Assuming OOB Global SBR rules (all planes @1),
what is your threshold numbers, either on offense or defense, for Strategic Bombers/Tactical Bombers against enemy’s Fighters?
Attacker doing it on 1:1 ratio?
2 against 1 ratio?
Never when there is any intercepting Fighter?
Defender doing it on 1:1 ratio only?
Defender still risking it on a 2 attacker : 1 fighter ratio?
Tell me please, on what circumstance do you judge it worths the risk to do it?
When you are on offence and when you are defending, what is your main criteria to make SBR or make interception?
Thanks everybody,
Baron
Afternoon Baron.
I would never intercept, if I had fewer planes than the attacker, unless he had no Fts in the battle and I could afford to lose (could replace) my losses.
As the agressor, I would also ensure I had a Ft to lose, if the defender had Fts which could intercept and would like 2 or 3 more planes than him.
As a rule, I don’t intercept, as the attacker can usually accompany his Bombers, with the canon fodder Fighters.
The new rules make it a raw deal for the defender. I do not like the change from Anniversary and 42, which saw the 2 in defence become a measly 1 in 1940.
Does any version have a rule that one side’s hits are surprise strikes, killing the opposing planes without them being able to fire back?
Does any version have a rule that one side’s hits are surprise strikes, killing the opposing planes without them being able to fire back?
Yes.
The 1942.2 Edition when playing with optional rule with interceptors.
Attacking Fighters and Bombers get a @1 First Strike.
Defending intercepting Fighters get a @2, but only those which have survived the attacker’s rolls.
After, you proceed with bombers being under IC’s AA guns fire.
Thanks for the infos Wittmann.
So, if you were playing against yourself, there gonna be no air battle.
Whether the attacker will be too strong too intercept or the defender will have too much planes to dare an SBR.
Is that a correct implication from what you said?
Put like that; I think so. The point is, the defender can’t usually afford to lose a Ft (Russia), as will be needed for defence of the capital.
I am sure most think like I do.
I agree with you wittmann. I rarely use interceptors as I have found it to be a waste of fighters. Too often I see those attacking bombers get that lucky “1” and blasting my defending fighters out of the sky. In fact, I still remember one game where Germany sent in 4 bombers to SBR Moscow. Russia had 5 fighters so we said “Let’s intercept”. The Russian fighters got 1 bomber while Germany knocked out 3 Russian fighters! I can’t help but think those extra 4 rollers could have made a difference in the battle for Moscow a couple of rounds later.
I agree with you wittmann. I rarely use interceptors as I have found it to be a waste of fighters. Too often I see those attacking bombers get that lucky “1” and blasting my defending fighters out of the sky. In fact, I still remember one game where Germany sent in 4 bombers to SBR Moscow. Russia had 5 fighters so we said “Let’s intercept”. The Russian fighters got 1 bomber while Germany knocked out 3 Russian fighters! I can’t help but think those extra 4 rollers could have made a difference in the battle for Moscow a couple of rounds later.
And since this time, you are even reluctant to intercept even at a 4:5 ratio for defenders?
So a 1 StB:1 Fg is clearly not a good ratio for defender, right?
Basically I never intercept. If Bombers were 0 and Fighters 1 then it would at least force the attacker to send more escorts, or maybe not force but encourage. IDK. I still like the idea of a scrambled fighter reducing a bombers dice roll by two on a 1:1 basis to encourage scrambling. Right now why do it unless you have the advantage?
Yeah, the bombers at 1 really sucks - they should be 0.
Unless I have some advantage in numbers, it seems like intercepting is only giving the attacker more opportunity to damage your force where it counts.
But it all depends on what’s going on in game… and if scrambling that fighter could mean allowing the Russians to place more units - maybe you do it. High risk game of Russian roulette.
Having a lot of FTR interceptors somewhere doesn’t necessarily mean you are going to use them.
For example, if France, UK and maybe even ANZAC all have FTR in Moscow, Germany will be forced to either send in escorts with their bombers, or don’t raid Moscow at all. Escorting German FTR are aicraft not used against the allies in the west.
I 'd intercept if I can deal equal or more ‘economic’ damage than I expect to suffer, OR if the military situation gets better for me because of the intercept.
Continuing the example of allied FTR in Moscow: let’s say I can expect to hit 2 German planes during the intercept battle and the SBR consist of 5FTR + 7Bombers, they can also expect to hit 2 allied planes (no Russians, ofc). So both sides loose 2FTR (=20damage ‘economically’). The bombers will not have the option of not bombing, so Russian AA-fire has another 7 shots (expecting 1, maybe 2 hits). Let’s say 1 bomber is hit. German suffered a total ‘economic’ damage of 20+12=32, while Allies suffers a total economic damage of 20+20=40. 8 more than Germany.
Compared however to not intercepting it is much better, because A) Germany lost 3 planes (1 more than the allies) and B) if there was no interception, Russia would have suffered 8 more damage than Germany as well (20 on the IC versus 12 of a shot down Bomber). If Germany looses as much or more aircraft than the allies, this is always a good thing and the more the better. To Moscow it matters a little bit, but to the allies in the West it mattes much more.
The last thing to consider is purely tactical: what is your goal with the aircraft involved and can you still do it if loosing a few during an intercept battle. If Germany is aiming to assault Moscow, loosing a few aircraft while SBRing London may be a bad idea and vice versa. 1 unit more or less can make a shitload of difference during the ‘final battle’, especially units as heavy as bombers or FTR.
For conducting SBRs, I have the same considerations, ofc.
These examples may be extremes but let’s say I always compare intercepting with not intercepting and the obvious choice usually emerges from that comparison.
I have brought this up once before but our play group are testing a change to the escort vs interceptor rule. The air combat is still one round but we have left the attack and defend values at the normal oob levels. Three (3) for the escorting fighters and four (4) for the defending interceptors. Scrambling fighters defend at a four (4), why not the intercepting fighters? I never saw the logic in lowering the attack/defend levels of the these units in this particular type of battle. It makes the SRB a bit more challenging when you want to hit a territory with and air base and protecting fighters. We also kept the bombers defense shot at a one (1). Bombers did shoot or tear up some fighters through the coarse of the war. So far, we have not run into any shifts of power because of the house rule. SPR’s are not an after thought any more. Now we plan to make these attacks and prepare for these battles.
I have brought this up once before but our play group are testing a change to the escort vs interceptor rule. The air combat is still one round but we have left the attack and defend values at the normal oob levels. Three (3) for the escorting fighters and four (4) for the defending interceptors. Scrambling fighters defend at a four (4), why not the intercepting fighters? I never saw the logic in lowering the attack/defend levels of the these units in this particular type of battle. It makes the SRB a bit more challenging when you want to hit a territory with and air base and protecting fighters. We also kept the bombers defense shot at a one (1). Bombers did shoot or tear up some fighters through the coarse of the war. So far, we have not run into any shifts of power because of the house rule. SPR’s are not an after thought any more. Now we plan to make these attacks and prepare for these battles.
Do raiding bombers still attack at 4 in your house rule?
The idea is to deter bombing runs, not to fight them off unless u have great odds or u can more easily replace.
Calvinhobbesliker, Yes. Bombers still attack at a four (4) during the SBR but defend at a one (1) during the escort/interceptor phase of the SBR.
ghr2, exactly. We have learned to prepare for an SBR because the interceptor responce threat is very real. As a defender, you want to make sure that you have at least one interceptor available as a deterent to an opponent making an SBR on your territory. As the attacker, you have to plan to make the run. Bombers can out distance their escorts so now you have to make sure that you have a secured landing facility near you targets if you want escorts to go with your bombers. The intercepter threat is very real when it defends at a four (4). I have not taken the time to calculate the odds as Baron is so good at but in our actual game trials, the battles have gone both ways but generally for the defender. The SRB is still viable but must be planned for.
Having a lot of FTR interceptors somewhere doesn’t necessarily mean you are going to use them.
For example, if France, UK and maybe even ANZAC all have FTR in Moscow, Germany will be forced to either send in escorts with their bombers, or don’t raid Moscow at all. Escorting German FTR are aicraft not used against the allies in the west.I 'd intercept if I can deal equal or more ‘economic’ damage than I expect to suffer, OR if the military situation gets better for me because of the intercept.
Continuing the example of allied FTR in Moscow: let’s say I can expect to hit 2 German planes during the intercept battle and the SBR consist of 5FTR + 7Bombers, they can also expect to hit 2 allied planes (no Russians, ofc). So both sides loose 2FTR (=20damage ‘economically’). The bombers will not have the option of not bombing, so Russian AA-fire has another 7 shots (expecting 1, maybe 2 hits). Let’s say 1 bomber is hit. German suffered a total ‘economic’ damage of 20+12=32, while Allies suffers a total economic damage of 20+20=40. 8 more than Germany.
Compared however to not intercepting it is much better, because A) Germany lost 3 planes (1 more than the allies) and B) if there was no interception, Russia would have suffered 8 more damage than Germany as well (20 on the IC versus 12 of a shot down Bomber). If Germany looses as much or more aircraft than the allies, this is always a good thing and the more the better. To Moscow it matters a little bit, but to the allies in the West it mattes much more.The last thing to consider is purely tactical: what is your goal with the aircraft involved and can you still do it if loosing a few during an intercept battle. If Germany is aiming to assault Moscow, loosing a few aircraft while SBRing London may be a bad idea and vice versa. 1 unit more or less can make a shitload of difference during the ‘final battle’, especially units as heavy as bombers or FTR.
For conducting SBRs, I have the same considerations, ofc.
These examples may be extremes but let’s say I always compare intercepting with not intercepting and the obvious choice usually emerges from that comparison.
If I follow your numbers, on a 1:1 ratio, you will do interception, right?
7 Germans’ bombers + 5 fighters against 12 Allied Fighters
So, on average, Russia lose 53 IPCs while Germany lose 32 IPCs.
53 - 32 = balance: - 21 IPCs lost for Russia
If no intercept:
2) IC’s AA gun average results: (71/6=) 1 StB lost (12 IPCs)
3) Average damage on IC: 6 (1D6+2) avg 5.5 IPCs = 33 IPCs.
On average, Russia lose 33 IPCs - 12 IPCs for German’s bomber.
33 - 12 = balance: -21 IPCs lost for Russia.
It is the same results from either side.
However, I didn’t get the same results as your calculation.
Do you see why?
Compared however to not intercepting it is much better, because A) Germany lost 3 planes (1 more than the allies) and B) if there was no interception, Russia would have suffered 8 more damage than Germany as well (20 on the IC versus 12 of a shot down Bomber).
The idea is to deter bombing runs, not to fight them off unless u have great odds or u can more easily replace.
I was asking to better learn what can make it happen somehow.
SBR is an interesting historical depiction of air battle but it seems that the OOB SBR rules are more a deterrent than an incentive to make it. When attacker is ready to do it, a defender’s optimal play will not intercept, because the odds are always against him.
How this can become a viable tactics, so dogfights happen more often (because both sides see some benefits in it)?, that is my ultimate aim.
But for now, I’m just asking to better understand the usual behaviour on that matter.
So, my question to you is: when do you know there is not enough Fighters on an IC’S TT to make a good deterrent, and you would attack such IC with an SBR run?
Yeah, the bombers at 1 really sucks - they should be 0.
Unless I have some advantage in numbers, it seems like intercepting is only giving the attacker more opportunity to damage your force where it counts.
But it all depends on what’s going on in game… and if scrambling that fighter could mean allowing the Russians to place more units - maybe you do it. High risk game of Russian roulette.
I was thinking along the same way.
To create an incentive to intercept bombers, they shouldn’t have an attack factor.
That way, intercepting Fighters, even in small numbers, wouldn’t be afraid to try to destroy some bombers.
This would be a more typical behaviour for a WWII inspirational Wargame:
Sir, the enemy’s bomber wings are on their way to carpet bomb our industries!
Stay on the ground lieutenant and let them pass over us: it is too dangerous to loose our precious Fighters! :roll:
Do you consider Tactical bombers being in the same category as Strategic bombers, attacking @0?
Or should they stay @1 like Fighters?
@Baron:
(…) It is the same results from either side.
However, I didn’t get the same results as your calculation.Do you see why?
(…)
Yes, in your calculation, there is no limit in how much damage can be done to an IC. If you would send 20 bombers, you would deal 20*5.5=110 damage to the IC.
Have I passed the test, dear sir ;-)?
EDIT: before I forget, I guess you are right about that 1:1 ratio. barring a few exeptions.
@Baron:
(…) It is the same results from either side.
However, I didn’t get the same results as your calculation.Do you see why?
(…)Yes, in your calculation, there is no limit in how much damage can be done to an IC. If you would send 20 bombers, you would deal 20*5.5=110 damage to the IC.
Have I passed the test, dear sir ;-)?
I completely forgot that point, thanks! :-)
So in your example, 7 Strategic bombers are a complete overkill.
You need to be very unlucky, either being AA guns down or a very weak damage roll, to not get the 20 IPCs maximum damage.
If there is an Airbase, this could add a virtual 6 IPCs, max.
And a Naval Base would rise this up to 20+6+6= 32 IPCs
That would be the real possible maximum damage.
