Seems pretty good. Looks like a lot more money for the Allies. Might be required since the UK is so busted up. Seems like you’d always J1 given that the US is already making 5 bucks off Japan anyways.
Strategic Bombing Raid (SBR): an alternate mechanic for 1942.2 and G40
-
Here is an old opening post in which I advocate for Fg unit with a lower attack than defense values.
There is a list of inspirationnal way to depict these values.
My own actual Fg is A2 D2 M4 C6 much like 1914 Fg A2 D2 M2 C6.@Baron:
In a Strategic Bombing Raid, before all the incoming StB submit to AA fire @1, there is the possibility to get intercepted.
The escorting rules in a Strategic Bombing Raid give all the attacking planes a same value:
Each Strategic Bomber attack with a preemptive first strike @1,
and same for
Each Escorting Fighter attack with a preemptive first strike @1,while the defending interceptors have a better defensive roll but a regular one:
Intercepting Fighter defend with a regular @2.
Compared to the Global 1940, SBR rules in which all planes (StB, TcB, Fg) roll once a regular @1.
I find too much uniformity between all aircrafts compared to historical accuracy.
Compared to the other Interception rules, I prefer by far the 1942.2, which I found more historically based and I rationalize this rule that way:
The preemptive first strike for raiders can really be seen as a surprise situation.
Sometimes, defenders are caught off-guard on the airfield but once the interceptors are in the air, they get the advantage:
-
they are flying over a known homeland territory,
-
pilots have spent less time in the air, are more focused and less tired,
-
planes have plenty of fuel and are less restricted on combat maneuver than attacking escorts fighters,
-
and defenders can stay longer in the area to patrol against slower or lost attacking planes,
all this can be exemplify by the UK’s pilots experience known via the air Battle of Britain in 1940-41.
Why were the Germans defeated ?
1. The Germans fought too far away from their bases so that refuelling and rearming were impossible. The German fighters had a very limited time which they could spend over Britain before their fuel got too low.
2. British fighters could land, refuel and rearm and be in the air again very quickly.
3. The change of targets was crucial. It is now believed that Fighter Command was perhaps only 24 hours away from defeat when the attack on the cities occurred. The breathing space this gave Fighter Command was crucial.
4. The Hurricane and Spitfire (above) were exceptional planes - capable of taking on the might of the Luftwaffe.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/battleofbritain.htm
In game terms and statistics, defending fighter (D@2) are also better than StB (A@1 First Strike) which is not the case in G40 SBR and interception rules, where all is the same.
But…
Giving a better effectiveness to defender with @2 may have a price.That even giving to both, Fgs and StBs, first strike @1 to counter-weight the better effectiveness of defender is not sufficient.
In SBR in general, the defender have the choice to intercept or not. And will forfeit it if he saw an overwhelming attacking fleet.
On the other part, many times, the simple presence of 1 or 2 Fgs on IC is enough to rebuke the SBR strategy.
Indeed, the SBR in G42.2 is far more dangerous (than G40) for each StB than 1/6 odds of being destroyed as was a regular classic IC AA gun.
So instead of promoting it, interceptor defending @2 increase the risk, on 1:1 basis, to 2/6 + 1/6= around 44% (12+4=16/36) minus around 4% (preemptive strike reduction) near 40% of being destroyed.
Who take the risk of a SBR strategy in 1942.2? and let’s an opportunity to shot any StBomber and even fighter on a SBR when a fighter is in IC territory ?
I think a good SBR need balance (first) then historical accuracy (second).
Do you usually play SBR with the 1942.2 intercepting rules?
Do you prefer G40 over 1942.2 intercepting rules?
Have you the impression that interception rules have a cold shower effect on SBR?
-
-
So Baron in my game you know as well that I’m using your reduced values on pieces and using D12 system.
So the AA gun still gets a shot at escort planes or do the escorts and interceptors just do air combat for the 1 round or both ?
Also in game we have Factory AA guns shotting at Bombers only. I could put in game now with your new Factory AA guns reducing damage on factories.
I can see less SBR’s in game if IC damage is reduced by AA gun but if AA IC gun doesn’t shoot down bombers then I see the benefit of raids now.
SB- SBR 1 D6 +2
HSB- SBR 1 D6 +3We are only on turn 3 in game so any change here won’t matter because we haven’t had any air to air combat yet or SBR’s.
Will play more of game this Sat. Will have more updates for you. -
So the AA gun still gets a shot at escort planes or do the escorts and interceptors just do air combat for the 1 round or both ?
There is no AA gun shots on escort and bombers during this SBR phase. Only a single plane vs plane combat round. Then bombers proceed into next phase, and must assign surviving bomber units to specific targets. All these steps are per OOB rules. The change occurs with ICs and Bases AA guns which are unable to hit bombers, no casualty, only reducing damage.
I can see less SBR’s in game if IC damage is reduced by AA gun but if AA IC gun doesn’t shoot down bombers then I see the benefit of raids now.
Exactly.
SB- SBR 1 D6 +2
HSB- SBR 1 D6 +3For heavy bombers, comparing 2D6 with D6+3, there is less variability with D6+3 (0 to 11 vs 0 to 8 damage points) but same possibilities to not making damage on IC with D6+3.
On a single dice roll+3, there is only a six occurrences for zero damage effect: 1 vs 4, 1 vs 5, 1 vs 6, 2 vs 5, 2 vs 6, 3 vs 6. 6/36 = 16.67%
This would make for 30/36 (83,33%) odds of doing at least 1 damage on target.With 2 D6 damage, there is 35 (5+8+9+8+5) occurrences: 2 (1+1) vs 2-3-4-5-6, 3 (1+2, 2+1) vs 3-4-5-6, 4 (1+3, 2+2, 3+1) vs 4-5-6, 5 (1+4, 2+3, 3+2, 4+1) vs 5-6, 6 (1+5,2+4,3+3,4+2,5+1) vs 6
35/216 (666)= 16,2% of no damage or a 83,8% of doing at least 1 damage point, odds quite similar to above values with D6+3.Also in game we have Factory AA guns shotting at Bombers only. I could put in game now with your new Factory AA guns reducing damage on factories.
We are only on turn 3 in game so any change here won’t matter because we haven’t had any air to air combat yet or SBR’s.
Will play more of game this Sat. Will have more updates for you.That would be great to get a feedback on that change!!! :-)
-
In your changes I do believe we have HSB at that 1D6 +3. So you want me to just make it 2 D6 damage and IC AA rolled for reduced damage.
-
@SS:
In your changes I do believe we have HSB at that 1D6 +3. So you want me to just make it 2 D6 damage and IC AA rolled for reduced damage.
You can keep D6+3, or rise it to 2 D6. But IC rolls only reduced damage.
2D6 is simpler from a game POV, sum all damage roll dice (2x dice), then subtract the sum of all defense dice (1x dice) and you get net total damage (X dice).
With D6+3, you need to add number of dice*3 to the roll.
If you have both St bomber D6+2 and Heavy bomber 2D6, then you can also compare both procedures. (Play-test POV)
-
I understand all your values.
The SB attacking IC’s will work better on Minor factories and better to use HSB to do any major damage on Major factories using the 2 D6 rolls instead of 1 D6 +2 roll unless your SB’s roll like 5’s or 6’s which you may still try to use.
If there’s a major factory on a territory worth 8+8=16 ( my game Capitals are worth double and can build up to 16 pieces ) and there’s like 11 damage to IC then only can build 5 pieces but can build 1 more piece for 1cp damage repair.
-
I understand. Your IC works like 1942.2 OOB.
-
The attacking/defending values are not there to help the defender the whole system is there to help the attacker, which makes sense as having the initiative and attacking has advantages.
The sole reason why inf attacks on 1 but defends on 2 is that being in a trench and defending is a lot safer then running upto said trench (under machinegun fire ) and attacking the people inside.How would you explain bombers ( defend on 1 attack on 4, subs defend on 1 attack in 2 and most units that have equal attack and defence values )
I’m not quite sure on this assumption. Infantry is the cannon fodder, basic and pivotal unit of all ground combats, and conquering TTys is the main objective of A&A.
Other units have offense/defense better ratio than .5, IDK if they should be compared on the same level.
-
Well bombers and fighters attacking and defending on a 1 makes a lot of sense from a history point of view.
Bombers fly in tight formation and these are hard to attack with fighters without subjecting yourself to defensive fire, there is a reason the for the name “flying fortress”.
Sure fighters and especially defending fighters had some advantage but not as massive as rolling @2 would make it.
It comes down to the system we use for rolling with a D6 you just have to little options for granularity.
I would not mind if it would be D12 where Attacker rolled on 1-2 (1 in 6 chance ) and defender on 1-2-3 (1 in 4 chance ) though that is already pretty heavy difference.
But going with a D6 1out of 6 vs 1 out of 3 hit is just isnt realistic.But I like the idea of having AA reduce the damage done to the Factory. It also adds incentive to use more then 3 bombers to attack a facility and makes attacking less of a gamble and more strategic.
Only reducing damage with IC’s AA gun (and no more shooting down capacity) solves in part the too high defense values of Fg D2 + Flak D1 = near 50%, or if Fg D1 + Flak D1 = near 33% odds of casualties.
Probably Bomber Command’s worst night came in March 1944. Harris had targeted Nuremburg - Harris personally selected targets. The attack was risky simply because of the distance the crews would have to fly - 1,500 miles over an eight hour time span. Nuremburg, because of its association with the Nazi Party, was also heavily defended. A March night could usually guarantee some form of cloud cover for the crews. On this night there was a full moon and very little cover. Nearly 800 bombers were used for the raid. However, for whatever reason, the Luftwaffe had guessed that Nuremburg was to be the target for that night. Within one hour, 59 bombers were shot down by Messerschmitt 109’s and Focke-Wolfe fighters. During the flight towards their target, the bomber crews also experienced a very rare occurrence. Bombers did not usually create a vapour trail below 25,000 feet. For this raid, planes flew below 25,000 feet and some were as low as 16,000 feet. For whatever meteorological reason, the planes gave off vapour trails - clearly indicating to the German fighter pilots where they were. In all, the total loss to Bomber Command on this one mission was 64 Lancaster’s and 31 Halifax’s lost 670 men.
Though comparisons can be spurious and potentially misleading, Fighter Command lost 515 pilots of all nationalities in the whole four months of the Battle of Britain (though this represented 17% of all pilots). The casualty rate for the attack on Nuremburg, which survived relatively unscathed from this raid as many bombs missed their target, was 12% of crews - 4% was considered to be an acceptable loss rate. Despite such losses, Harris, along with the Americans, continued with his policy of attacking German cities. This climaxed with the attack on Dresden in February 1945.
The highest rate of loss for a Night Raid mission gives for interceptors and flak combined: 800/95 = 0.11875, near 12%
This is 5% under the 1/6 usual dice number.On day-light missions, here is a few numbers worth noting: 60/211= 0.2844, near 29% rate of loss on the worst mission.
Compared to a Fg unit Defense @2, this is just slightly under 33% casualty rate of StBs. And this become lower if attacking StBs are escorted, or if there is less interceptors than StBs in a given SBR. On “Big Week”, the rate of loss for escorted Bombers was 7%. Applying a 1:1 ratio of StBs vs interceptors, + escorting Fgs, odds of casualties can be dropped to @2/2 which is 1/6 or 17%, assuming 1 Bomber is taken down with each escorting Fg. As always, this game rate can drop if mostly all Fgs escort take the hit instead of bombers. Making it not that far a stretched compared to the 7% historical number (in which Luftwaffe were already lacking resources).On August 17th 1943, B17’s attacked the ball-bearing factory at Schweinfurt. This was a very important target as 52% of all of Germany’s ball-bearings were produced there. It was also a massively defended factory. 211 B17’s took part in the raid - 60 planes were lost, a loss rate of just under 30%. In 1943, it was estimated that 1/3rd of all B17 crews would not survive the war and the huge losses sustained in daylight raids nearly caused an end to such raids. However, a study done by the 8th Air Force in 1943, also showed that over 50% of plane losses were as a result of B17’s leaving the protection of their formation. In 1944, a revised pattern of flying was introduced. B17’s had traditionally flown in wedges of 18. Now they were to fly in a pack of 36. There would be three flights of 12 B17’s tightly packed together, one on top of the other. This gave the flight of 36 huge firepower especially as the new Model G had been given more fire power including more machine guns at the front of the plane to fight off frontal assaults. The Model G now carried thirteen .50 calibre machine guns giving each plane a massively increased firing capacity. However, flying so tightly also led to collisions.
By 1944, the B17’s also had fighter protection in the shape of the awesome Mustang fighter. The Mustangs carried extra fuel tanks and could accompany the B17’s deep into Germany. With their increased fire power and their new bodyguards, the B17 could now concentrate on two primary targets - what was left of the Luftwaffe’s factories and Berlin itself.
In February 1944, the B17’s went all out to destroy the factories that kept the Luftwaffe flying. In February ‘Big Week’ took place. In all, 3,500 B17s were involved in bombing raids on factories in Germany. 244 planes were lost (about 7% of the planes taking part) in just a week but the back of the factories producing for the Luftwaffe had been fatally broken. While the Luftwaffe had planes, many were forced to stay on the ground as they had no parts to keep them airborne.
So from an historical POV, Fighter Defense @2 can be a fitting number. And this also showed that Balanced Mode Fgs D2 combined with AA flak D1, 44.4% hit (on a 1:1 basis), are much too high rate to be historical SBR values. But, we agree that from a game POV, Fighter A2 D2 are much better balanced for air combat.
But on average, it is nearer 1/6 than 2/6 casualty rate.
Excluding Flak casualties, Night raid have a bombers casualty rate of more than 5%.
I guess we can assume that attacker may have at least 2:1 ratio against interceptors. Hence, for 2 bombers vs 1 Fg D2 split in half the bomber casualty rate to 1/6 and even 8% if it is a 3 StBs for 1 Fg ratio. And this last one can be pretty near historical numbers.By July 1943, German night fighters had a success rate of 5%. While impressive in the sense that this was a very new way of fighting, it also meant that very many RAF bombers got through.
-
“If it was the flak that caused the damage and forced bomber crews to jink their aircraft, thus making accurate bombing difficult, it was the venomously efficient night fighters that were the real killers.” Flight-Lieutenant Alfred Price.
I found this quote. It clearly describe the change made in this SBR houserule: Fighter interceptors makes the shooting down while IC’s and Bases’ AA guns only affects accuracy of bombers.
-
I’m not sure why the title of this thread is Strategic Bombing for G40 and 1942.2 – so far I haven’t seen anything here about 1942.2. In 1942.2, there are no tactical bombers or minor factories, and the interceptor rules are very rarely used.
That said, I am interested in figuring out an alternate set of strategic bombing rules for 1942.2, because I’m not especially satisfied with them – the fact that all the factories automatically come with their own built-in anti-air defenses means that (a) it is extremely difficult to turn a profit on strategic bombing, and it also means that (b) if an attacker does manage to build up a successful strategic bombing campaign, there’s nothing at all that the defender can do about it. If Germany and Japan team up to bomb Moscow, or if the UK and USA team up to bomb Tokyo, the victim is just at the mercy of the dice – other than hoping to roll a “1”, there’s nothing the bombing victim can do to resist. The OOB 1942.2 interceptor rules aren’t useful because, as Black Elk pointed out, Germany is usually quite happy to trade German bombers for Russian fighters!
My personal view of the history of strategic bombing is that strategic bombing was only successful when the attacker was able to provide enough of a fighter escort to match any defending aircraft, i.e., when the attacker had air superiority or at least air parity. When bombers had to worry about being attacked by enemy fighters while they were on a bombing mission, few if any of the bombs would hit their targets. It’s true that a single fighter wouldn’t have much luck attacking an entire squadron of ‘flying fortresses,’ but a squadron of 1942-era fighters could easily shoot down a squadron of unescorted 1942-era bombers, a squadron of 1943-era fighters could easily shoot down a squadron of unescorted 1943-era bombers, and so on.
I think statistics about the casualty rate for any given mission is interesting as a matter of history, but not a good guide for how to shape the mechanics of a house rule – in 1942.2, a given game turn could represent anywhere from one month to six months, and the same bomber squadron might go on dozens of raiding missions in that time frame, so even if the casualty rate for one mission was only 7%, the cumulative casualty rate for all the missions that happened over three months might be 50%, or even well over 100%, with literally all of the bombers in the squadron being shot down and replaced by newly manufactured bombers and newly trained pilots at some point during the season.
My suggestion for a mechanic for 1942.2 is to allow interceptions by defending fighters, which would score a hit on rolls of 3 or less, and to allow escorting fighters to score a hit on rolls of 2 or less and attacking bombers to score a hit on rolls of 1 or less. I would say that surviving bombers then all roll 1d6+2 damage each, and that 1942.2 factories have no built in anti-aircraft mechanism, but that each AAA gun in the territory can roll 1d6 vs. each of up to 3 attacking bombers, and that these rolls reduce the total bombing damage, as Baron Munchhausen suggested.
For example, suppose Germany attacks Moscow with 4 strategic bombers and 2 escorting fighters, and Moscow is defended by 3 Russian fighters and 1 AAA gun. The Russians roll 3 dice that hit a German plane on rolls of 3 or less (9 pips total), and the Germans roll 4 dice that hit a Russian plane on rolls of 1 or less, plus 2 dice that hit a Russian plane on rolls of 2 or less (8 pips total). The Russians have a slight advantage in the air combat, which is fitting, because they have more fighters. Assume both sides score one hit; the Germans will lose 1 fighter and the Russians will lose 1 fighter.
Then, the Germans will make 4 rolls, each roll at 1d6+2, to determine their maximum potential damage. If they roll [2, 4, 5, 5] then they would have maximum potential damage of 4 + 6 + 7 + 7 = 24 damage. Finally, the Russians make 3 rolls for their AAA gun to try to reduce that damage with flak. If the Russians roll [1, 3, 6] then the damage is reduced by 1 + 3 + 6 = 10. So the total damage would be 24 - 10 = 14 damage. Moscow can generate 8 units/turn when healthy, so it can absorb up to a maximum of 16 damage, so if the factory was healthy at the start of the turn, now it takes 14 damage, and will cost $14 to repair to full strength next turn.
This example represents a ‘balanced’ bombing raid where all sides prepared appropriately. If Germany had not brought the escorting fighters, it probably would have lost a bomber without shooting down any Russian fighters, so it might have dealt less damage (e.g., $10) than the value of the bomber it lost ($12). This gives Germany an incentive to stack fighters within 2 spaces of Moscow, which requires (a) holding those territories and (b) diverting those territories from the Battle of the Atlantic. This is strategically interesting. Likewise, if Germany had only brought 2 bombers into the attack, then it could not have overwhelmed Russia’s AAA gun – it would be rolling 2d6 + 4 in damage against 2d6 in damage reduction, and so the expected damage would be very small and hardly worth the risk of interception. This gives Germany an incentive to make a massive bombing raid against one territory, instead of just bombing haphazardly whenever Germany has an idle bomber. This is also strategically interesting.
Conversely, if Russia had not had the AAA gun in place, it would not have been able to use flak to reduce its damage, and it would have taken the full $16 in bombing damage instead of only $14. This gives Russia an incentive to either hold AAA guns near its factories instead of reflexively advancing the AAAs into West Russia and Ukraine, or to build additional AAA guns, which is strategically interesting. Similarly, if Russia had only had one fighter defending Moscow, then an interception attempt would not have been profitable for Russia, since it would have only had 3 pips of interception defense against 9 pips of German airplanes – which makes sense, given Germany’s air superiority. This gives Russia an incentive to keep fighters near its factories, instead of always deploying fighters as far forward as possible. This is also strategically interesting.
-
I would still have the AA guns get a shot at the bombers. From other game play, I’ve seen games end on just bombing raids. Not a big fan of that.
What if 3 bombers attack and roll 3 6 s +6 = 24 and AA gets 3 = 21 damage and these high rolls happen 3 4 turns Russia can’t recover. With no AA shots at planes Germany just keeps bombing away. Russia can’t afford to lose fighters in air combat . This way it makes Germany have to spend more money if they want to SBR.This still has to be play tested. One way or the other some values may have to change .
-
There is many points in your post Argothair.
I will start with first aspect: 1942.2
I wrote this title because the same mechanic can apply to both G40.2 and 1942.2, of course no TcB or bases.
I’m a bit surprised by examples you suggest. It feels like Germany and Russia have a lot of money to spend on Air Force and AAA while, in my little experience, they are craving for ground units and barely hope to keep up the same set-up air fleet. Usually, it becomes hard to replace costlier unit. 5 IPCs AAA unit is also an expensive, too specialized and unoptimized to worth buying more, except in very rare circumstances. So, it feels like you are talking in the economical context of Global 1940 about having plenty of Fighters, Bombers and AAAs to spare from real combat (more than one round) ground support missions.Because of the low budget in 1942.2, I rather prefer to keep IC’s AA gun special while letting AAA being part of the air combat, but somewhat in a different manner. To be determined, I’m thinking of a simple roll @1, and AAA unit being chosen last, once all interceptors have been shot down, if any.
1942.2 SBR escort and intercept is an optional rule. And as I understand the game progress, you rarely have more than one or two Fighters to keep on Germany’s IC. UK and Russia can concentrate a lot of planes on London or Moscow but Germany needs to muster all Fgs A3 to lower loss and increase fast victory to not loose too many grounds units from multiple retaliation rounds. This often demands to land Fgs away from Berlin’s IC. Hence, you get some opportunities to raid Germany’s IC (Berlin 20 pts, Italy 6 pts, and Karelia 4 pts included) with no Fg defending.
In addition, who would want to risk Bombers A1 and Fg A2 against Fg D3 while in regular combat you get multiple rounds with StB A4 and Fg A3 against Fg D4.
As I remember, many people says they do SBR and escort when there is nothing better to do. Intuitively, I don’t think it is an incentive for SBR to rise air combat values. I throw some table on this Defense @3, as I remember it provides a very high break even point (actually: near 1.17 StB/Fg, assuming 2D6 damage), to make more damage than receiving. I believe people will not risk SBR if there is even a single interceptor on IC, considering how it can be easy to max out Italy (6 points), India (6 points), Karelia (4 points) or Caucasus IC (8 points). On the defensive side, Fighter Interception Threshold will be high too (FIT actually is 5 StBs/Fgs, assuming 2D6 damage), so you get an incentive to intercept. I just believe there will be no SBR or a large number of attackers to overwhelmed defense and make interception a suicide mission. It is my understanding of reading many comments on SBR, and how the numbers talked to me.Maybe, I don’t see it the way you get this.
I will be more than happy to hear you on this. -
@SS:
I would still have the AA guns get a shot at the bombers. From other game play, I’ve seen games end on just bombing raids. Not a big fan of that.
What if 3 bombers attack and roll 3 6 s +6 = 24 and AA gets 3 = 21 damage and these high rolls happen 3 4 turns Russia can’t recover. With no AA shots at planes Germany just keeps bombing away. Russia can’t afford to lose fighters in air combat . This way it makes Germany have to spend more money if they want to SBR.This still has to be play tested. One way or the other some values may have to change .
In 1942.2, IC is maxed out at 16 points, while G40 it is 20.
I’m not sure you can make a case based on an extremely rare occurrence…
I believe that many strategies imply to land a lot of allied Fgs on Moscow.
That would be part of the deal, you want to get ride of Axis Bombers? Launch Fgs.
I believe Fg Defending @2 makes for a more balanced way to solve partially your issue, against StB A1, Fighter have a clear bonus.The whole idea of this thread is to make all combat casualties the result of a fight between combat units.
Changing IC’s AA gun mechanic to lowering odds of damage.Maybe this can open some room to higher combat values in dogfight to prevent your issue, and to include AAA unit in air combat?
Argothair may bring a different POV on how to play with his suggested air combat values in a Global40 context.I can only see similar balanced air combat values, don’t know if this can be incentive to do SBR at all, with Fg A2 D3 like:
Strategic Bomber
Attack 1
Defense 0
Damage 2D6
Cost 12Tactical Bomber
Attack 1
Defense 1
Damage 1D6+2
Cost 11Fighter
Attack 2
Defense 3
Cost 10Anti-Aircraft Artillery
Attack 0
Defense 1
Cost 5Industrial Complex or Base:
AAA Defense: reduce 1D6 damage per attack roll done on IC or Base, down to a minimum of zero damage.Damage on interceptor / damage on StB / 2 D6 Damage on IC or Base = average damage per SBR
1 StB A1 vs 1 Fg D3 gives +1.667 (1/610) - 6 (3/612) + 3.5 = -0.833 IPCs on average. [OOB G40: +1.819 IPC damage/SBR]
1 StB A1 vs 2 Fgs D3 gives +1.667 (1/610) - 9 (27/3612) + 3.5 = -3.833 IPCs on average. [OOB G40: - 0.206 IPC damage/SBR]
2 StBs A1 vs 1 Fg D3 gives +3.056 (11/3610) - 6 (3/612) + 7 (2*3.5) = +4.056 IPCs on average. [OOB G40: + 5.793 IPCs damage/SBR]
3 StBs A1 vs 1 Fg D3 gives +4.213 (91/21610) - 6 (3/612) + 10.5 = + 8.713 IPCs on average.
4 StBs A1 vs 1 Fg D3 gives +5.177 (671/129610) - 6 (3/612) + 14 = + 13.177 IPCs on average.
5 StBs A1 vs 1 Fg D3 gives +5.981 (4651/777610) - 6 (3/612) + 17.5 = + 17.481 IPCs on average.
Break even ratio approximate: 7/6= 1.167 StB/Fg
1 StB A1 vs 1 Fg D3: -0.833*5 = - 4.165
2 StBs A1 vs 1 Fg D3: +4.056 *1= + 4.056
7 StBs vs 6 Fgs =-.109Interception Threshold: 5/1 = from 5 StB/Fg and below
5 StBs vs 1 Fg: +17.481
5 StBs vs no interception 5*3.5 = +17.5 IPCs (Diff.: -.019)My suggestion for a mechanic for 1942.2 is to allow interceptions by defending fighters, which would score a hit on rolls of 3 or less, and to allow escorting fighters to score a hit on rolls of 2 or less and attacking bombers to score a hit on rolls of 1 or less. I would say that surviving bombers then all roll 1d6+2 damage each, and that 1942.2 factories have no built in anti-aircraft mechanism, but that each AAA gun in the territory can roll 1d6 vs. each of up to 3 attacking bombers, and that these rolls reduce the total bombing damage, as Baron Munchhausen suggested.
I apply the values up above, it is much weaker SBR than any other even if given 2D6 damage.
StB D6+2 would be weaker.Maybe those values can work if played with a lot of Fighter units to spare on escort missions.
Otherwise, StBs only SBR are not so good against any Fg interceptors. Needs a ratio of 2 to 1 to make damage near 2 IPCs/StBs.For example, suppose Germany attacks Moscow with 4 strategic bombers (A1) and 1 escorting fighter (A2).
Moscow is defended by 2 Russian fighters (D3).
Russians roll 2 dice that hit a German plane on rolls of 3 or less (6 pips total),
Germans roll 4 dice that hit a Russian plane on rolls of 1 or less, plus 1 dice that hit a Russian plane on rolls of 2 or less (6 pips total).
Russians have no advantage in the air combat, but invest only 2 Fgs for 20 IPCs compared to Germany 58 IPCs.
Assume both sides score one hit; the Germans will lose 1 fighter and the Russians will lose 1 fighter.4 Strategic bombers (damage 2D6) will do 4*3.5= 14 IPCs on average.
Russia suffer 24 IPCs. Germany loose 10 IPCs. +14 IPCsOn a second SBR, it becomes:
4 StBs A1 vs 1 Fg D3 gives +5.177 (671/129610) - 6 (3/612) + 14 = + 13.177 IPCs on average. -
I agree with you on odds are on a rare occurrence. Wasn’t trying to imply any major changes. I agree with your plane battles on SBR runs.
I’m just saying both ways may need to be tested.
-
@SS:
I would still have the AA guns get a shot at the bombers. From other game play, I’ve seen games end on just bombing raids. Not a big fan of that.
What if 3 bombers attack and roll 3 6 s +6 = 24 and AA gets 3 = 21 damage and these high rolls happen 3 4 turns Russia can’t recover. With no AA shots at planes Germany just keeps bombing away. Russia can’t afford to lose fighters in air combat. This way it makes Germany have to spend more money if they want to SBR.This still has to be play tested. One way or the other some values may have to change .
@SS:
I agree with you on odds are on a rare occurrence. Wasn’t trying to imply any major changes. I agree with your plane battles on SBR runs.
I’m just saying both ways may need to be tested.
The more I think about what you said, the more I’m convinced AAA unit with no preemptive strike must be part of the solutions while keeping damage values as OOB:
Lower economy Powers need something to fight in air combat.
“If it was the flak that caused the damage and forced bomber crews to jink their aircraft, thus making accurate bombing difficult, it was the venomously efficient night fighters that were the real killers.” Flight-Lieutenant Alfred Price.
Adding AAA unit, TcB defense @1 (as a kind of NightFighter) and a Fighter with an higher defense @2, I hope this can be enough an incentive to intercept an SBR, with these air combat values:
Strategic Bomber
Attack 1
Defense 0
Damage 1D6+2
Cost 12Tactical Bomber
Attack 1
Defense 1
Damage 1D6
Cost 11Fighter
Attack 2
Defense 2
Cost 10Anti-Aircraft Artillery
Attack 0
Defense 1, against up to three planes whichever the lower
Cost 5
Chosen as last casualtyIndustrial Complex or Base:
AAA Defense: reduce 1D6 damage per attack roll done on IC or Base, down to a minimum of zero damage.Is this a better, balanced and more attractive SBR system?
Damage on interceptor / damage on StB / D6+2 Damage on IC or Base = average damage per SBR
1 StB vs 1 Fg D2 gives +1.667 (1/610) - 4 (2/612) + 2.278 (82/36) = -0.055 IPCs on average. [OOB G40: +1.819 IPC damage/SBR]
1 StB vs 2 Fgs D2 gives +1.667 (1/610) - 6.667 (20/3612) + 2.278 (82/36) = -2.722 IPCs on average. [OOB G40: - 0.206 IPC damage/SBR]
2 StBs vs 1 Fg D2 gives +3.056 (11/3610) - 4 (2/612) + 4.556 (2*82/36) = +3.612 IPCs on average. [OOB G40: + 5.793 IPCs damage/SBR]
3 StBs A1 vs 1 Fg D2 gives +4.213 (91/21610) - 4 (2/612) + 6.833 (3*82/36) = + 7.046 IPCs on average.
Approximate break even ratio : 1/1 = 1 StB/Fg
Approximate Interception Threshold: 20/7 = slightly under 2.86 StBs/Fg and below
2 StB vs 1 Fg D2: +3.6121
3 StBs vs 1 Fg D2: +7.0466= +42.276
20 StBs vs 7 Fgs = +45.888
20 StBs vs no interception 20*2.278 = +45.56 IPCs (Diff.:+0.328) -
Hey Baron
Maybe you could require two AA hits to kill a bomber ? First hit would mean bomber does no damage but survives ? Or some variation thereof ? Mix that in with what your doing ?Like where you’re going with this
-
Who’s this reply towards ?
-
Hey Baron
Maybe you could require two AA hits to kill a bomber ? First hit would mean bomber does no damage but survives ? Or some variation thereof ? Mix that in with what your doing ?Like where you’re going with this
Thanks to bring it in.
A long time ago, in an A&A Galaxy Far Far Away…
I suggested two hit points StBs.
Actually, it seemed a more complex mechanic due to interactions with 1 hit TcB and Fg and how StB can be use in regular combat.Someone else also suggested that any StB hit by IC’s AA gun can be considered repelled with no damage, on both side.
For now, I would explore the opening ideas and these consequences.
-
@Baron
yea I’m sure it’s been mentioned before : )On a related matter and something we talked about before, been using aaguns A0 D1 M1 (combat and capture) C4 2 AA shots. Seems to work pretty good. I just think of it as buying an artillery. Gets a 1 at the plane and then gets a 1 at anybody else.
Can be used to good effect. Especially smaller counterattack armies with high survivability rate. Makes just blowing blockers up with air and infantry more dangerous. Being able to capture and ride in the first wave of an amphib attack is noticeable as well.
Also adds to the “combined arms” makeup of armies. Started going with bigger artillery/inf counterattacks. Which then means you want an AA to help protect it. So I’m seeing more of them.
Anyway, didn’t mean to get sidetracked : )
Suggested Topics
