Begginings of revising defense fire against aircraft

[lnmajor]

OK, the post started on revising unit values is turning out very good and has motivated me to open up a can of worms and address a topic that has bothered me for quite some time.
I think the rules for AA guns at facilities is fine. the rules for AA gun unit are fine.
heres what doesnt make sense to me. Strat Bomber(s) attacks  infantry or tanks in a territory, attacker is sure to lose all Bombers in defense fire. ground units do not have the fire power to down a strat bomber. no way ,no how.
example 2) should 1 or 2 fighters be able to sink an aircraft carrier or battleship with very good odds? Tac bombers yes, but fighters?i think this is very unrealistic.
Looking for suggestions from everyone on how to fix these issues and make a more balanced and realistic approach to these type of situations.   

[Gargantua]

If you do this... you're going to break the concept of the game.   Bombers will be nye invincible... and once air supremacy is achieved... unstoppable.

Unless you wholly redesign the whole component of air combat, to a single round, or a greater regional area...

[knp7765]

You have to remember the grand, strategic nature of this game.  Yes, 2 fighters taking on a battleship does seem silly.  However, on the scale of this game, it is more like two fighter wings attacking a battleship and it's escorting vessels.
An infantry piece is more or less an entire infantry division, roughly 10,000 - 15,000 men, which would have some anti-aircraft ability among other various abilities (anti-tank, medics, etc.)  It's not just a bunch of guys with rifles.
Same with an armor piece.  Each piece represents an armored division, which would include anti-aircraft tanks, tank destroyers, self-propelled guns, maintenance crews, etc.

This is why I personally have doubts about all the new pieces people are wanting to add (SBGs, tank destroyers, transport aircraft, specialized units, etc.)  It will start making the game into too much of a tactical level game.  The pieces are really cool and I really like them, but I'm just not sure they are needed for this game.

[Cmdr Jennifer]

If you do this... you're going to break the concept of the game. �  Bombers will be nye invincible... and once air supremacy is achieved... unstoppable.

Unless you wholly redesign the whole component of air combat, to a single round, or a greater regional area...

Nah, they were not invincible in Enhanced when American bombers were immune to AA Gun fire and they didn't have interceptors then.


I can go with Strategic Bombers immune to AA Gun fire on the condition that Interceptors go back to 2 Defense, Escort attack stays at 1.

[Gargantua]

He's not talking about strategic bombardment.

He's talking about 1 bomber attacking a stack of 100 men, 60 artillery, and 40 tanks, and removing all of the pieces except the bomber, because nothing can hit it.

[Cmdr Jennifer]

I was not talking about strategic bombardment either.  I was talking about Anti-Aircraft Gun immunity only.  Infantry on the ground would still be able to shoot at the bomber.

[Gargantua]

Infantry on the ground would still be able to shoot at the bomber.

That's precisely what he's proposing against when he says...

ground units do not have the fire power to down a strat bomber. no way ,no how.

[lnmajor]

Ok, maybe im misunderstood here. what im saying is how can this work better. i know that each piece represents a division or sqaudron and all that. im saying like jennifer is thinking, fighter interseptors against bombers. And like Gargantuwa was saying in another thread about scrambling over land. not trying to make the bomber the allmighty piece thats invincible. one idea for example is i think bombers should only be allowed to operate from air bases. maybe fighters should be cheaper in order to place more on the board to protect against bombers. another thing is can a squadron of fighters sink a battleship 50% of the time? i dont know. i thought if i got the subject started good ideas would start popping up.  

[lnmajor]

By the way, gargantua, if you attacked the same TT with inf, tanks, etc. AND a bomber, the bomber is basically emmune to defensive fire becouse u would never take it as a causualty first. or leave it in long enough to become one. see what i mean?

[lnmajor]

Jennifer, no im not talking about SBRs. im also not talking about 1 bomber being able to take out 40 inf. and 20 tanks. thats insane. maybe limit the bomber attack to 1 round of combat? if no fighters are present. 

[Cmdr Jennifer]

You could limit the bomber by saying that it must accompany ground units in ground combat and naval units in naval combat.

That might be too restrictive, but since it's immune from defensive fire, at least it would require you to have other units that are not immune to use it.