G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

@Black_Elk:

Deal with the vulnerability of navies to mass bomber spams

Can you describe the problem here more specifically. I have never dealt with this personally. Who does it affect most (whose navy gets attacked by whose bombers?).

As it stands, the bomber is the best hit-for-cost versus any naval units.

My suggestion for a more simple fix would be to increase bomber cost. Bombers used to cost like 15 or something. Unit cost should be roughly analogous to roll value power and I would have little issue increasing cost to 13, 14 or 15 IPCs. Strategic Bombers should be more expensive to manufacture than simply 1 IPC more than a tactical bomber.

Barney’s suggestion of reducing the bomber attack would have to be accompanied by compensating measures elsewhere. Price of a bomber would need to be lowered. And you would then need to revise both tactical bomber and fighter roll values. Why buy a A3 D1 bomber at 12 IPCs when you can get a A3 D4 fighter for 10 IPCs? Speaking of which… doesn’t anyone have this issue with Tac Bombers also? They roll on a 4 providing you have accompanying fighters.

Unless… you reduced the bomber’s attack to 3 only when attacking in a sea zone. This actually has a lot of merit and would simply be a matter of adding a clause to the bomber rule; no other modifications needed. Strategic bombers were very poor at attacking vessels underway at sea. Dropping unguided bombs from 10,000 feet on a moving ship is very ineffective. That is why carrier based tactical bombers (torpedo and dive bombers) were used for such missions. The only example I know of during the war in which large bombers attacked ships underway was B-17s at Midway. They scored no hits on the Japanese ships.

@Black_Elk:

Fix AAAguns once and for all.

Last things first, AAguns suck. This is pretty universally acknowledged. It blows that the unit sculpt is pretty cool, but it just has no good role to play in the game for most players. For me the single most annoying thing about AAguns is how they are restricted the non-combat phase. This makes them an all around headache in addition to being overpriced and underpowered. So lets fix them.

What is the desired result? Do you want them to have attack and defense values, separate from their AA shot? Do you want to bring them into combat for AA shots against defending air units? (I don’t really like the latter option)

to elaborate on the reduced bmbr attack, which I first heard from Baron

bmbr A3 +1 with fighter on1:1 basis
Tac A4 gives +1D to tank on1:1 basis

I’ve been playing with these rules for a while and find them to work well. The extended range is what gives the bmbr it’s value over a tac. I just suggested 3A change for simplification.

One of the places it is discussed is here: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35415.0

also use escorts/interceptors hit at 2 bmbrs 1 on sbr

@barney:

bmbr A3 +1 with fighter on1:1 basis
Tac A4 gives +1D to tank on1:1 basis

I’ve been playing with these rules for a while and find them to work well. The extended range is what gives the bmbr it’s value over a tac. I just suggested 3A change for simplification.

I get that bomber paired with fighter gives the bomber +1 on attack (@4). Makes sense.

Does the Tac always attack @4? That seems pretty darn powerful. Not to mention it would just defeat the purpose of reducing the strategic bomber attack. Tac giving a tank +1 on defense is really powerful also.

I think the idea to reduce bomber’s attack power at sea makes a lot of sense LHoffman. It’s an easy change to implement and keep track of. Also makes Dark Skies a little less powerful.

@General:

I think the idea to reduce bomber’s attack power at sea makes a lot of sense LHoffman. It’s an easy change to implement and keep track of. Also makes Dark Skies a little less powerful.

Thanks! It was a brief moment of genius motivated by someone else’s concern. Ha.

What is Dark Skies? Too many planes blocking out the sun?

That’s the German player buying a ton of bombers to either pound Russia with or to scare off Anglo/American invasion fleets.

@Black_Elk:

As far as combat units go, I would set out these chief goals for fixing busted units in the current (ideally the solutions for the “problem units” should interrelated.)

Deal with the vulnerability of navies to mass bomber spams

Make the Cruiser a worthwhile purchase.

Fix AAAguns once and for all.

This is a different roster (at 2 IPCs lower than OOB, on average) which provides better (IMO) and simpler interactions between units without being too complex.
Watch for special and revised abilities of Submarines (the main tactical combat change from OOB: Subs cannot hit each others), Transports (almost like Classic Transport but with a Last Strike defense), Destroyers (reduced cost to be the best all-around sea-fodder), planes, Cruiser and Battleship and AAA.

INFANTRY A1-2 D2 M1 Cost 3, as OOB
Get +1A if paired 1:1 with Artillery or Mechanized Artillery

MECHANIZED INFANTRY A1-2 D2 M2 Cost 4, as OOB
Get +1 if paired 1:1 with Artillery or Mechanized Artillery
Can Blitz when paired 1:1 with a Tank

ARTILLERY A2 D2 M1 Cost 4, as OOB
Gives +1A to 1 Infantry or 1 Mechanized Infantry

ANTI-AIRCRAFT ARTILLERY A0 D1 M1 Cost 4, 1 hit,
Each round, up to 1 preemptive defense @1 against up to 2 planes, whichever the lesser, works similar to OOB AAA but can defend each combat round.
Stop any blitz, and defend itself @1 against enemy’s ground units, if no attacking air unit is present.
Can move during combat move phase, can be taken as casualty (owner’s choice).

TANK A3-4 D3-4 M2 Cost 6
Can Blitz
Allow Mechanized Infantry to Blitz on 1 on 1 basis.
Gets +1A/D from Tactical Bomber when paired 1:1 with
Both abilities can apply. (1MI:1Tk:1TcB basis)

SUBMARINE A2 First Strike D1 M2 Cost 6
Submerge, instead of rolling for a First Strike Attack or a regular defense, blocked by ASV (DD) on a 1:1 basis for the first combat round only,
Stealth Movement: No Hostile Sea-Zone (except ASV (DD) can block Submarine Stealth movement on 1:1 basis),
Cannot hit airplanes,
Cannot hit or be hit by other submarines,
Can be hit by planes, doesn’t require an Anti-Sub Vessel.

DESTROYER A2 D2 M2 Cost 6
Anti-Sub Vessel:
each ASV cancel Sub’s Submerge on 1 DD:1 Sub basis for the first combat round only
(When it occurs, defending Subs rolls a Defense @1 in the first round, and any surviving Subs can submerge at the beginning of the second combat round.)
Cancel Sub’s Stealth Movement on 1 DD: 1 Sub basis for Combat or Non Combat Move, all additional Sub units can perform a Stealth Movement as usual.
ASV can no more block First Strike Attack capacity of enemy’s Submarine.

TRANSPORT A0 D1 Last Strike M2 Cost 8, 1 hit
Last Strike: Transport units taken as casualty cannot roll for defense and are discarded immediatly.
Each transport unit can be taken individually as casualty, owner’s choice.
As long as their is still 1 Transport remaining, it can roll this single defense @1.
Must be escorted by a warship when making an amphibious assault in an enemy’s Submarines infested SZ or Transports infested SZ, so to be able to ignore them/ or fight them with combat units.
Otherwise, Submarines and Transports may be ignored during Transport Combat Move or Non Combat Move.

CRUISER A3 D3 M2 Cost 10 9 Edit (OOB Cruiser cost is 3/2 OOB DD cost)
Shore bombardment @3, as OOB
Anti-Air Defense: each Cruiser gets up to 1 preemptive shot @1 against up to 2 planes, whichever the lesser.

G40.2 FLEET CARRIER A0 D2 M2 Cost 14 12, 2 hits (Edit : 2 OOB DDs cost=  1 Carrier cost)
Carry 2 planes (Fgs or TcBs)
Damaged Carrier cannot carry plane.

BATTLESHIP A4 D4 M2 Cost 16 15, 2 hits (Edit: DD cost + Cruiser cost = BB cost)
Shore bombardment @4, as OOB
Anti-Air Defense : each BB gets up to 1 preemptive shot @1 against up to 2 planes, whichever the lesser.

FIGHTER A3 D4 M4 Cost 8
Air combat unit, Fighter as an Air Superiority aircraft: All “1” or “2” rolls are allocated to aircraft units first, if any available, then AAA, and finally other kind of units.
SBR/TcBR Attack @2, Defend @2.
Can hit submarines without Anti-Sub Vessel (Destroyer).

TACTICAL BOMBER A4 D3 M4 Cost 10
All “1” rolls are allocated to planes first, Anti-Aircraft Artillery units, if any available, then other kind of units.
Combined Arms bonus with Tank, Tactical Bomber viewed as a “Dive Bomber” and a “Tank Buster”:
Gives +1 Attack or Defense to any 1 Tank when paired 1:1.
SBR/TcBR Attack @1 First Strike,
Allowed to do escort mission for Strategic Bomber without doing Tactical Bombing Raid on Air Base or Naval Base,
Bombers (StBs or TcBs) are the first targets destroyed by interceptors.
Cannot do interception mission on defense,
TcBR damage: 1D6.
Can hit submarines without Anti-Sub Vessel.

STRATEGIC BOMBER A4 D1 M6 Cost 10
All “1” rolls on attack are allocated to planes first, Anti-Aircraft Artillery units, if any available, then other kind of units.
Strategic Bombing Raid (SBR*)/ TBR : Attack @1 first strike against up to 2 fighters, whichever the lesser, similar to AAA above.
SBR/TBR damage: 1D6+2 on Industrial Complex, Air Base or Naval Base
Bombers (StB or TcB) are the first targets destroyed by interceptors.
If destroyed by IC’s, AB’s or NB’s AA gun, a minimum SBR damage apply: 2 IPCs.
No damage if destroyed by Fighter interceptor.
Can hit submarines without Anti-Sub Vessel.

SBR/TBR escort and intercept combat values:
Fighter: Attack 2 Defense 2
Tactical Bomber: Attack 1 first strike Defense 0
Strategic Bomber: Attack 1 first strike , as AA gun against up to 2 Fgs, Defense 0
Bombers (StB or TcB) are the first targets destroyed by interceptors.
Strategic Bombers hit by IC’s AAA fire get a 2 minimum damage result.

I would allow two defensive maneuvers for aircraft.
DEFENSIVE MANEUVERS allowed:

• Aerial Retreat for attacking planes (all aircrafts can retreat while letting ground units pursuing battle),

• Limited landing in a just conquered territory (which includes at least 1 ground unit): 1 plane (either Fighter or Tactical Bomber), as long as each units can provide 1 extra movement point for this special landing.

@Baron:

TANK A3-4 D3-4 M2 Cost 6
Can Blitz
Allow Mechanized Infantry to Blitz on 1 on 1 basis.
Gets +1A/D from Tactical Bomber when paired 1:1 with
Both abilities can apply. (1MI:1Tk:1TcB basis)

Hide your kids, hide your wives, tanks are gonna destroy everything out there.

@Baron:

SUBMARINES A2 First Strike D1 M2 Cost 6
Cannot hit or be hit by other submarines,

@Baron:

DESTROYER A2 D2 M2 Cost 6

@Baron:

TRANSPORT A0 D1 Last Strike M2 Cost 8, 1 hit

Must be escorted by a warship when making an amphibious assault in an enemy’s Submarines infested SZ or Transports infested SZ, so to be able to ignore them/ or fight them with combat units.
Otherwise, Submarines and Transports may be ignored during Transport Combat Move or Non Combat Move.

Submarine Interdiction

submarines may attack unescorted transport(s) if said transport(s) move through sea zones occupied by your subs.

any

@Baron:

G40.2 FLEET CARRIER A0 D2 M2 Cost 14, 2 hits
Carry 2 planes (Fgs or TcBs)
Damaged Carrier cannot carry plane.

@Baron:

BATTLESHIP A4 D4 M2 Cost 16, 2 hits
Shore bombardment @4
Anti-Air Defense : each BB gets up to 1 preemptive shot @1 against up to 2 planes, whichever the lesser.

@Baron:

FIGHTER A3 D4 M4 Cost 8
Air combat unit, Fighter as an Air Superiority aircraft: All “1” or “2” rolls are allocated to aircraft units first, if any available, then AAA, and finally other kind of units.

Air Superiority

@Baron:

TACTICAL BOMBER A4 D3 M4 Cost 10
All “1” rolls are allocated to planes first, Anti-Aircraft Artillery units, if any available, then other kind of units.
Combined Arms bonus with Tank, Tactical Bomber viewed as a “Dive Bomber” and a “Tank Buster”:

Strategic BOMBER A4 D1 M6 Cost 10
All “1” rolls on attack are allocated to planes first, Anti-Aircraft Artillery units, if any available, then other kind of units.
Strategical Bombing Raid (SBR*)/ TBR : Attack @1 first strike against up to 2 fighters, whichever the lesser, similar to AAA.
SBR/TBR damage: 1D6+2 on Industrial Complex, Air Base or Naval Base

@Baron:

I would allow two defensive maneuvers for aircraft.
DEFENSIVE MANEUVERS allowed:

Aerial Retreat for attacking planes (all aircrafts can retreat while letting ground units pursuing battle),

@Baron:

Limited landing in a just conquered territory (which includes at least 1 ground unit): 1 plane (either Fighter or Tactical Bomber), as long as each units can provide 1 extra movement point for this special landing.

Thanks LHoffman for all the questions and commentaries. I would like to give answers to all but don’t have much time.
I will still adress at least a few for now.

@LHoffman:

Hide your kids, hide your wives, tanks are gonna destroy everything out there. :-D :-D :-D
See my related comment under Tac Bomber below…

@Baron:

SUBMARINES A2 First Strike D1 M2 Cost 6
Cannot hit or be hit by other submarines,

Any reason for no sub vs sub combat?

Yes. I don’t want that Submarine be considered as sea-fodder. Also, it needs a little boost on offense (to keep balance vs Destroyer) because it is the only unit which isn’t at lower cost. Now, Subs directly aim surface vessels only. That emphasized the screening and fodder function of Destroyers. If you invest a lot in Submarines, your own surface fleet will be vulnerable against your opponent’s Subs. That wasn’t the case OOB. Large fleet confrontation showed Submarine’s destruction festival. To bypass Subs in a gamey way OOB, you must forget to bring Destroyers, so aircrafts can directly hit enemy’s surface vessels while Submarines on defense (using first strike @1) can still be used as casualty to screen against attacking Submarines (even with first strike @2).
Hope I’m enough clear so you can see the issue.
In addition, I believe it is historically a rare event that a sub sink a sub. Almost the same kind of oddity as Submarine taking down a Fighter with their AA fire.

@Baron:

DESTROYER A2 D2 M2 Cost 6

Nice and cheap.
I read that Destroyers (and Destroyer Escort) were built in very large number amongst all navies.

@Baron:

TRANSPORT A0 D1 Last Strike M2 Cost 8, 1 hit

Must be escorted by a warship when making an amphibious assault in an enemy’s Submarines infested SZ or Transports infested SZ, so to be able to ignore them/ or fight them with combat units.
Otherwise, Submarines and Transports may be ignored during Transport Combat Move or Non Combat Move.

1. Why so expensive? Most everything else got a cost decrease but transports got increased.

It was a matter of balance compared to the defenseless transports taken last. Using such 1 hit Transport as desperate fodder in needy times can provides a few additionnal hits with larger and costlier warships. That wasn’t the case OOB. So at a matching cost with Fighter at 8 IPCs (OOB worth 10 IPCs), was about the way to statistically get a similar results compared to OOB defenseless transports escorted with Destroyers.

2. I personally like Cmdr. Jen’s Submarine Interdiction rule proposed earlier, to the effect of: submarines may attack unescorted transport(s) if said transport(s) move through sea zones occupied by your subs. I would go so far as to say that subs may choose to attack any ships that move through their zones, combat ships included. Needs more thought.
   That’s an issue from OOB that can be discuss. I simply put in to make things clear about the rule for amphibious assault, nearer as possible with OOB 2nd Edition on that specific point.

@Baron:

G40.2 FLEET CARRIER A0 D2 M2 Cost 14, 2 hits
Carry 2 planes (Fgs or TcBs)
Damaged Carrier cannot carry plane.

Is the intent for A0 that carriers may not be brought in to a battle (must be left behind) or that they may be used in attack, but roll no dice? This has always been somewhat confusing to me. G40 rules state that planes must be launched before carrier movement, but that carriers may then make a combat move if desired. The only issue with allowing carriers to join a battle (with no attack value) is that they only exist to take free hits. I don’t know if that is truly a problem, but it is worth considering. Especially since normal operating procedure was for carriers to remain out of the battle zone when launching attacks.

That’s an issue from OOB that can be discuss. I simply reduced the cost of Carrier to keep the balance between other naval units and aircrafts.

@Baron:

BATTLESHIP A4 D4 M2 Cost 16, 2 hits
Shore bombardment @4
Anti-Air Defense : each BB gets up to 1 preemptive shot @1 against up to 2 planes, whichever the lesser.

Pretty cheap. Reduces the overall utility of a cruiser. Cheaper by 4 IPCs to buy a battleship (with better roll, AA ability and 2 hits) than it is to buy 2 cruisers. I am not sure yet on what the value ration between a BB and CA should be.
The equation is DD cost + Cruiser cost = BB cost because in combat calculator it is a real even match.
Destroyer 6 IPCs + Cruiser 10 IPCs = Battleship 16 IPCs.
Besides, AA and Shore bombardment are still more effective with Cruiser than BB per cost ratio. With the addition of Anti-Aircraft capabilities I believe people will buy the cheaper Cruiser more often, even if it is not the best optimized Att/Def cost ratio vs BB.

@Baron:

FIGHTER A3 D4 M4 Cost 8
Air combat unit, Fighter as an Air Superiority aircraft: All “1” or “2” rolls are allocated to aircraft units first, if any available, then AAA, and finally other kind of units.

I like the Air Superiority idea. Makes them a little more true to form and adds a second layer of probability to just a normal die roll.
True. This is a second layer of probability. It can be altogether discarded for all aircrafts but it is the product of a two years development process, so at least, I wrote it. I gave this special “1” to Bombers and “1” and “2” for Fighters to simulate both air and ground/naval combat taking place simultaneously. This is the Dogfight results over the ground or naval battle. Bombers are less effective against Fighters but still not defenseless. So the “1” is to not let them be sitting duck against Fighters and AAA, which were able to hit them every combat round. OOB, never the case because all planes are protected behind cheaper fodder.
This would create an higher attrition amongst aircrafts than OOB, that’s why I also reduced their cost by 2 IPCs.

@Baron:

TACTICAL BOMBER A4 D3 M4 Cost 10
All “1” rolls are allocated to planes first, Anti-Aircraft Artillery units, if any available, then other kind of units.
Combined Arms bonus with Tank, Tactical Bomber viewed as a “Dive Bomber” and a “Tank Buster”:

Strategic BOMBER A4 D1 M6 Cost 10
All “1” rolls on attack are allocated to planes first, Anti-Aircraft Artillery units, if any available, then other kind of units.
Strategical Bombing Raid (SBR*)/ TBR : Attack @1 first strike against up to 2 fighters, whichever the lesser, similar to AAA.
SBR/TBR damage: 1D6+2 on Industrial Complex, Air Base or Naval Base

To be more accurate with the role of a tac bomber and strategic bomber, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to assign their “any rolls of 1” hits to higher value land targets such as tanks or AAA rather than air units? Tactical bombers in particular were able to target more precisely and their defined attribute as a “tank buster” would fit this. The only rationale I can think of for assigning lower die roll hits to aircraft first would be under the premise that they were hit while on the ground. This is a bit of a stretch considering that said enemy planes are in fact defending. Giving fighters the air target and bombers/tacs the land targets further spreads their value and increases the reason for having both.

I do not understand the role reversal on strategic bombing raids. Even though the bombers are attacking, when you conduct an intercept it is actually the enemy fighters who are the aggressors. Seems inappropriate therefore for the bombers to get a preemptive first strike in the mode of AAA.

It was first a matter of statistical balance (inspired by 1942.2 SBR OOB rule) and a consistency matter for Fg and Bomber attack/Defense value in regular combat. Giving some kind of a similar AAA capacity to a flight of StBs allows to keep scores between some limits either for attacker and defender. 1 StB can still have some way of doing damage againt 2 planes defending @2 and 1 IC’s AAA @1. On the other side, 1 Fighter can intercept against 3 StBs, there is only a single shot @1 against the intercepting Fg. The defender would now take a risk (since it is like an AAA) even if he is outnumbered by bombers. In addition, even if there is some Fgs doing escort, now the intercepting player which get a hit, get a shot at the precious bombers and also save some IPCs’ damage over is IC.

From an historical rationalization perspective, let’s suppose that Fighter interceptors need to be nearer the StBs flight group which are flying in a defensive close formation and have a lot of machine guns covering every others angle. Hence, the @1 first strike against the interceptor @2.

Bombers are dirt cheap too. I don’t know if it was your intent to address the issue, but a 10 IPC price adds more fuel to the fire of the bomber spam problem that Black Elk brought up.
There is a few points answered in my previous ones. Now, with a cheap AAA able to shoot down a bomber on every combat round, Fighter able to do the same (and even TacB at a lower 1). All players will have defensive tactics to oppose Darken Skies Strategy.

@Baron:

I would allow two defensive maneuvers for aircraft.
DEFENSIVE MANEUVERS allowed:

Aerial Retreat for attacking planes (all aircrafts can retreat while letting ground units pursuing battle),

I thought this was already allowed. Maybe that is just with amphib assaults… I am for it though.
I believe it was only for amphibious retreat. But it makes sense if a combined attack goes sour in the Air, the attacker could retreat his aircrafts.

@Baron:

Limited landing in a just conquered territory (which includes at least 1 ground unit): 1 plane (either Fighter or Tactical Bomber), as long as each units can provide 1 extra movement point for this special landing.

I am for this too. Not being able to land in a just conquered territory is both annoying and reasonable. Some sort of middle ground would be nice. It would better expose aircraft to counterattacks but also increase defense values for conquered territories. It is a good option to have.
This gives more possibilities to get air vs air combat to occur during counter-attack.

Great answers Baron. And some very good and well thought out ideas. Thanks.

Cost and units values is a complex matter.
If cost scale is mainly based upon a consistent  OOB ratio amongst units, my previous scale can be increase near OOB too. (Something I just realized.)
Here is 2 comparative scales which can works with my units roster given above.

Unit type   1st scale  Near  OOB scale
Submarine    6             8 IPCs permanent A2 first strike against all surface vessels, including DDs
Destroyer      6             8 IPCs blocks Submerge and Stealth move on a 1:1 basis.
Transport      8             10 IPCS, 1 hit, Last Strike @1, no Taken Last casualty rule
Cruiser          9             12 IPCs with one time AAA capacity
Carrier           12           16 IPCs
Battleship     15           20 IPCs with one time AAA capacity

Fighter           8             10 IPCS
Tactical B.    10            12 IPCS A4D3 with +1 A/D combined arms to Tank
Strategic B.   10           12 IPCs
All aircrafts can hit Submarines without Destroyer presence.

Chosing the appropriate scale is an important issue.
I can only add on this matter that I believe that a lower scale than OOB would accelarate the Allies ticking time bomb because a lot depends on USA warships building pace.

Near OOB cost could be easier to get acceptance.
However, introducing direct hits between planes might produces a lot more losses amongst original set -up units. More  money (from NOs or anything else ) could be needed to keep up with OOB rythm of losses.

I agree that cost is both complex and critical to proper gameplay.

Considering that your system should result in more hits on higher value units (esp if tacs “1” roll were to be assigned first to Armor), costs should probably be lowered to account for a greater need for replacements. I wonder if this would slow progress in any perceptible way… such that with fewer high-hitting units any advances will be slower and more battles comprising predominantly infantry-artillery will take place.

@LHoffman:

I agree that cost is both complex and critical to proper gameplay.
Considering that your system should result in more hits on higher value units (esp if tacs “1” roll were to be assigned first to Armor), costs should probably be lowered to account for a greater need for replacements. I wonder if this would slow progress in any perceptible way… such that with fewer high-hitting units any advances will be slower and more battles comprising predominantly infantry-artillery will take place.

I didn’t address this point about assigning “1” roll to kill Tank.
I believe it opens an interesting option to how TcB interactions with Tank can be handled.
First, I can ditch the +1 A/D pairing bonus toward Tank. Maybe too strong? IDK.
But it was first intended to simulate the Tank Buster capacity of TcB. I used a known game mechanics but it requires some attention and manipulation on the battle board to keep the score right, whether because either a TcB or a Tank is taken as casualty.

If the “1” roll mechanics is introduced it can provide a way to picture how Air Supremacy gives a real advantage with TcBs.
Here is my change for TcBs :
On a “1” roll a hit must be assigned first on other planes, then AAA units.
If there is no such units remaining on the battle board, it is assigned on Tank.
When Air Supremacy  (no enemy’s aircraft nor AAA) is gained with TcBs, on “1” or “2” roll a hit must be assigned on Tank.
That way, in specific conditions, TcBs have a similar special roll against Tanks on “1” and “2” as Fighter toward planes.
Is it better to your taste?

@Baron:

I didn’t address this point about assigning “1” roll to kill Tank.
I believe it opens an interesting option to how TcB interactions with Tank can be handled.
First, I can ditch the +1 A/D pairing bonus toward Tank. Maybe too strong? IDK.
But it was first intended to simulate the Tank Buster capacity of TcB. I used a known game mechanics but it requires some attention and manipulation on the battle board to keep the score right, whether because either a TcB or a Tank is taken as casualty.

In my opinion, yes. Having a Tac improve a tank’s hit to @4 seems a bit too much. And if there are no hits assigned to armor directly, it means tanks will be hitting @4s for potentially the whole battle, as long as your Tacs can survive.

It is also like a 2 for 1 bonus because a tank also increases a Tacs attack to 4… I just see loads of carnage from these two very cheap @4 hit platforms.

@Baron:

If the “1” roll mechanics is introduced it can provide a way to picture how Air Supremacy gives a real advantage with TcBs.
Here is my change for TcBs :
On a “1” roll a hit must be assigned first on other planes, then AAA units.
If there is no such units remaining on the battle board, it is assigned on Tank.
When Air Supremacy  (no enemy’s aircraft nor AAA) is gained with TcBs, on “1” or “2” roll a hit must be assigned on Tank.
That way, in specific conditions, TcBs have a similar special roll against Tanks on “1” and “2” as Fighter toward planes.
Is it better to your taste?

You are getting closer. It all comes down to how well the rules work in gameplay. Unfortunately the only way to assess that is at least a couple playtests. If your method works better then I am all for it.

What I was getting at by assigning any Tac rolls of 1 to hit tanks first was to build on your tagline of the Tac as a “tank buster”. Even in the rules you just revised, Tac rolls of 1 will still go against fighters and AA before tanks. My concern is twofold: (1) air forces are going to be obliterated with 3 unit types essentially targeting them and (2) tactical bombers were just that, bombers, not fighters. Their mission is not air superiority but land/sea attack. To be accurate their assigned hits should go to specific ground units, i.e. tanks.

Also, air superiority was not a necessity for ground/sea attack by tactical bomber aircraft. The Soviets did not have total air superiority at Kursk, yet their Sturmovik attack aircraft destroyed huge numbers of German tanks. US planes in the Pacific rarely had complete air superiority when attacking Japanese held islands or ships, yet dive and torpedo bombers were able to successfully attack their ground targets; sometimes even without fighter support.

Your system is logical, but I fear it is becoming a little too complicated. It is understandable, but there are multiple steps and if-thens to check up on during the battle. I think if it were simplified down to:
_- Fighter rolls of 1 and 2 assigned to aircraft first, then AA

• Tac rolls of 1 assigned to (pick a land unit) first, then anything else_

you would have a more straightforward and easily navigable system. Just my 2 cents though.

@LHoffman:

You are getting closer. It all comes down to how well the rules work in gameplay. Unfortunately the only way to assess that is at least a couple playtests. If your method works better then I am all for it.

What I was getting at by assigning any Tac rolls of 1 to hit tanks first was to build on your tagline of the Tac as a “tank buster”. Even in the rules you just revised, Tac rolls of 1 will still go against fighters and AA before tanks. My concern is twofold: (1) air forces are going to be obliterated with 3 unit types essentially targeting them and (2) tactical bombers were just that, bombers, not fighters. Their mission is not air superiority but land/sea attack. To be accurate their assigned hits should go to specific ground units, i.e. tanks.

Also, air superiority was not a necessity for ground/sea attack by tactical bomber aircraft. The Soviets did not have total air superiority at Kursk, yet their Sturmovik attack aircraft destroyed huge numbers of German tanks. US planes in the Pacific rarely had complete air superiority when attacking Japanese held islands or ships, yet dive and torpedo bombers were able to successfully attack their ground targets; sometimes even without fighter support.

Your system is logical, but I fear it is becoming a little too complicated. It is understandable, but there are multiple steps and if-thens to check up on during the battle. I think if it were simplified down to: _- Fighter rolls of 1 and 2 assigned to aircraft first, then AA

• Tac rolls of 1 assigned to (pick a land unit) first, then anything else_

you would have a more straightforward and easily navigable system. Just my 2 cents though.

I concede. You prove your point.
Interesting historical evidences provided.

So, I would rather go with something like this:

TACTICAL BOMBER A4 D3 M4 Cost 12 in the near OOB scale cost (must be the same price as StBs)
Tactical Bomber viewed as a “Dive Bomber” and a “Tank Buster”:
All “1” rolls are allocated to planes first, if any available, then you can pick any kind of ground units.
_All “2” rolls can be allocated to any kind of ground units available.*

SBR/TcBR Attack @1 First Strike,
Allowed to do escort mission for Strategic Bomber without doing Tactical Bombing Raid on Air Base or Naval Base,
Bombers (StBs or TcBs) are the first targets destroyed by interceptors.
Cannot do interception mission on defense,
TcBR damage: 1D6.

Can hit submarines without Anti-Sub Vessel.

---

*** That way, on “2” roll, it will be up to the TacBs owner to select either a costly Tank or a cheaper AAA (because, it can directly fire at TcBs) if he prefers so. More tactical decisions in players’ hands, I like that.

For the “1” roll still hiting planes directly, here is my explanation:
I can not let TcBs undefended against Fighters direct defense or attack.
Simply figure that you have 3 TcBs on offense against 3 Fgs on defense.
If the battle is going on for a few combat rounds because there is many ground units involved on both sides, the attacker will loose all his TcBs after 3 rounds (3 Fgs hitting on a 1 or 2 each combat round= avg 1 hit/round).

The ability to hit enemy’s aircraft on “1”, is first to outweight the Fighter advantage against bombers.
Otherwise, any 1 Fg will be a deterrent to attack with bombers, even in large numbers, if there is no escorting Fgs to be picked up as fodder.

For TcBs, a “1” roll can be rationalize as there is some air-to-air dogfight and some air-to-ground attack against airfields and AAA defense.
For StBs, a “1” roll on attack can be rationalize as air-to-air of Strategic bombers flight defense with machine guns, the same way as in SBR.

Is it better now?_**

Are all these additional rules regarding casualty allocation etc. really going to enhance the overall gameplay experience, or even have a significant net-impact on battle outcomes, or are they simply going to make the game less accessible and add needless complexity.

If the redesign is intended to address widely percieved flaws with the existing game, I don’t think this fits that category.

@Baron:

For the “1” roll still hiting planes directly, here is my explanation:
I can not let TcBs undefended against Fighters direct defense or attack.
Simply figure that you have 3 TcBs on offense against 3 Fgs on defense.
If the battle is going on for a few combat rounds because there is many ground units involved on both sides, the attacker will loose all his TcBs after 3 rounds (3 Fgs hitting on a 1 or 2 each combat round= avg 1 hit/round).

The ability to hit enemy’s aircraft on “1”, is first to outweight the Fighter advantage against bombers.
Otherwise, any 1 Fg will be a deterrent to attack with bombers, even in large numbers, if there is no escorting Fgs to be picked up as fodder.

For TcBs, a “1” roll can be rationalize as there is some air-to-air dogfight and some air-to-ground attack against airfields and AAA defense.
For StBs, a “1” roll on attack can be rationalize as air-to-air of Strategic bombers flight defense with machine guns, the same way as in SBR.

Is it better now?

Yes. Good justification. I think that sounds pretty equitable.

@regularkid:

Are all these additional rules regarding casualty allocation etc. really going to enhance the overall gameplay experience, or even have a significant net-impact on battle outcomes, or are they simply going to make the game less accessible and add needless complexity.

If the redesign is intended to address widely percieved flaws with the existing game, I don’t think this fits that category.

This specific one, probably not. The genesis of the discussion was to lessen the Dark Skies bomber spam but evolved into something a little more complex about units and costs. Which is something I am keen on improving, along with more recognized flaws.

To be honest, I have been treating this thread as a goldmine of creative and reasonable ideas with which to formulate my own variation of the game. This doesn’t mean I wouldn’t like to see a community backed and agreed upon re-design, because I would.

I think we should have someone sit down and type out a post that states goals, major flaws, ways of addressing them, agreed upon changes and other scope items of the proposed re-design. I would say Black_Elk because this is his thread and he could conveniently edit the first post to showcase current status updates.

@regularkid:

Are all these additional rules regarding casualty allocation etc. really going to enhance the overall gameplay experience, or even have a significant net-impact on battle outcomes, or are they simply going to make the game less accessible and add needless complexity.

If the redesign is intended to address widely percieved flaws with the existing game, I don’t think this fits that category.

One comment coming from beginning players is this question: why planes cannot shoot at planes?
If a simple addition can provides a better depiction of interactions between WWII units, I’m in.

Thanks for your comments  LHoffman, you already help me improve my own HR, even if this planes special rolls doesn’t fit BlackElk agenda.

@Black_Elk:

I’ll admit to being somewhat torn. On the one hand I think Baron’s unit interactions are excellent and very well thought out, and I also recall the development process over time in countless threads, so I’ve seen how its grown into a pretty complete overhaul. But I also know that people may be reluctant to adopt a series of sweeping changes to the roster. For those who want the familiar OOB combat system just with a different “campaign” dynamic (different NOs, incomes or starting unit distributions) a complete redux of the combat phase might put them off, since it requires you to learn a lot of new things.

I would say that threshold here for me is whether or not the unit interactions can be easily handled in tripleA, without requiring a bunch of new code, or the introduction of new phases and the like.

I’m not a huge fan of combined arms. I know in the OOB game this is a huge part of what makes TacBs useful, but I rather prefer it when each unit has a unique stand alone role, without being reliant on other units to be effective. Artillery set the precedent though, so I suppose its here to stay now, I’d just be careful not to run away with the concept. I think the combat phase becomes a lot less intuitive when the unit attack/defense values change based upon which other units are in the fight. The TacB is rather different than artillery, because it is itself boosted by other units, rather than providing the boost. Artillery has a baseline attack value of 2 that doesn’t change based on which other units are in the fight, which I think is a bit simpler to grasp. I suppose by now everyone is used to the combined arms that currently exist, but adding a bunch of new specialized unit relationships might be off putting to some. Again though, I’m willing to explore at this point. A ground up roster revision is very ambitious.

IDK which direction you will take but I dislike combined arms (except for Art and Inf or MI) too.
Changing the combat value of units during combat is annoying and slowing the pace on A&A boardgame. I know you are looking for simplicity. Hence few revised units, such as Subs, TPs, DDs.
I knew it was bit overstretched.

For Submarines and Destroyers, I cut down the Surprise Strike and blocker because most of the time there is enough DDs to neutralized this special ability. Making both at the same cost would have put a balanced Sub at A3 D1 vs DD at A2 D2. Keeping it at a lower but constant A2 first strike keeps the symbolic surprise attack (figurating the sneaky torpedoes) while putting Subs as a better offensive warship than Destroyer. On the other hand, I simplified the Sub defense value to a regular and constant D1. Anyway, most of the time, it was the usual Sub defense OOB since DD is always present to block Subs escape.

So, when Sub is part of a fight it keeps the same value from the start till the end. Simpler.
Since this Sub is weaker than OOB Sub vs Destroyers, I add Sub cannot hit Sub (for offense while making it a less interesting fodder) and gives it a better survivability with DD blocking Submerge and Stealth only on 1:1 ratio which make sense at the same cost.
At least, when a Submarine will be on offense, the A2 first strike promise to be more satisfying than OOB.

On TcB and StB, making them the same cost with same attack value A4 is going to put players on a difficult dilemma: better range and mobility or better overall unit in defense. Buying TcBs A4 D3 M4 instead of StBs A4 D1 M6 will reduced the effectiveness of Dark Sky which rely a lot on higher mobility.