Rethinking Strategic Bomber and Tactical Bomber Roles

Cool!  You think apply it on a 1 to 1 basis?

Here’s a scenario:

2 escorts 2 SBRs against 2 interceptors. The interceptors negate the +2 to the die roll on the bombers for launching (1 interceptor per bomber). They still face 2 at 2A and 2 at 1A to their 2 at 2A.

@barney:

Cool!  You think apply it on a 1 to 1 basis?

Here’s a scenario:

2 escorts 2 SBRs against 2 interceptors. The interceptors negate the +2 to the die roll on the bombers for launching (1 interceptor per bomber). They still face 2 at 2A and 2 at 1A to their 2 at 2A.

OK, eventually I will try it.
But what can be an incentive to launch 2 Bombers against 2 interceptors?
Actually the 1D6+2 damage still make it an unfair trade odds.
Sum: +9.445 - 10.667 = - 1.222 IPCs damage/SBR run

Reducing damage will be a deterrent for making SBR in the first place.

Right on Baron! Those bombers need to hit heavy when they get through!
So +3 no intercept +1 with?

But what can be an incentive to launch 2 Bombers against 2 interceptors?

No 2 bombers and 2 escorts against 2 interceptors. The interceptors are at losing odds in the dogfight but cancel 2 hits of damage for being there. If the bombers need plus 3 or plus 1 due to interceptors should be fine.

I think it looks good Baron. I especially like the incentive to intercept even if you’re likely to lose a plane. It never made sense to me that people would choose not to fight battles that IRL, would have been fought. It’s not like the RAF would have said “Nah, we don’t need to intercept those bombers. We need our fighters for D-day!”

I’ll probably use all these HRs except the decreased attack/defense stats and fighter boosts, but only because I try to avoid HRs that conflict with the stats printed on the board. My current fix for preventing Str Bombers from being used in combat is allowing them to fight only one round before retreating.

@amanntai:

I think it looks good Baron. I especially like the incentive to intercept even if you’re likely to lose a plane. It never made sense to me that people would choose not to fight battles that IRL, would have been fought. It’s not like the RAF would have said “Nah, we don’t need to intercept those bombers. We need our fighters for D-day!”

I’ll probably use all these HRs except the decreased attack/defense stats and fighter boosts, but only because I try to avoid HRs that conflict with the stats printed on the board. My current fix for preventing Str Bombers from being used in combat is allowing them to fight only one round before retreating.

That is one of the issue. Making interception mandatory can be absurd. The odds can be so against the defending player, it becomes a waste of Fgs to do such interception.
On the other side, it can be also a waste of attacking Fgs, if there is too much of them that defender never dare to expose his own fighters under heavy fire.

About stats printed on board, there is no Infos on SBR combat values for StBs, TcBs and Fgs.

Even the SBR or TBR damage are not put on the board.

This gives plenty of room to find a good SBR mechanics which provides a real incentive for defending interceptors.

From a statistical damage calculations, it is better to keep the basic situation at D6+2 on AB, NB and IC.

However, how can be modulate the bonus for interceptor or the penalty for not using them accordingly?

This need to be explored.
Thanks,
Baron

I have a simple house rule idea for limiting bombers air blitzing abilities. Purpose of strategic bombers is

A) to attack enemy infrastructure and thus damage enemy’s economic production and/or morale.
B) to soften enemy’s defensive positions in preparation before a land attack.

But strategic bombers have not been used to kill enemy units directly, at least not in significant numbers. The purpose A) in Global’40 is modeled via strategic bombing rules. Purpose B) is modeled by bombers participating in regular attacks. If you think about it, purpose B) is very similar to naval bombardment. As there is clearly no advantage of supporting amphibious landing of 1 transport with 12 cruisers (and OOB rules nicely model for this by limiting the max number of bombarding warships), there clearly shall not be much difference in a land attack of 2 inf supported by 12 bombers and 2 inf supported by 2 bombers.

So the suggested house rule is: Attacker may bring at most as many strategic bombers into an attack as many land units he has brought or in a case of a naval battle as many warships (including subs) he has brought.

This house rule shall have almost no impact on conventional strategies*****. It will only start to matter with stacks of bombers. Suddenly one cannot simply deter Allied fleet off Gibraltar with tons of bombers, one cannot simply keep Normandy safe by 15+ bombers and 3 mechs in W Germany. One cannot threaten air-blitz of London,Cairo,Moscow, and Gibraltar by simply stacking bombers to Rome. Germany will have to think how to bring land and naval units into its battles. Allies in Europe will be able to move small armies around not worried about being killed by 1 mech and 10 bombers.

Also with this HR one can still possibly try to stack bombers, bomber stack shall still work fine against Moscow as Germany has tons of land units on that front. But defense of western front will be much harder.

*****The impact on conventional strategies is that it would not allow clearing blockers and lone TT’s with bombers only. It would also make unusable “German bombers in Pacific” strategy. If one wants these still to be part of the game, then the house rule can be modified that a single bomber is allowed to participate in any battle regardless of what other units participate. Nice advantage of this rule is that it does not require any modifications to tripleA. Players just have to watch for not violating the rule.

EDIT: As per follow-up discussion I implemented the house rule such that bombers attack @ 0 but if paired 1:1 with any land units or warships (excluding carriers) they get +4 bonus to attack.

I rather like that rule for its simplicity. I don’t have any major issues with the effect it would have on the gameplay, basically removing the bomber as an air blitz unit, and for solo can-opening.

The impact could be substantial, especially at higher levels of play, since the game often hinges on can-opening for turn order exploits, and air blitzing to take a capital or VC. Basically, ever since the bomber was dropped to 12 ipcs, stacking has become pretty popular. Its entirely possible that the adoption of this HR might swing the balance by sides a bit, though the relatively small number of starting bombers should help.

The only complicating factor I can see, in the analogy to naval bombardment, is that bombardment has its own special order in the combat phase, outside of the combat proper (since naval units cannot fight on land, they can never affect the fodder ratio.) So the question to address is how to handle the delegating of fodder hits when a bomber is involved…

Here is an example, say you are attacking with 1 ground unit, 1 fighter and 1 bomber. After the first round of combat the ground unit is destroyed, but the fighter and bomber remain. In the second round of combat, is the bomber allowed to participate as fodder for the fighter, even though the HR does not allow the bomber itself continue attacking? Or is the bomber considered no longer part of the fight, ie it is not longer involved in the combat cannot take any enemy hits?

@Black_Elk:

Here is an example, say you are attacking with 1 ground unit, 1 fighter and 1 bomber. After the first round of combat the ground unit is destroyed, but the fighter and bomber remain. In the second round of combat, is the bomber allowed to participate as fodder for the fighter, even though the HR does not allow the bomber itself continue attacking? Or is the bomber considered no longer part of the fight, ie it is not longer involved in the combat cannot take any enemy hits?

For simplicity, I was thinking not to put any further restrictions on a combat once it started. The HR would really just restrict the number of bombers that one can bring into a battle, but once the battle started it would follow OOB rules. So bombers can be taken as casualties at any chosen time and can also continue battle even if all land units are dead already. This is mostly to allow game play with tripleA without any modifications.

But with little modifications to the game xml file, one can modify bombers such that their attack value is 0, but if they are combined with any land unit or a warship in 1:1 ratio they get +4 attack bonus. It is much more realistic this way and gives space for interesting tactical decisions. Suddenly taking fighters as casualties before last few armors and artilleries supported by bombers is better for maximizing attack power. One would still be allowed to take bombers as casualties at any chosen time, I think that is ok. I will attach an xml file here soon.

I could see pairing them up to get an attack bonus. That would slow them up for sure. I’ve been using Baron’s A3 pretty consistently lately and like it a lot. Really notice it taking out solo blockers or on small counterattacks. Although I haven’t really tried mass bombers with it.

@nerquen:

@Black_Elk:

Here is an example, say you are attacking with 1 ground unit, 1 fighter and 1 bomber. After the first round of combat the ground unit is destroyed, but the fighter and bomber remain. In the second round of combat, is the bomber allowed to participate as fodder for the fighter, even though the HR does not allow the bomber itself continue attacking? Or is the bomber considered no longer part of the fight, ie it is not longer involved in the combat cannot take any enemy hits?

For simplicity, I was thinking not to put any further restrictions on a combat once it started. The HR would really just restrict the number of bombers that one can bring into a battle, but once the battle started it would follow OOB rules. So bombers can be taken as casualties at any chosen time and can also continue battle even if all land units are dead already. This is mostly to allow game play with tripleA without any modifications.

But with little modifications to the game xml file, one can modify bombers such that their attack value is 0, but if they are combined with any land unit or a warship in 1:1 ratio they get +4 attack bonus. It is much more realistic this way and gives space for interesting tactical decisions. Suddenly taking fighters as casualties before last few armors and artilleries supported by bombers is better for maximizing attack power. One would still be allowed to take bombers as casualties at any chosen time, I think that is ok. I will attach an xml file here soon.

Here https://www.dropbox.com/s/2mbsptvi4jxi1ut/World War II Bombers HR.zip?dl=0 you can download the map with bombers having attack value of 0, but if paired with any land unit or a warship* in 1:1 ratio their attack increases to 4. Just unzip the downloaded zip file into maps subfolder of your tripleA installation. Once you launch tripleA select “World War II Global 1940 2nd Ed. - House Ruled Bombers” from the list of available games. I would be interested in any feedback if you try it. You can PM me or post here.

• I excluded carriers here, as carriers have attack value of 0 themselves so it would felt weird if they could boost attack of bombers.