How to integrate bombers in AA1914 ?

@arreghas

Thank you for responding!

In regards to your comments:

Adjusting Ship Costs: You’re probably right, but each piece in Axis And Allies never equals one division-in Global 1940, Germany probably had over a hundred divisions, and yet there is nowhere near that many infantry and tank units represented on the board at the start. I have a feeling that one tank equals one division, and one infantry equals one corps. Likewise, Germany had over a hundred divisions at the in 1914, which the game doesn’t represent. Each corps had two divisions, so an infantry unit probably represents a corps. So you should think about how you should tackle this problem.

I’m surprised you were able to get extra pieces from Historical Board Gaming-everything from 1914 is almost always out of stock, especially the German ones (I really want the Ottoman ones, though, because that is the only power that doesn’t have World War 2 pieces corresponding to the colour of the country, but those are always out of stock). Still, a few months ago I found a lot of transports for several countries including Germany, and some naval units. Land and air units are the hardest to find, and I could only find ones for the US.

Submarine Rules: Cruisers are more simple, so maybe we can think of them as cruisers and destroyers together (the lack of any destroyer units is puzzling, as there were many destroyers in 1914).

Restricted And Unrestricted Submarine Warfare: Great that you agree!

Defensive Dive: I’m happy that you find my idea interesting!

Aircraft Combat: Despite what you said, I think your current rule doesn’t solve this. Perhaps a better rule would be that the side in an air battle that has less aircraft can retreat, which ends the air battle and hand either air superiority (half of the opponent’s artillery is upgraded) or air supremacy (all of the artillery is upgraded)-it’s your choice.

I have nothing to say about Artillery Neutralisation.

Interesting truck pieces! For some reason, I have a feeling I’ve seen those from another topic.

As for my game, whilst the Central Powers won the sea, Germany would capitulated before that happened had the Allies not made many mistakes. So I think your assessment is accurate, although the Central Powers in my game got some bad luck in naval battles, which contributed to investing even more in ships-due to naval superiority, Germany was able to invade Scotland. Still, even without the bad luck, the Allies could have taken Berlin without making the mistakes they did.

@axis_roll said in Simplified Bombers, Flak Guns, and Submarines:

I can see a mega Allied effort to reduce German income:
UK subs, USA planes (mostly bombers and ftrs)
There will be many AAA guns and ftrs for Germany… look out for the Russian steamroller coming to (help) bleed Germany dry with stacks of men willing(?) to be thrown to the wolves

Heh. Yeah, fair point. If the economic warfare becomes too powerful for your taste, you could always add some or all of the following rules:

intercepting fighters score hits on rolls of 3 or less (4 or less?) submarine raids are capped at half the value of a territory submarine raids are capped at one less than the value of a territory bombing raids are capped at half the value of a territory bombers only attack at 2, making them less of a dual-use unit and therefore less valuable each nation can only send one bomber to bomb each territory each turn

For info we played twice with this rule and the result is 1/1 … mmm …  
Maybe it’s because we are not much experienced and we donno how to play the allies the best way as all newbies?

Anyway this “Rounded IPCs” option rule seems to balance the game and we’ll keep on testing it! If it comes around 50/50 on the long run = Perfect … But if it comes around 55/45 for the allies (with better allies moves by more experienced players) = Let’s say it’s a more historical tendency and I feel like it’s normal for the Axis player to be the underdog trying the challenge to change history!

And maybe the point is that as a frenchman I’m not too much fan of the Axis … Ha Ha!

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

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

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

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

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

@Dauvio:

To bad you don’t have the VANN FORMULAS, that will tell you exactly what you need to know.  8-)

You wrote this on my YouTube channel… tell me why I shouldn’t block you from making these types of comments.

“I’m all for custom maps, but please game masters only stick to that, and nothing else. Leave the rest to the Grand Masters.  I wish us Grand Masters can tell that to Larry Harris (SO CALL WAR GAMING) that!!!  He is exactly like Ernő Rubik the inventor of the Rubik’s Cube, but Ernő Rubik didn’t know how to solve it.  Larry Harris is a embarrassment to the Grand Master’s community of games (that’s all the board, and video games that ever existed).  He is only there to make money on all you people on selling you flawed A&A games. He doesn’t care about anybody else except himself.  And for those who follow him like a god, your lucky you didn’t bump into a Grand Master in person either!!! SO SAITH A GRAND MASTER!!! Yeah it’s my PATTON, STEVE JOB’S attitude again. Without guys like use you people would still be stuck in the stone age, and Larry Harris is below the stone age, and us Grand Masters is the highest level you people can get which I highly doubt you will ever get to that level because of Larry Harris!!! :D :D :D LOL!!! And that is me being very generous with you people. HAPPY HUNTING EVERYONE!!!”

@nerquen:

@Black_Elk:

Here is an example, say you are attacking with 1 ground unit, 1 fighter and 1 bomber. After the first round of combat the ground unit is destroyed, but the fighter and bomber remain. In the second round of combat, is the bomber allowed to participate as fodder for the fighter, even though the HR does not allow the bomber itself continue attacking? Or is the bomber considered no longer part of the fight, ie it is not longer involved in the combat cannot take any enemy hits?

For simplicity, I was thinking not to put any further restrictions on a combat once it started. The HR would really just restrict the number of bombers that one can bring into a battle, but once the battle started it would follow OOB rules. So bombers can be taken as casualties at any chosen time and can also continue battle even if all land units are dead already. This is mostly to allow game play with tripleA without any modifications.

But with little modifications to the game xml file, one can modify bombers such that their attack value is 0, but if they are combined with any land unit or a warship in 1:1 ratio they get +4 attack bonus. It is much more realistic this way and gives space for interesting tactical decisions. Suddenly taking fighters as casualties before last few armors and artilleries supported by bombers is better for maximizing attack power. One would still be allowed to take bombers as casualties at any chosen time, I think that is ok. I will attach an xml file here soon.

Here https://www.dropbox.com/s/2mbsptvi4jxi1ut/World War II Bombers HR.zip?dl=0 you can download the map with bombers having attack value of 0, but if paired with any land unit or a warship* in 1:1 ratio their attack increases to 4. Just unzip the downloaded zip file into maps subfolder of your tripleA installation. Once you launch tripleA select “World War II Global 1940 2nd Ed. - House Ruled Bombers” from the list of available games. I would be interested in any feedback if you try it. You can PM me or post here.

I excluded carriers here, as carriers have attack value of 0 themselves so it would felt weird if they could boost attack of bombers.

@arwaker:

The less different types of units you have in the game, the more of the specific sculpts are in the box.
I dont see the advantage in stategic depth of the game a tactical bomber could offer, to compensate the reduction of specific sculpts and the complification of the rules.

However, one can introduce as many new types of units he wants (as a house rule). What about assault guns, interceptors, frigates or landmines? Would they increase the funfactor of the game? I’m not sure. Same as with tactical bombers.

If there is no Air Base or Naval Base and having only the combined arms: giving +1 to attack if tactical bomber is paired to Fg or Tank, I agree there is not much additional strategic depth about it.
The fun thing is only about having more different sculpts Inside the Box.
From a collectors POV, it seems more interesting having more different units than fewer types but more of them. Isn’t it?
Chips are provided when you have many units of the same type.

Of course, it adds more specific rules. That’s the issue specifically treated by 1941 game.
Simpler and shorter for beginner.

1942 can be more develop with sculpts without extending the play-time or the whole map (not excluding a few changes, like the no-IPC value Islands in Pacific, for instance).
Global is made for hard-core players who have a lot of time.

From what I experimented, I could say that adding Mechanized Infantry and Tactical Bomber (and even a 5 IPCs’ Mechanized Artillery (assault Gun) and 9-10 IPCs Escort Carrier, HBG sculpt) can provides a deeper experience and feel of WWII at a strategic level without having to plan for a 2-days event.

Although, your focus on increasing “strategic depth”, makes we think about the two game mechanics brought to hit directly planes. And in this perspective, one seems better compared to the other.
The one I introduced in my opening post is better because it allows a specific unit (Fighter), a specific capacity: targeting enemy’s plane first (costlier target), while Tactical Bomber also received his specific capacity (being a better hitter on ground targets, but not necessarily on costlier targets).

The other way of creating somekind of dogfight between planes is to allow “1” or “2” rolled by aircrafts to destroy enemy’s.
The mechanic can work but doesn’t seems to increase the strategic depth as much as the former.
Fighter and Tactical have similar abilities, (carrier operation, regular hit, special roll) one have more of this and the other less of that (Fg on “1” or “2” / TcB on “1” only, cannot intercept in SBR).

Do you agree on this last point?

Here is a complete roster with a different Fighter unit (A2 D2 M4 C6) combined with an entirely 3 planes Fleet Carrier for either Fighter or Tactical Bomber units.
Even with a radical change in cost, I think it brings a much better interactions between units and mainly aircrafts from a gameplay perspective than the one I suggested in the opening post and poll of this actual thread.
You should take a look.
Baron Munchhausen’s G40HR Roster for 3 planes carrier & 6 IPCs 1914 Fighter
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35222.msg1370798#msg1370798

@Uncrustable:

Well yours involves no less change, and is broken.

Probably better to just change tac to 10 nothing else for your friends then lol.

If I follow you it is broken because:
a TcB A3-4D4 C11 cost too high when you can buy a Fg A3 C9 only (on attack Fg is better on an IPC basis),
and a TcB A3-4D4C10 cost too low vs Fg D3 C9 (only 1 IPC higher to get D4).

And since a Fg A3D3C8 is too OP, I’m screwed. lol
Did I catch your reasoning (and the “Uncrusty” style)?

So I’m left with only one option, giving more offensive power to TcB C11 to be competitive with this unit:
Fg A3D3C9, on “1” rolled destroyed 1 plane.
TcB A3-4D4C11
1- When paired with Fg, TcB get A4.
2- Air supremacy: when no enemy’s plane then TcB get also A4, need no Fg presence.

@Uncrustable:

The main problematic aspect (as discussed previously) to look at is the effect of A2D2 fighter on carrier operation vs naval units.

I disagree, i think you look at it the wrong way or something, because i see no problem here.
Carriers reduced to 15 IPC.
1 fighter + 1 tac = 5-6 attack value, 5-6 defense value with 3 less cost
a fighter + 1 tac (OOB) = 6-7 attack value, 7 defense value 3 more cost

carrier is reduced 1 IPCs, and you only lose 1-2 combat value of the whole.
so thats 4 IPCs cheaper for carrier + fighter + tac, losing just 1-2 combat value.
If anything carriers gain a little strength (im ok with it, historically realistic to have carriers the powerhouse anyhow)

it is just OOB, you will most likely, if not always, purchase only fighters for carriers.
now you have good reason to keep combined forces.

If, big if (since OOb have the better hand actually), you everplay with this Fg, you will have to be careful about Global OOB distortion vs this possible G40e fighter:

G40e Fgs on an AB 3D@3 won’t be able to protect as much as OOB scrambled Fgs 3D@4.

When a fleet with only 1 loaded carrier unit will be attack, it will be less powerful (but also cheaper: meaning you could have more other warships) on defense than reg OOB CV+2 Fgs.
For example: 3 cruisers (C10)= 30 IPCs will be a bit more dangerous to CV G40e (15+8+10=33 IPCs) than they were vs OOB CV (A6D10C36 IPCs).
3 CA A9D9C30 vs TcB+Fg: A6D8C33 4 hits, even worse A/D with 2 Fgs: A4D6C31 4 hits.

It still works as I said, just to be cautious of the lesser A/D value for carrier when planning a naval combat.