Der Kuenstler makes a good point. I’ve always thought it was kind of silly sending strategic bomber after naval vessels. That’s not to say I haven’t done so. After all, I have a 4-hitter unit and I want to sink enemy ships, well, those are the rules after all. In fact, I played one game as Germany where the strategy was for Germany to buy a ton of bombers. Not only did I sink the Royal Navy with them, I also sank the US Navy when it dared get too close. All with strategic bombers.
However, in reality strategic bombers were not that effective against navy ships. And why would they be? Even a battleship or a carrier would be a hard target from way up there. Of course, then they could bomb at low level for better accuracy, but then they would be a nice fat target for the AA gunners.
I have an interesting idea to reflect that in our games. Strategic Bombers could choose from 3 levels of bombing with corresponding decreases or increases in bombing accuracy and an inverse accuracy in AA fire.
High Altitude Bombing: Strategic Bombers can not be hit by AA fire, can only score hits on 2 or less.
Medium Altitude Bombing: Strategic Bombers can be hit by AA @ 1, can score hits on 3 or less.
Low Altitude Bombing: Strategic Bombers can be hit by AA @ 2, can score hits on 4 or less.
So, an attacker has his or her choice of either protecting their bombers or risking them for better results. You could even apply this to Strategic Bombing Raids:
High : No AA fire, bomber only rolls 1 die for damage.
Medium: AA @ 1, bomber rolls 1 die for damage +2.
Low : AA @ 2, bomber rolls 2 die for damage.
Fighter cost 8, A1 D2
Tac B. cost 10, A3 D4
S. Bomber cost 12, A4 D1
Before naval and land combat can start, there should be an dogfight phase, that continue until one side retreats his planes or are free of planes, like there is in the A&A 1914 game.
There are two ways to solve this air to air combat phase. The OOB way
Attacking aircrafts roll 1
Intercepting fighters roll 2 or less
in this case defending Tacs and Bombers should not roll, just be sittin ducks and either be taken as casualties or survive to next phase.
The other way is to let all planes keep their set combat values for simplicity, even in the dog fight. In that case, Bombers will be stronger than fighters in dog fight, which is very historical uncorrect.
Most of these too complicated…
Old ideas here. have planes on planes fight independently round by round at aerial combat values:
Fighters 3
Fighter-Bombers 2
Bombers 1
allow either side to retreat in full after any combat round ( at least one must occur)
Then if one side has planes, they may fire. FB if it rolls a one, can select target ( so it rolls a one, it can select carrier, or tank, etc)
No other changes unless you want to change every unit, and that’s stupid. You cant change just air units and figure the game will not go out of balance.
To me, the pricing should logically have been changed to:
Fighters- 8 IPCs
Tactical Bombers - 10 IPCs
Strategic Bombers - 12 IPCsFighter Stats - unchanged
Tactical Bomber Stats - always ATT 4, DEF 3 (throw out facility bombing, 1:1 rule with tanks and fighters)
Strategic Bombers - ATT 3, DEF 1 (Industrial, facility bombing ability)
Are you playing a G40 game, or a 50th Ann. Ed?
Even if the price seems nicer, it has an impact on balance.
Once this said.
Maybe this doesn’t really bother you, if you played an heavily modified AA50 game.
Fighter A3 D4 M4 at 2 IPCs lower are a big deal.
On the same IPCs basis, I’m pretty sure Fighter on offense will still be a bargain.
(5 Fgs= A15 D20 vs 4 TcBs= A16 D12)
Even though, on an historical basis, we could say that Fgs are better against TcBs.
About Strategic Bomber at 12 IPCs, I would say that there is nothing to change about them if you put TcBs A4 D3 C10.
The 2 IPCs higher cost make them far less interesting and less versatile than TcBs at 10 IPCs for the same attack value.
Just compare: 6 TcBs = A24 D18 M4 C60 vs 5 StBs (A4) = A20 D5 M6 C60.
You really get more for your bunks with your TacBs.
This also means that on the same IPCs basis, StB are less effective than TacBs.
This is also what you are looking for.
Put them against a same enemy group and compare on a battle calc. The TcBs will always get the better hand.
I’m pretty sure, leaving StB OOB will not make it as popular as before, because TcBs will be way more competitive to provide the high A4.
So, in your next game, I suggest this:
Fighters- A3 D4 M4 Cost 8 IPCs, can escort or intercept on SBR and can land on carrier
Tactical Bombers A4 D3 M4 Cost 10 IPCs, keep TacBR 1D6 damage on AB & NB, can land on carrier
Strategic Bombers A4 D1 M6 Cost 12 IPCs, keep SBR damage 1D6+2
You would add: keep Destroyer needed to hit submarines.
This way your navy will not have only Fgs and TcBs on carriers, without Destroyers they will remain vulnerable.
I can even add that if you want a way to weaken your Fg compared to Destroyer, just make it unable to hit submarines ever. TacB will be very much needed with Destroyers.
So for 8 IPCs you get a weaker unit: destroyers DDs A2 D2 M2 or a better Fighting machine: Fgs A3 D4 M4.
But Fgs will have an Achilles heels, they won’t be able to hit any Submarines at all.
That a small hindrance compared to the cost reduction bonus of 2 IPCs.
I talked on this subject on a G40 thread on TacBs.
Historically, Fgs were unable to sink by their own any U-boats. There was always an Avenger with them to do the job. Fgs Martlet (F4F- Wildcat) were mainly used to provide cover to such Tactical Bombers.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33181.msg1269161#msg1269161
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33181.msg1263095#msg1263095
If you read some of these posts: you will see that StBs (Med or Heavy bomber) were also used against Subs.
So, Fgs can never hit Subs while TcBs and StBs could hit them when a Destroyer is present.
Baron - If fighters can no longer attack subs, then logically they should no longer attack tanks, BBs, CAs, etc - anything that can’t be destroyed by mg fire alone. That could be too complicated.
Your first post looks good. For even less changes, what about leaving both SBs and fighters alone, and just change Tac bombers to cost 10, att @4, def @3. (with no matching restrictions) Then you have a fighter and tac bomber that cost the same, but strengths are exactly reversed?
I am playing a AA42/Ann Ed Hybrid and have added Mech. I’m considering adding Tac Bombers, but feel like they are unnecessary under current rules, since strat bombers can do what they do (except land on carriers) and with more range.
@Der:
Your first post looks good. For even less changes, what about leaving both SBs and fighters alone, and just change Tac bombers to cost 10, att @4, def @3. (with no matching restrictions) Then you have a fighter and tac bomber that cost the same, but strengths are exactly reversed?
I am playing a AA42/Ann Ed Hybrid and have added Mech. I’m considering adding Tac Bombers, but feel like they are unnecessary under current rules, since strat bombers can do what they do (except land on carriers) and with more range.
This will have less impact on balance if you keep Fg and TcB at 10 IPCs.
About overall balance and cost I think that a better offensive capability is costlier than the same defensive value.
1 Inf D2 cost 3 but Art A2 cost 4.
IMO the OOB TcB A3-4 D3 should have cost 10 IPCs.
So a TcB A4 D3 seems to me at his right place at 11 IPCs.
However, if you want to make StB at 12 IPCs less popular and weaker compared to TcB, 10 IPCs for TcBs will be OK. Since your TcB doesn’t have any bombing raid on Air Base or Naval Base, Fg and TcB will be like symmetrical unit, reverse siblings. It’s fine.
However, in reality strategic bombers were not that effective against navy ships.
Correct, an example being the attack during the Battle of Midway by nine B-17s against Admiral Kondo’s occupation fleet and by fifteen B-17s against Nagumo’s carrier fleet. They scored no hits. On the other hand, the FW-200C Condor and the B-24 Liberator did have some success in the Battle of the Atlantic, the former in a convoy-attack role and the latter in the ASW role.
@Der:
Baron - If fighters can no longer attack subs, then logically they should no longer attack tanks, BBs, CAs, etc - anything that can’t be destroyed by mg fire alone. That could be too complicated.
This is an abstracted logical reasoning.
From historical realism POV, maybe I can try to find why no single Fg was credited any U-boat wrecking.
1- U-boat armor is probably thick and made to support underwater pressure.
2- When diving underwater, U-boat get some additional water around the hull. This water is a physical barrier against machine gun bullets: a few inches slow down the pace to armless speed. (See this on Mythbusters TV show.)
3- On the contrary, a detonating bomb can make more damage under water due to an increase shockwave effect.
So, Avenger torpedo bomber can damage a Sub above and underwater while F4F-Wildcats have probably a very narrow opportunity window to make significant damage on a Subs above water.
This is how I rationalize the historical facts on U-boats warfare.
From a game play POV, I played with a cheaper and weaker Fg A1 First strike D2 M4 Cost 6, hit plane first if any, can never hit Subs.
It’s not more or less complicated than subs which cannot hit plane.
It was necessary from a balance POV vs Subs, Destroyers and TcB.
My Fg was same cost as Subs 6 IPCs, have almost the same combat value of a destroyer (A2 D2 M2 C8, ASV) for a lesser cost.
And TcB A3-4 D3-4 M4 Cost 9 have a specific capabilities against Subs while my Fg have a specific ability against plane.
This make both units useful in carrier operations.
In your perspective, a 8 IPCs Fgs with A3 D4 M4 is very powerful compared to any Subs (Fgs are immune against them), Destroyers (same cost almost double combat value against them) and Cruiser (A3 D3 C12, Fg completely outmatch them).
This creates very little interest for the others sea units because Fgs can do Sea and Earth operations with more range.
So, if it has historical grounds, and it is needed for game balance to counter-weight for the high combat value, the Fgs never hits Subs can works to keep 8-10-12 incrementation cost.
See this as a different and new perspective, that you are introducing a real Fg unit (A3 D4 C8 with Machine guns only) in the roster, while the old OOB Fg (A3 D4 C10 was doing Fg-bomber, torpedoes and dive bombers job, since it was the only unit able to be put on carriers) keep the same cost but received a change A3 becomes A4 and D4 become D3.
Fighter cost 8, A1 D2
Tac B. cost 10, A3 D4
S. Bomber cost 12, A4 D1
Hi Narvik,
with such values for Fighters, there is a problem with Carrier operation.
Such Fg is too weak against all other units while the TcB will be cut into chunk if it is an air combat to death or retreat before regular combat.
At least, I think every rounds there must be an air fight phase before regular combat.
Only Fg and TcB can roll.
Fg is treated as you say.
But TacB should roll A1 D1.
Any survivor can make an attack against naval or ground units.
However, TcB should be at A3 D3 and when there is no dogfight get +1A/D bonus.
Fgs should keep the same attack and defense value in regular combat phase.
So all surviving planes in a given combat round have 2 rolls to hit.
Tcb 1/1 + 3/3
Fgs 1/2 + 1/2
Due to the higher cost of StB, on offence it should get A1 in dogfight phase.
It seems the same as TcB but not really since TcB also get D1 and it is only 10 IPCs.
The Fighter as the same A1 but it is only 2/3 of StB cost.
StB 1/0 + 4/1
I’d be good with:
Fig - 10 IPC, ATT 3, DEF 4
TBmb - 10 IPC, ATT 4, DEF 3
SBmb - 15 IPC, ATT 4, DEF 1, SBR @ 1d6+2 DMG, 2 Attack Dice take better of the two results in combat
Or even make both FIG and TBOMB 12 IPC each. Heck there’s MORE than enough money on the board.
Fighter
Light bomber
Dive bomber
Bomber…(Don’t know why you wanna split into tactical and strategic bomber).
For the navy fan…dive bomber and torpedo bomber…
allow either side to retreat in full after any combat round
Yes…and it works….
AL.
Fighter
Light bomber
Dive bomber
Bomber…(Don’t know why you wanna split into tactical and strategic bomber).For the navy fan…dive bomber and torpedo bomber…
allow either side to retreat in full after any combat round
Yes…and it works….AL.
In my oversimplify thinking:
Fgs can represent Air Superiority Fighter with Machine guns and 1 or 2 cannons.
TcBs can represent Dive Bombers, Torpedo Bombers and even Light bombers.
StBs can represent Medium and Heavy Bombers.
The in-between case is Fighter-bomber.
Since he can bomb specific target, I rather put it in the TcBs wide category.
Since DK want to introduce TcB units, it is easier to know what it represents in a Naval setting: Dive and Torpedo Bombers since there was limited choice of planes which can do Carrier Operations.
@Cmdr:
I’d be good with:
Fig - 10 IPC, ATT 3, DEF 4
TBmb - 10 IPC, ATT 4, DEF 3
SBmb - 15 IPC, ATT 4, DEF 1, SBR @ 1d6+2 DMG, 2 Attack Dice take better of the two results in combatOr even make both FIG and TBOMB 12 IPC each. Heck there’s MORE than enough money on the board.
You seems to have a knack for a high cost StBs.
I think that 2 dices @4, keeping only 1 hit, is statistically even to @5.
It would be simpler to put StB A5 D1 M6 C15.
Nonetheless, I have the impression that your are going in a different directions because StB were not that accurate.
Probably an STB A4 D1 M6 C15 could work if you allowed SBR damaged to be like the old Heavy bombers Tech: 2D6. Keeping A1 during SBR dogfight.
@Baron:
Fighter cost 8, A1 D2
Tac B. cost 10, A3 D4
S. Bomber cost 12, A4 D1Hi Narvik,
with such values for Fighters, there is a problem with Carrier operation.
Such Fg is too weak against all other units while the TcB will be cut into chunk if it is an air combat to death or retreat before regular combat.At least, I think every rounds there must be an air fight phase before regular combat.
Only Fg and TcB can roll.
Fg is treated as you say.
But TacB should roll A1 D1.
Any survivor can make an attack against naval or ground units.
However, TcB should be at A3 D3 and when there is no dogfight get +1A/D bonus.
Fgs should keep the same attack and defense value in regular combat phase.
So all surviving planes in a given combat round have 2 rolls to hit.
Tcb 1/1 + 3/3
Fgs 1/2 + 1/2Due to the higher cost of StB, on offence it should get A1 in dogfight phase.
It seems the same as TcB but not really since TcB also get D1 and it is only 10 IPCs.
The Fighter as the same A1 but it is only 2/3 of StB cost.StB 1/0 + 4/1
Fgs A1 D2 C8 is probably too low on attack when there is no dogfight.
Here is the 2 differents value, for each phase:
Air to air combat phase: Fg A1 D2.
Regular combat phase: Fg A2 D2.
Sums: A3 D4 like the old Fighter.
This way, you have a reduced cost: 8 IPCs for Fgs and 10 IPCs for TcBs which can compensate for the higher attrition rate.
The new Fighter has the same full strength as the OOB when their is an aerial combat.
And when there is only regular combat, it gets an acceptable combat value A2 D2.
This is the same value as a Destroyer units.
To summarize:
Every combat round have an air-to-air combat phase of 1 cycle only, when there is planes on both sides.
And it is followed by regular combat in which all surviving planes can participate.
Only attacker can retreat his planes while continuing combat with ground units.
Each other rounds keeps the same 2 phases until one side have no more plane.
Air phase combat value / regular combat value
StB A1 D0 / A4 D1
TcB A1 D1 / A3-4 D3-4 get +1 A/D when there is no air combat
Fg A1 D2 / A2 D2
I do not want to get into a HUGE debate over statistics, PLEASE, but the odds should be:
2@4 most 1 hit: 88.45% chance of getting a hit
1@5 most 1 hit: 83.33% chance of getting a hit
It’s about 5% better odds with best of 2 dice per bomber.
I am also seeing what you are with regard to aircraft:
Might even go so far as to propose replacing all strategic bombers that start on the board with tactical bombers.
Results still proposed:
Fighter:
Tactical Bomber:
Strategic Bomber:
We could even say that air units must attack other air units before attacking any other units until one side or the other have no defending air units left. In regards to Fighters/Tactical Bombers. Strategic Bombers, if present, would be permitted to be casualties, but could not engage in air-to-air combat rounds.
@Cmdr:
I do not want to get into a HUGE debate over statistics, PLEASE, but the odds should be:
2@4 most 1 hit: 88.45% chance of getting a hit
1@5 most 1 hit: 83.33% chance of getting a hitIt’s about 5% better odds with best of 2 dice per bomber.
OK.
I believe you on the 5% difference.
I didn’t run any battlecalc. How did you get the results?
Is the 5% so important from a game perspective?
Rolling 2 dices and keeping only the better is nowhere in A&A system.
While an exceptionnaly high @5 is still inside a known mechanics?
And what about the 2D6 damage SBR for a 15 IPCs bomber ?
You don’t like it?
@Cmdr:
I am also seeing what you are with regard to aircraft:
- Fighter: Air-to-Air / Air-to-Ground general purpose aircraft.
- Tactical Bomber: Air-to-Ground / Air-to-Sea (i.e. Torpedo Plane) attack aircraft.
- Strategic Bomber: Area-of-Effect, High Level bombing damage. Like the Flying Fortress.
Strategic Bomber:*** Special: May not conduct naval combat**
Thanks for formulating my way of seeing air units.
I really disagree on your last restriction on STBs.
Mainly because I agree with CWOMarc.
@CWO:
However, in reality strategic bombers were not that effective against navy ships.
Correct, an example being the attack during the Battle of Midway by nine B-17s against Admiral Kondo’s occupation fleet and by fifteen B-17s against Nagumo’s carrier fleet. They scored no hits. On the other hand, the FW-200C Condor and the B-24 Liberator did have some success in the Battle of the Atlantic, the former in a convoy-attack role and the latter in the ASW role.
B-25 Medium Bombers in Pacific Theater of Operation, B-24 Liberator and Halifax Heavy Bomber (UK’s actual Sculpt) in Atlantic were used against Subs and some other Naval units.
If you go as high as 15 IPCs, even with @5.
This would be less effective than TcB @4 for 10 IPCs.
6 TcBs A24 D18 C60 compared to 4 StBs A20 D4 C60.
TcBs get 42 points while StBs get 24 points.
Even OOB StB A4 D1 C12 will be better than this StB A5 D1 C15
5 OOB StBs A20 D5 C60. SBR damage 5D6+10= 15 to 40
That’s why I suggested a better SBR damage to 15 IPCs’ StBs:
4D2xD6= 8 to 48.
Their role will be much more specific that way.
Also, for such a high cost giving A1 during air-to-air combat isn’t a big deal.
And it keeps the risk for all planes involved, much more fun.
6 TcBs get A6 D6 against 4 StBs get A4 D0.
@Cmdr:
We could even say that air units must attack other air units before attacking any other units until one side or the other have no defending air units left. In regards to Fighters/Tactical Bombers. Strategic Bombers, if present, would be permitted to be casualties, but could not engage in air-to-air combat rounds.
At such a high price, it should have a low combat value @1.
Rising the price is making a given combat number weaker compared to cheaper units with the same value.
However, I don’t go with a single phase of air destruction like 1914.
In my previous post, I come to a better intertaining phase each combat round.
Basically, all surviving planes will have 2 opportunities of firing.
1 roll against air units only.
1 roll against all units (in which it is mostly grounds or navals which are chosen as casualties).
A plane can get only 1 roll if their is no dogfight before regular combat or if they received a hit during the air combat phase.
In this increase air presence in battle, this imply higher attrition rate amongst planes.
That’s why I think an 8 -10 -12 cost (Fg, TcB, StB) is optimal.
However, there is many combat values which can fit according to your desire to strictly follow G40 OOB values of planes or not.
The idea is to get as near as possible the OOB value by combining Air-to-air values + regular combat values:
Air phase combat value / regular combat value
StB A1 D0 / A4 D1
TcB A1 D1 / A3-4 D3-4 get +1 A/D when there is no air combat
Fg A1 D2 / A2 D2
OR
Air phase based on G40 SBR / regular combat value
StB A1 D0 / A4 D1
TcB A1 D0 / A3-4 D3 get +1 A when there is no air combat
Fg A1 D1 / A2 D3
OR
Air phase loosely based on 1942.2 SBR / regular combat value
StB A1 D0 / A4 D1
TcB A1 D1 / A3-4 D3 get +1 A when there is no air combat
Fg A1 First Strike D2 / A2 D2
OR
A combined arms for Fighters / regular combat value with Air superiority bonus for TcB
StB A1 D0 / A4 D1
TcB A1 D1 / A3-4 D3-4 get +1 A/D when there is no air combat
Fg A1-2 D2 / A2 D2 get +1 A in air combat phase when paired 1:1 with TcB or with StB (Fg is playing an escort role, in which bombers are bait).
Fgs can represent Air Superiority Fighter with Machine guns and 1 or 2 cannons.
TcBs can represent Dive Bombers, Torpedo Bombers and even Light bombers.
StBs can represent Medium and Heavy Bombers.
The in-between case is Fighter-bomber.
Since he can bomb specific target, I rather put it in the TcBs wide category.
Not enough taste for a plane lover like me…
AL
