G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

@LHoffman:

@Black_Elk:

Yes, exactly that, as a defenseless physical unit, but one that you could still move around like the transport. Seems fitting since the sculpt already exists. It would certainly be ideal if the new system could work just as well in 1942.2 as 1940. In 1942.2 you don’t have the tactB in the roster by default, so the fighter unit would be considered to have taken on the role of tactical bomber. Or of course if you have the 1940 sculpts, just bring that tacB unit along for the ride, and back-load it into 1942.2, so you could have a unique combat bomber in the roster there too. I think it’d be good to have a system that can still produce the hit 4 on attack, other than the battleship, since we’d be taking that away from the stratB. The tactical bomber is nice because it still gets you the hit at 4, but doesn’t present the same problems with range.

Glad I got the gist.  8-)

I don’t see why this system wouldn’t work in 42, other than that the SBR dynamic with ICs and AA guns is slightly different and interceptors do not exist. Backfilling 1942.2 with the Tac sounds good to me. However, the Tac pairing with a tank or fighter to get the @4 attack should be maintained, otherwise you get more than half of what the StrBmbr was, but at one less IPC.

Hi Hoffman,
on an alternate SBR with no IC’s AAA able to destroy Bombers, as SS is play-testing:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39189.msg1620459#msg1620459
There is only 2 phases, not 3, as you believed.

1. Interception and dogfight, where StB can be killed
2. StBs bombing damage minus AAA rolls to reduce damage.

A 1942.2 game would need TcBs to better increase attack options and a more historical depiction.
But we need a Wizard of the code to introduce this unit in Triple A 1942.2.

Why would you relinquish to give Attack @4 to such bomber to get
TcB A4  D3 M4 C11 or 12 or 10?

@SS:

I get where your coming from. Ever think about after a certain turn in game you can’t bring any more escorts ?

I haven’t considered that, no. If anything, you should be able to take fighters all the way to the target as the game goes on (or if you use tech and get Long Range Aircraft). Any reason in particular for suggesting that you can’t use escort fighters after a certain turn?

In fact, taking fighters all the way to the IC, where they would be subject to AA fire, could only be a liability with the StrBmbr revision we are talking about. You would be subject to losing Ftrs with C10 vs losing a StrBmbr C5.

@Baron:

@LHoffman:

I don’t see why this system wouldn’t work in 42, other than that the SBR dynamic with ICs and AA guns is slightly different and interceptors do not exist. Backfilling 1942.2 with the Tac sounds good to me. However, the Tac pairing with a tank or fighter to get the @4 attack should be maintained, otherwise you get more than half of what the StrBmbr was, but at one less IPC.

Hi Hoffman,
on an alternate SBR with no IC’s AAA able to destroy Bombers, as SS is play-testing:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39189.msg1620459#msg1620459
There is only 2 phases, not 3, as you believed.

1. Interception and dogfight, where StB can be killed
2. StBs bombing damage minus AAA rolls to reduce damage.

Thanks Baron, I see how this works now. Makes sense, interesting concept. How’s it working out?

@Baron:

A 1942.2 game would need TcBs to better increase attack options and a more historical depiction.
But we need a Wizard of the code to introduce this unit in Triple A 1942.2.

Why would you relinquish to give Attack @4 to such bomber to get
TcB A4  D3 M4 C11 or 12 or 10?

I am not sure that I understand your question. Are you asking what we would need to adjust to allow the Tac to attack @4 by default (without requiring combined arms)?

Well… how much value to we assign to an Attack or Defense value of @4? It is the best roll in the game and the cost premium should match, IMO. Fighter has D4 with C10. Maybe keeping Tac at C11 is enough? I really don’t know. Given that the Tac is essentially a Ftr in reverse, it would seem inappropriate to make it much more than C10.

I was just referring to your comment about escorts didn’t fly all the way with bombers later in war .

@LHoffman:

@Baron:

@LHoffman:

I don’t see why this system wouldn’t work in 42, other than that the SBR dynamic with ICs and AA guns is slightly different and interceptors do not exist. Backfilling 1942.2 with the Tac sounds good to me. However, the Tac pairing with a tank or fighter to get the @4 attack should be maintained, otherwise you get more than half of what the StrBmbr was, but at one less IPC.

Hi Hoffman,
on an alternate SBR with no IC’s AAA able to destroy Bombers, as SS is play-testing:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39189.msg1620459#msg1620459
There is only 2 phases, not 3, as you believed.

1. Interception and dogfight, where StB can be killed
2. StBs bombing damage minus AAA rolls to reduce damage.

Thanks Baron, I see how this works now. Makes sense, interesting concept. How’s it working out?

I’m eager to learn from SS, what incentive this alternate SBR provides.

The actual idea seems better because it use OOB mechanics in different ways for bombers.

@LHoffman:

@Baron:

A 1942.2 game would need TcBs to better increase attack options and a more historical depiction.
But we need a Wizard of the code to introduce this unit in Triple A 1942.2.

Why would you relinquish to give Attack @4 to such bomber to get
TcB A4  D3 M4 C11 or 12 or 10?

I am not sure that I understand your question. Are you asking what we would need to adjust to allow the Tac to attack @4 by default (without requiring combined arms)?

Well… how much value to we assign to an Attack or Defense value of @4? It is the best roll in the game and the cost premium should match, IMO. Fighter has D4 with C10. Maybe keeping Tac at C11 is enough? I really don’t know. Given that the Tac is essentially a Ftr in reverse, it would seem inappropriate to make it much more than C10.

You understood. It seems easier to rise TacBomber to 12 IPCs to get a pure Attack @4, with no more pairing with Tank or Fighter. I’m just asking if there is some issues to deny such value to TacB.

However, the actual D6 damage seems low for a high 12 IPCs compare to 1D6 for a 5 IPCs StB.
If it is agreeable to prefer StB A0 D0 M6 C5, SBR: A0 & D6 damage
I see no reason to use TcB for Tactical bombing raid anymore. Too risky for little result.
Black Elk provides positive reasons for change, below. I was asking for negative reasons to such change.

@Black_Elk:

Although combined arms with tacBs are a bit weirder. With artillery it is the more expensive unit that boosts the cheaper unit (the artillery attack value doesn’t change mid-fight depending on whether infantry are lost.) With TacBs, it is the cheaper units that boosts the more expensive unit, and the tacBs attack value is subject to change mid-fight depending on whether the tanks or fighters are still alive.

Combined arms for TacBs can be a little confusing for that reason, since there are occasions where it might make sense to take a casualty on a more expensive TacB, in order to keep a cheaper fighter unit alive into the next round of the combat phase, just to preserve the combined arms hit 4. Nothing like that happens with artillery. There’s never a reason to take a casualty on an artillery unit before an infantry unit mid-fight.

I don’t know if it might be simpler to eliminate combined arms for the TacB, in favor of an attack 4 by default, and raising it’s cost to 12. This would certainly produce a cleaner battle board, with less unit relationships to track. What you lose in mobility for the cost (2 less movement than the OOB strat bomber), you gain on defense and overall ease of use. It would allow you to keep the 4 to 1 ratio (4 infantry to 1 combat bomber) with same basic attack value for the same cost.

@Black_Elk:

I don’t know if it might be simpler to eliminate combined arms for the TacB, in favor of an attack 4 by default, and raising it’s cost to 12. This would certainly produce a cleaner battle board, with less unit relationships to track. What you lose in mobility for the cost (2 less movement than the OOB strat bomber), you gain on defense and overall ease of use. It would allow you to keep the 4 to 1 ratio (4 infantry to 1 combat bomber) with same basic attack value for the same cost.

This is true and probably most equitable.

@SS:

I was just referring to your comment about escorts didn’t fly all the way with bombers later in war .

Oh… I think you may have mistaken what I said for the opposite. Early in the war, fighters did not tend to accompany bombers all the way to their targets because they didn’t have the range to do so. Obviously that depended on specifically where; I am primarily referencing the Allies bombing Germany. By late 1943 and into 1944, Allied fighters were introduced (P-51, P-38) which had the range to stick with Allied bombers all the way to Germany and back.

@Baron:

You understood. It seems easier to rise TacBomber to 12 IPCs to get a pure Attack @4, with no more pairing with Tank or Fighter. I’m just asking if there is some issues to deny such value to TacB.

Okay, yeah. Based on the way Black_Elk explained it, I am on board with that.

@Baron:

However, the actual D6 damage seems low for a high 12 IPCs compare to 1D6 for a 5 IPCs StB.
If it is agreeable to prefer StB A0 D0 M6 C5, SBR: A0 & D6 damage
I see no reason to use TcB for Tactical bombing raid anymore. Too risky for little result.

I agree. Some instances may require it, but that would be a judgement call for the player.

Somewhat unrelated… I just re-read the G40.2 rules about strategic/tactical raids and saw that there is no limit to the number of escort fighters or scrambled defenders for any given raid.

Is this a change from G40.1? For some reason I thought there was a (3) fighter scramble limit on the books. Or is that only for scrambling to defend an adjacent sea zone?

@LHoffman:

@Baron:

I share the same belief that a Cost 5 works for a totally attackless/defenseless bomber and giving more reg attack punch and 1 hit need to rise to 6 at least.

Yeah… I agree. The only issue with giving them an attack value at all is that they can then be brought in on attacks as screening fodder, whereas if they had no attack value this would be prevented.

Cost at 6 may still be too low for A1 M6 unit. It is cheap enough that being used as fodder for naval battles in particular is highly likely, IMO.

My mind is mostly sets on these SBR values for 5 IPC attackless-defenseless StB:

Here is what makes a similar SBR odds of damage compare to G40 SBR.
Almost same Break even point 0.522 StB/Fg (OOB 0.526 StB/Fg) but no FIT.
Strategic bomber A0 D0 M6 C5, A0 SBR but D6 damage
Fighter A3 D4 M4 C10, A1 D1 SBR

But if I prefer to keep combat values, and hit point, do you see some issues with these 8 IPCs StB
Weak Strategic bomber:
Attack 1, SBR A1 damage 1D6+2
Defense 0
Hit 1
Move 6
Cost 8

Fighter A2 D2 in SBR

It would be a second option for player which dislike defenseless combat unit but enjoy TP bombing.
8 IPCs is the basic cost of naval fodder DD, 2 IPCs higher than Sub.
Also, why would anyone add such low attack unit in Naval Combat?
It becomes a last chance effort which might become a turkey shoot for defending Naval fleet.
I’m just trying to figure what kind of combat values can work before crunching numbers.
I don’t want to make a random guess and make unuseful calculations.

In my own HR,
StB A1 D0 M6 C8 would be at same cost than my
TcB A3 D2 M4 C8 (Target ground unit) and
Fighter A2 D2 C7 (hit enemy’s plane first, then AAA).
Do you see some issues which can arise?

@Baron:

My mind is mostly sets on these SBR values for 5 IPC attackless-defenseless StB:

Here is what makes a similar SBR odds of damage compare to G40 SBR.
Almost same Break even point 0.522 StB/Fg (OOB 0.526 StB/Fg) but no FIT.
Strategic bomber A0 D0 M6 C5, A0 SBR but D6 damage
Fighter A3 D4 M4 C10, A1 D1 SBR

But if I prefer to keep combat values, and hit point, do you see some issues with these 8 IPCs StB
Weak Strategic bomber:
Attack 1, SBR A1 damage 1D6+2
Defense 0
Hit 1
Move 6
Cost 8

Fighter A2 D2 in SBR

It would be a second option for player which dislike defenseless combat unit but enjoy TP bombing.
8 IPCs is the basic cost of naval fodder DD, 2 IPCs higher than Sub.
Also, why would anyone add such low attack unit in Naval Combat?
It becomes a last chance effort which might become a turkey shoot for defending Naval fleet.
I’m just trying to figure what kind of combat values can work before crunching numbers.
I don’t want to make a random guess and make unuseful calculations.

Upping the cost to 8 IPCs looks like a good balance to A1 value and hitpoint. Makes it in the expensive range for fodder. Honestly, I can only give you my opinion as it pertains to an ‘eye test’. Your calculations are great and are the most important justifications for any changes we propose. Let’s see what others think about it.

@Baron:

In my own HR,
StB A1 D0 M6 C8 would be at same cost than my
TcB A3 D2 M4 C8 (Target ground unit) and
Fighter A2 D2 C7 (hit enemy’s plane first, then AAA).
Do you see some issues which can arise?

I like the secondary targeting attributes for these. Been wanting to implement something similar. I don’t see an issues right away.

Does TacB targeting ground unit also include targeting naval units? If so, should TacB be allowed to target Transports?

@LHoffman:

Upping the cost to 8 IPCs looks like a good balance to A1 value and hitpoint. Makes it in the expensive range for fodder. Honestly, I can only give you my opinion as it pertains to an ‘eye test’. Your calculations are great and are the most important justifications for any changes we propose. Let’s see what others think about it.

I crunch some numbers on StB A1 D0 C8 1D6+2 damage vs Fg D2 C10.
It appears that Break even point is around 2 StBs for 3 Fgs giving 0.667 StB/Fg.
This is slightly less efficient than OOB G40 0.526 StB/Fg but compared to Balanced Mode (1.156 StB/Fg) it is far much better to get more SBRs.
(Break even point: 89 StBs A1 C12 D6+2 vs 77 Fgs D2 C10 : 1.156 StB/Fg)
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37653.msg1521517#msg1521517

IMO, this may work. And it can be easily tried on a modified Balance Mode XML files.
It only requires to change the Strategic bomber combat values A1 D0 and cost 8 in regular combat.
SBR in BMode is already adjust for Fighter A2 D2 and bombers A1 (both StB and TcB).

@LHoffman:

@Baron:

In my own HR,
StB A1 D0 M6 C8 would be at same cost than my
TcB A3 D2 M4 C8 (Target ground unit) and
Fighter A2 D2 C7 (hit enemy’s plane first, then AAA).
Do you see some issues which can arise?

I like the secondary targeting attributes for these. Been wanting to implement something similar. I don’t see an issues right away.

Does TacB targeting ground unit also include targeting naval units? If so, should TacB be allowed to target Transports?

There is no issue with TcB ground unit targeting capacity as I playtested. (Your idea, remember?)
But never tried with Naval unit.
May probably slow down combat phase and increase the TcB power to destroy Capital warships.

@Black_Elk:

Ok just going to put this out there.

Let’s say the move 6 strat B, is removed from a combat role, defensless as I suggested earlier.
Players lament, 'but the global map is so large, we need a mobile air unit!" Possible solution, increased movement bonus from the airbase unit from +1 to +2.

This does several things at once. First it means that a move 4 fighter or TacB can have their range boosted to 6 from an opperation airbase (this is still 1 less than an OOB stratB from an OOB airbase.) Limits the total possible range from +7 to +6. Allows escort aircraft to fly farther, and be better at fleet screening. Simplifies the counting of movement considerably by eliminating the the odd number.

This way it’s either 2 moves out and 2 back, or 3 out and 3 back if taking off from an AB.

To offset the extended air coverage on the water, I would seriously consider just doing the same for the naval bases. A movement of +2 from an operational NB would open up more shuck options, and accelerate the pace overall.

This keeps things very simple, both bases at +2 movement, making them a much stronger purchase option for the cost at 15, and a more significant target for SBR.

Then you’d have a game where both the defensless transport and defensless bomber are able to shine. Still provides the entertainment of mobile combat air units (since both fighters and tacBs would get a boon of +1 to movement over OOB if taking off from an AB) and would be way more useful in the escort intercept role. The new defensless stratB definitely doesn’t get a hitpoint here, but with a potential
+8 movement the SBR options are way more glorious 4 out and 4 back.

On the water, the whole naval game would get a reset. Any takers?
:-D

Always interesting idea coming from nowhere.  :-) :-o :-D

I like how you can get a better historical depiction of escorting bombers dynamics with +2 Movement bonus.
Attackless-Defenseless Bombers can reach 4 TTys and going back while Fgs reach only 3 TTys.
It clearly provides more targets from UK/USA POV in Great Britain against Germany.
It allows Fgs and TcBs to fly over France, Western Germany but StBs can reach Germany, Greater Southern Germany, Northern Italy.
IDK if Southern France was within range for Fighters and TcBs…
But at least you get an interesting mobility if someone want to recreate Allies Strategic bombing and escort operations.

I insist on to these values to be somewhat balanced for the cost:
StBomber A0 D0 M6-8 C5 SBR 0 Damage 1D6 and
Fighter A3 D4 M4-6 C10, SBR A1 D1

It nicely solve the lack of mobility for higher attack @4 if TcB is A4 D3 M4-6 C12 Damage D6.
From Airbase you get 6 spaces move, but it can be a one way ticket if not landing on an Air Base.

For Naval Base, it is a very different beast since Naval units cannot NCM to a starting NB.
Going in this direction, I suggest you give all Naval units a basic 3 Move and keep NB+1 bonus.
Probably easier to adjust in XML files.
Otherwise, some fleet action will remain moving from NB to NB, knowing that going where there is no NB, a NO Man’s land for Warships, will totally screwed up the overall fleet mobility compared to an enemy fleet in NB’s SZ.

@Black_Elk:

This still isn’t the silver bullet for the zero ipc islands (which is another issue), but I do think it would make those islands with operational bases more attractive all around.

You meant Operational Air Bases on Islands more attractive, right?

You forgot to mention a Substantial 5 IPCs unit in the roster.
There are units in these spots:
3-4-5-6-7-8-10-12-14 or 16- 20

A simpler tacB, a simpler stratB (with a much more singularly defined role in the roster.) Better bases. More SBR and an escort/intercept system that’s somewhat easier to understand. Addresses to a large extent one of the main issues with the defenseless transport (since they’re not as easily sunk by the +7 screen of the death from OOB stratBs anymore). Instead you get more fleet dynamism and less overall drag on the pace of the game where ships are concerned…I think they might produce a more compelling game, and perhaps a more historical feel.

Brilliant. This is exactly what it would take to get me to finally go play a game of Global 1940. This patch has fewer, simpler rules than the standard balanced mod, and yet I’m convinced it would be much more fun to play! I would even swallow my pride and overlook the atrocity that is the starting French setup if we played with Balanced mod, the new, leaner SBR/intercept/base/TacB/naval speed rules, and a chess clock (I can supply one) so that people don’t take 20 minutes pondering whether to move their stack of 57 infantry to Upper Southwest Transdneistria or Lower Southwest Transdneistria.

@Baron:

There is no issue with TcB ground unit targeting capacity as I playtested. (Your idea, remember?)
But never tried with Naval unit.
May probably slow down combat phase and increase the TcB power to destroy Capital warships.

I don’t remember if I can claim it to be my idea originally, but I definitely am a proponent. I haven’t actively tried it in any games. I am glad that the land unit targeting works in practice.

I would push the naval targeting even more; both because it was a defining feature of ‘tactical bomber’ aircraft and because it would introduce some direct attrition to capital ships. I hope that implementing Tac ship targeting would not overpower aircraft, but WWII was replete with examples of ‘tactical bomber’ class aircraft making targeted strikes on specific ships, often successfully. This involved completely ignoring or bypassing screening ships in favor of attacking carriers and battleships. Maybe only first round of combat targeting for Tacs, if it appears too powerful. This is the HR I am most interested in promoting.

@Baron:

Going in this direction, I suggest you give all Naval units a basic 3 Move and keep NB+1 bonus.

I like this.

@Black_Elk:

Other issues that remain a thorn in my side… the lack of new production options or some form of “land” base unit, the combat aaagun (everyone’s favorite non com headache),

Land base unit… as in a AB/NB type movement booster for land units? I haven’t studied HBGs Global War system in depth, but do they not have a Rail Road feature for land unit movement bonus? Maybe something similar.

Combat AA gun? I don’t want to pull you off track of the discussion you intended to have…

@Argothair:

Brilliant. This is exactly what it would take to get me to finally go play a game of Global 1940. This patch has fewer, simpler rules than the standard balanced mod, and yet I’m convinced it would be much more fun to play! I would even swallow my pride and overlook the atrocity that is the starting French setup if we played with Balanced mod, the new, leaner SBR/intercept/base/TacB/naval speed rules, and a chess clock (I can supply one) so that people don’t take 20 minutes pondering whether to move their stack of 57 infantry to Upper Southwest Transdneistria or Lower Southwest Transdneistria.

:lol:

@LHoffman:

@Black_Elk:

Other issues that remain a thorn in my side… the lack of new production options or some form of “land” base unit, the combat aaagun (everyone’s favorite non com headache),

Combat AA gun? I don’t want to pull you off track of the discussion you intended to have…

On this topic, here is an AAA at 5 IPCs which explained why it needs to move only in NCM.
@Baron:

This is a very different way of seeing AAA unit which can increase its usefulness and add a few interesting defensive tactics.

@Baron:

@piscolar:

Good thoughts Barney, thanks for sharing. Never played NWO (actually just looked it up now). I considered something similar in my initial brainstorming but I really want to involve the tactical element: thinking of Fortifications like bases for ground units, rather than ground units themselves.

One old idea to make AAA unit more interesting was this little tweak, which can represents fortified hardpoints, is to make it a 2 hits unit:
Anti-Aircraft Artillery
Attack 0
Defense 0, 1 @1 preemptive, up to three planes, 1 per plane max.
NCM 1
Hits 2, auto-repaired after combat
Cost 5
In addition, if no combat unit is with it, then it is auto-destroy, per OOB rule.

For 15 IPCs, you get 3 regular hits, 3 buffer hits, and up to 9 preemptive strike @1 on aircraft.
With Infantry, it is 5 hits and 10 defense points, but you loose 3 units on first casualties.

An additional ability to figure Atlantic Wall and Siegfried Line can be that when attacked, you may roll 1 defense @1 of preemptive fire on ground unit attacking per AAA unit.

Another possibility can be this:
Anti-Aircraft Artillery as Fortifications
Attack 0
Defense 1, up to three preemptive roll @1, against up to three units, ground or plane, 1 per attacking unit max.
NCM 1
Hits 2, auto-repaired after combat
Cost 5
The one time preemptive roll can simulate the fact that once fortifications are overwhelmed, they can no more use their defensive weapons.

@LHoffman:

@Baron:

There is no issue with TcB ground unit targeting capacity as I playtested. (Your idea, remember?)
But never tried with Naval unit.
May probably slow down combat phase and increase the TcB power to destroy Capital warships.

I don’t remember if I can claim it to be my idea originally, but I definitely am a proponent. I haven’t actively tried it in any games. I am glad that the land unit targeting works in practice.

I would push the naval targeting even more; both because it was a defining feature of ‘tactical bomber’ aircraft and because it would introduce some direct attrition to capital ships. I hope that implementing Tac ship targeting would not overpower aircraft, but WWII was replete with examples of ‘tactical bomber’ class aircraft making targeted strikes on specific ships, often successfully. This involved completely ignoring or bypassing screening ships in favor of attacking carriers and battleships. Maybe only first round of combat targeting for Tacs, if it appears too powerful. This is the HR I am most interested in promoting.
I like this.

I believe a single combat round will not work. Because, it is already capital ships hit points which are chosen as  casualty.
Maybe something like all TcBs hits must be allocated to warships first, if any, owner’s choice.
Once all hits are known, then casualty are chosen with this special condition to be fulfilled.
More you make combat rounds, less undamaged Capital ship remains.
Probably the opponent may kept 1 or 2 undamaged Capital ships to not see them being sunk by TcB.
It seems an increase of “pressure” on opponent shoulder. It almost forbid to use the additional hit point from Capital ships.
IDK if it improves the gameplay experience.
Or just demand more focus on which hit must be taken on which unit.
I already have Fg vs planes which requires to pick them out, Sub’s hit which cannot be allocated to air units nor Subs. (And TP which roll as 1AA vs plane only.)
It makes 3 special casualty rules to follow in Naval combat.

Maybe if a lower cost structure is used with this HR, that can work.
(SS5, DD6, CA9, CV12, BB15)
Losing 12 or 15 IPCs unit is less an impact than 16 and 20.

Also, my Fg A2 D2 and TcB A3 D2 have lower combat values, that way you take dice as a whole.
Otherwise, Fg A3 D4 and TcB A4 D3 cannot do a full targeting roll, IMO it should be “2” or less to apply this critical casualty. Another special rule. As such, all special target rules delay combat resolution compare to OOB, let aside Subs/DDs/planes/TP interactions, which BTW I simplified to focus on Fg and Subs.

So, IDK how to get to an interesting and functional naval TcB against warships.
Hope my shared experience from a few playtests might help.