New Strategic Bomber (for SBR exclusively)

[baron Münchhausen]

@SS:

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

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

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

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

[Black_Elk]

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

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

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

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

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

[barney]

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

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

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

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

[Young Grasshopper]

@Baron:

@SS:

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

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

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

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

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

[General 6 Stars]

@Ichabod:

@SS:

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

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

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

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

[baron Münchhausen]

It was hard to read…
I just add the missing “]”
@Ichabod:

@SS:

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

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

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

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

[Ichabod]

@Baron:

Have you tried play testing this on the tabletop board game or Triple A using the D6 system ? No. Probably will never get the chance to for either D6 or a D12 system. When you don’t have a regular table top group that meets 2x a month…it’s really hard to get anyone to do anything other than the Larry Harris approved G42 or OOB G40 setup. I’m currently trying to convince people to try YG’s House Rules…for an upcoming game. So far, I only got 1 bite… I’m not trying make this a D12 system.
I have had 2 game designers say they love the way the D 12 works.
Like BE said not for TA. I was just showing some results of play testing .

[baron Münchhausen]

@barney:

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

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

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

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

Yes I was looking for 2 bombers to get the first @1. If not paired, A0.
As I can rationalize, StBs were better defending in massive formation.
Both StBs seems a way to simulate how each other machine gun can protect with enough efficiency than a single Fighter.
It keeps the comparative power of bombers compared to Fg in SBR.
Pairing two units is a known A&A mechanic.
This time, it is the same kind of units, however.
The low roll @1 makes for a much lower attrition per SBR, on both part.
But it still keeps the 1:2 from the initial suggestion (A1 vs D2).
So, this means 1StB A0, 2 or 3 StBs 1A1, 4 or 5 StBs 2A1, 6 or 7 StB 3A1, 8-9 StBs 4A1, etc.

As Black Elk said:
@Black_Elk:

At that point the attacker has effectively psych-warred the escort/intercept rules out of play. The game then reverts to a more classic style calculus, where the attacker determines how many bombers to bring based mainly on expected AAAfire losses, rather than the expected intercept. Here risk aversion plays a major factor on an individual basis. Some players may elect to bring only 2-3 bombers (trying to sneak over the AAfire with no losses on average) whereas others will bring 6 or more (expecting to likely lose 1 bomber, but make up the difference on average with damage to enemy facilities.) But that’s all familiar territory by now. The promise of escort/intercept was for something rather new, but to get there intercept is really the key. Intercept leads over escort in gameplay importance, because without the former the latter becomes irrelevant, and the game defaults to aaafire as the only real consideration. This is basically what we were referring to when we talked about giving up a realistic strategic representation of Bombing and Escort/Intercept writ large, for a tactical representation of the bomber in dogfighting that might be of questionable value. Since it really doesn’t matter what value the bomber hits at, unless the dog-fighting situation has a chance to regularly materialize in the first place.

So this is the dilemma… the challenge to create an SBR dog-fighting dynamic that encourages interception and is easy to understand and calculate, but which doesn’t go so extreme that it deters bombing or escort altogether.

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

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

This provides an alternative to the single shot @1 bomber group.

Do you know, Barney, if this last one is possible in Triple A?

[Black_Elk]

Aha so basically using a combined arms-like method, but with two of the same unit, then hacking this only into the dogfight?

Is it possible? If so that would be ideal.

Ps. If the combined arms is not possible, then I would explore the opening shot at a higher hit value idea, as the next best thing. Though I think in that case, you have to allow that the “group shot” for the whole wing might sometimes be just a lone bomber. Not sure what the ideal numbers there might be.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Black_Elk:

Aha so basically using a combined arms-like method, but with two of the same unit, then hacking this only into the dogfight?

Is it possible? If so that would be ideal.

It is the idea.
It seems to better gives the feel of “a bigger flock the bigger the danger for Fgs intercepting”, than a single roll @1 for whole group.

The issue I have about StB A1 vs D2 Fg is more about the TUV swing which makes for more damage on both sides, even if the break even ratio is similar to A0 vs D1.

[barney]

Unfortunately I don’t see an acceptable solution. You’d have to go to the D12, which I imagine people won’t like because of the numbers changing on all the units.

Or make two different bmbrs, one who can air battle and one that can’t. That is both sloppy and messy. Also I don’t think you can pick your AA casualties anymore. Someone else might know a way but…Idk.

[baron Münchhausen]

@barney:

Unfortunately I don’t see an acceptable solution. You’d have to go to the D12, which I imagine people won’t like because of the numbers changing on all the units.

Or make two different bmbrs, one who can air battle and one that can’t. That is both sloppy and messy. Also I don’t think you can pick your AA casualties anymore. Someone else might know a way but…Idk.

And is there a way to give A@1 for the whole bombers group, at least with Triple A engine?

[barney]

Not that I can see.

[barney]

@Baron
Is there anyway you can incorporate a 2 hit bmbr ? 10 bucks takes two hits to kill. Idk, any extra hits would then get applied.

E.g. you only send 1 bmbr against 3 intercpts, they get two hits you only lose five bucks. Lose 10 the other way. Plus you lose the C5, which is a major part of the appeal.

Probably not worth exploring.

Could buy a A0 C5 and upgrade to a 2hit A1 for 5 bucks. Idk about that either

If it took 1 hit goes back to A0. C5 to repair

[baron Münchhausen]

@Baron:

@Black_Elk:

Aha so basically using a combined arms-like method, but with two of the same unit, then hacking this only into the dogfight?

Is it possible? If so that would be ideal.

It is the idea.
It seems to better gives the feel of “a bigger flock the bigger the danger for Fgs intercepting”, than a single roll @1 for whole group.

The issue I have about StB A1 vs D2 Fg is more about the TUV swing which makes for more damage on both sides, even if the break even ratio is similar to A0 vs D1.

I wanted to see how much TUV swing it means in lost bomber to interceptors.
Example:
4 StBs C5  4A1 vs 4 Fgs C10 D2 gives these:

39.8% 1 StB lost:- 2.00 IPCs
29.5% 2 StBs lost: -2.95 IPCs
10.0% 3 StBs lost: -1.5 IPCs
1.3% 4 StBs lost: -0.26 IPCs
Sum: - 6.71 IPCs = 1.342 StBs C5 lost

38.3% 1 Fg lost: +3.83 IPCs
11.5% 2 Fgs lost: +2.30 IPCs
1.5% 3 Fgs lost: +0.45 IPCs
Sum: +6.58 IPCs = 0.658 Fgs C10 lost

TUV swing: - 6.71 +6.58 = -0.13 IPCs

4 StBs C5  1*A1 vs 4 Fgs C10 D1 gives these:

39.7% 1 StB lost:- 1.99 IPCs
11.7% 2 StB lost: -1.17 IPCs
1.41% 3 StBs lost: -0.21 IPCs
Sum: - 3.37 IPCs = 0.674 StBs C5 lost

16.7% 1 Fg lost: +1.67 IPCs = 0.167 Fg C10 lost

TUV swing: -3.37+1.67= - 1.70 IPCs

4 StBs C5  1*A1 vs 4 Fgs C10 D1 gives these:
39.7% 1 StB lost:- 1.99 IPCs
11.7% 2 StB lost: -1.17 IPCs
1.41% 3 StBs lost: -0.21 IPCs
Sum: - 3.37 IPCs = 0.674 StBs C5 lost
TUV swing: -3.37 IPCs

This means that 4 A1 vs 4 Fg D2, not considering AAA and bombing, is almost an even confrontation (TUV -0.13 IPC).
So a 1:1 interception, is not that interesting as defender.
Meaning 0.026 StB C5 lost.

The other case 4 StBs 1A1 vs 4 Fg D1 gives more interesting results for intercepting (TUV -1.70 IPCs), always considering dogfight phase only.
Meaning 0.340 StB C5 lost.

Finally, the most interesting which imply no Fighter loss and results for higher intercept TUV -3.37 IPCs.
Which means like 0.674 StB C5 lost.

So the issue is clearly about making StB far more too dangerous so interception is not a good deal at all.

If anyone trying A1 vs D2, I believe there will be a lot of no confrontations.
SBR will be too much killer for intercepting Fg for low results.
If Allies cannot bring Escort, they will wait until gaining a critical number (just above 1:1 or simply on FIT 3:2) then defending player will see no good reason to risk them. It’s going to be two giants glaring at each other.
I can hardly get a different conclusion…

From a Triple A POV, the only good and fully giving interesting and intended result is A0 C5 vs Fg A1 D1 C10.

Of course, it is a different SBR game with what SS is play-testing on his Global War Map: StB C5 A1 vs Fg C7 A2 D2.
Instead of TUV -0.13, you will get far more positive results for the interceptors.
Simply because there is less IPCs loss per Fg:

4 StBs C5  4A1 vs 4 Fg C7 D2 gives these:

39.8% 1 StB lost:- 2.00 IPCs
29.5% 2 StBs lost: -2.95 IPCs
10.0% 3 StBs lost: -1.5 IPCs
1.3% 4 StBs lost: -0.26 IPCs
Sum: - 6.71 IPCs = 1.342 StBs C5 lost

38.3% 1 Fg lost: +2.68 IPCs
11.5% 2 Fgs lost: +1.61 IPCs
1.5% 3 Fgs lost: +0.32 IPCs
Sum: +4.61 IPCs = 0.658 Fgs C7 lost

TUV swing: - 6.71 +4.61 = -2.10 IPCs
Meaning 0.420 StB C5 lost.

And this TUV-2.10 IPCs is exactly between A0 (-3.37 IPCs) and 1A1 per bombers group (-1.70 IPCs).

Which is where all people gets what they want.
Except, it requires to lower regular combat power and cost of Fg and TcB.
That way, all will be balanced within itself.

---

Here is a comparative summary of these 4 scenarii above:

A) 4 StBs C5 4A1 vs 4 Fgs C10 D2
TUV swing: -6.71 +6.58 = -0.13 IPCs Meaning 0.026 StB C5 lost.

B) 4 StBs C5  1*A1 vs 4 Fgs C10 D1
TUV swing: -3.37+1.67= - 1.70 IPCs Meaning 0.340 StB C5 lost.

C) 4 StBs C5  A0 vs 4 Fgs C10 D1
TUV swing: -3.37 +0 = -3.37 IPCs   Meaning 0.674 StB C5 lost.

D) 4 StBs C5 4A1 vs 4 Fgs C7 D2
TUV swing: - 6.71 +4.61 = -2.10 IPCs  Meaning 0.420 StB C5 lost.

A last note, between scenario A and C, even if A (A1 bomber) is almost zero TUV swing but avg damage on both attacker and defender are the highest of all 4 cases: near 6.6 IPCs. On the contrary, case C (A0 bomber) gives the highest TUV swing but damage are only 3.37 IPCs.

[Black_Elk]

In my view lowering the cost of other aircraft will be a non starter for most players, too much of a cascading effect down the entire roster. It may work in a complete overhaul (such as we were discussing for that other Philadelphia experiment project) but not optimal for a stand alone rule focused just on the bomber.

Because Escort/Intercept is integrally linked to SBR, I think players will accept alterations to the dogfighting values in isolation, but that is different than asking them to accept changes in the cost and regular combat abilities of fighters and tacs.

I prefer rule where only the cost of the bomber is altered. I will say I think the 5 ipc spot is pretty key to the idea getting up off the ground. If the new bomber unit is in competition with other popular units at 6, 7, 8 or more ipcs, I think it becomes much less attractive as a purchase option. The real beauty of the 5 spot, is that it allows players to spend a 2 IPC remainder (over infantry) for a single unit that is actually useful. Once you enter the range of 2 combat units vs 1 unit that has no combat role, there are generally better ways to spend the money. This begins at 6 ipcs, 2 infantry, (which is already in competion with subs and tanks at purchase). So I would really suggest we try to preserve the 5 spot for the bomber. It is the ideal slot in the roster.

@Baron:

@Baron:

If anyone trying A1 vs D2, I believe there will be a lot of no confrontations.
SBR will be too much killer for intercepting Fg for low results.
If Allies cannot bring Escort, they will wait until gaining a critical number (just above 1:1 or simply on FIT 3:2) then defending player will see no good reason to risk them. It’s going to be two giants glaring at each other.
I can hardly get a different conclusion…

From a Triple A POV, the only good and fully giving interesting and intended result is A0 C5 vs Fg A1 D1 C10.

Of course, it is a different SBR game with what SS is play-testing on his Global War Map: StB C5 A1 vs Fg C7 A2 D2.
Instead of TUV -0.13, you will get far more positive results for the interceptors.
Simply because there is less IPCs loss per Fg:

4 StBs C5  4A1 vs 4 Fg C7 D2 gives these:

39.8% 1 StB lost:- 2.00 IPCs
29.5% 2 StBs lost: -2.95 IPCs
10.0% 3 StBs lost: -1.5 IPCs
1.3% 4 StBs lost: -0.26 IPCs
Sum: - 6.71 IPCs = 1.342 StBs C5 lost

38.3% 1 Fg lost: +2.68 IPCs
11.5% 2 Fgs lost: +1.61 IPCs
1.5% 3 Fgs lost: +0.32 IPCs
Sum: +4.61 IPCs = 0.658 Fgs C7 lost

TUV swing: - 6.71 +4.61 = -2.10 IPCs
Meaning 0.420 StB C5 lost.

And this TUV-2.10 IPCs is exactly between A0 (-3.37 IPCs) and 1A1 per bombers group (-1.70 IPCs).

Which is where all people gets what they want.
Except, it requires to lower regular combat power and cost of Fg and TcB.
That way, all will be balanced within itself.

---

Here is a comparative summary of these 4 scenarii above:

A) 4 StBs C5 4A1 vs 4 Fgs C10 D2
TUV swing: -6.71 +6.58 = -0.13 IPCs Meaning 0.026 StB C5 lost.

B) 4 StBs C5  1*A1 vs 4 Fgs C10 D1
TUV swing: -3.37+1.67= - 1.70 IPCs Meaning 0.340 StB C5 lost.

C) 4 StBs C5  A0 vs 4 Fgs C10 D1
TUV swing: -3.37 +0 = -3.37 IPCs   Meaning 0.674 StB C5 lost.

d) 4 StBs C5 4A1 vs 4 Fgs C7 D2
TUV swing: - 6.71 +4.61 = -2.10 IPCs  Meaning 0.420 StB C5 lost.

A last note, between scenario A and C, even if A (A1 bomber) is almost zero TUV swing but avg damage on both attacker and defender are the highest of all 4 cases: near 6.6 IPCs. On the contrary, case C (A0 bomber) gives the highest TUV swing but damage are only 3.37 IPCs.

[Black_Elk]

@barney:

Also I don’t think you can pick your AA casualties anymore. Someone else might know a way but…Idk.

Just to confirm, is this an issue with the current draft gamefile? Or just the result of trying to make these adjustments suggested more recently?

[barney]

I was mistaken. Before you could pick tacs as AA casualties when your bmbrs were hitting factories. Now you can’t. It confused me for a moment.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Black_Elk:

In my view lowering the cost of other aircraft will be a non starter for most players, too much of a cascading effect down the entire roster. It may work in a complete overhaul (such as we were discussing for that other Philadelphia experiment project) but not optimal for a stand alone rule focused just on the bomber.

Because Escort/Intercept is integrally linked to SBR, I think players will accept alterations to the dogfighting values in isolation, but that is different than asking them to accept changes in the cost and regular combat abilities of fighters and tacs.

I prefer rule where only the cost of the bomber is altered. I will say I think the 5 ipc spot is pretty key to the idea getting up off the ground. If the new bomber unit is in competition with other popular units at 6, 7, 8 or more ipcs, I think it becomes much less attractive as a purchase option. The real beauty of the 5 spot, is that it allows players to spend a 2 IPC remainder (over infantry) for a single unit that is actually useful. Once you enter the range of 2 combat units vs 1 unit that has no combat role, there are generally better ways to spend the money. This begins at 6 ipcs, 2 infantry, (which is already in competion with subs and tanks at purchase). So I would really suggest we try to preserve the 5 spot for the bomber. It is the ideal slot in the roster.

You bring a good case for StB 5 IPCs spot for a non-combat unit, SBR only.
Also, that some unit like an 8 IPCs DDs (5$+ Inf C3) is competing for grabbing these 5 unused IPCs too.
I didn’t think about the StB C5, Fg C7, TcB C8 as somehow competing for the IPCs.
Probably something to look and ask to SS about how this cost structure is limiting or not StB purchase.

I never intended to really promote it, I simply goes just a bit further to see where this 7 IPCs Fighter is.
I’ve got these numbers under my nose.  :-)
What is still interesting for an overhaul project is that it can be tried somehow on Triple A.
There is no obstacle.

I know we are pretty convinced on the A0 StBs, even if an StB A1 vs Fg A2 D2 would better when looking at this combat values.
Keeping the 5 IPCs spot, make that A0 not the perfect SBR but, at least, pretty much better.

However, do you think we should still give a chance to StB A1 vs Fg A2 D2?
Here, I’m willing to take the bet.
Ichabod and YG will not be the only two persons which will prefer these values.
Do you think we need to make these two Triple A programs like SFR A0 and SFR A1?

That way, it allows to try both and compare.
So, if someone like Ichabod is convinced it will be better to explained to other how far SFR A0 is so good.
On the other side, if Ichabod still find SFR A1 more interesting, maybe we have to test it deeper.
Maybe the competitive aspect is more attractive in game than a real cost effective calculation. IDK.

Also, the people willing to try something like Balanced Mode in League are already used to these values (A1 vs Fg A2 D2).
Maybe it becomes easier for them to accept the change if they can tests both?

Numbers and words are not as convincing than real play-tests, and also it is funnier to play than read.  :-D

[Black_Elk]

I think it is definitely worth exploring both, yes.

I would concede and drop A0 in dogfighting if that’s what is required in the end for a concensus rule. So long as it costs 5 ipcs, and the alternative dogfighting values don’t totally shut down intercept, I would be totally willing to accept StB@ A1 vs FG@ A2/D2.

I honestly don’t know how many players will pay close enough attention to the FIT, or calculate the cost/benefit ratios to even realize why we are preferring A0 haha. It just needs to be close enough that it’s not obviously broken going too extreme in either direction.

I’m really most interested in the general concept of the 1 role bomber at C5, over the OOB dual role bomber at C12 for what it does at the broadest strategic level for economic warfare and naval balance. Improved escort/intercept is like the icing on the cake. But I don’t just want to eat the icing by itself here. If that makes sense
:-D