(Classic) Incendiary Thoughts - Strategic Bombing and Classic

@barnee

Unfortunately, I couldn’t find anything from Der Kuenstler. Here is the piece Gen Manstein was talking about:

https://www.historicalboardgaming.com/Atom-Bomb-3D-Printed-x5_p_3707.html

I was referring to @Black_Elk 's project.

Here is 8 of n for discussion of my Classic House Rules

My suggested rules add new units to the game. Some powers have never produced a certain type of unit. These optional rules add a fee to the cost for these units the first time those powers produce units never seen before on their roster.

If a country does not start the game with a certain type of unit in their possession (e.g. the Soviet Union and Battleships, Germany and Aircraft Carriers) then that country is considered to be unable to make any of that type of unit. If a country wants to make a unit that it unable to do so, then that country must make a one-time payment to the back in order to build the capacity to make that type of unit. The payment is 6 IPC. Once this payment is made the country in question will be able to make that type of unit as if it had started play with that type of unit. Payment is made for each type of unit (Aircraft Carrier, Battleship) desired. Units may be made on the same turn as the payment to build the ability is made to the bank.

-Midnight_Reaper

This mechanics can also be applied to ABs as Carolina is suggesting:

Air and Naval base damage
@Carolina:

Great topic - hi-lights how A&A is a little too basic.  ie. not all hits should be equal - really, when would AAA blow every plane out of the sky?

I would propose to change the AAA rule for bases and industry that AAA does not kill but affects the accuracy of the attacker.  Defending installation rules a 1d6 and this is subtracted from the attacker’s roll.  
1d6-1 for fighters and tacB
1d6-2 for bombers
Roll an AAA dice for each attacking aircraft.

AA rolls against Strategic Bombing raids:

Since AA never brought down all planes in a bombing raid, but could seriously impact the accuracy, AA defensive roll from air bases, naval bases, and industrial complexes is changed as follows: 1 = -3 on damage from air raid, with another roll to get a 1 for kill; 2 = -2 on damage roll, plus kill die; 3 = -1 on damage, plus kill die, 4 = +0 on damage; 5 = +1 on damage; 6 = +2 on damage.

The comparison math on this would be… if you had 12 bombers attacking, using 12 avg dice rolls,
under normal rules, 2 bombers would be lost, with 55 damage points against targets.  Under these rules, there would 1 bomber lost, but just 36 damage points against targets.

@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.

@Black_Elk:

This thread has too much good information to let it sit for an entire year without comment.
:-D

Right now my group doesn’t play with escort/intercept rules, because it just doesn’t seem worth the risk to the fighters (in either role). So when the rules are in effect it mainly serves to discourage bombing altogether.

With altered abilites, like the ones suggested here, I might be more inclined to play the Escort/intercept game.

I think you probably need 3 things to bring Air into balance:
a.  an improved SBR mechanic.

b. Better Anti-Aircraft Artillery units Abilities. Like one that can move in combat, with a normal attack defense value of 1, in addition to a one time opening shot vs air, or something along those lines.

c. Some form of naval AA-fire.

I think you have touched on all the essentials here. And have brought up the others before. In addition to working out a dogfight system. The stats in thread are compelling and demonstrate how the first aspect “improved sbr” might be approached.

Nice work, as always

Thank you very much.
I forgot this thread, I will probably use some stats into my Summary thread under construction about various SBRs.

Nonetheless, it needs full focus to really weight all the aspects of SBR with all these numbers.
I can easily understand you need to be in a certain “vibe” to read this kind of posts, hence it was quite dusty.

Besides, I agree on your analysis of these 3 points a, b, c. They need to be coordinate to get a better game.
I made a lot of posts on these points over months.
Need to find the good angle to get a fresh start on these.

@calvinhobbesliker:

Is a “port” simply a territory with a naval base? If so, this means you’re adding to the advantages already given by the naval base?

Yes, a port is any territory with a naval base. And the added advantages would primarily affect land operations.