G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

@Baron:

For my part, I’m eager to test Convoy Raiding rules for 1941 and 1942.2 develop along this thread.
And I’m still a fan of incremental cost of 3 for warships going mostly by 5 (sweetspot for Sub), DD 6, Cruiser 9, Carrier 12, Battleship 15.
Or  1.5 IPCs per combat points.
It feels easier on mind calculator playing game board to add or substract an Infantry cost to try some options during purchase phase.

Seems the direction taken by 1914, Sub 6, Cruiser 9 and Battleship 12. Fighter cost 6.

Instead of usual 2 IPCs per combat point:
Sub A2 D1, 3 pts2= 6 IPCs
DD A2 D2, 4 pts2= 8 IPCs
CA A3 D3, 6 pts*2= 12 IPCs.

I playtested my Convoy system on 1941, 1942.2 and AA50.
The maximum damage per SZ should increase with money available.
The new cost structure allows for such Convoy SZs:
1941 is 2 IPCs per SZ
1942.2 is 3 IPCs per SZ
AA50 and G40 should be 4 IPCs per SZ.

This kind of unit works very well to increase Subs presence in SZs:

Submarine  at 5  IPCs
A2fs* D1 M2
*Permanent A2 first strike against all surface vessels only, including DDs.
Always regular defense roll @1.
Cannot hit planes or submarines.
Submerge (in Surprise strike phase, even in defense) and Stealth Move (cannot control SZ).
Unsubmerged Submarine can be hit by planes without any ASV presence.
1 DD blocks up to 2 Sub’s Submerge, for first combat round only, and Stealth move (SZ blocker).

Submarine commander either choose to attack warships or make a Convoy raid.
Convoy raid damage: 1 IPC + 1-3 IPCs /4-6 = 0 IPC, up to the maximum damage per convoy SZ.
All chips put under Control Marker in a given Convoy SZ must be repaired during owner’s purchase and repair phase.

When Sub cannot hit submarine, it gives them better elusive capacity.
Germany can now use Subs the way it was in North Atlantic SZs to destroy a few Convoy IPCs (even Soviet Artic Sea north of Karelia and Archangelsk was attacked by roaming U-boats on AA50 game). It was such a pain in the a… that Russia built a 6 IPCs Destroyer north of Karelia to get ride of this German’s Sub in its backyard.

Permanent offensive Surprise Strike only is fine and give to Sub its iconic reputation of Silent killer while increasing its survivability. Even if Sub are acting like classic Sub (surprise strike on offense but not on defense), 6 IPCs Destroyer unit remains a must to be fodder for bigger warships and TPs or to chase Subs and block its submerge ability.

You should really try these little changes in naval dynamics. I really like this experience. Subs were no wasted IPCs for Germany.

I’m searching for a specific thread about aircraft excessive range compared to historical planes.
Please, let me know if you browse on it.
EDIT: I found it here:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=38009.msg1548516#msg1548516

@Narvik:

@Kreuzfeld:

It is difficult to grasp how dominant they where. Remember that UK sank half of the italian fleet using 20 gladiators in a nightraid.

You are correct, but you should also remember that real life planes in 1940 had real short range. A fighter could barely cross the English Channel, so if a fleet was a few miles off the coast it was safe from air raids. In A&A the whole German Luftwaffe can fly from Western Germany and sink the whole British Fleet in the Mediterranean Sea, and maybe even land in the Libyan desert, which would be impossible in the real world. Give fighters and Tacs a 1 movement over sea, and I will support your ideas. Also the 4 engines heavy Bombers should not able to hit a ship on 4 or less, they were made for carpet bombing, not for targeting a small boat.

Actually, I’m wondering if this little change in the way of counting move points could provides an alternative to better depicts realistic operational range and balancing somehow strategic bombers projections of power.

Here is the hypothetical  house rule:
Counting 1 MP per SZ in NCM phase, same as usual.
But 2 MPs per SZ during Combat Movement phase for all aircrafts not on Carrier.
Land TTy Airbase still provides +1 bonus movement point.
Island TTy Airbase provides +2 bonus movement point.

@Baron:

@ShadowHAwk:

If you are going to change all the rules and unit profiles sure go ahead but that requires a lot of play testing as well.

There are plenty of rules in this game that have no base in history or even contradict history.
There are plenty of units that have weird quirks that are completly ignoring history.
If you are going to make things better then revise the whole game and all of the unit profiles not just because you want to attack subs with planes change this 1 rule.

Some things that are worst then the submarine rule.
Aircraft range ( really a plane attacking from WUS in SZ91 ), could be why subs are immume to them :)

That point bothers me too.
I will post something in the house rule thread discussing this topic.
I believe calculating 1 MP per SZ in NCM phase while 2 MPs per SZ during CM phase for all aircrafts can works without adding too much complexity.
This may better simulate how difficult to spot enemy in open Sea and makes planes units less ominous weapons. That way, warships gets a better projection of power at sea compared to planes, specifically strategic bombers.

@taamvan:

Aircraft are trumping units in this game;  they are better than their cost, more flexible than any other unit (since they can be on land or sea).   They prevent the game from being like Risk; where only numbers matter and all the units are the same.

This is just like the sub rule, its to represent the overpowering advantage aircraft had and have over all other types of unit during that era.   Not sure what objection that raises, except that they are OverPowered.  Which is true in real life also, airpower is OP compared to its costs and that’s why they keep using it.

@Black_Elk:

I’m torn, the strategic bomber is definitely overpowered, but the more I sit with it, the more necessary the unit feels to pretty much every strategy of interest. It’s definitely the Queen of A&A pieces right now. The one unit that allows you to rapidly redirect from one theater to another and still be reasonably effective. I worry, given the large scale of the map and relatively small scale of the economy, that nerfing aircraft (and particularly the strategic bomber) overmuch will make the game kind of drag.

Well put. I don’t see the mass outcry in wanting to get rid of the strategic bomber… unless I missed something previously. I have never found it to be overpowered given that in the games I play its numerical representation on the board is fairly low. The only issue I have seen with it is the US stacking them in UK to strategic bomb the crap out of Germany. Much as I don’t like that, I can’t say it is wrong because that is exactly what happened during the war.

If you really want to limit some of their effectiveness, particularly in large battles where they can be shielded by lower end units, would be to institute the aircraft rules we talked about previously on this thread. Specifically as it relates to fighters. Fighters should always have their hits concentrated on enemy air units first (both in attack and defense). This makes sense because it is their actual role and because it doesn’t allow air formations to hide in the background of a battle and just punish every other unit on the board.

@Black_Elk:

The one buddy I had who could be trusted to play a full game of global just got married, so he’s pretty much on lock down.

Hahaha! Nice choice of words.

I don’t play tripleA, but I sympathize. Playing in person with friends is always better if you can do so.

IDK if it might work but it worth thinking on this original idea.

I like somewhat this idea. Just for easier implement in TripleA (for play-test) and smooth play, I believed it should remains able to do both regular combat and SBR, but at these values:

Redesign Strategic Bomber
Attack 1
Defense 1
Move 6-7
Cost 5… (I pray for, if only it could work.)
SBR damage 1D6

When I got time, I will probably crunch on numbers, mostly cost, if SBR is as OOB to compare with OOB combat.

I see where you’re going with 5 IPCs StBs, it is such a sweet underused spot.  :-D

Probably we should look at both: pure defenseless StB A0 D0 C5 and weakest StB A1 D1 C?

Redesign Strategic Bomber Defenseless
Attack 0
Defense 0
Move 6-7
Cost 5… (I pray for, if only it could work.)
SBR damage 1D6+2

Sounds interesting. Make them cheap and weak so fighters can hack them out of the sky and you could see some more sbr action and interaction I would think. Worth thinking about.

I’ve actually been using a lot of the ideas discussed on here from when this thread started. Sticking close to OOB, I’ve been using Bmbrs A3, +1 w/ftr D1 M6, +1 w/AB C12. Ftrs A2 D2 in SBRs. Also have AAguns at A0 D1 M1 C4 2AAshots, max 1 per plane.

The bombers are noticeably not as effective. For making decisions probably more than results. Using one bmbr to take out a solo inf or dstry blocker is more of a gamble now. As for the AAguns, it’s just like buying an artillery to me cost wise. They can block,kill,capture and if lucky slay a couple planes. Point is they get used more, which is what you’d hopefully get with a cheaper SBR.
There especially nice to have with a smaller counterattack force w/high unit survivability. Can’t just send a bunch of planes in with a couple infantry to take’m out. And since they only get two shots you need more of them to protect your stacks.

Anyway back to your suggestion. I would think you’d want to leave a normal attack factor as well. People are used to them and it would affect a multitude of battles and limit some possibilities imo. I think a lower hit rate would likely be more acceptable to most payers. To me just dropping it to A3 makes me go “man I wish they hit at 4” a lot of times. :)
Besides it’d be nice to pull a “Doolittle” type raid if you want.

A2 D1 same movement would give you at least a 50/50 shot at DDs and INF. Probably have to boost the cost. Maybe 7 or something. I’m sure Baron will crunch some numbers out.

Edit:Ahh…I see he already has :)

Here is the number, some numbers…but I need more time to make a comparative analysis.
Break even ratio:
OOB G40 SBR: 10/19= 0.526 StB/Fg
Cost 5 D6 damage: 16 StBs A1 vs 31 Fgs D2, 16/31= 0.516 StB/Fg
Cost 6 D6 damage: 19 Stbs A1 vs 29 Fgs D2, 19/29= 0.655 StB/Fg

Cost 5: 1 StB A1 vs 1 Fg D2
1D6: +3.611 - 2.222 = +1.389 IPCs damage/SBR *2=2.778
1D6+2: +4.723 - 2.222 = +2.501 IPC damage/SBR
Cost 6
1D6: +3.611 - 2.667 = +0.944 IPCs damage/SBR *9= +8.496
1D6+2: +4.723 - 2.667 = +2.056 IPC damage/SBR

Cost 5:   1StB A1 vs 2 Fgs D2                                                          
1D6: +2.963 - 3.148 = -0.185 IPCs damage/SBR *15= -2.775
1D6+2: +3.704 - 3.148 = +0.556 IPCs damage/SBR

Cost 6:                                                            
1D6: +2.963 - 3.778 = -0.815 IPCs damage/SBR *10 = -8.15  
1D6+2: +3.704 - 3.778 = -0.074 IPCs damage/SBR

Fighter Interception Threshold (FIT)
G40 OOB: from 1.55 StB/Fg and less
Cost 5: near 6 StBs vs 4 Fgs= from 1.5 StB/Fg and less
Cost 6: near 5 StBs vs 3 Fgs= from 1.67 StB/Fg and less

Cost 5:
No intercept, 1D6 (avg 3.5 IPCs): +2.917 - 0.833 = +2.084 IPCs damage/SBR6= 12.504 IPCs
6 StBs vs 4 Fgs = 12.388 IPCs (Diff.: 0.116)
1 StB A1 vs 1 Fg D2
1D6: +3.611 - 2.222 = +1.389 IPCs damage/SBR2=2.778
2 StBs vs 1 Fg
1D6: +7.861 - 3.056 = +4.805 IPCs damage/SBR*2= 9.610

Cost 6
No interception, 1D6 (avg 3.5 IPCs): +2.917 - 1 = +1.917 IPCs damage/SBR5= +9.585
5 StB vs 3 Fgs 9.332 IPCs damage (Diff.: +0.253 )
1 StB vs 1 Fg
1D6: +3.611 - 2.667 = +0.944 IPCs damage/SBR1=+0.944
2 StBs vs 1 Fg
1D6: +7.861 - 3.667 = +4.194 IPCs damage/SBR*2= +8.388

Strategic Bomber in air-to-air combat SBR:
Attack 1
Bombard IC or AB or NB damage: 1D6

Fighter in air-to-air combat SBR:
Attack 2
Defend 2

Tactical Bomber in air-to-air combat SBR:
Attack 1
Bombard AB or NB damage: 1D6

IC’s AAA: @1 against each Strategic Bomber
Naval Base or Air Base: @1 against each Strategic Bomber or Tactical bomber

---

Global40 SBR HRules : 1 StB doing SBR without interceptor, damage 1D6+2  / damage 1D6
Regular SBRs                                              
5/6 StB survived *3.5 IPCs = +2.917 IPCs

5/6 StB survived *5.5 IPCs = +4.583 IPCs

1/6 StB killed *5 IPCs = -0.833 IPCs
1/6 StB killed *6 IPCs = -1 IPCs

Cost 5
1D6 (avg 3.5 IPCs): +2.917 - 0.833 = +2.084 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2 (avg 5.5 IPCs): +4.583 - 0.833 = +3.750 IPCs damage/SBR
Cost 6
1D6 (avg 3.5 IPCs): +2.917 - 1 = +1.917 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2 (avg 5.5 IPCs): +4.583 - 1 = +3.583 IPCs damage/SBR

OOB G40: 4.583 - 2 = +2.583 IPCs damage/SBR
TripleA 1942.2 : 2.917 - 2 = +0.917 IPC damage/SBR

---

G40 SBR HRules :1 StB A1 regular vs 1 Fg D2
Cost 5
1D6: +3.611 - 2.222 = +1.389 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +4.723 - 2.222 = +2.501 IPC damage/SBR
Cost 6
1D6: +3.611 - 2.667 = +0.944 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +4.723 - 2.667 = +2.056 IPC damage/SBR

G40 OOB: 1 StB A1 doing SBR against 1 Fg D1
D6+2: + 5.486 - 3.667 = +1.819 IPC damage/SBR

---

G40 SBR HR: 1 StB A1 regular doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D2
StBs rolls/interceptors Fgs roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties
Cost 5:                                                            
1D6: +2.963 - 3.148 = -0.185 IPCs damage/SBR      
1D6+2: +3.704 - 3.148 = +0.556 IPCs damage/SBR
Cost 6:                                                            
1D6: +2.963 - 3.778 = -0.815 IPCs damage/SBR      
1D6+2: +3.704 - 3.778 = -0.074 IPCs damage/SBR

G40 OOB:StB A1 doing SBR against 2 Fgs D1
D6+2: +4.85 - 5.056 = -0.206 IPCs damage/SBR

---

G40 SBR HR: 1 StB A1 & 1 Fg A2 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D2
StB+Fg rolls/interceptors Fgs roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties
Cost 5
1D6: +7.593 - 3.148 = +4.445 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +9.074 - 3.148 = +5.926 IPCs damage/SBR
Cost 6
1D6: +7.593 - 3.407 = +4.186 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +9.074 - 3.407 = +5.667 IPC damage/SBR

---

G40 SBR HR: 2 StBs A1 regular doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D2
StBs rolls/interceptors Fgs roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties
Cost 5                                                          
1D6: +7.222 - 4.444 = +2.778 IPCs damage/SBR    
1D6+2: +9.445 - 4.444 = +5.001 IPCs damage/SBR  
Cost 6
1D6: +7.222 - 5.333 = +1.889 IPCs damage/SBR    
1D6+2: +9.445 - 5.333 = +4.112 IPCs damage/SBR

---

G40 HR: 1 StB A1 & 1 Fg A2 doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fgs D2
StB+Fg rolls/interceptors Fgs roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties
Cost 5:
1D6: +7.361 - 1.389 = +5.972 IPCs damage/SBR    
1D6+2: +9.027 - 1.389 = +7.638 IPCs damage/SBR  
Cost 6:
1D6: +7.361 - 2.556 = +4.805 IPCs damage/SBR    
1D6+2: +9.027 - 2.556 = +6.471 IPCs damage/SBR

---

G40 SBR HR: 2 StBs A1 regular doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fgs D2
StBs rolls/interceptors Fgs roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties
Cost 5:
1D6: +7.861 - 3.056 = +4.805 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +10.639 - 3.056 = +7.583 IPCs damage/SBR
Cost 6:
1D6: +7.861 - 3.667 = +4.194 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +10.639 - 3.667 = +6.972 IPCs damage/SBR

---

SBR HRules : 2 StBs doing SBR without interceptor
Regular SBRs                                                        
Cost 5:
1D6 (avg 3.5 IPCs): +5.834 - 1.667 = +4.167 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2 (avg 5.5 IPCs): +9.166 - 1.667 = +7.50 IPCs damage/SBR
Cost 6:
1D6 (avg 3.5 IPCs): +5.834 - 2 = +3.834 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2 (avg 5.5 IPCs): +9.166 - 2 = +7.166 IPCs damage/SBR

---

G40.2 SBR OOB
Bomber A1
Damage: 1D6+2
Cost 12

Fighter A1 D1
Cost 10

1 StB A1 doing SBR against 1 Fg D1
D6+2: + 5.486 - 3.667 = +1.819 IPC damage/SBR

StB A1 doing SBR against 2 Fgs D1
D6+2: +4.85 - 5.056 = -0.206 IPCs damage/SBR

*9= -1.854, 9 vs 18
Net: (+1.819 - 1.854= ) -0.035
For 1 StB vs 1 Fg

• 9 StBs vs 18 Fgs
  Break even point: 10 StBs A1 C12 D6+2 vs 19 Fgs D1 C10
  Break even ratio: 10/19= 0.526 StB/Fg
  0.526*12=
  6.32 IPCs/10 IPCs = 0.632 offense/defense cost ratio
  Approximative Interception Threshold: from 1.55 StB/Fg and less

@Black_Elk:

Eliminate the stratBs role in normal combat, so that it’s only use in the game is to strategically bomb factories and bases.

Rather than trying to preserve a dual role for the strategic bomber unit (which seems to invariably favor normal combat over strat bombing) what if we made it exclusively for bombing? Basically I’m talking about a bomber unit with no hitpoints, and no attack or defense value, in normal combat. Instead we create an SBR phase and escort/intercept rules, that are unique, treating the unit a bit more like transports. The tactical bomber, would then replace the strategic bomber, as the game’s principle combat bomber, at whatever new attack/defense value makes sense for that role.

This would effectively eliminate the strat bomber air umbrella (or dark skies) approach vs navies, restoring carriers + fighters/tacBs to the preeminent position on the water. It would also eliminate the 6 move normal combat unit from the game, preventing the rush defense bomber stack, or the rush attack airblitz, with this crazy unit that has both the attack 4 (best in the game) and move 6 (best in the game.) It’s a major change, but one which I think might produce a more realistic strategic bombing campaign, without such huge distortions to normal combat.

This is very interesting. I haven’t seen it proposed before. It does make sense and would definitely solve some problems. I like that it emphasizes the tactical use of fighters and tac bombers as the primary combat air units. Your suggestions for price and attributes appear spot on at first glance.

I have been thinking about it more lately, having just gone back re-read multiple threads dealing with Dark Skies and how to defeat it. The simplest (and most appropriate) solution is simply to alter strategic bomber attributes. Though many people seem very reluctant to alter a significant unit function to solve a problem. The way strategic/heavy bombers function in this game is ridiculously incongruous to the functions they performed in real life. To the point that it skews the game significantly. As much as this would change the dynamics of gameplay, I think it may be a necessary and highly appropriate change. It would bring accuracy and a greater purpose/niche for strategic bombing that we don’t currently see… at least I don’t.

I won’t be able to test it out, but I would be very interested in the results if others did.

@barney:

Anyway back to your suggestion. I would think you’d want to leave a normal attack factor as well. People are used to them and it would affect a multitude of battles and limit some possibilities imo. I think a lower hit rate would likely be more acceptable to most payers. To me just dropping it to A3 makes me go “man I wish they hit at 4” a lot of times. :)
Besides it’d be nice to pull a “Doolittle” type raid if you want.

What exactly do you mean Barney? The Doolittle Raid was essentially a strategic bombing mission performed by medium (tactical) bombers. Unless you are comparing it to being able to using strategic bombers in a reverse role… Long shot attack on combat units with a poor offensive role?

The simplest (and most appropriate) solution is simply to alter strategic bomber attributes. Though many people seem very reluctant to alter a significant unit function to solve a problem. The way strategic/heavy bombers function in this game is ridiculously incongruous to the functions they performed in real life. To the point that it skews the game significantly.

Well said Hoffman.
Once I learned how poorly StBs were against regular targets, it seems a real aberration.
This is mostly because before TacBomber creation, StB unit was an all bomber unit.

Now, TcB has been created, each bomber type need a specific and historically accurate role.

I see a lot a possibility  coming from Black Elk idea.
I’m eager to compare all numbers to get some guidelines.
But definitely a breakthrough IMO.
From my HR POV both Fg A2 D2 C6 and StB A? D? will get same combat value in regular combat and in SBR escort and intercept.
It will be simpler.
I like this change.

Hi Lhoffman

What I meant by “Doolittle” raid was a unit that can do a long range low probability of success attack. You would not have that option with a short ranged combat unit.

@Black_Elk:

Got the numbers crunching already! Nice :-D :-D :-D

Good to see Lhoffman weighing in too! I think we’re on the same page here. Feeling that the unit as currently used in game is a real stretch, when you try to match it up with the history.
:-D  :-) :-) :- :-)

I guess I should say that the issue I see with maintaing a normal combat role for the stratB, coupled with a major price reduction, is the hitpoint spam. You can eliminate the air umbrella by lowering the attack value, but even a defense value of zero is problematic if it still has a hitpoint at such a low cost. Otherwise it could serve as a way to rush cheap fodder to a vulnerable territory (eg. Moscow) across 6 spaces, creating a kind of bizarre and gamey use on defense. This use already exists with the OOB unit, but the regular cost at 12 prohibits its effectiveness to a certain degree.

I think in this respect it is less complicated if we just made a clean break, so there is no confusion whatsoever about how the unit is to be used. The strat bomber is for strat bombing, and nothing more. I agree that this would take some getting used to, and I’m still trying to envision how it would look in practice. But it might be easier for players to just take a dive into a whole new dynamic, rather than trying to keep it familiar. I think if we preserve it’s role in normal combat, then there is a limit to how much we can reduce its cost, because the hitpoint and the move 6 (regardless of the attack/defense values) is just so potent in its own right.

The idea I had was to force a special air role exclusively for strategic bombers, so that they don’t participate in normal combat at all, but are set to the side of the battle board in such cases (similar to transports in a naval battle.) Rather than normal combat, they have their own form of specialized combat, which occurs only immediately preceding the raid (ie vs intercept/aaaguns.) This keeps things very cut and dry. When do you buy these bombers? Only when you want to SBR. That way there is no messing around. No suspension of disbelief or historical reimaginings of what the unit is intended to represent.

I think in some ways the sculpts have held us back, because they suggest that it is the type of aircraft rather than the mission/target, that defines whether “a bomber” is tactical or strategic. The game is admittedly over simplistic on this point, and the issue is somewhat compounded by the fact the Axis never really developed the kind of specialized long range strategic bombers en mass, that the Allies did. But I think for gameplay purposes it would be helpful to just create a sharp distinction by unit type, even if one might not necessarily exist in reality. Because this allows us to define the abilities and price the unit in a way that makes more sense for the intended use.

It seems a pretty good reason to not allow this little defense point @1.
So, do you still believe that even an hypothetical StB A1 D0 C5-6 M6, 1 hit could be too OP as a way to rise defense factor with such fodder?
If it is treated as an AAA for hit value with no defense point, could this be correct?
Do you believe Allies would spam 5 or 6 IPCs StB  hit fodder unit?
Here, I’m just trying how far it goes to get a consistent combat value in both SBR and regular combat.
To me, it seems a good loss of money if it use as a last ditch defense.

Good to see you as well Black Elk. I could see bmbr spam happening, which as you said we don’t want. What about A2 D0 ? I guess you’d still have to give it a hitpoint though, which is it’s strongest defense function anyway.

Hmm…SBR long range bombers only? It would definitely shake things up. :)

Just trying to visualize it in gameplay. Using Germany for example, they could build a strat fleet for use against UK and turn it against Russia when their objectives changed. Ftrs still hit at 2 with no bmbr defense ? You’d scramble every time with some success but a few would still get through. That would be in line with what really happened.

Even at 5 bucks, it’s still an investment. Especially with no hit soaking ability. Idk, I guess as you said they would be similar to transports then.

Have some other stuff I’m testing right now but I think I’ll give it a try. What do you think Baron ? SBR role only with transport no hit rule for 5 bucks ?

So Germany turn 1 will be affected the most, JPN 1 will be also. Then UK and Italy a little bit too. Think I’ll give germany 2 subs in 113 and a couple more inf for the yunann attack ? Should be close enough to get the ball running.

@barney:

Hi Lhoffman

What I meant by “Doolittle” raid was a unit that can do a long range low probability of success attack. You would not have that option with a short ranged combat unit.

Hi Barney, thanks for the clarification. That is pretty much what I thought you were getting at.

@Black_Elk:

Good to see Lhoffman weighing in too! I think we’re on the same page here. Feeling that the unit as currently used in game is a real stretch, when you try to match it up with the history.
:-D

Yup, I am always here. A good conversation will usually draw me out.

@Black_Elk:

I guess I should say that the issue I see with maintaing a normal combat role for the stratB, coupled with a major price reduction, is the hitpoint spam. You can eliminate the air umbrella by lowering the attack value, but even a defense value of zero is problematic if it still has a hitpoint at such a low cost. Otherwise it could serve as a way to rush cheap fodder to a vulnerable territory (eg. Moscow) across 6 spaces, creating a kind of bizarre and gamey use on defense. This use already exists with the OOB unit, but the regular cost at 12 prohibits its effectiveness to a certain degree.

@Black_Elk:

Perhaps I am over-valuing the hitpoint. It would certainly be simpler to implement if we didn’t have to remove it, but I do worry about bomber fodder. I’d hate to solve one problem only to create another even less historical one haha. I’m just thinking about the possibility of the US buying 10 per round and flying them to hotspots.

Agreed. Shucking aircraft back and forth to nations you are allied with has always rankled me. It is very useful for quick and powerful defensive measures if you get into desperate spots, but it is utterly ahistorical and given the political relations between each power, this type of move probably would have only occurred (and did only occur) between Germany and Italy and the USA and UK (England) + Australia.

The western Allies didn’t fly a bunch of aircraft over to aide in the defense of Moscow when the Germans were on the doorstep in 1941. I don’t know if you can completely fix that issue, but preventing the transfer of a bunch of cheap, free hitpoint units would be important. You are thinking a couple steps ahead which is great.

@Black_Elk:

I think in this respect it is less complicated if we just made a clean break, so there is no confusion whatsoever about how the unit is to be used. The strat bomber is for strat bombing, and nothing more.

The idea I had was to force a special air role exclusively for strategic bombers, so that they don’t participate in normal combat at all, but are set to the side of the battle board in such cases (similar to transports in a naval battle.) Rather than normal combat, they have their own form of specialized combat, which occurs only immediately preceding the raid (ie vs intercept/aaaguns.) This keeps things very cut and dry. When do you buy these bombers? Only when you want to SBR. That way there is no messing around. No suspension of disbelief or historical reimaginings of what the unit is intended to represent.

What do you mean by the bold statement? Are you implying that strategic bombers and the raids would be treated like tech research dice/tokens? I can sort of see this working as long as you get to keep the bombers after using them. (i.e. not like a research token where once you use it, it disappears and you have to buy more.)

What I was imagining for this whole change is that Strategic bombers remain another physical unit, just like transports. You buy them with the rest of your purchases (like transports and AA guns), except now they are only used offensively in the Strategic Bombing phase. They should probably have their return moves made during non-combat with the rest of your units (though returning them in the strategic bombing phase would be fine too). Any bombers that did not conduct Strategic raids could also be moved during non-combat.

@Black_Elk:

“Defenseless bomber” hehe, watch me spawn a thousand page thread if it ever happened officially and get torched to no end for suggesting it in the first place.
:-D

You might be crucified. But I will be the one beloved disciple at the cross with you.  :wink:

@Black_Elk:

The second is that it would be foolhardy to park a defenseless strat bomber stack anywhere other than a highly secure territory. It’d be a lot harder to just race around the globe with defensive fodder as a way to prop up a pal on the far side of the map. So there is an effect both on the naval trade and in the defensive ground game, by having them defensless 0/0/0.

Yes. I think this is already taken into account to some extent, since bombers are expensive units with abysmal defense. But making them completely defenseless would ensure that no gambles are taken.

@Black_Elk:

I think it could work to help the defenseless transport concept, since there would be another unit that used similar rules (reinforcing the basic idea), instead of just being the death of the defenseless transport (and the fleets protecting them) which is how strategic bombers are primarily used OOB.

This is a good reason IMO. It reinforces the defenseless unit concept and balances it out to where there is an air unit in that category also.

Much as I too would like to give the Strategic Bomber the ability to conduct a low probability attack against combat units, like Barney suggested above, the more we talk about it, the more I think the mechanics just won’t work. Preventing the spam loopholes is too important. Even though strategic bombers were, on rare occasion, used against combat targets in the war, I do not believe their overall effectiveness warrants even affording them the possibility of doing so in A&A. The example that comes to mind most frequently is at the Battle of Midway, which someone has probably mentioned before. The US launched a strategic bomber force of B-17s from Midway Island against part of the attacking Japanese fleet. The bombers made no hits and were utterly ineffective.

Diving into the historical aspects a bit more…
From a physical standpoint, large strategic bombers were ill-suited to attack the mobile forces of the Second World War. These aircraft were large, heavy, relatively slow and had terrible maneuverability, compared to fighters and medium bombers. The advanced range and accuracy of anti-aircraft guns meant that a strategic bombers would be torn to pieces if flown at lower altitudes, so their best defense was to fly high and attack from far above. This itself almost entirely precluded a bomber’s use against moving battlefield targets. Bombs were completely unguided and their effectiveness from +20,000 ft was determined by the abilities of the bombardier and the weather. Not to mention that this inaccuracy could go both ways. Strategic bombers were not used in campaign level battles because they were slow and would be decimated by enemy fighters, but also because with confused front lines and mobile targets - coupled with poor accuracy, the odds of hitting friendly forces would have been far too high.

@Black_Elk:

Also, good to see you Barney! Glad to know the gang is still around, even when I take long breaks.
I get what you mean, especially given the size of the game map.

“Defenseless bomber” hehe, watch me spawn a thousand page thread if it ever happened officially and get torched to no end for suggesting it in the first place.
:-D

I do see a couple of nice trade offs even if we lose the mobility of a combat unit with a reach of 6 spaces.

The first is that we create a much more historically realistic air combat radius vs fleets. Especially with respect to Europe and the Atlantic, but also for the Pacific side. I think we’d all have to acknowledge that the Axis never had a navy nuking bomber with the sort of reach we see demonstrated by the OOB strat unit. It’s range is entirely out of sync with the capabilities of Axis combat aircraft in 1940. You’d have to pretend it’s some kind of delta wing prototype, arriving on the scene well in advance of the game’s timeline.

The second is that it would be foolhardy to park a defenseless strat bomber stack anywhere other than a highly secure territory. So you’re unlikely to see a dozen of them suddenly show up in some narrowly defended frontline territory without solid ground/defensive fighters to back it up. You’d want them in a place that is relatively safe. Players would have to make some tougher choices about where to set up their bombing opperations. It’d be a lot harder to just race around the globe with defensive fodder as a way to prop up a pal on the far side of the map. So there is an effect both on the naval trade and in the defensive ground game, by having them defensless 0/0/0.
I think it could work to help the defenseless transport concept, since there would be another unit that used similar rules (reinforcing the basic idea), instead of just being the death of the defenseless transport (and the fleets protecting them) which is how strategic bombers are primarily used OOB.

Ps. To Barons last Q. I do think it would be abused with a hitpoint at a low cost. One possible alternative would be a defense value without a hitpoint  (similar to what we imagined for transports at various times.) Like with a one time defense in the first round of combat. Though that sort of mechanic would be without precedent in the official game.
Perhaps I am over-valuing the hitpoint. It would certainly be simpler to implement if we didn’t have to remove it, but I do worry about bomber fodder. I’d hate to solve one problem only to create another even less historical one haha. I’m just thinking about the possibility of the US buying 10 per round and flying them to hotspots. It would be an easy way to distort the ground game in areas with a delicate balance of hitpoints. An alternative would be a higher cost, but then you have to lower the attrition rate, and definitely the sweet spot at 5 would be off the table.

In my view it would just be less open to abuse or confusion if we didn’t have to deal with the unit in normal combat at all. I think the move 6 is very powerful at such a low cost, and people would game it, even if it was just 1 pip or 1 hitpoint, in the right place at the right time. I think players would fixate on how the unit could best be used in combat rather than SBR, which would kind of defeat the purpose of the change.

I will not try to implement such StB defending @1, then destroyed.  It is out of any OOB game mechanic.
I don’t see any trouble with a @0 defense.
My concern is to be as much streamlined as possible with other unit.
I made some numbers assuming that in escort and intercept phase bomber still get A1 while Fg is D2.
Mobility seems an issue, do you intend to allow the +1M bonus from Airbase or something like M5 and 6 with bonus AB?

On StB attack capacity in regular combat, I’m more inclined to a low @1 rather than @2, first to get same number than SBR, and to get a very low results from any Naval combat, so it will easily explained any missed B-17 raid on BB but still allows it to satisfy historical depiction.

One good point of a NO reg attack is about the impossiblity to destroyed undefended TP. I like this one.

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.

@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.

@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.

Good point on Naval fodder.

Do you know if Triple A can easily change StB to A0 D0, 1 hit in regular combat? And still make dogfight A1 vs Fg ?

@Baron:

@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.

Good point on Naval fodder.

Do you know if Triple A can easily change StB to A0 D0, 1 hit in regular combat? And still make dogfight A1 vs Fg ?

That I do not know. Been a while since I played TripleA and never configured things when I did.

I mean you could add a transport-like rule in which bombers are picked last to circumvent the fodder issue, but that doesn’t really seem appropriate in this circumstance. Only works logically if it isn’t considered a combat unit.