New Strategic Bomber (for SBR exclusively)

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    As requested a thread purely for discussing the new bomber idea.
    :-D

    It was first proposed here…
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1624810#msg1624810

    And also discussed at length in this thread…
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39341.0

    The simple formulation we put up reads:

    Strategic Bomber:

    Strategic Bombers are now exclusively for raids against facilities, with no hitpoints and no role in regular combat. “Defenseless,” for SBR only. A0/D0/M6 Cost 5 ipcs SBR damage @1d6.

    (Escort/Intercept recommended for 1942.2.)

    Up for debate right now, dogfighting!

    Whether the stratB should be truly defenseless, @0 in the dogfight (vs escort/intercept @1), or if some other dogfighting system is preferable.

    Alternative tweaks to follow. I will let others post their thoughts, and edit this lead post after a concensus develops on the best way to implement the basic idea.

    Here is a draft G40 gamefile for tripleA with the bomber change as first proposed, for anyone interested in exploring the basic concept. Any additions to the rule regarding SBR damage bonuses can be edited if desired. We can create a new game file once all the details of the HR are finalized. This one had a tweak to the AB as well (adding an extra movement point), so this should be ignored for now, if just focusing on the Strategic bomber HR in isolation. The gamefile just gives us a way to see how the bomber might work in action, for preliminary testing purposes.
    https://www.sendspace.com/file/h5h7uw

  • '17

    Black_Elk,

    I’ve never played 1942v2. Perhaps I should have never joined this HR discussion since that was mainly the game you’re directing this towards. This could be a cause of our disconnect in agreement. The boards sizes are vastly different. The 6 movement points of a normal 12 IPC strategic bomber seems much more important in G40 (due to the size of the board). � My point of view is purely for Global 1940 or Global 1942.

    My proposal…inspired by your initial HR and taking into consideration some of what YG proposed earlier on…slightly different in a few areas. I think tac. bombers can remain at the OOB cost of 11 because they probably won’t be used for strategic bombing anymore. They might become the new king of regular air/ground combat due to them being the only A4 unit.

    Strategic Bomber:
    May only conduct Strategic Bombing raids
    Cost - 5 IPCs
    Movement - 6 points (7 from a base)
    A@1 - D@0 (during dog fights)
    +1 damage bonus if bomber departs from an Operational Airbase
    +1 damage bonus if bomber doesn’t face an interceptor

    Fighter:
    Cost - 10 IPCs
    Movement - 4 points (5 from a base)
    A@2 - D@2 (during dog fights)
    Escort A@1 if only 1 movement point remains after air battle

    Tactical bomber:
    Cost - 11 IPCs
    Movement - 4 points (5 from a base)
    A@1 - D@0 (during dog fights)
    No damage bonus

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    I edited that last phrase to be a parenthetical. Originally the idea was for a rule that would work in both 1942.2 and Global.

    There are some differences between the two games OOB with respect to standard damage. Also in 1942.2 the escort/intercept rules are described as optional, hence the recommendation.

    But the above rule is definitely intended for Global. The hope is that a good rule for G40 could also work in 1942.2

    For anyone interested, the optional OOB rules for escort/intercept in 1942.2 read as follows in the manual…

    Optional Rule: Both attacking and defending fighters can participate in strategic bombing raids as escorts or interceptors.
    Escort fighters (those accompanying the attacking bombers) can escort and protect the bombers, and they can originate from
    any territory or sea zone, range permitting.

    Any number of defending fighters based in a territory that is about to be strategically bombed can be committed to participate
    in the defense of the industrial complex as interceptors, whether or not there are attacking fighter escorts. The number of
    defending fighters that will intercept is decided by the owning player(s) after the attacker’s Combat Move phase is completed
    and before the Conduct Combat phase begins. If the defender has elected to commit fighter interceptors, an air battle will be
    fought immediately before the targeted industrial complex fires its antiaircraft shots against the attacking bombers. The air
    battle, which ends after one round of combat, is resolved in the following way:

    1. Both the attacking bombers and fighter escorts, if any, fire with an attack value of 1.
    For each 1 rolled, a defending interceptor is immediately removed as a casualty.

    2. The surviving defending interceptors then fire with a defense value of 2.
    For each result of 2 or less, the attacker chooses a casualty and removes it.

    After the air battle is complete, or if there were no defending fighter interceptors, surviving fighter escorts are considered to be
    retreated. They don’t participate in the actual bombing raid, are not subject to antiaircraft fire, and will remain in the territory
    until the Noncombat Move phase. Any surviving attacking bombers carry out the bombing raid as described above.
    Fighters participating as either an escort or an interceptor cannot participate in other battles during that turn, including a battle
    in the territory in which the bombing raid is occurring. Defending air units must return to their original territory.
    If that territory is captured, the fighters can move one space to land in a friendly territory or on a friendly aircraft carrier.
    This movement occurs during the Noncombat Move phase, before the acting player makes any noncombat movements.
    If no such landing space is available, the fighters are lost.

  • '17

    1. Both the attacking bombers and fighter escorts, if any, fire with an attack value of 1.
    For each 1 rolled, a defending interceptor is immediately removed as a casualty.

    2. The surviving defending interceptors then fire with a defense value of 2.
    For each result of 2 or less, the attacker chooses a casualty and removes it.

    Those @1 vs @2 differences from the 42.2 OOB rules of escorts vs. interceptors are what ended Strategic Bombing in 1st edition Global. I wouldn’t care if my bombers were C5…I wouldn’t mess with buying them and bombing if escorts had to roll @1 against defender’s @2.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Yup, in practical terms the OOB optional escort/intercept rules for 1942.2 just doesn’t make for interesting SBR gameplay. So the need to find a good replacement for it is pretty strong.

    A solid Global rule that works well in 1942.2 would be really helpful, both for consistency across the two games, and so that the smaller scale board might serve as useful primer for the larger scale board.

    Also, I should really note that in TripleA, this issue with escort/intercept for 1942.2 was addressed with the fighter using @A1/D1 during SBR.

    This is not “official” in A&A manual terms for that game, but it is the default option in tripleA for v5 (which is 1942.2), if one chooses the game option “raids may be preceded by air battles” = escort/intercept rule turned on.

  • '17 '16

    On SBR numbers, here is the difference:

    Both seems to have the same _Break even poin_t compared to generous OOB G40 SBR: near 0.5 StB/Fg.
    This simply means that 1 StB against 2 Fighters can be launched and odds of making damage will be around zero.
    Both attacker and defender will take similar damage, if IC can absorb hit damage and is not near Maxed out.

    So, on that point there is no difference. It will favour attacker the same as OOB SBR.

    Now, about FIT (Fighter Interception Threshold), there is none when bomber have A0, you can always launch Fighters against infinite number of bombers, there is no cap.
    It is always beneficial somehow to intercept.

    However, with StB A1 and Fg A2 D2, it is better for defender when there is 3 bombers A1 and more against only 2 Fgs D2, to not intercept.
    There is too much risk or said otherwise, AAA will give more damage on attacker than you will received.
    So, stay on the ground if there is 2 StBs A1 for 1 Fg D2. (Not so rare occurrence.)
    That is the main difference and it changes SBR dynamics radically without changing the general odds of making more damage than receiving.

    IDK if any of those which prefer StB A1 vs Fg A2 D2 can accept to try both SBR.
    And tell us which one they prefer.
    I’m almost certain than for a real play-test, Barney can accept to modify StB and Fg dogfight values in a Triple A G40 map.
    It is the only change same D6 damage in both case.

    That way, we can get your first hand impressions on each.

    Would you like one, YG or Ichabod?

    Break even ratio:
    OOB G40 SBR StB A1 D6+2 vs Fg D1: 10/19= 0.526 StB/Fg
    Cost 5 D6 damage: 16 StBs A1 vs 31 Fgs D2, 16/31= 0.516 StB/Fg

    Fighter Interception Threshold (FIT)
    G40 OOB: from 1.55 StB/Fg and less
    Cost 5: near 6 StBs vs 4 Fgs= from 1.5 StB/Fg and less


    Break even point C5, 1D6 damage: near 1 StB A0 vs 2 Fgs D1 : 0.5 StB/Fg
    1 StB vs 2 Fgs : + 2.025 - 2.106 = -0.081 IPCs
    12 StB vs 23 Fgs: exactly 0.522 StB/Fg
    No FIT (Fighter Interception Threshold), always beneficial to Intercept.

  • '17 '16

    @Ichabod:

    1. Both the attacking bombers and fighter escorts, if any, fire with an attack value of 1.
    For each 1 rolled, a defending interceptor is immediately removed as a casualty.

    2. The surviving defending interceptors then fire with a defense value of 2.
    For each result of 2 or less, the attacker chooses a casualty and removes it.

    Those @1 vs @2 differences from the 42.2 OOB rules of escorts vs. interceptors are what ended Strategic Bombing in 1st edition Global. I wouldn’t care if my bombers were C5…I wouldn’t mess with buying them and bombing if escorts had to roll @1 against defender’s @2.

    In spring 1942.1,
    SBR were different:
    Escort and Bombers have to submit to AA fire @1
    Then escorting Fighter A1 and intercepting Fg D2.
    Bombers get no roll in dogfight.
    Then bombers roll D6 damage.

    Once upon that time, Larry was not at all against an A0 bomber.

  • Sponsor

    Sorry… don’t want to regurgitate everything I wrote in the other thread… I think I explained the concepts I like when it comes to dog fighting, and I really like the 1 role bomber idea as it’s full of promise. Not sure I can add anything other than what I wrote earlier… I’m interested in what you guys decide.

  • '17 '16

    @Young:

    Sorry… don’t want to regurgitate everything I wrote in the other thread… I think I explained the concepts I like when it comes to dog fighting, and I really like the 1 role bomber idea as it’s full of promise. Not sure I can add anything other than what I wrote earlier… I’m interested in what you guys decide.

    IDK if any of those which prefer StB A1 vs Fg A2 D2 can accept to try both SBR.
    And tell us which one they prefer.
    I’m almost certain than for a real play-test, Barney can accept to modify StB and Fg dogfight values in a Triple A G40 map.
    It is the only change same D6 damage in both case.

    That way, we can get your first hand impressions on each.

    Would you like to try one or the other, YG?

    I may add, that numbers and damage are much higher when both sides have A1 and D2.
    But, at first, I was satisfied of StB A1 d6 damage vs Fg A2 D2.
    What convinced me to get to StB A0 d6 damage, outside numbers, is the implementation on Triple A.
    OOB G40, it was already Fg A1 D1. Only damage to D6 and StB A0 to change.
    And OOB 1942.2 Triple A, only StB A0 to change.

    Less change seemed better then.
    I also believed, wrongly it seems, that other people would find easier to adjust to a minimal change when there is only a single parameter to acknowledge in SBR dynamics: bomber reduced to A0.

  • Sponsor

    Seeing as the attacker can dictate the odds in any oob strategic bombing raid… we rarely see interceptors in our oob games.

  • '17 '16

    @Young:

    Seeing as the attacker can dictate the odds in any oob strategic bombing raid… we rarely see interceptors in our oob games.

    This was good calls IMO.
    G40 OOB FIT is: from 1.55 StB/Fg and less

    So, if there was 2 StBs against 1 Fg, it is best to not intercept.
    This ratio isn’t hard to keep when your are the attacker.
    If it is 3 StBs to 2 Fgs, you can prefer to stay grounded and you get similar odds between intercept or just being bombing minus AAA casualties. The Gap between  a profitable SBR and a benefic interception is narrow:
    from 1 StB against 2 Fgs to 3 StBs against 2 Fgs.
    This is not surprising, OOB SBR is pretty generous toward attacker but does not give something to intercept in return.
    The A0 bomber provides similar good odds per cost ratio for attacker but gives plenty of incentive to reduce damage with interception. FIT with no cap is the primary aspect.

    The idea is to have a wide gap between Break even point and FIT, the wider the better.
    And if FIT is high the more it gives incentive to intercept.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Thank you Baron for taking the time to explain the Fighter Intercept Threshold (FIT) in a way that’s simple to understand. It is very hard to describe the likely outcomes or to discuss a given raid/dogfight (at various attack defense values) without this concept.

    I think probably what has happened is that players without this FIT concept have discovered the hard way, that intercept against a bomber wave OOB frequently ends in disaster for the defender on the TUV trade. They get cajoled by the attacker into a situation where they just start to intuit that “intercept is all bad for me” and “better to just stay on the ground.” You really only need to be burned by intercept as the defender a couple times for a mindset like that to set in. At that point the attacker has effectively psych-warred the escort/intercept rules out of play. The game then reverts to a more classic style calculus, where the attacker determines how many bombers to bring based mainly on expected AAAfire losses, rather than the expected intercept. Here risk aversion plays a major factor on an individual basis. Some players may elect to bring only 2-3 bombers (trying to sneak over the AAfire with no losses on average) whereas others will bring 6 or more (expecting to likely lose 1 bomber, but make up the difference on average with damage to enemy facilities.) But that’s all familiar territory by now. The promise of escort/intercept was for something rather new, but to get there intercept is really the key. Intercept leads over escort in gameplay importance, because without the former the latter becomes irrelevant, and the game defaults to aaafire as the only real consideration. This is basically what we were referring to when we talked about giving up a realistic strategic representation of Bombing and Escort/Intercept writ large, for a tactical representation of the bomber in dogfighting that might be of questionable value. Since it really doesn’t matter what value the bomber hits at, unless the dog-fighting situation has a chance to regularly materialize in the first place.

    So this is the dilemma… the challenge to create an SBR dog-fighting dynamic that encourages interception and is easy to understand and calculate, but which doesn’t go so extreme that it deters bombing or escort altogether. Without this, we’d probably be better off from a time management and rules-overhead perspective to just ditch the escort intercept rules in favor of a classic situation where all this stuff was just abstracted into AAAfire. Personally I don’t like going backwards in that way, but if it is a choice between an escort/intercept system that is confusing and which undermines itself, or a classic system which is highly abstract, but works and is familiar, I’d have to favor the latter. Far better however, to simply make a system that actually encourages intercept in a reasonable way, so that dogfighting in SBR can become truly significant to the gameplay.

    In Memphis Belle terms, the plot is clearly more exciting when Jerry comes after you. But if Jerry stays on the runway, because he’s too afraid of Erik Stoltz behind that machine gun to even make the attempt, then what? You’re just left with the flak.
    :-D

    I agree its a bind. If A0 is totally out of the question for you, perhaps the best solution I can offer is one which Baron mentioned already, to give the entire bomber wing a single shot in the dogfight. This is rather different than giving each bomber a shot @1. Depending on the number of bombers involved, it may still produce a situation which is attractive for intercept.


  • I think the Stg. Bomber should have an @1 for dogfighting. Part of the problem which most of us know is you don’t have much flexibility with a D6 system. I use the D12 system where the Bomber gets @1. So you have more room for values. If you think the D6 @1 is to strong then go with the rule of for every 2 bombers you get 1 roll of @1 at interceptors.

    This SBR scenario basically comes down to Russia, London and Germany getting bombed.
    UK and Russia pretty much can’t send escorts, so now even with the C5 bomber the Allies my not send any bombers because they don’t have a least a @1 for bomber. With Axis interceptors responding there will even be more less bombing for Allies with no Stg. Bombers @1. With the D6 system that Bomber @1 is better than my Bomber @1 in my D12 system. But my Figs D4 for dogfight in my game… So I’m in the test stage where I may need to raise the Bomber to @2.

    From my test games the German’s have the advantage early in the game until at least Russia gets some Fig support from Allies ( UK Figs ) to intercept in Moscow and US Figs shuttle over to London for interceptor support, plus a UK US invasion in Norway to help with Stg. Bomber escort supports.  Hope this doesn’t change game to much. I will be trying to do this in next test game. Even early in game allies bombers can’t make either.

    If it was me I would do this. To bad you can’t do this on Trp A but on a tabletop game anyway I would give the Stg. Bombers a D12 @1 die roll for each bomber in dogfight and Figs D2 with D6 if nobody can decide on a rule.

  • '17

    @Baron:

    Would you like one, YG or Ichabod?

    My initial post in this thread and the other posts in the previous discussion thread is the scenario I’d like to try. I can’t convince you of my opinion. I respect your opinion though.

    I really like the one bomber role. +1 to Black_Elk for starting this discussion in the first place!!

    My thoughts are solely relating to the Global Board size.

    I believe the C5 justifies permitting bombers an @1 (dogfight ability) since it can only bomb and can’t participate in normal combat. The Axis lose that long range @4 strike capability. I see the bomber only role as another balancing mechanism in this game. Also, this HR gives the tac. bomber a more important intended role.

    I don’t see a need to change other OOB rules and costs for the two other planes (tac. and fighters). I like the fact that planes are expensive in this game and hit hard. They did in real life! The air force is so important that a completely separate branch of the military was created just for them.

    I like fighters dogfighting A2 / D2 (w/ the -1 for attacker if only 1 movement point remains) because of the suspense and greater threat for either side…it’s more of a test of wills! A timid cautious player is probably going to keep their fighters grounded because they think it better than risking their 10 IPC planes…My play style is aggressive. So this works for. Playing axis is my favorite side too because you get to be very aggressive. Playing allies is more boring for me…and even when I go through the methodical process to stick a landing on Normandy or begin to tear into the Japanese Money Island NO, it’s still not as fun for me. I’m not a very good player, but I have a lot of fun playing! Sometimes my aggressive play style becomes my downfall.

    Constant bombing could become more costly than not intercepting; especially in G40 when factories are getting maxed out to 20 damage.

    It’s hard for me to follow the logic of it’s “better to leave your fighters grounded…” I don’t see many scenarios where a factory is bombed and maxed out turn after turn and one side just leaves it undefended (meaning only 1-2 fighters and not a good situation to intercept). Usually I can get away with a bombing run on Moscow, but then the next turn, the UK lands a stack of fighters to contest me. The best way to stop your opponent from bombing your factories is to gain air superiority. You CANNOT gain air superiority if you don’t intercept and start fighting the air war. Germany tried to contest in the actual war…and could never gain air superiority (in the Battle of Britain also…). Luckily for us they lost air superiority during the course of the war.

    I think there is more of an incentive to intercept and to interrupt bombings since the stg. bombers would only cost 5.

    I digress.

  • '17

    @SS:

    I think the Stg. Bomber should have an @1 for dogfighting. Part of the problem which most of us know is you don’t have much flexibility with a D6 system. I use the D12 system where the Bomber gets @1.

    I might accept an @1 on a D12 system for the bombers. Not likely to hit…but they still get to fire their M2 .50 Browning machine guns! However, I’d still want more punch for the fighters dogfighting. The D12 system gives a little more flexibility…maybe @3 in the D12 system rather than @4 which is equivalent to @2 in a D6 system.

    The D12 system is really good for the hardcore guys that morph over to HBG maps. The D6 might make the die rolls a higher probability to hit…but sometimes that’s a good thing. You need the game to come to a conclusion.

  • '17 '16

    @SS:

    I think the Stg. Bomber should have an @1 for dogfighting. Part of the problem which most of us know is you don’t have much flexibility with a D6 system. I use the D12 system where the Bomber gets @1. So you have more room for values. If you think the D6 @1 is to strong then go with the rule of for every 2 bombers you get 1 roll of @1 at interceptors.
    This SBR scenario basically comes down to Russia, London and Germany getting bombed.
    UK and Russia pretty much can’t send escorts, so now even with the C5 bomber the Allies my not send any bombers because they don’t have a least a @1 for bomber. With Axis interceptors responding there will even be more less bombing for Allies with no Stg. Bombers @1. With the D6 system that Bomber @1 is better than my Bomber @1 in my D12 system. But my Figs D4 for dogfight in my game… So I’m in the test stage where I may need to raise the Bomber to @2.

    From my test games the German’s have the advantage early in the game until at least Russia gets some Fig support from Allies ( UK Figs ) to intercept in Moscow and US Figs shuttle over to London for interceptor support, plus a UK US invasion in Norway to help with Stg. Bomber escort supports. �Hope this doesn’t change game to much. I will be trying to do this in next test game. Even early in game allies bombers can’t make either.

    If it was me I would do this. To bad you can’t do this on Trp A but on a tabletop game anyway I would give the Stg. Bombers a D12 @1 die roll for each bomber in dogfight and Figs D2 with D6 if nobody can decide on a rule.

    Good idea!
    It makes me think of this small variant.
    Maybe it could be another way to describe how StBs squadron protected each other back.
    (Difficult to implement in Triple A, IMO.)
    But on a board game, pretty easy: each StB paired 1:1 received A1 in SBR dogfight.
    Since it is a one round assault, you give A1 for 2 StBs, 2A1 4 StBs, 3A1 6 StBs, etc.
    That way, you can also keep Fg A1 D1 without too much issue.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    @SS thanks for the analysis! That situation is similar to what I would expect on the G40 board, especially with Escort being more challenging for Allies (without any range adjustments) just owing to the geography. It is helpful to draw comparisons. I think people will expect to see more bombers over Europe, what they might not be quite as prepared for is more bombers over London haha. But that’s the thing about the rule in isolation, since everyone has access to the same roster, there is a sense in which, if the underlying balance of a board favors the Axis economically in the midgame, then there is only so much the bomber can do alone as a balance corrective. That said, it is undeniable that the OOB bomber really screws the Atlantic crossing for Allies, so at least the new bomber idea will help in that regard. Just briefly to the d12 idea, I’ve often wished that Larry might introduce a 12 sided die into the boxed game. Even if it wasn’t a major aspect at first (I don’t know maybe for tech or whatever), just as way to get these dice in people’s hands, so they could get used to seeing them. But it would be kind a barrier to entry for some, if the rule required d12 to function.

    I think these latest proposals are fine, with bomber pairing in a d6 system as SS suggested. I do share Baron’s concern though about the tripleA implementation. Such a pairing scheme has been suggested in the past, specifically for transports, but I don’t know if tripleA provides the necessary tools. Perhaps others will know?

    The alternative of a single shot (like opening fire for the entire bomber squadron) is I believe possible. Whether that shot is made @1 or some other higher value is also something that could be adjusted in tripleA.

    I think either way would work for the ideal dogfight situation we are trying to achieve, while still allowing some kind of shot for the bomber, but an opening shot for the whole squad would likely be simpler to implement in tripleA than bomber pairing. If only because pairing doesn’t have an OOB analog already in place inside the engine. Or at least not one that I’m aware of. But maybe someone has tried to build pairing into one of the many user made custom games? If so we might be able to cannibalize it and port the code into G40?

    Again I would suggest that any rule we adopt, give serious consideration to tripleA play. Since it is by far the fasted method of popularizing and testing a proposal like this.

  • '17 '16 '15

    If possible to do for triplea, do you think it would be better to have 1 shot @1 for 1-2 bmbrs and then bump it to 2 shots @1 for 4 bmbrs, 3 shots @1 for 6 bmbrs etc… as opposed to 1 shot @2 ? take the low luck element out ? Make it more like the interceptor fire. A chance to kill more than 1 intercptor w/good dice.

    Interceptor hitting at 1 still gives a 2:1 advantage, but hopefully not so big of a deterrent to keep people from SBRing when intercepts are present.

    Also you’d get the @1 shot even with only 1 bmbr. Probably best to just let AAA take it out then. They only do 1-6 dmg anyway. Or make it require 2 bmbrs for a shot ?

    Hmm… now that I think about it, you might be able to use different die system for separate Air Battles. Can’t remember. I’ll check it out.

  • Sponsor

    @Baron:

    @SS:

    I think the Stg. Bomber should have an @1 for dogfighting. Part of the problem which most of us know is you don’t have much flexibility with a D6 system. I use the D12 system where the Bomber gets @1. So you have more room for values. If you think the D6 @1 is to strong then go with the rule of for every 2 bombers you get 1 roll of @1 at interceptors.
    This SBR scenario basically comes down to Russia, London and Germany getting bombed.
    UK and Russia pretty much can’t send escorts, so now even with the C5 bomber the Allies my not send any bombers because they don’t have a least a @1 for bomber. With Axis interceptors responding there will even be more less bombing for Allies with no Stg. Bombers @1. With the D6 system that Bomber @1 is better than my Bomber @1 in my D12 system. But my Figs D4 for dogfight in my game… So I’m in the test stage where I may need to raise the Bomber to @2.

    From my test games the German’s have the advantage early in the game until at least Russia gets some Fig support from Allies ( UK Figs ) to intercept in Moscow and US Figs shuttle over to London for interceptor support, plus a UK US invasion in Norway to help with Stg. Bomber escort supports. �Hope this doesn’t change game to much. I will be trying to do this in next test game. Even early in game allies bombers can’t make either.

    If it was me I would do this. To bad you can’t do this on Trp A but on a tabletop game anyway I would give the Stg. Bombers a D12 @1 die roll for each bomber in dogfight and Figs D2 with D6 if nobody can decide on a rule.

    Good idea!
    It makes me think of this small variant.
    Maybe it could be another way to describe how StBs squadron protected each other back.
    (Difficult to implement in Triple A, IMO.)
    But on a board game, pretty easy: each StB paired 1:1 received A1 in SBR dogfight.
    Since it is a one round assault, you give A1 for 2 StBs, 2A1 4 StBs, 3A1 6 StBs, etc.
    That way, you can also keep Fg A1 D1 without too much issue.

    1@1 for each pair is fine by me as a concept, but I wouldn’t count on my gaming group for playtesting any of this. I can however, promote the whole system of 1 role bombers and all changes to dog fighting to my YouTube subscribers once the system becomes final.


  • @Ichabod:

    @SS:

    I think the Stg. Bomber should have an @1 for dogfighting. Part of the problem which most of us know is you don’t have much flexibility with a D6 system. I use the D12 system where the Bomber gets @1.

    I might accept an @1 on a D12 system for the bombers. Not likely to hit…but they still get to fire their M2 .50 Browning machine guns! However, I’d still want more punch for the fighters dogfighting. The D12 system gives a little more flexibility…maybe @3 in the D12 system rather than @4 which is equivalent to @2 in a D6 system.

    The D12 system is really good for the hardcore guys that morph over to HBG maps. The D6 might make the die rolls a higher probability to hit…but sometimes that’s a good thing. You need the game to come to a conclusion.

    Have you tried play testing this on the tabletop board game or Triple A using the D6 system ?
    I’m not trying make this a D12 system .
    I have had 2 game designers say they love the way the D 12 works.
    Like BE said not for TA. I was just showing some results of play testing .

Suggested Topics

  • 5
  • 26
  • 90
  • 11
  • 6
  • 52
  • 12
  • 52
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

43

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts