The new SBR system

@Krieghund:

@Omega:

Quick question : can allied fighters participate in the defense of a bombed IC?

Yes.

Krieg another quick sorta related question can friendly ftrs/tac bmr scramble from an island AB to def the surrounding sea zone. Sorry if you already answered this at some point.

@WILD:

Krieg another quick sorta related question can friendly ftrs/tac bmr scramble from an island AB to def the surrounding sea zone. Sorry if you already answered this at some point.

Of course they can.

@Imperious:

also China can destroy factories by occupying them, A minor in Manchuria is a smaller risk.

:lol: yep, I like at least that chinese rule: they have to face ACME walls, so let’s give them Jedi lightsabres to do a thing no one can do: destroy ICs  :mrgreen: One magic rule counters another magic rule … China is magic power of lollypop country! (Remember that Simpsons episode  :-D )

Put the IC at Korea if you want it totally safe from chinese lightsabres: Jedi tricks cannot break ACME walls!  :lol:

@Flying:

@hyogoetophile:

I agree that basically you want to strat bomb if you can afford to at least send about twice as many escorts as there will be interceptors – and if you want to trade fighters for fighters. And yes, the old guideline seems to apply: If there’s a real battle, you probably want to be in that instead.

Exactly what I am saying. At least someone has math skills. So what is the point of it then? It would be moronic to attack against defending fighters. It’s very comparable to using only infantry to attack infantry, practically #1 on the no no list. So basically this will reduce the amount of SBRs which will reduce the game experience.

I majored in math. This is not a question of math skills. This is a question of realism.

Realistically, it’s only a viable option if the defender has little to no airforce left. This takes that into account very well, the entire point is that realistically it wouldn’t be worth attacking a factory if it had even an average force defending it.

The rules allow the defending player to allocate planes to defend from SBR or to participate in defending a land attack.

This allows for the defender to choose where he could gain an advantage over the attacker and destroy the escorts.

The attacker must get a 2:1 against all his targets ( say these are 3 minors), so he is spread out and the targets can be placed in different localities to make it much harder to SBR.

Since Japan gets the Major and 10 units , she does not need any more, but she needs just the minors and lots of them.

The Allies may need a major in India ( in fact i am sure of this)

Probably Australia for UK as well

The new rules on this are better. PERIOD, END.

I really like the new SBR rules.  The old style of “double dipping” made SBRs incredibly not worth it.  The fact that attacking escorts and bombers got fired on twice made the liability too great. Now it is still iffy if you want to commit to SBR but at least your fighters aren’t exposed to SO much danger anymore.

@plumsmugler:

I really like the new SBR rules.  The old style of “double dipping” made SBRs incredibly not worth it.  The fact that attacking escorts and bombers got fired on twice made the liability too great. Now it is still iffy if you want to commit to SBR but at least your fighters aren’t exposed to SO much danger anymore.

I agree.

I have a question.

Say you have a navy in port and the port gets attacked with SBR.  Can the navy take part in air defence for one round also?

@Razor:

@General:

I have a question.

Say you have a navy in port and the port gets attacked with SBR.  Can the navy take part in air defence for one round also?

A navy is never in a Naval Base (belive it or not). The ships are in a seazone adjacent to a Naval Base, butt the Naval Base facility is in the territory. So if you want to attack both the ships and the Naval Base at Pearl Harbour, then you must split your airforce. Some planes attack the ships, and the ships defend themselves. Oher planes attack the Naval Base, and the Naval Base have their own AA-guns to protect themselves. Get it ? O’boy, Razor can be the new unofficial answer guy, man.

And after he answers you, he will smite you.

@Razor:

Done……and done  :-D

Thanks for the answer! I thought it was like that just making sure.

But why do you have to go round voting neg rating for ppl, I had a nice 0 neg rating before you came along messing around for no reason.

So please stop behaving like a child.

@Brain:

@Flying:

@hyogoetophile:

I agree that basically you want to strat bomb if you can afford to at least send about twice as many escorts as there will be interceptors – and if you want to trade fighters for fighters. And yes, the old guideline seems to apply: If there’s a real battle, you probably want to be in that instead.

Exactly what I am saying. At least someone has math skills. So what is the point of it then? It would be moronic to attack against defending fighters. It’s very comparable to using only infantry to attack infantry, practically #1 on the no no list. So basically this will reduce the amount of SBRs which will reduce the game experience.

I majored in math. This is not a question of math skills. This is a question of realism.

OK I just want to get this straight. When the Allies sent up Bombers with escorts to bomb industrial centers, on average they lost more in value(fighters/bombers) than Germany lost in industrial production and defending fighters. As long as we are using realistic rules then I am all for it. Thanks brain damaged.

Well I like the new rules anyway.

@Brain:

Well I like the new rules anyway.

Just thought of something….if the global game has the USA at an ungodly amount of income then they could be producing too many bombers and then they could SBR Germany to nothing pretty fast. If that is the case then The new rule is actually needed for balance or it could get out of hand. We’ll see.