Strategic Bombing Raid (SBR): an alternate mechanic for 1942.2 and G40


  • 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.

  • '17 '16

    I understand. Your IC works like 1942.2 OOB.

  • '17 '16

    @ShadowHAwk:

    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.

  • '17 '16

    @ShadowHAwk:

    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.

    http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/the-bombing-campaign-of-world-war-two/bomber-command-1944/

    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.

    http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/the-bombing-campaign-of-world-war-two/b17-flying-fortress/

    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.

    http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/the-bombing-campaign-of-world-war-two/german-night-fighters/

  • '17 '16

    “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.

    http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/the-bombing-campaign-of-world-war-two/german-night-fighters/

    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.

  • 2023 '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    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 .

  • '17 '16

    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.

  • '17 '16

    @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 12

    Tactical Bomber
    Attack 1
    Defense 1
    Damage 1D6+2
    Cost 11

    Fighter
    Attack 2
    Defense 3
    Cost 10

    Anti-Aircraft Artillery
    Attack 0
    Defense 1
    Cost 5

    Industrial 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 =-.109

    Interception 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 IPCs

    On 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.

  • '17 '16

    @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.

    http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/the-bombing-campaign-of-world-war-two/german-night-fighters/

    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 12

    Tactical Bomber
    Attack 1
    Defense 1
    Damage 1D6
    Cost 11

    Fighter
    Attack 2
    Defense 2
    Cost 10

    Anti-Aircraft Artillery
    Attack 0
    Defense 1, against up to three planes whichever the lower
    Cost 5
    Chosen as last casualty

    Industrial 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: +7.046
    6= +42.276
    20 StBs vs 7 Fgs = +45.888
    20 StBs vs no interception 20*2.278 = +45.56 IPCs  (Diff.:+0.328)

  • '17 '16 '15

    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 ?

  • '17 '16

    @barney:

    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.

  • '17 '16 '15

    @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 : )

  • '17 '16

    @barney:

    @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 : )

    Seems more versatile for the price, as you said, similar to Artillery.
    This kind of
    AAA A0 D1 M1 C4, gets up to two @1 preemptive against plane, which ever the lesser
    can easily fit in the above roster instead of OOB 5 IPCs.
    It would still roll up to twice @1 against bombers and fighters in the air combat but no first strike.
    In fact, a lesser cost with a reduced firepower fit better IMO.

  • 2023 '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    Does the 4 IPC aa gun get to roll 2 dice @ 1 against aircraft when the aa gun is attacking? Just curious; that unit sounds intriguing. I would love to see a cheap but cost-effective unit for small nations that can’t really afford to buy planes.

  • '17 '16

    @Argothair:

    Does the 4 IPC aa gun get to roll 2 dice @ 1 against aircraft when the aa gun is attacking? Just curious; that unit sounds intriguing. I would love to see a cheap but cost-effective unit for small nations that can’t really afford to buy planes.

    Here is how I see it, it have no attack value and cannot be use as fodder on offence. Sorry.
    It is just a less crippled AAA than OOB.
    Never intended to use on offense like a 1914 Fg chasing enemy’s plane.

    Anti-Aircraft Artillery
    Attack 0
    Defense 1*
    Move 1
    Cost 4
    *1 single @1 preemptive strike, against up to two planes, whichever the lower,
    Chosen as last casualty on offense or in air-to-air combat, *no preemptive strike
    Can defend @1 each regular combat.

  • '17 '16

    @Argothair:

    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.

    Argothair,
    I don’t believe your values would work to promote more interactions in 1942.2 setting.
    But these similar suggested air combat values below can, at least, worth a try in higher economy of Global 1940 context.

    With a stronger combat values for TcBs A2 D1 !!!, so attacker and defender may bring it into battle, I can see a more balanced and interesting air combat values, this can be incentive to do SBR or TcBR, against intercepting Fg A2 D3:

    Strategic Bomber
    Attack 1
    Defense 0
    Damage 2D6
    Cost 12

    Tactical Bomber
    Attack 2
    Defense 1
    Damage 1D6+2
    Cost 11

    Fighter
    Attack 2
    Defense 3
    Cost 10

    Anti-Aircraft Artillery
    Attack 0
    Defense 1, against up to three planes (max 1 roll per plane)
    Cost 5

    Industrial Complex or Base:
    AAA Defense: reduce 1D6 damage per attack roll done on IC or Base, down to a minimum of zero damage.

    Because IC’s AA gun cannot destroy bombers, this open up a space for an higher damage capacity such as @3 for defending interceptors.

    What maths reveals is you can bring as much as 5 StBs against a single Fighter and still giving even odds of damage to intercept or letting them pass over ICs or Bases.

    And this give a huge and interesting Fighter Interception Gap of 1.2 to 5 StBs/Fg

    Approximate break even ratio: 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 = -0.109

    Interception 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)

    Assuming such 5 StBs vs 1 Fg SBR on Major IC, on average it will not maxed out 20 IPCs IC damage capacity. Interesting.

  • 2023 '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    It’s interesting to see mathematically where the IPC value would even out for a bombing raid with and without interception, but usually the “bombee”, that is, the bombing victim, strongly prefers to avoid trades that are near a 1:1 ratio.

    For example, if Germany and Japan are ganging up on Russia in 1942.2, you can expect the Axis to attack with a force worth roughly 200 IPCs against a Russian + Allied defensive stack worth roughly 150 IPCs. A 4:3 ratio doesn’t make for a crushing attack, because infantry defend more effectively than they attack, so at first the Russians are relatively safe. But if you give the Axis an opportunity to trade 125 IPCs of Axis pieces for 125 IPCs of Allied pieces, now the ratio is 75 IPCs of offense to 25 IPCs of defense – a 3:1 offensive advantage, which will easily crush the remaining Russian defense. So every time the Russians trade planes with the Germans at even odds, or even at 3:2 odds in the Russians’ favor, the Russians’ position gets worse from a strategic perspective. The Russians will often prefer to suffer the extra industrial damage rather than trade planes at close-to-even odds.

    For me the most interesting question is not “what ratio of bombers to fighters will yield zero net profit for the attacker?” but “what ratio of bombers to fighters will actually prompt the defender to use fighters for interception, and what ratio will actually prompt the attacker to avoid bombing?”

    Also, I’m not sure why you think the 1942.2 economy is too small to support air combat. When I play 1942.2, I often have 4 Russian fighters, plus another 4 Allied fighters defending eastern Europe. The German air force often grows as large as 8 fighters and 2 bombers, and the Japanese can easily afford to build 4 or 5 bombers in addition to their 6 starting fighters. Maybe I’m missing something, but that sounds consistent with the ratios (e.g. 1:1, 2:1, 5:1, 7:6) that you’re discussing in your post.

Suggested Topics

  • 5
  • 8
  • 184
  • 1
  • 2
  • 24
  • 7
  • 9
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

33

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts