Threshold for making a viable SBR against interceptors?

@baron-Münchhausen

Thanks for telling me. I’ll try it sometime.

@all-encompassing-goose

The Captain mentioned it in a private chat with me, so I’m sure he knows it, although I’m not sure on his opinions though. I might copy it to his glossary of his house rule topics.

I use a bit different set up in my games. Bombers do well at strategic bombing while still keeping other options.

inf 1/2/1 3Pu AA
art 2/2/1 4Pu AA +1 attack bonus to infantry
arm 3/3/2 5Pu AA blitz

fig 2/2/4 5Pu 2 air at 3 air def
bom 2/1/6 6Pu 2 air at, strategic bomber

sub 2/1/2 4Pu
tra 0/0/0 5Pu
des 2/2/2 6Pu
cru 3/3/2 9Pu AA bombard 3
car 1/2/2 12Pu AA
b.s 4/4/2 16Pu AA bombard 4 2HP

trench 0/1/0 3Pu 2HP, repair, only one can be placed per territory per round.

@Imperious:

The Strategic Bomber is just fine as it is. The only OOB unit that’s problematic is the Cruiser at 10 IPC.

People buy Bombers because of their reach for both land and sea, numbers don’t quantity that value.

Sorry IL but it is a totally different paradigm we were talking about.
A game changer for Strategic bomber, no more A4 C12 M6.
It is a much different dynamic and have way more interesting implications.

Here is the link to this Redesign discussion:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39384.msg1632453#msg1632453

Soon, you will be able to playtest G40 both AA Cruiser C12 and bomber C5 on Triple A.

This method is to compare between SBR values in itself.
It cannot consider general combat values for sure.

And a way to explain why some SBR method and values may be unbalanced even without a lot of gametests.

The only way I see to keep the defense against planes manifesto is to provide
the 1 AA roll per cruiser.

Cruiser
Attack 3
Defend 2
Move 2
Shore bombard  3
Special 1 defensive AA first shot @1 against up to 1 plane/per cruiser unit.
Cost 10

In such situation as above,
if Cruiser A3 D2 is added into the mix, 2 units (A6 D4) for example:
Attack 13 Defense 14, 5 units.

A. survives: 22.1% D. survives: 75.6% No one survives: 2.3%

http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&AA=on&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=2&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=&aCru=2&aCar=1&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=2&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=2&dCru=&dCar=1&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=

That way, Cruiser is clearly not better than Destroyer against incoming Submarines.
But you still get a better Anti-Aircrafts platform while keeping his single offensive roll of Shore bombardment.

This can be balance with a 17-18 IPCs 2 hits Battleship.

SS…you’re the man!!!

Does it strike anybody else as odd that a transport can pick up troops move two zones and drop them off but can’t pick up troops, move one space drop them off and then still have one more MP so as to either move back or go to a different sea zone. Another even better instance would be a fleet battle where say a battleship moves one space fights and wins but can’t move any further but the battleship can move two zones first and fight.

To me ships should be treated as planes so that they get their full movement potential whether they battle or not. In a realism sense I believe this makes more sense. After all there is no extra total amount of work in the two cases for the transport as i illustrated. In both cases they have to load up move and unload their troops. If one moves shorter distance before unloading it would still be able to leave the beaches and continue on. I realize there would some additional time needed in the transport situation since it would have to leave from the beach back to open water and move on. But if it is all open sea combat such as in the case of the Battleship why can’t it continue moving. The same amount of fuel and time would be spent in moving one zone, battling for say one day and then moving another zone as would the time and fuel spent in moving two zones then battling for a day.

We implemented this rule back in the revised edition when ships were more expensive and so vulnerable for their cost to air power. we still use it at times in the Anniv Ed simply because it makes sense and it allows the Japanese navy for instance to not have to try to always keep its fleet in uberbunches since the U.S. is generally shadowing it with a decent navy and has bombers grouped in whatever island is available. this allows Japan to keep its navy together send several transports out on missions say one zone away then come back to the safety of the fleet. the fleet can still be beaten by a combined force of navy/air if the U.S. wants to go that route and build up their forces but it doesn’t force players to have to split up their fleet into little pieces if they want to launch invasions of a few territories nearby.

i feel our rule helps balance sea and air a litle which needs to happen somehow since sea can’t effectively ever win you a game since it can destroy units but never actually take anything for you and so will never directly contribute to your income like planes do. i know planes can’t secure territory either but one fighter in a land battle makes much more of a difference than one cruiser bombarding at 3 agreed? and that cruiser costs 12 compared to a fighter at 10. plus if you look at cruiser compared to a fighter, the cruiser contributes less to land battles and fights 3 attack and defense while costing more than a fighter who can attack at the same but defend even better AND they’re less vulnerable to counter attack AND they can be put into the sea on carriers AND they have greater flexibility. the only advantage of the carrier is that it doesn’t need another unit (carrier) to be in the sea and help protect transports. but the only two goals of a fleet ever are to protect transports to get more territory furthering your progress to victory or defending against/attacing another navy to preven tthem from doing the same.

that is true that bookkeeping can be a pain but it still isn’t too bad and for us it has worked fairly well. The main reason that we did it ever was looking at how aircraft can consistently pick and choose their battles and bombers can go out strike then return to a haven with fighters. by an IPC cost and battle odds comparison it made any fleet ridiculously vulnerable to air power if a fleet ever fractured a little bit bc they want to hit multiple territories in a turn. i realize the game isn’t simultaneous but i see nothing wrong with allowing a max of two MPs still for sea units and allowing them to move that total regardless. The one move for combat one non-com would be a good go-between though, we’ll try it. I guess we just looked at how often and easily air power messed up fleets and every time a decent air force was nearby any splitting of the fleet automatically condemned it to death by the other side’s air force. in reality or at least the stream of reality that A&A gives us it is entirely in the game’s time mechanism that a transport or other ship could leave a fleet perform some task like fight a battle/drop off troops and rejoin at the end in the same way that planes do different tasks and can regroup at the end. this way fleets are a little more flexible and they don’t all have to go to one exact place. looking at how even the odds are for if one side brings X IPCs worth of planes against the same value in only-combat ships we thought fleets should get a little more flexibilty and the chance to protect themselves. this was it makes sense for even an air power team to make some navy themselves to help bring down an opposing fleet rather than just constantly spam fleets with air units which is what generally would happen. the reason i feel fleets were too expensive/not flexible enough is illustrated here: lets say that a fleet costs the same as the air power going against it and we’ll even for sake of argument not have any non-fighting ships (subs and transports) factored in even though transports are a necessary part of a navy if it ever wants to make a difference by getting more IPCs for their power. if you consider the cost of the non-fighting transports who cost IPCs but can’t even aborb hits in a tight spot this is even more difficulty for a fleet but here is just one iteration of many different only air vs sea scenarios.

three cruisers and 5 destroyers vs three bombers and 4 fighters. in both cases a cost of 76 IPCs. the most common outcome for the first round is that the navy is reduced to three CAs and one DD and the airforce is three Bombers and one Fighter at that point the odds are still close but on defense you have 3 dice at 3 and 1 at 2 whereas the offense has 3 dice at 4 and 1 at 3. the great news for the airforce is that if they win they can go back home and be free from easy counterattack buteven if this navy has survivors it has been crippled and the only way for it to survive till the next round is if no other powers have air units in range or if it builds more sea units. i realize only head to head isn’t a perfect comparison bc there is value to being able to bombard with ships and forcing an enemy to cover his various coastal positions bc of your possibilities….But it struck me that air units are just so much more valuable not only heads up but bc of their flexibility bc they can contribute way more to a ground assault than even a battleship can so why even build much of a navy unless you need to land troops, just build a massive airforce spread out over various territories and any time the enemy tries to go beyond the slowpoke pace of seizing several territories in one turn annhilate that portion. that is what i would do every game with the U.S. till i got sick of it and went for a realism game of bombing Germany and trying to take europe while fighting a delaying action in the pacific.

the other reason we did this is that if Italy ever wants to build sea units in the same turn as dropping off units in Egypt or Transjordan they must necessarily split their fleet between guarding the transport and the newly built one sea unit since neither will put up much resistance (none in the transport’s case) to an air assault. but here is the thing that transport pry never has to carry out any moves from further than the Italian sea zone and yet it can’t return. playing the traditional way the U.S. can put about 3 fighters in caucuses and simply wait for this split to occur and nail one piece. if the italians never split then the pace that their navy accomplishes anything is further reduced.

i realize the limitations in trying to balance games only by using head to head unit comparisons but i believe one good test of balance is if their is an strategy that works absurdly well and his little chance to have a legit counter than something needs to change. I like the idea of reducing the cruiser so that at least defense vs fighter offense they are the same plus if you give it an extra capability like anti-sub or flak then it actually has a rationale to exist in one’s lineup. i don’t buy the argument that they should be kept simply to allow a person to buy a naval unit if they don’t have enoguh to buy a battleship that round. i like to give people a reason to buy each unit depending on their strategy.

A balance theory can’t simply be reduced to how certain setups work otherwise you could show that tanks are worthless as offensive weapons by a set up where the defense has 14 infantry and the offense has 6 tanks and 4 infantry costing the same IPCs to both. the likely result is that the defender wins with 4-6 infantry remaining. however this doesn’t account for the fact that on offense there is still incentive to attack by finding weak spots in the defense to overwhelm them plus the ability to bring airplanes to a spot where the defense has none.

i like to analyze the math of the game and try to keep their from being too many ridiculous flaws but i’m always discovering things i didn’t realize such as how battleships go beyond just their matchup capabilities in sea to sea combat. everytime they are in a battle and win while absorbing a hit they have effectively saved the winning side one ship by virtue of absorbing a hit that would’ve sunk something else. this means that battleships have value even if they were somewhat more expensive i think. i always just used to look at the heads up comparison of them in a sea battle to just cruisers or destroyers but those units can’t preserve units in effect like a battleship can. however you could argue that with extra cheaper units you would have won sooner in your battle anyway so who knows lol. sorry for the insane post.

I was unable to sleep tonight and suddently an idea came to my mind. I don’t think the game truly reflects the importance of SBR’s. Superfortresses were primarily designed for strategic bombardment, not tactical battles as we always use them in the game (or do we….hummm?)

So, I thought of the following rule:

Strategic bombing raids
The mighty 8th air force conducted tousands of sorties against German industry throughout the war, inflicting considerable losses to the Reich’s economy.
For every bomber present on the United Kingdom territory, the German player must surrender 2 IPC’s from his money to the bank at the begining of his turn. This rule is similar to the “U boote interdiction” rule. Bombers can conduct tactical battles as normally but they must land on UK territory for the rule to take effect on the next turn.