Rethinking Strategic Bomber and Tactical Bomber Roles

@Dafyd:

After reading all of the comments I beleive that the Strategic bomber should be just that.  It was designed to deliver a heavy payload on a designated target.  It was not flown like a fighter and you did not use it in a dive bombing manuever.  It flew level and high.  Let the escorts and intercepters fight it out and give the bombers a defence of one.  The B17 did shoot enemy intercepters down.  Leave the D6 roll as its damage value and their cost at 12ipc’s.  The only thing I would change is its mission peramiters.  The strategic bomber was used in industrial targets, rail stations, air and naval bases.  Tactical bombers like the Stuka and the P47 did not attack air and naval bases like and SBR but they attacked the planes, ships, and trains.  Stragegic bombers would carpet bomb a battlefield but this manuever was done prior to launching an attack and was one pass over the field.  It did not stay and engage in the battle.  If you use a strategic bomber on  a battlefield it should be limited to one pass over the field prior to the combat phase and the D6 total applied to the damage to the units in the field.  Say a stragegic bomber is going to be used in Western Ukraine.  The German player would launch all of his SBR’s to hit London’s I/C and air base and one to Western Ukraine.  All of the SBR’s are done prior to any combat rolls.  The Western Ukaraine bomber rolls a 5,  if the Soviet player has 4 infantry, 2 artillery, and two tanks; 5 points of damage would be inflicted on the Soviet’s forces.  One tank and one infantry (defense of 3 & defense of 2) would need to be taken as casualties (or any combination that would equal the amout the bomber inflicted).  Unless there is AAA in that territory, the bomber flies away unscathed.  The ground forces involved are not going to shoot a stargegic bomber down.  The casualties would be removed and the ground combat phase would begin.  I don’t think the Stategic bomber should continue dropping fours in a ground or naval battle.  This just wasn’t their function.  My humble opinion only.

Okay, I don’t like the D6 damage idea, but I like the one pass idea. I think all the OOB stats should stay the same, but in battles against units bombers only participate in one round. If attacking and they survive, they retreat, and if defending they become like AAAs.

I do appologize for causing the confusion it appears that I have caused.  My way of thinking about SBR’s on a territory that you are about to attack is not intended to have so many strategic bombers launched at one territory.  The ipc value hinders production of 10 bombers.  You have to have the ground units.  I believe that AAA would be more widly used in this game play.  I also think that if the strategic bombers are going to “fly” over an enemy territory that has an air base and intercepters available and radar tech (for those that play with tech), then they should be able to scramble.  I agree that there were massive waves of strategic bombers used but for game play, I was suggesting limiting it to one pass just as you have one pass at any other SBR.

As a side note, our gaming group has house ruled that intercepters and escorts attack and defend at their normal attack/defense values.  Still only one pass in the air combat but it didn’t make sence to deminish the fighter’s or tactical bomber’s capabilities because they are escorting or intercepting.  It has made SBR’s more challenging.  As for the SBR on a territory that your about to attack, it is a suggestion to consider.  One last thing, if your bombers are close enough to hit an enemy target like was suggested by Shadow Hawk, they may be close enough to have the enemy’s strategic bombers repay the favor.  I will have to play this rule and see what kind of difference it makes.

@Dafyd:

I do appologize for causing the confusion it appears that I have caused.  My way of thinking about SBR’s on a territory that you are about to attack is not intended to have so many strategic bombers launched at one territory.  The ipc value hinders production of 10 bombers.  You have to have the ground units.  I believe that AAA would be more widly used in this game play.  I also think that if the strategic bombers are going to “fly” over an enemy territory that has an air base and intercepters available and radar tech (for those that play with tech), then they should be able to scramble.  I agree that there were massive waves of strategic bombers used but for game play, I was suggesting limiting it to one pass just as you have one pass at any other SBR.

As a side note, our gaming group has house ruled that intercepters and escorts attack and defend at their normal attack/defense values.  Still only one pass in the air combat but it didn’t make sence to deminish the fighter’s or tactical bomber’s capabilities because they are escorting or intercepting.  It has made SBR’s more challenging.  As for the SBR on a territory that your about to attack, it is a suggestion to consider.  One last thing, if your bombers are close enough to hit an enemy target like was suggested by Shadow Hawk, they may be close enough to have the enemy’s strategic bombers repay the favor.  I will have to play this rule and see what kind of difference it makes.

This thread was specifically made in response to discussion of Germany using very large numbers of Strategic Bombers (I believe 40 was the maximum number discussed). With that many, both OOB bombers and the bombers you described (dealing D6 damage), the bombers are practically broken (more so with the D6 Bombers… even with one pass, they could kill up to 120 infantry…).

If you use the regular values for intercepting fighters, what does radar do?

@barney:

I like the idea of bomber A3  +1 when paired with a fighter Baron. It’s the same way TACs are used. Also like the idea of fighter intercepts and escorts A2.
The increased range would be bombers greatest asset as well as being able to hit factories.

Nothing too radical and should be easy to adjust to.

I also like the  +1 when no enemy planes are present as well.

I think deeper about this Strategic and Tactical Bomber issue.
I believe the right historically inspired rules for them should have been the following, but the StB was too iconic to make such a change:

TACTICAL BOMBER
ATTACK 4
DEFENSE 3
MOVE 4
COST 11
Paired 1:1 with Tank, gives +1D to Tank (an historical point which I kept on defense to counter-balance the Attack @4 in all situations.)
TBR Attack 1 Damage 1D6

STRATEGIC BOMBER
Attack 3 rise to 4
when no enemy’s plane (+1 Attack due to Air Supremacy bonus) or
when paired 1:1 with Fighter
Defense 1
Move 6
Cost 12
SBR Attack 1 Damage 1D6+2

That way, when StBs are attacking a SZ without any Fighter support, then their attack value will be 3 while the defending Fg will keep their high Defense @4.

It will be only when they are paired with 1 Fighter escort per StB, that they can rise to an even combat Attack 4 against Defense @4.

I said more historical combat value because between TcBs and StBs, it seems to me that StBs were much more sitting duck than TcBs. So, it should have been StB which clearly needs a combined arms for Fighter support. Many TacBs types of Fg-bomber or Light-Bomber were able to fly without escort.

Here is what I would prefer as Fg unit to fix the other balance issue in SBR:
FIGHTER
Attack 3
Defense 4
Move 4
Cost 10
Gives +1A to StB when paired 1:1
SBR Attack 2 Defense 2

@Dafyd:

After reading all of the comments I beleive that the Strategic bomber should be just that.  It was designed to deliver a heavy payload on a designated target.  It was not flown like a fighter and you did not use it in a dive bombing manuever.  It flew level and high.  Let the escorts and intercepters fight it out and give the bombers a defence of one.  The B17 did shoot enemy intercepters down.  Leave the D6 roll as its damage value and their cost at 12ipc’s.  The only thing I would change is its mission peramiters.  The strategic bomber was used in industrial targets, rail stations, air and naval bases.  Tactical bombers like the Stuka and the P47 did not attack air and naval bases like and SBR but they attacked the planes, ships, and trains.

**I don’t think the Stategic bomber should continue dropping fours in a ground or naval battle. ** This just wasn’t their function.  My humble opinion only.

I would agree with you only if their was a specific unit for medium bomber.
It is not the case. German’s JU88 and Japanese’s Betty Medium twin-engine bombers were used in tactical missions.
That’s why I think, as long as there is no 4 fourth air units in A&A (Fg, TcB, MedB and Heavy Bombers), Strategic bomber can do both types of missions (Regular and SBR), since this units included both medium and heavy bombers.

Above are the small changes which can gives more historical feel to both TcB and StB IMo.

I’ve been think’in on it too Baron. REALLY like it! :)
But not so sure about A4 give +1 D to tank for TACs. Wouldn’t that give Germany the biggest boost? Guess I don’t see the historical aspect either. Maybe CWO will chime in on that?
Haven’t had a chance to playtest yet but will soon.

Good Action!

Thanks Barney.
Thinking about sturmovik and hawker typhoon as tank killer from above.

Maybe Germany would put TcB in Dead Zone but I think this can allow Russia to buy a Tac or two without too much compromising defense compared to Fg at 10 IPCs.

Ahh… hadn’t thought about Russia. Hmmm…:)

@Chrisx:

@Baron:

I would agree with you only if their was a specific unit for medium bomber.
It is not the case. German’s JU88 and Japanese’s Betty Medium twin-engine bombers were used in tactical missions.
That’s why I think, as long as there is no 4 fourth air units in A&A (Fg, TcB, MedB and Heavy Bombers), Strategic bomber can do both types of missions (Regular and SBR), since this units included both medium and heavy bombers.

Above are the small changes which can gives more historical feel to both TcB and StB IMo.

If SB’s represent both heavy and medium bombers then their movement should be reduced to 5. My interpretation is that TB’s represent all light and medium bombers with a battlefield role while SB’s represent heavy bombers intended for destroying infrastructure. In their current form SB’s trump TB’s and make them all but superfluous: for one piffling extra IPC they are better attackers, have a longer range and are better at strategic bombing (the only thing they should be good at). They can’t defend as well (but who buys SB’s or TB’s for defence?) or land on a carrier but with their long range and the right base SB’s can be positioned to threaten any strategically important sea area. So who’s buying TB’s instead of SB’s? It’s no wonder that it’s not the players doing extreme SB strategies!

I see it in the opposite way.
If StBs sculpts OOB were made only of 4 engines heavy bombers, then I would have given them a 7 spaces move. So, with Air Base, such High Altitude Heavy Bombers would be able to go 4 TTs away and come back.

@Chrisx:

Perhaps you’ve inadvertently presented a case for Germany and Japan not being able to build SB’s, only TB’s? That would certainly solve the problem of extreme Axis OP SB strategies.

Not really. Here is my solution:
@Baron:

I thought deeper about this Strategic and Tactical Bomber issue.
I believe the right historically inspired rules for them should have been the following, but the StB was too iconic to make such a change:

TACTICAL BOMBER
ATTACK 4
DEFENSE 3
MOVE 4
COST 11
Paired 1:1 with Tank, gives +1D to Tank (an historical point which I kept on defense to counter-balance the Attack @4 in all situations.)
TBR Attack 1 Damage 1D6

STRATEGIC BOMBER
Attack 3 rise to 4
when no enemy’s plane (+1 Attack due to Air Supremacy bonus) or
when paired 1:1 with Fighter
Defense 1
Move 6
Cost 12
SBR Attack 1 Damage 1D6+2

That way, when StBs are attacking a SZ without any Fighter support, then their attack value will be 3 while the defending Fg will keep their high Defense @4.

It will be only when they are paired with 1 Fighter escort per StB, that they can rise to an even combat Attack 4 against Defense @4.

---

I said more historical combat value because between TcBs and StBs, it seems to me that StBs were much more sitting duck than TcBs. So, it should have been StB which clearly needs a combined arms for Fighter support. Many TacBs types of Fg-bomber or Light-Bomber were able to fly without escort.

Here is what I would prefer as Fg unit to fix the other balance issue in SBR:
FIGHTER
Attack 3
Defense 4
Move 4
Cost 10
Gives +1A to StB when paired 1:1
SBR Attack 2 Defense 2

I would add that restricting Strategic Bombers to SBR will too much restrict players options.
The game needs that Strategic Bombers should do both SBRs and regular combats.
I agree it need a small reduction on attack to make the Tactical Bomber more attractive.

That way (above) both StB and TcB will perform regular missions, but StB can have a longer range.
Tactical will become THE main attacking unit with a regular A4.
So, each bomber will have is own niche.

Tactical will become THE main attacking unit with a regular A4.

Yea! Now I get it! That is totally Kick Ass! If you want the guaranteed 4 hit you gotta buy the Tac. The Strats still get the range with a 3 hit, possible 4 boost. Will need to support with fighters off carriers for full escort range. That will be cool too!
Still a little hesitant about boosting the tanks on D. But I’m gonna give it a try in a coupla days and see what happens. :)

Giving no bonus to Tank is simpler.
But if you want more historical feels and another boost for Tactical Bombers against StBs, the pairing bonus with Tank can be +1 on offence and defense.
This will slightly change some Germans and Japan openings rounds.
But much more for Germany than Japan since they have far less Tank units.

If you don’t boost the tank as well, do you think it would be enough to stop bomber spam? If you still wanted to go bomber heavy you could. It would probably make you think twice though. I guess one would just have to play it a few times and see what happens.

Boosting the tank on offense and defense would definitely slow down some SBR buys. So stoked to try this out!

@barney:

Tactical will become THE main attacking unit with a regular A4.

Yea! Now I get it! That is totally Kick Ass! If you want the guaranteed 4 hit you gotta buy the Tac. The Strats still get the range with a 3 hit, possible 4 boost. Will need to support with fighters off carriers for full escort range. That will be cool too!
Still a little hesitant about boosting the tanks on D. But I’m gonna give it a try in a coupla days and see what happens. :)

Here is the beginning of my ideas on StBs and TcBs.
But there is no idea such as the simpler one I suggested above, which reverse the attack bonus of StB A4 to TcB, and the A3-4 of TcB toward StB.
You may find more to think about in this thread:
Rethinking Air Units
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34502.msg1328356#msg1328356

There is also an interesting thread about Tactical bombers and what kind of planes they should represent:
Tactical Bombers and their use
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33181.msg1258795#msg1258795

@Chrisx:

I would add that restricting StB to SBR will too much restrict players options.

I think the opposite: at present super-powered SB’s or ‘super bombers’ are restricting options. As the USA I would like to do a KGF strategy but am restricted from getting anywhere near Europe by spammed super bombers. As the UK I would like to build transports and/or a fleet next to England but am restricted from doing so by spammed super bombers. As an Allied player I would like to have some sort of presence in the Mediterranean but am restricted from doing so by spammed super bombers. As Russia I would like to move a force out of Moscow but am restricted from doing so by spammed super bombers. As Germany I would like to try a different strategy but am restricted from doing so because spamming super bombers is a no-brainer.

Changing the attack factor of StB from A4 to A3 need escorting Fg paired 1:1 to get A4, will drop the effectiveness of Bombers against Naval, which usually built Carriers.

You don’t have to change radically StB units to fix the Darkened Skies Strategy (if their is a consensus about it as an overpowered broking game strategy, which is not clear for now).

There is some others options HR.
Just thinking about giving also AAA capacity to some warships combined arms.
Below, there is a summary of all others HR adjustment which can reduced the OP of OOB G40 StBs combined with a Darkened Skies Strat:
@Baron:

@captain:

I’m not if favor of changing the rules, but I do feel some of the rules favor this strategy.
Like the delayed entry and reduced income for the US…by the time the US can get to Gib, Germany could already have enough bombers to take out their fleet.

Or that you’re only allowed to scramble three fighters from an airbase…a big stack of fighters doesn’t help much if you can only use three of them to defend against a bomber stack.

@rgp44:

They change the “rules” every time we turn around.   They change how much units cost all the time why is the latest iteration sacred?  If you can win the game most of the time just by building 1 unit then that unit is too powerful and it should be made more expensive or less powerful in values.  There has been a continual struggle over decades to keep A&A games balanced and to act like one unit value or one specific rule is unchangeable is silly.  The fact is the bomber strategy makes a mockery of the game and I won’t use it even if it works, I would prefer that a strategy to neutralize it would emerge (short of bids going into the 30s) but if it doesn’t the game needs to be adjusted for the enjoyment of those who play.  No one wants to play a game where one and only strategy dominates.

Talking about opening the OOBox:
You can increase the cost. (The simplest but not very creative.)
Or develop the other units to be a good response to the overwhelming mobility and projection of power of Strategic Bombers stack.

You can add some countermeasures to one neglect unit, such as giving Cruiser an AAA capacity.
Or a combined arms bonus which gives same AAA capacity as OOB land AAA, to two or three warships paired 1:1:1, such as Cruiser, Battleship and Aircraft Carrier.

You can increase the combat value of Fighters specifically against planes.
(The simplest is a “1” on any roll hit directly enemy’s planes.
But there is more interesting ways, inspired by 1914 Fighter.)

@rgp44:

or you could do something with unescorted bombers attacking at lower values which would be much more realistic, I cringe every time I send a stack of unescorted bombers against a factory because in reality any fighter cover would make mincemeat of unescorted bombers (unless its a night raid).

For this specific point, you can modify Strategic Bombing Raids escort and intercept values of Fighter:
Gives escorting Fg: Attack 2 and intercepting Fg: Defense 2.
(The actual OOB G40 SBR rules are very much against the defender which can only use the Fgs from the IC’s territory.
For his part, attacker can bring as much StBs, TcBs and Fgs within range.
Also, Fg having the same defense D1 value as the Bomber attack factor A1 gives an important advantage toward attacking Bombers and is quite unhistorical.)

Allows up to three Fighters only on an operational Air Base to scramble in an adjacent territory (not just SZ) which have an Industrial Complex/Naval Base/Air Base under SBR/TBR to be able to act as interceptors.

You can increase the combat value of AAA unit.
Allows each AAA to make up to 1 roll per plane per combat round (instead of 3 initial rolls and no more after), let it works the same as other units but only against planes.
You can even make more powerful this neglect 5 IPCs unit:
Up to three pre-emptive rolls @1 against up to 3 planes, whichever the lesser, and 1 regular roll @1 against up to 1 plane, whichever the lesser, for the other rounds.

You can lower the price of AAA unit to 4 IPCs or even 3 IPCs, so it becomes easier to provide an Anti-Aircraft cover against StBs umbrellas attack.

You can also allows 1 or 2 Fighters or Tactical Bombers (with enough additional move points) to land in a just conquered territory to protect the remaining ground units, which are usually weaker and more vulnerable to large stack of Bombers.
Naval units can do it by bringing a few Carriers in a SZ, you can at least allows that land territory being able to receive a similar number of planes as if you bring in a single carrier unit.

Allows up to one Fighter only per Aircraft Carrier (max 3 Fgs) to scramble from an adjacent SZ into a territory which have an Industrial Complex/Naval Base/Air Base under SBR/TBR to be able to act as interceptors.

About this specific issue:
@captain:

Or that you’re only allowed to scramble three fighters from an airbase…a big stack of fighters doesn’t help much if you can only use three of them to defend against a bomber stack.

Allows the building of one additional Air Base in any given territory, maximum: 2 per territories.
That way, up to 6 Fgs or TcBs can be scramble into one SZ.
However, it means that the first 4 damage points are for making both ABs non-operational, but it can rise to 12 damage points, since each AB worth 6 damage points.

Allows defenseless transports stack under Airplanes attack only, a single regular defense AA roll @1/per plane per transport, whichever the lesser. Once done, all transports are destroyed, even if all planes were destroyed too.

---

Thanks for this thread topic.
It provides an opportunity to summarize a lot of other HR discussed in the Forum.
(Without it, I’d never try to put in a single post every HR related to StBs somehow.)  :-)

@Chrisx:

Thanks for the links, Baron. An interesting read and I’ve got a few ideas that don’t seem to have been thought of so far. In order to limit the use of SB’s in land battles, each attacking SB must be paired with an attacking land unit. This will prevent a weak land power from dominating combat with SB’s alone, stop SB’s from attacking non-front line areas and force a player to buy at least as many land units as SB’s in order to get the most out of his SB’s. Similarly, in order to attack a naval force each SB must be paired with an attacking surface warship. This will stop a weak naval power from dominating the waves with SB’s alone. SB’s can continue to attack infrastructure according to the OOB rules. The logic behind the above is that without at least some form of surface contact to pinpoint a (mobile) enemy location SB’s are blind and therefore ineffective (and it’s also good for play balance). Another idea is that attacking SB’s cannot inflict battle casualties on fighters (in a similar way to submarines being unable to hit planes). Thus if a force of attacking SB’s found itself alone in an area with fighters it would have to retreat or be eliminated. SB’s would defend against fighters as normal and hits from interception combat during a strategic bombing raid would apply as normal OOB.

There goes bombing the mainland/London to prep for an invasion…