide Cruiser the capacity to boost TacB on attack.
To agree with you on this specific point, I would need more explanations on the historical background of the use of Torpedoes and Dive Bombers with Cruisers, and how it provides a real case for surface/air coordination at the strategic level both offensively and defensively without too much complication. Because, I don’t see how a plane going far away from his carrier group can need or provide helps to cruisers (tactical level, here) Well from a strategic level a tac bomber game piece functions as a representative of many types of light bomber including torpedo, dive-bomber and tank buster. I chose the cruiser because it is the naval counter-part of the tank in game terms. I also chose the cruiser because all in-game naval vessels have their own distinct role with the exception being the cruiser. Also I think the cruiser giving +1 over other vessels keeps it simple. A good example but off topic is destroyers, we all know destroyers did shore-bombardment, but to give them that ability in the game might make them too powerful although realistic from many POV. That is another reason I chose the cruiser. With the ability to pair with TBs gives the cruiser an advantage and it’s own niche in the game.

---

About a coordination between warships and planes unit I have another situation to analyze.
It is about the historical capacity of Fgs to sink subs vs the TcB (thinking Avenger Torpedo Bomber).

If what I learned about the ASW on U-boat is true,
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33181.msg1263095#msg1263095
so no Fg (F4F-Wildcat) were able to destroy and sink all by itself any Submarine and always need is bigger brother Avenger, it provides an historical background to get specific attribute to both.

For example, we can say: keeping the Fg give +1A to TcB when paired 1:1
Fg (A3D4) can never hit subs. And the presence of a destroyer change nothing.
TcB (A3-4D3) can always hit subs even without a destroyer, but is not an ASW and cannot forbid sub’s submerge and first strike.
In other words, TcB is attacking as any cruiser or battleship.

Example, a TcB A3D3 unit attacking a bunch of Subs,
TcB needs a Destroyer to keep them from submerging before the attack.
It can still bring with him a Fg unit, so it will raise is attacking factor to A@4.
However, Fg cannot hit subs.

This can be easily explained by the historical background.
Fg unit provide an additionnal “eye” on the ocean, Subs can be more easily seen and destroyed by the Fg and TcB coordination.

So, just changing the ability to hit or not to hit subs can modify the interest of player toward this unit. A carrier group compose of DDs and Fgs only will be much more vulnerable to a Subs attack than a mix group of Fgs and TcBs.

It can also be seen on defense against attacking Submarine, like you suggested: letting TcB D3-4.
Any Fg paired 1:1 can give +D1 to TcB.

This way, the Anti-sub warfare is simplified: Fg can never hit subs, TcB always can.
And the historical Air coordination ASW between Fg and Tc is easily depicted by this rule.

We could think also about an ASW Air to warships coordination with Fg.
Example: Fg paired 1:1 with a Destroyer unit could give +1A to Destroyer when attacking Subs.

However, this one can imply much more complication on both parts: historical bakground and game rules depiction.

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

If is is mostly TcB, then do we really need to add a bonus from TcB toward DD or the reverse?
Because the DD ASW is already needed in the game so TcB can be able to hit subs unable to submerge. Either aircraft type was pretty capable of attacking subs, but I think the general ideas you posted here is not overly complicated a makes a good compromise between game-play, historical roles and makes the game a bit more interesting.

This idea about extending the pairing bonus to cruiser is original. Even though historically the TB could potentially get a boost from almost any ship, In game terms the cruiser is lacking in reasons to purchase.

There is many ways to give some incentive toward Cruiser.

With the ability to pair with TBs gives the cruiser an advantage and it’s own niche in the game.

In itself, your idea can easily be added into my summary of various options for Cruiser.
But, wanting to stay more on the way we see Tac Bombers, I cannot see how could really work together cruiser and TcB, as I tried to show for ASW with DD…

If you can show someway, I would be glad to add it into my Pocket.

Nonetheless, you introduce another figure I never thought about: the tank buster.

Well from a strategic level a tac bomber game piece functions as a representative of many types of light bomber including torpedo, dive-bomber and tank buster.

Does the Typhoon fit into this description of TcB?

And am I wrong thinking that TcB vs Fg, have a greater range?

In which category Fg or TcB, would you put all the light planes which have a scouting role?

Either aircraft type was pretty capable of attacking subs

Attacking Subs both are capable, but destroying one? All that I infer from my main historical source is that Machine guns weren’t enough to sink a sub. Bombs or torpedoes were needed.