San Francisco (ruleset for 1942.2 and Global)


  • @Baron:

    Additional notes on play-testing 1942.2 SFR.

    SBR is plenty because you have nothing else to do with StBs.
    The low cost of 5 makes an incentive for sparing purchase money to buy 1 each turn.
    Feels not too dramatic to lose one over IC’s AAA.
    Germany can still wage both Fgs and StBs on London.
    Still requires to keep Fgs in Northwestern, Norway or France.
    Cannot launch toward UK Fgs built in Berlin. So, have to wait 2 rounds before deploying new escorting Fgs.

    Meanwhile, clearly take time to do so for Allies, minimum on R3 if Norway captured UK2, US drop Fgs in Norway and use them as escort US3. UK must wait UK3 to start placing Fg there.
    The other option is Carrier, probably better on long term basis.

    But, both UK and Germany can built interceptors usable for the next round.

    The StB zero attack is a necessary feature it seems.
    Because it is not easy for Germany to keep more than 1 Fg unit in Germany.
    These Fgs are needed for combat and increase defense of other TTy.
    Any attacking value for StBs would easily result in a no intercept optimized play.
    It is also pretty much difficult to maxed out Berlin’s IC.

    I wonder if it was too much efficacy rate for bomber. In 1942.2, a lot of ICs have a low damage cap.
    In each case, this is like risking bomber for less and this decrease their positive odds of making damage.
    For now, 5 IPCs remains the sweet spot and D6 damage is clearly balanced by IC cap.

    On a SFExperiment map, I would find interesting to add an IC in Northwestern Europe.
    That way, both Allies can launch escorting Fgs from UK, while Germany usually have an interest in keeping Fgs on this TTy.
    That would provide a much more historical play pattern. And maybe, a much more interesting TTy to conquer if Allies can built units there.

    This is pretty much what is happening in my 40 game.

    Germany is not SBR Moscow ?
    It’s hard also for the allies to get max damage on major IC ( Berlin ).
    Better for US to get H. Bombers if they can’t get interceptors there.
    Yes in my game there is a US carrier off coast of Norway and like Baron said the escorts from there or Norway. Maybe we get more troops there faster earlier in game ?

    Stg. bombers workin good on minor IC but in my game may have to raise max damage to 6 instead of territory value.

    Still need more testing in my game to see if Germany Italy have vantage early in game.

  • '17

    Baron and SS, thanks for play testing many types of HRs. I wish I had a large enough group who played so much to the point that no one would be scared to “waste” time on a House Rules experiment.

  • '17 '16

    @Ichabod:

    Baron and SS, thanks for play testing many types of HRs. I wish I had a large enough group who played so much to the point that no one would be scared to “waste” time on a House Rules experiment.

    I was playing 1942.2 against myself, no chance to loose.  :-D
    SS is more lucky, you should take a look at his awesome map and table.
    You can download TripleA version above, Barney made an intensive work to make it with these special rules.
    He has all my gratitude to make daydreams a more tangible reality.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    @Ichabod

    Yes, the bomber change was originally an independent idea. At first I was just thinking to use it for 1942.2, because that game has a similar dark skies and large bid issue (and it seemed that there, defenseless stratBs would really help balance the round 1 combats, like at pearl.)

    The AB+2 was basically a way to make the concept work in G40, with less grumbling about the lack of a mobile combat air unit, owing to the larger distances involved in Global.

    M3 transports/cruisers was likewise an independent idea, for accelerating the American entry, and making the Atlantic and Pacific crossings less daunting (potentially for either side.) This ruleset brought the two basic ideas together in tandem. But they can work separately as well. I believe Barney has a gamefile with only the Bomber and AB changes if you want to try that instead.

    For the Philadelphia Experiment compliment to this HR we want more changes to the unit roster, I believe lowering Tacs to 10 was at the top of the list. I think there are compelling reasons to make such a change, because right now the unit is not a particularly attractive purchase.

  • '17 '16

    @Ichabod:

    @Baron:

    IMO, if UK and USA invest in StBs, Germans Fgs will be required on ICs.
    Like WWII.

    1. To get more people to accept this HR, would it make sense to lower tac. bombers’ costs to 10 while keeping fighter’s
    cost at 10 to help counter balance? In many cases, a fighter is more valuable than a tac. bomber because defense can’t be projected, only offense.

    2. Fighters/Escorts BOTH roll @2, all bombers roll @1 during the dogfight…would this add to and support this HR? I think so.

    I really like the idea of strategic bombers being primarily used for strategic bombing! To get more people to accept this HR, would it make sense to lower tac. bomber costs to 10 to help counter balance? Escorts and Interceptor dogfights would become more a part of the game. Also, I personally would like to incorporate the triplea balanced mod rule of BOTH escorts/interceptors rolling @2 in the air battle while all Bombers roll @1. I like distinguishing the combat capabilities between fighters and bombers.

    In which game would you like to introduce BalMode SBR into?

    Actually the zero attack StB increase to a maximum escort and interceptor presence.
    Even 5 or 6 StBs A0 are not dangerous at all, so it becomes a no brainer to intercept  with Fg @1.
    If they were StB A1 you would mostly be certain to loose 1 Fg D2 and if unlucky more.
    If you only have 1 or 2 Fgs, you may not risk them, because you need them for regular combat.
    On the other side, 3 Fgs D2 are a big deterrent for Bombing, you loose one costly bomber.
    If you don’t have much, one or two, it is a lost cause.
    With D1 intercept, there is hope that bomber pass this airshield.
    Fg A1 escort can be easily engaged because you can use StBs as cheaper fodder. So, you know you can later use your Fg in regular combat, more important mission. You don’t need to ponder between a small gain with high risk now and much gain later with average risk.
    It recreates the usual combat situation in which Fighter are beyond a wall of cheaper units.
    IMO it is far far better than BalMode if you want a real feel of WWII SBR.
    No interception threshold, always beneficial to intercept bombers.
    But a pretty interesting break even point near .667 StB per Fg, so  2 StBs can face 3 Fgs and you keep damage average balance near zero, so you can inflict as much damage you can receive.
    Not bad when you know you have nothing else to do with such StBs.
    And in 1942.2 economy, it is a luxury to keep so many Fgs out of position, in Berlin for example.
    But it works for UK because there is a few German warships to take care of in first turns.
    It helps shift slighty less toward Axis.

  • '17 '16

    And about TcBs, Iwould add to all Black Elk said, 10 IPCs is so much a better well rounded number when you make purchase.
    :-) :-) :-)

  • '17 '16

    @SS:

    This is pretty much what is happening in my 40 game.

    Germany is not SBR Moscow ?
    It’s hard also for the allies to get max damage on major IC ( Berlin ).
    Better for US to get H. Bombers if they can’t get interceptors there.
    Yes in my game there is a US carrier off coast of Norway and like Baron said the escorts from there or Norway. Maybe we get more troops there faster earlier in game ?

    Stg. bombers workin good on minor IC but in my game may have to raise max damage to 6 instead of territory value.

    Still need more testing in my game to see if Germany Italy have vantage early in game.

    I forgot to push StBs on Moscow, I would use these tactic next time.
    Actually, Russia built 1 StB so to bomb Karelia. Germany paid twice 4 IPCs to built units there, maxed out.
    UK and USA at that time were too busy. Staline take the matter in owns hands. :)

    I can say 5 IPCs is low cost and can live with 4 IPCs maxed out and sometimes no repair at all.
    I made that choice for Stalingrad once.
    Such small ICs, with an higher priced bomber becomes less interesting.
    I like 5 IPCs. For now, I don’t see them as an absolute weapon either. No total bomber spam.

    On early SBRs, I will watch more closely but actually it seems good because both UK and US get Fg in Britain.
    It takes a few round to launch at Russia, maybe it is a weak unbalanced point.
    Russia needs more Allies Fg early, before Germany SBR Moscow.  UK have to dispatch Fg there while being SBR. IDK.

    Need more early testing.

  • Sponsor

    @Baron:

    It’s hard also for the allies to get max damage on major IC ( Berlin ).

    Does the +2 damage bonus not apply with this new unit?

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Yes for global we thought that the +2 damage would be too overpowered. So the 5 ipc defenseless stratBs roll at 1d6 there (the same way they do in 1942.2)

    One issue I anticipate with the bomber change in isolation, is that it is comparatively simple/low cost for Germany and Japan to bomb the hell out of Russia. This is somewhat offset by the fact that those same Axis bombers can’t then be used in combat afterwards, and the fact Allies can bomb Axis in kind (especially Germany) with similarly cheap units, but I don’t know if the offset is really equal.

    So much of this game still comes down to Russia just being too weak to stand on its own.
    (I think in G40 UK Pacific has kind of similar issues. They’re like the mini Russia of the Pacific map. Always getting screwed by bombers, never with quite enough units to mount a proper defense, let alone offense. Pulling friendly units away from other uses like a magnet or a black hole haha)

    At various points we have proposed different ways to shore up the Soviet position. These have been wide ranging. Everything from extra Russian units by default, to economic bonuses, to a NAP with Japan. Most recently my idea to close the Soviet Border with China in 1942.2. Those are more direct approaches.

    Indirect approaches would be things like an A0 turn in 1942.2, or the M3 transport, as a way to give the US more options to open a second front, or send units to aid the Russians at the center.

    For global similar ideas would be ways to directly strengthen the Indian position, again with objectives or more units or a different way of handling their economy. Perhaps a Chinese zero turn as an indirect method.

    It’s hard to say which balance solution is best. But I think the defenseless bomber works as an independent concept. It just probably requires something else on top, if the goal is a game that is truly balanced by sides.

    Ps. And of course, the defenseless bomber alone can’t solve the issue with Victory Conditions. I think that problem requires a separate solution, at least in Global. 1942.2 might work for the 8/9 VC spread, but the OOB global rules are kind of a joke, as we’ve discussed many times. Looking at the recommended victory conditions in G40, particularly for Allies, you can’t help but face palm hehe
    :-D


  • @Black_Elk:

    Yes for global we thought that the +2 damage would be too overpowered. So the 5 ipc defenseless stratBs roll at 1d6 there (the same way they do in 1942.2)

    One issue I anticipate with the bomber change in isolation, is that it is comparatively simple/low cost for Germany and Japan to bomb the hell out of Russia. This is somewhat offset by the fact that those same Axis bombers can’t then be used in combat afterwards, and the fact Allies can bomb Axis in kind (especially Germany) with similarly cheap units, but I don’t know if the offset is really equal.

    So much of this game still comes down to Russia just being too weak to stand on its own.
    (I think in G40 UK Pacific has kind of similar issues. They’re like the mini Russia of the Pacific map. Always getting screwed by bombers, never with quite enough units to mount a proper defense, let alone offense. Pulling friendly units away from other uses like a magnet or a black hole haha)

    At various points we have proposed different ways to shore up the Soviet position. These have been wide ranging. Everything from extra Russian units by default, to economic bonuses, to a NAP with Japan. Most recently my idea to close the Soviet Border with China in 1942.2

    Those are more direct approaches. Indirect approaches would be things like an A0 turn, or the M3 transport, as a way to give the US more options to open a second front, or send units to aid the Russians at the center.

    For global similar ideas would be ways to strengthen the Indian position. Again with objectives or more units or a different way of handling their economy.

    It’s hard to say which balance solution is best. But I think the defenseless bomber works as an independent concept. It just probably requires something else on top, if the goal is a game that is truly balanced by sides.

    Yes quite agree. If there is no offset with Russia setup and I know this is not the goal but maybe change Germany Stg. bomber buy to C8, but like you said with the 3M tr US UK can get to Norway with planes and send escorts.
    @Young:

    @Baron:

    It’s hard also for the allies to get max damage on major IC ( Berlin ).

    Does the +2 damage bonus not apply with this new unit?

    But in my game YG I do have Baron’s H. Bomber at A2 (Attack 1 naval or ground unit) D0 M7-8 C8 @2 dogfight SBR 1D6 +2 . This should help US early if they want to bomb Berlin from London before they can get a hold close to Europe.
    Is Germany going to buy H. Bomber early ? Possible but not for long if Allies start bombing Berlin and West Germany if there’s a IC there.

    I know my 40 game is a little bit different but as far as the SBR’s in game I’m getting the same results from other player’s. My concern is does it favor Germany early enough to offset Russia’s purchases to the point of Russia always falling ?

    Now that we know US UK has to get to Norway to use escorts to make it and US buying H. Bombers to get that +2 and allies Figs to Moscow for interceptors but that is in my game. But it seems to look like the same thing is happening in the G40 and 1942 games. I have to play test it more to see and guys in Triple A.

  • '17

    @Baron:

    @Ichabod:

    @Baron:

    IMO, if UK and USA invest in StBs, Germans Fgs will be required on ICs.
    Like WWII.

    1. To get more people to accept this HR, would it make sense to lower tac. bombers’ costs to 10 while keeping fighter’s
    cost at 10 to help counter balance? In many cases, a fighter is more valuable than a tac. bomber because defense can’t be projected, only offense.

    2. Fighters/Escorts BOTH roll @2, all bombers roll @1 during the dogfight…would this add to and support this HR? I think so.

    I really like the idea of strategic bombers being primarily used for strategic bombing! To get more people to accept this HR, would it make sense to lower tac. bomber costs to 10 to help counter balance? Escorts and Interceptor dogfights would become more a part of the game. Also, I personally would like to incorporate the triplea balanced mod rule of BOTH escorts/interceptors rolling @2 in the air battle while all Bombers roll @1. I like distinguishing the combat capabilities between fighters and bombers.

    In which game would you like to introduce BalMode SBR into?

    In this house rule as proposed by Black_Elk for Global 1940.

    If people take the bombers as hits over more expensive fighters, than so be it. It’s part of the risk to bomb with a cheaper C5 s.bomber. In regards to your realism argument of recreating the dogfights/bomber scenarios of the actual war, well, bombers went down more often than fighters. Bombers were more likely to be shot down than fighters by the bomber’s guns; so taking cheaper bombers as hits inadvertently creates a similar casualty scenario. I think the gamism of bombers costing 5, and fighters/escorts rolling @2, still results in similar types of casualties.

    In my meta game, as the German player, I see myself having to buy a ton of fighters to be escorts for bombing Moscow as the allies can add upwards of 6-9 fighters stationed in Moscow just in time to stall the game. Eventually pressure might require the UK to fly some south to help India, but I end up needing lots of fighters regardless. And I don’t mind both interceptors/escorts rolling @2 during the dogfight because the allies need those fighters more for rolling @4 to protect Moscow when it’s time for the big battle. Â

  • '17 '16

    Just a small note, SS game works with D12 digits  instead of D6.
    So you have to cut in half combat values to get usual numbers.
    Basic bomber C5 gets A1 (D12) damage D6 in SBR but no attack in reg combat.
    Because it faces Fg A4 D4 (D12 too) C6-7, a more powerful interceptor, than what is suggested in this OP thread.
    (D6 digit, now)
    In SFR Escort and intercept is as OOB: Fg A1 D1  C10, and reg cbt A3 D4 but M4-6, due to AB+2M
    Bomber cost 5 are A0 D0 in all situations, damage D6.


  • OOOPs, Sorry forgot to mention that. Thanks Baron.

    Also I’m not a big fan of Allies Fighters defending Russia !!! Correct me if I’m wrong but they really weren’t doing that in the war. But if I’m wrong let me know. CWO will. lol


  • @SS:

    Also I’m not a big fan of Allies Fighters defending Russia !!! Correct me if I’m wrong but they really weren’t doing that in the war. But if I’m wrong let me know. CWO will. lol

    I’m not aware of any American-manned or British-manned fighter squadrons operating inside the USSR during WWII (in contrast with the American-manned Flying Tiger squadron that operated inside China).  It’s possible that the US or the UK may have supplied the USSR with actual fighter planes, but offhand I doubt that they did so to any great extent.  A few US long-range bombers on missions against China did end up landing in the USSR during the war, and I think that the planes were seized by the Russians because Russia had a neutrality pact with Japan for most of the war.  (That’s how the B-29 got reverse-engineered and copied by the Russians as the Tupolev Tu-4 bomber.)

  • '17

    @SS:

    OOOPs, Sorry forgot to mention that. Thanks Baron.

    Also I’m not a big fan of Allies Fighters defending Russia !!! Correct me if I’m wrong but they really weren’t doing that in the war. But if I’m wrong let me know. CWO will. lol

    They weren’t. I don’t recall reading or hearing about any allied units operating in Russia period. Hence the NO which partly discusses no allied units in Russia. However, it’s a gamism in G40 which a good allies player must fly fighters to Moscow in order to prevent it from falling practically no matter what. Once again, I don’t mind the interceptors/escorts rolling @2 because it’s a test of wills at that point to intercept.

    I do like Black_Elk’s house rule idea of bombers only strat bombing, and the C5.


  • I know all about the figs to Russia to save them in all games. Some 39 games I have you can’t.

    I do have his house rule in game D12 using Baron’s mods with Figs A4 D4 M4-5 C7
    Escorts and Interceptors A4 D4 and Stg. Bomber @1 dogfight.

    The Figs haven’t shot down as many Stg. Bombers as you would think. I have posted in the Global War thread my last 5 turns in a game for SBR’s.

  • '17 '16 '15

    Adding income for Russia via NO’s and/or giving their valueless TTys all a buck, is necessary imo. Tying no allied units allowed for some/all of the NOs to take effect helps keep Allied units out of Russia.

    Russia gets a extra 4 bucks a turn if all her TTys produce. Germany can get Vyborg and Bessarabia (or Italy) easy enough when they attack, but tying the NOs to a Axis attacks gives them a little bit more of a decision on when to attack. Even a few extra bucks can help Russia early.

    Germany can still bull rush and kill Russia, although it’s a lot harder, unless allies help. Idk how likely it would’ve been for allied air units to show up in the real war if Russia was close to falling late "42 or "43, but since this is a “what if” kinda game anyway, I don’t mind the option.

    Just don’t like it being the only, or so much better than the others, option.

  • '17

    @barney:

    Adding income for Russia via NO’s and/or giving their valueless TTys all a buck, is necessary imo. Tying no allied units allowed for some/all of the NOs to take effect helps keep Allied units out of Russia.

    True…that’s why it’s often the case that on UK5 the fighters land on Moscow from E. Persia.

  • Sponsor

    Not to derail from the original idea which I think is good… I like the lone role for strategic Bombers at 5 IPCs, but I can’t say I’m a fan of increasing the extended range on air bases.

    Here’s my opinion…

    All aircraft range with or without an airbase stays the same as oob.
    Strategic Bombers cost 5 IPCs each and get a +2 damage bonus
    Escorts and interceptors dog fight @2 or less all Bombers dog fight @1
    Strategic bombers my extend their max range by 1, but they lose their +2 damage bonus
    Escorts may extend their max range by 1, but they now dog fight @1 instead of @2 or less

    *extended range for dropping damage bonus and dog fight values may be done with or without an air base.

    …this to me would accurately represent the idea of fuel reserves being depleted for further range, bombers would need lighter pay loads, and escorts would have to break off earlier.

  • '17 '16

    @Young:

    Not to derail from the original idea which I think is good… I like the lone role for strategic Bombers at 5 IPCs, but I can’t say I’m a fan of increasing the extended range on air bases.

    Here’s my opinion…

    All aircraft range with or without an airbase stays the same as oob.
    Strategic Bombers cost 5 IPCs each and get a +2 damage bonus
    Escorts and interceptors dog fight @2 or less all Bombers dog fight @1
    Strategic bombers my extend their max range by 1, but they lose their +2 damage bonus
    Escorts may extend their max range by 1, but they now dog fight @1 instead of @2 or less

    *extended range for dropping damage bonus and dog fight values may be done with or without an air base.

    …this to me would accurately represent the idea of fuel reserves being depleted for further range, bombers would need lighter pay loads, and escorts would have to break off earlier.

    Already on houserule tweak on an houserule.  :-D
    If someone try it, I suggest to only add+1 dmg bonus. (+2 is too OP for C5 unit)
    That way, you exchange +1 on dmg or attack for +1M range.

    Fg A2 D2 vs StB A1 in SBR only is something to try eventually, but it has many undesired secondary effects.
    SS play-test have cheaper StB C5, TcB C8 and Fg C7. And it takes two StBs to get A1 on Fg D2.
    Looking at is report on Global War variants gives a glimpse of what can  happen.
    It is easy to risk these units in dogfight.
    However at 10, when you have more important regular mission, you don’t like these risks.
    I would say it produces more easily interceptors stay grounded than scrambling toward bombers.

    However, I suggest people to try it against yourself with Triple A.
    1942.2 is a good start to get to the change.

    Also, this idea work fairly on Tabletop game but much more difficult to modify in Triple A.

    However, it would be the most accurate according to history.

Suggested Topics

  • 4
  • 68
  • 6
  • 1
  • 21
  • 42
  • 72
  • 20
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

27

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts