G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

@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.

Here is the basic numbers to make a comparison:
Break even ratio for x StB A1 vs y Fg D2:
**OOB G40 SBR: 10/19= 0.526 StB/Fg
Cost 5 D6 damage: 16 StBs vs 31 Fgs, 16/31= 0.516 StB/Fg
Cost 6 D6 damage: 19 Stbs vs 29 Fgs, 19/29= 0.655 StB/Fg

Fighter Interception Threshold (FIT) and Fighter Interception Gap (FIG)
G40 OOB: from 1.55 StB/Fg and less   (.526 to 1.55)
Cost 5: near 6 StBs vs 4 Fgs= from 1.5 StB/Fg and less (.516 to 1.5)
Cost 6: near 5 StBs vs 3 Fgs= from 1.67 StB/Fg and less (0.655 to 1.67)**

G40 OOB D6+2, 1 StB vs 1 Fg: + 5.486 - 3.667 = +1.819 IPC damage/SBR
Cost 5: 1 StB A1 vs 1 Fg D2
1D6: +3.611 - 2.222 = +1.389 IPCs damage/SBR
Cost 6
1D6: +3.611 - 2.667 = +0.944 IPCs damage/SBR

Cost 5:   1StB A1 vs 2 Fgs D2                                                          
1D6: +2.963 - 3.148 = -0.185 IPCs damage/SBR
Cost 6:                                                            
1D6: +2.963 - 3.778 = -0.815 IPCs damage/SBR

So, from these numbers, I can easily say that StB C5 vs C12 SBR odds are similar:
StB A0 D0 C5 SBR A1 D6 vs Fg D2 C10, FIG (.516 to 1.5)
G40 OOB:
StB A4 D1 C12 SBR A1 D6+2 vs Fg D1 C10, FIG (.526 to 1.55)

Such 5 IPCs attackless-defenseless StB will recreate the same odds but not exactly the same dynamics.

For interceptions, even a defending Fg @2 C10, double cost of StB !!!, is not an interesting option.
But this is actually the same OOB.
The difference is if there is escort Fgs, IMO it create a different dynamic because if a casualty must be taken, the attacker must choose between a 5 IPCs StB unit or a 10 IPCs Fg unit.
So, I believe most defender’s Fg hit will be allocated to StB instead of costlier escort Fgs.
That is a more accurate historical depiction of such air raid.

So, players will get similar odds in SBR, a slighlty different dogfight dynamic, no more regular combat but more StBs for their money compared to OOB
(5 vs 12 IPCs).
Probably will not increase the number of interception compared to OOB.
OOB G40 are too much attacker bias, IMO.

Just imagine 6 StBs A1, C30 vs 3 Fgs D2, C30, same points: A6 vs D6, odds will be high to not intercept.
2:1 ratio is already above FIT (Threshold), that way it is better to let StBs face AAA only, then bomb.

But, Triple A can probably manage this change for a good play-test.

Has anyone ever proposed not giving bombers an/attack defense value during interception?

Example:  Germany (5) StrBmb raiding London. UK scrambles (3) Ftrs. UK Ftrs can conduct one defensive combat roll @2. StrBmb have no defense roll. Those bombers which survive the UK scramble then deal with the IC AA and conduct their raid.

This would be predicated on the assumption that current mechanics favor the attacker in scramble air battles. I can’t tell if that is true or not, but if you have bombers(@1) + escort fighters(@1) vs 3 max defending fighters(@2), it seems like that battle favors attacker.

Further, if Germany were to bring escort fighters, the combat would be:

Germany (5) StrBmb + (3) Escort Ftr vs (3) Scramble UK Ftr. UK Ftrs roll one cycle @2. German Escort Ftrs roll one cycle @1. Remaining StrBmb face IC AA and make raid. Surviving German Ftrs return to base before facing IC AA.

I know that is a little different from existing game mechanics, but I like it on paper.

That’s how I would do it, LHoffman, if I were designing interception rules. The way I see it, there are three basic bombing systems you could aim for:
(1) invincible bombers that can’t be killed by any reasonable defense
(2) sturdy bombers that can be killed by a sufficiently large stack of defensive fighters
(3) fragile bombers that can be easily killed by an aa gun or a single fighter

If you go with option 1, then bombers have to be so expensive per unit of strategic damage that they’re only useful for projecting power (e.g. America can use bombers to cross the Atlantic). If you have a cheap but invincible bomber, then bombing is too easy, and nobody will bother building fleets.

If you go with option 2, then bombers (and escorts fighters) have to dogfight well enough to overwhelm one or two fighters, but not so well that they can break even against a max scramble. 3 fighters plus an aaa gun need to be able to wreak havoc on a mid-sized stack of bombers (e.g. 6 bombers + 1 escort), or else your bombers are effectively invincible, and nobody will bother to prepare or use a stack of interceptors.

If you go with option 3, then bombers need to be very cheap or very effective or both, so that you can force your opponent to build aaa guns even at minor factories like Baghdad or northeast Australia – otherwise your opponent will slap an aaa gun in Moscow and Berlin and London, and nobody will ever go on a bombing raid.

Would you be willing to make the AA gun shoot at planes after the escorts and interceptors are done, and then have the IC AA gun get a defense roll against the SBR attack bombing rolls ?

3 bombers SBR and roll 1 die each with a +2 added to die roll. So bombers roll a R3 +2 =5  R4 +2 =6  R4 +2 =6  total of 17 damage.

Then IC AA gun gets to roll 3 defense die, 1 for each plane. IC roll  2, 4, 1, = 7  Total damage to IC is 17 - 7 = 10.

Am using this rule in my 40 game and its being tested now.

This could deter more SBR’s because now the bombers have to pretty much bring escorts. If less SBR’s maybe make +3 to each die roll for Bomber damage.

@Argothair:

If you go with option 2, then bombers (and escorts fighters) have to dogfight well enough to overwhelm one or two fighters, but not so well that they can break even against a max scramble. 3 fighters plus an aaa gun need to be able to wreak havoc on a mid-sized stack of bombers (e.g. 6 bombers + 1 escort), or else your bombers are effectively invincible, and nobody will bother to prepare or use a stack of interceptors.

Agreed. 3 scrambled fighters plus AA defense should pose a significant threat to a small to moderate sized SBR force. Of course, not every instance will see a max scramble, but the higher profile targets like Berlin and London usually should. The challenge here will be to predict the amounts of Strategic Bombers that will be seen under a A0 D0 C5 system. Spamming them should be mitigated by the fact that they would have no hit point or combat value at all. Buying one or two a turn with extra cash sounds appropriate, but I can’t see someone dropping 30-40 IPCs on StrBmbers if they have no tactical offensive or defensive attributes. Even with a spam amount of StrBmbers, there are already safeguards in place to limit their effectiveness (IC AA gun defense and a max damage that can be inflicted). So having 6 StrBmbers may be just as effective as having 20. You aren’t going to be able to inflict any more damage by having a massive bomber stack, you can just attack more ICs at one time.

@SS:

Would you be willing to make the AA gun shoot at planes after the escorts and interceptors are done, and then have the IC AA gun get a defense roll against the SBR attack bombing rolls ?

3 bombers SBR and roll 1 die each with a +2 added to die roll. So bombers roll a R3 +2 =5� R4 +2 =6� R4 +2 =6� total of 17 damage.

Then IC AA gun gets to roll 3 defense die, 1 for each plane. IC roll� 2, 4, 1, = 7� �Total damage to IC is 17 - 7 = 10.

Am using this rule in my 40 game and its being tested now.

This could deter more SBR’s because now the bombers have to pretty much bring escorts. If less SBR’s maybe make +3 to each die roll for Bomber damage.

My comment above about having the escorts along for interception air combat and then returning them where they came from was based on the fact that (until late in the war) most bomber escorts didn’t have the range to follow their bombers all the way to the target and back… they would have to bug out early. That is something of a historical rationalization. My point in the game for having escorts exit the battle after interception phase is to simplify the rest of the raid and prevent the escorts from being shot down again by the IC AA gun.

The method you are describing adds another layer to the phase… I assume this is your own house rule SS? The bombers already have to get through interceptors, plus survive normal AA fire, and then their rolls get cancelled out by the IC AA gun… with the difference being the final damage done. I understand the mechanic, but it doesn’t bear any resemblance to how the raids actually took place. First image it conjured for me was a point defense weapon; as though the AA gun was shooting at the bombs as they fell. It kinda seems like just adding another step and further eroding the StrBmbr effectiveness.

@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.

@LHoffman:

Has anyone ever proposed not giving bombers an/attack defense value during interception?

Example:   Germany (5) StrBmb raiding London. UK scrambles (3) Ftrs. UK Ftrs can conduct one defensive combat roll @2. StrBmb have no defense roll. Those bombers which survive the UK scramble then deal with the IC AA and conduct their raid.

This would be predicated on the assumption that current mechanics favor the attacker in scramble air battles. I can’t tell if that is true or not, but if you have bombers(@1) + escort fighters(@1) vs 3 max defending fighters(@2), it seems like that battle favors attacker.

Further, if Germany were to bring escort fighters, the combat would be:

Germany (5) StrBmb + (3) Escort Ftr vs (3) Scramble UK Ftr. UK Ftrs roll one cycle @2. German Escort Ftrs roll one cycle @1. Remaining StrBmb face IC AA and make raid. Surviving German Ftrs return to base before facing IC AA.

I know that is a little different from existing game mechanics, but I like it on paper.

Pretty interesting discussion going on. I’m all excited by the new perspectives it opens.

From what I understand of numbers above, if the main attract is 5 IPCs unit for Strategic bomber, I believe it is better to make it totally toothless and clawless.
Such as StB A0 D0 M6 C5, no hit value except in SBR combat with A0.
Otherwise, all other factors will be unbalancing: A1 in SBR against Fg, a single hit value which can be used as fodder with a lot of mobility, A1 C5 in regular combat against Naval unit which can be used as better fodder than Sub or Destroyer.

@SS:

Would you be willing to make the AA gun shoot at planes after the escorts and interceptors are done, and then have the IC AA gun get a defense roll against the SBR attack bombing rolls ?

3 bombers SBR and roll 1 die each with a +2 added to die roll. So bombers roll a R3 +2 =5� R4 +2 =6� R4 +2 =6� total of 17 damage.

Then IC AA gun gets to roll 3 defense die, 1 for each plane. IC roll� 2, 4, 1, = 7� �Total damage to IC is 17 - 7 = 10.

Am using this rule in my 40 game and its being tested now.

This could deter more SBR’s because now the bombers have to pretty much bring escorts. If less SBR’s maybe make +3 to each die roll for Bomber damage.

My comment above about having the escorts along for interception air combat and then returning them where they came from was based on the fact that (until late in the war) most bomber escorts didn’t have the range to follow their bombers all the way to the target and back… they would have to bug out early. That is something of a historical rationalization. My point in the game for having escorts exit the battle after interception phase is to simplify the rest of the raid and prevent the escorts from being shot down again by the IC AA gun.

The method you are describing adds another layer to the phase… I assume this is your own house rule SS? The bombers already have to get through interceptors, plus survive normal AA fire, and then their rolls get cancelled out by the IC AA gun… with the difference being the final damage done. I understand the mechanic, but it doesn’t bear any resemblance to how the raids actually took place. First image it conjured for me was a point defense weapon; as though the AA gun was shooting at the bombs as they fell. It kinda seems like just adding another step and further eroding the StrBmbr effectiveness.

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

@Baron:

@LHoffman:

Has anyone ever proposed not giving bombers an/attack defense value during interception?

Example:   Germany (5) StrBmb raiding London. UK scrambles (3) Ftrs. UK Ftrs can conduct one defensive combat roll @2. StrBmb have no defense roll. Those bombers which survive the UK scramble then deal with the IC AA and conduct their raid.

This would be predicated on the assumption that current mechanics favor the attacker in scramble air battles. I can’t tell if that is true or not, but if you have bombers(@1) + escort fighters(@1) vs 3 max defending fighters(@2), it seems like that battle favors attacker.

Further, if Germany were to bring escort fighters, the combat would be:

Germany (5) StrBmb + (3) Escort Ftr vs (3) Scramble UK Ftr. UK Ftrs roll one cycle @2. German Escort Ftrs roll one cycle @1. Remaining StrBmb face IC AA and make raid. Surviving German Ftrs return to base before facing IC AA.

I know that is a little different from existing game mechanics, but I like it on paper.

Pretty interesting discussion going on. I’m all excited by the new perspectives it opens.

From what I understand of numbers above, if the main attract is 5 IPCs unit for Strategic bomber, I believe it is better to make it totally toothless and clawless.
Such as StB A0 D0 M6 C5, no hit value except in SBR combat with A0.
Otherwise, all other factors will be unbalancing: A1 in SBR against Fg, a single hit value which can be used as fodder with a lot of mobility, A1 C5 in regular combat against Naval unit which can be used as better fodder than Sub or Destroyer.

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

In addition, for play-tests this can be put into Triple A SBR with less difficulty since Fg keeps A1 D1, same dogfight values as OOB.

@Baron:

1942.2 SBR Black Elk hypothesis

Strategic Bomber
Attack 0
Damage 1D6, 1D6+2
Cost 5

Fighter
Attack 1
Defense 1
Cost 10

Break even point C5, 1D6 damage: near 1 StB vs 2 Fgs: 0.5 StB/Fg
1 StB vs 2 Fgs : + 2.025 - 2.106 = -0.081 IPCs
12 StB vs 23 Fgs: exactly 0.522 StB/Fg
No FIT (Fighter Interception Threshold), always beneficial to Intercept.

---

Down below here is a different values doing SBR for 1942.2 and G40

Strategic Bomber in air-to-air combat SBR:
Attack 0
Bombard IC damage: D6 or 1D6+2

Fighter in air-to-air combat SBR:
Attack 1
Defend 1

IC’s AAA: @1 against each Strategic Bomber

---

1942.2 SBR HRules with StB A0 and Fg A1 D1 : damage 1D6 or 1D6+2

1 Strategic Bomber doing SBR against no interceptor

AAA roll = odds casualties

5/6 StB survived * 5.5 IPCs = +4.583 IPCs *3.5= +2.917 *6.5= 5.417
1/6 StB killed *5 IPCs = -0.833 IPCs

D6: +2.917-0.833= +2.084 IPCs
D6+2: + 4.583 - 0.833 = +3.750 IPCs damage/SBR

---

1 Strategic Bomber Att 0 doing SBR against 1 interceptor Def 1

Interceptor Fg roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties

1/66/6 = 6/36 1 StB killed by Fg
5/61/6 = 5/36 1 StB killed by AAA
5/6*5/6 = 25/36 No casualty at all.

Results:
Bombard on IC 25/36* ((1+2)+(6+2) IPCs)/2= +5.5 IPCs) = + 3.819 IPCs *3.5= 2.431 *6.5=+4.514
StB killed 11/36 *-5 IPCs = - 1.528 IPCs

D6: + 2.431 - 1.528 = +0.903
D6+2: + 3.819 - 1.528= + 2.291 IPC damage/SBR

---

1 Strategic Bomber Att 0 doing SBR against 2 interceptors Def 1

Interceptors Fgs roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties

11/366/6 = 66/216 1 StB killed by Fg
25/361/6 = 25/216 1 StB killed by AAA
25/36*5/6 = 125/216 No casualty at all.

Results:
Bombard on IC 125/216* ((1+2)+(6+2) IPCs)/2= +5.5 IPCs) = + 3.183 IPCs *3.5= 2.025 *6.5=+3.762
StB killed 91/216 *- 5 IPCs = - 2.106 IPCs

D6: + 2.025 - 2.106 = -0.081 IPCs
D6+2: + 3.183 - 2.106 = +1.077 IPC damage/SBR

---

1 Fighter Att 1 and 1 Strategic Bomber Att 0 doing SBR against 2 interceptors Def 1

Fighter roll/interceptors Fgs roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties

1/61/366/6 = 6/1296 1 Fg and 1 StB killed by Fgs vs 1 Fg
1/610/361/6= 10/1296 1 Fg killed by Fg and 1 StB killed by AAA vs 1 Fg
1/610/365/6= 50/1296 1 Fg killed by Fg vs 1 Fg
1/625/361/6 = 25/1296 1 StB killed by AAA
1/625/365/6 = 125/1296 No casualty vs 1 Fg

5/620/366/6 = 600/1296 1 Fg and 1 StB killed by Fg vs no casualty
5/616/361/6 = 80/1296 1 Fg killed by Fg and 1 StB killed by AAA vs no casualty
5/616/365/6 = 400/1296 no casualty at all

Results:
Bombard on IC: 1050/1296 * ((1+2)+(6+2) IPCs)/2= +5.5 IPCs) = + 4.456 IPCs 3.5= +2.836 6.5=+5.266
Killing 1 Fg: 216/1296 +10 IPCs = + 1.667 IPCs
Fg killed: 300/1296-10 IPCs = - 2.315 IPCs
StB killed: 150/1296 -5 IPCs = - 0.579IPCs
StB & Fg killed: 96/1296 -15 IPCs = - 1.111 IPCs

D6: +4.503 - 1.690 = +2.813 IPCs
D6+2: + 6.123 - 1.690 = + 4.433 IPC damage/SBR

---

1 Fighter Att 1 and 1 Strategic Bomber Att 0 doing SBR against 1 interceptor Def 1
Fighter escort taking the casualty.
Fighter roll/interceptor Fg roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties

1/61/61/6= 1/216 1 Fg killed by Fg and 1 StB killed by AAA vs 1 Fg
1/61/65/6= 5/216 1 Fg killed by Fg vs 1 Fg
1/65/61/6 = 5/216 1 StB killed by AAA vs 1 Fg
1/65/65/6 = 25/216 No casualty vs 1 Fg

5/61/61/6 = 5/216 1 Fg killed by Fg and 1 StB killed by AAA vs no casualty
5/61/65/6 = 25/216 1 Fg killed by Fg vs no casualty
5/65/61/6 = 25/216 1 StB killed by AAA vs no casualty
5/65/65/6 = 125/216 no casualty at all

Results:
Bombard on IC: 180/216 * ((1+2)+(6+2) IPCs)/2= +5.5 IPCs) = + 4.583 IPCs 3.5= +0.833 6.5=+5.417
Killing 1 Fg: 36/216 +10 IPCs = + 1.667 IPCs
Fg killed:30/216-10 IPCs = - 1.389 IPCs
StB killed: 30/216 -5 IPCs = - 0.694 IPCs
StB & Fg killed: 6/216 -15 IPCs = - 0.417 IPC

D6: +2.500 - 1.111 = +1.389 IPCs
D6+2: + 6.250 - 1.111 = + 5.139 IPC damage/SBR

---

2 Strategic Bombers Att 0 doing SBR against 2 interceptors Def 1

Interceptor Fgs roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties

1/3636/36= 36/1296 2 StBs killed by Fgs
10/366/36 = 60/1296 1 StB killed by Fg and 1 StB killed by AAA
10/6*30/36= 300/1296 1 StB killed by Fg

25/361/36 = 25/1296 2 StBs killed by AAA
25/3610/36 = 250/1296 1 StB killed by AAA
25/36*25/36 = 625/1296 No casualty at all.

Results:
2x Bombard on IC 625/1296* ((2+4)+(12+4) IPCs)/2= +11 IPCs) = +5.305 IPCs *7=+3.378 13=+6.269
1x Bombard on IC 550/1296 ((1+2)+(6+2) IPCs)/2= +5.5 IPCs) = + 2.334 IPCs 3.5=+1.485 6.5=+2.758
2 StBs killed 121/1296 -10 IPCs = - 0.934 IPCs
1 StB killed 550/1296 -5 IPCs = - 2.122 IPCs

D6: +4.863 - 3.056 = +1.807 IPCs
D6+2: + 7.639 - 3.056 = + 4.583 IPCs damage/SBR

---

2 Strategic Bombers Att 0 doing SBR against 1 interceptor Def 1

Interceptor Fg roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties

1/66/36 = 6/216 1 StB killed by Fg and 1 StB killed by AAA
1/630/36= 30/216 1 StB killed by Fg
5/61/36 = 5/216 2 StBs killed by AAA
5/610/36 = 50/216 1 StB killed by AAA
5/6*25/36 = 125/216 No casualty at all.

Results:
2x Bombard on IC 125/216* ((2+4)+(12+4) IPCs)/2= +11 IPCs) = +6.366 IPCs *7=+4.051 13=+7.523
1x Bombard on IC 80/216 ((1+2)+(6+2) IPCs)/2= +5.5 IPCs) = + 2.037 IPCs 3.5=+1.296 6.5=+2.407
2 StBs killed 11/216 -10 IPCs = - 0.509 IPC
1 StB killed 80/216 -5 IPCs = - 1.852 IPCs

D6: + 5.347 - 2.361= + 2.986 IPCs
D6+2: + 8.403 - 2.361 = + 6.042 IPCs damage/SBR