New Strategic Bomber (for SBR exclusively)

[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

[baron Münchhausen]

@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

This 5 IPCs StBs solved a few inconsistencies.

• Add an interesting 5 IPCs unit in the roster cost structure which was still missing (since Tank rise to 6 IPCs)

• Increase the SBR interactions and makes escort and intercept a more viable tactics

• No more OP Projection of Air Power (Dark Sky Strategy). No planes were able to provide such air support on so wide number of TTys.

• No more StBs Attack@4 vs Fighter D@4. How can you describe what it is suppose to depict in WW2?

• No more accurate bombing of Naval Fleet in middle of Ocean (PTO or ATO) with StB A4.
  The only rare example of such events in WWII were more famous misses, like B-17 against Nagumo’s Carrier in Battle of Midway.
  And numerous air raids on German Bismarck’s sister ship Tirpiz at seaport in Norway!

• An increase purchase of TcBs as the sole unit able to reach A4 when air covered by Fighter.
  (Mostly accurate, when you think about Midway US Torpedoe bombers, for example.)

• Air Bases become more important to get long range bonus with TcB and Fg, which was not necessary with M6 StB.

If there is other you have in mind, tell me I will add into this list.

[Black_Elk]

I’d be really curious to see what effect this bomber change in isolation has on the balance by sides, in Global and in 1942.2.

One thing I don’t really expect it to do is change the center crush as optimal Axis gameplay. But at least it would seem to give the Allies more to work with in countering that crush.

In 1942.2 the Americans clearly benefit at Pearl when the Japanese bomber is removed from its regular combat role. This alone makes the Allied situation more interesting on that board for the standard opener. I have seen that play pretty well scripted by now, so it will be fun to see what taking that option out of the Japanese play book does for the Pacific on the smaller scale map. The standard use for the German bomber is rather less scripted, but typically comes down to one of 3 basic attacks, either against UK ships, Russian ground, or possibly an Egypt gambit (if Allies do nothing with the canal.) Now presumably, it just takes a shot on SBR either London or Caucasus. Similarly the British bomber is generally used to kill German ships in the standard opener, whereas now it also likely takes a crack at SBR. How this changes the TUV swing out of the first round compared to OOB should be pretty interesting to see, but basically it amounts to fewer units destroyed in the opener.

In Global the effect is somewhat more immediate since you have 2 German stratBs removed from regular combat. The ripple effect here could be pretty significant, and Japan follows hot on their heels, with 2 bombers of their own being removed from regular combat. Would this alone change the appeal of J1DoW? Again pretty interesting. Surely by the time you get to UK/Italy, the game’s opening round should have a rather different flavor than the standard play book OOB. Again at its most basic, fewer units destroyed in round one.

That’s just the opener though, the midgame is where it gets interesting, especially from a play pace perspective. If, as designed, the bomber leads to more consistent bombing each round, then presumably this will tighten up the unit spam over time. More money spent on repair, means fewer units entering play overall (particularly for the nations most susceptible to long term bombing.) Some have argued that this may accelerate game resolution. Less money, less units, less rolling etc. I’m not entirely convinced there, since even a game like the A&A 1941 starter board v6 can drag haha, but in principle, this sort of thing is supposed to ultimately speed up the game. What remains to be seen is whether we get a blow out, since that’s not really optimal. But one can hope that the Allies/America will be able to do more to curtail the German economy. Japan is rather more difficult to reach, but a cheaper bomber at 5 should encourage more raids against facilities, so even there, we might see Allies pushing the needle a bit.

I think it would be worth trying as a stand alone tweak. Put it in the experiment section of the maps depot in TripleA, if that’s possible, and let players just toy around with it. The rest can stay as OOB for Global and 1942.2, and we’ll see where it puts the game on balance by sides with nothing else going on.

That would be a cool experiment I think, controlling for just the one element, to see what happens.

I think we just call it SBR only “cost 5 bomber” or “strategic bomber cost 5”, or something like that, so the file name is as descriptive as possible…

1942 v5 SBR only Strategic Bomber cost 5

Global 1940 SBR only Strategic Bomber cost 5

So you can tell at a glance, when downloading maps, exactly what is on offer. Sure the name isn’t exactly catchy, but at least it’s pretty clear haha.

For a stated table top rule, I’m fine if we want to go with the C5 bomber @ A1 vs @ A2/D2 as the standard, but I would like to at least mention the possibility of dogfighting values @ A0 vs @A1/D1 as a footnote or alternate option, or something like that, because it is a pretty different dynamic and others might find it interesting. It’s not the most obvious leap to make either, for an escort/intercept option, and pretty different than OOB, or the @1 situation. It would be nice to at least have it on record as something that is workable under C5 conditions, should the player wish to explore a rather different abstract modelling of escort/intercept.

[Black_Elk]

So for names…

1 role, SBR only, Cost 5?
Seems pretty descriptive
:-D

Thus far I like Baron’s suggestion of “Enigma” or Enigma Code, for a general name of the process.
Players can set up their own code, within the framework provided, and crack the game using whatever house rules their group finds most intriguing.

I think many of the ideas suggested so far are compatible with each other, or could function as one offs.

Essentially what we’re trying to do is set up a bigger house for our house rules. The more people who use similar rules based on standards, the better chance people have of finding like minded opponents for a given mod. The idea being that some rules become more commonplace, as the bid has been.

We have a number of balancing mechanisms available, to accomodate any round 1 distortions that might occur on a given map under a given ruleset. So I’m less concerned with overall balance at the moment, and more interested in expanding the gameplay options.

I like the idea of different “settings”

Right now I’m towing with the San Francisco ruleset.

We have also seen a few other ruleset mods that it would be cool to accomodate, features used in the Balance Mod like the marine (or special forces concept), or Halifax/Cliffside rules that have used different production profiles of various kinds.

I like the edit mode a lot. It’s what makes tripleA superior to the other digital versions that came out in the past. Most things one could want to change in terms of set ups are easily accomplished. One thing you can’t really do on the fly is change features of the map itself (like territory value or connections) but there are workarounds for that stuff as well, either player enforced (edited) or just by player agreement (movement restrictions.)
I can see a lot of options though. In a way it’s similar to the table top, where most people won’t want to draw on, or otherwise permenantly mess with the gameboard itself. So kind of similar restrictions in what’s on offer there. But this tech mod concept feels like a winner for getting some of this stuff in tripleA, so it can more closely emulate the table top experience.

[Black_Elk]

So just to let people know what we’re cooking up…

We have the 1 role bomber at A0 in the dogfight (with escort/intercept A1/D1), and this can be upgraded via the auto-tech “UpGun” which gives the bomber A1 in the dogfight (with intercept raised D2). So everyone can be happy.

We have an Airbase that grants +2 movement only when conducting SBR or Escort, otherwise it is the standard +1. (This might need to be player enforced for now, but we’ll work on it.)

A bunch of other stuff will be included in the package as well, so hopefully some of these HR ideas we’ve been kicking around lately will get a chance to see more action in tripleA pickup games. More after the weekend. Thanks to Barney for rocking it non stop!

Take it easy all, catch you next round.
:-D

[Ichabod]

Black_Elk,

I like that you included both options for the 1 role bomber. I would be interested to try both dice levels for the air battle (A0 / A1/D1) and (A1 / A2/D2).

When do you think this HR idea will be available for play on tripleA? Please make it for the Global setup. Should I contact you when/if I find a bug or problem with the HR?

If only I had a group who played table top so much that they’d be willing to try out several different House Rules. What really happens is that people say, oh yeah, “let’s try out this or that house rule.” However, what actually happens when we get together 3 weeks later for the scheduled game, is that they’re too “scared” to “waste” time trying out a house rule. We end up bidding for the allies under OOB rules.

I’m really interested in trying this out.

Good Job!

Ichabod

[A Former User]

The discussion seems to be centered around risk.  Risk to the bomber against damage inflicted.

I would propose the risk should be low to losing the aircraft, but the damage inflicted would be less.  B17 raids were, on average, only 20% effective during the war.  So the dice roll for defense should not be just a hit against the bombers but a subtraction against the roll by the attacker.  Maybe use 1d6-1 for tacB AAA, and 1d6-2 for strB. 
That modified number is then subtracted from the damage done by the bomber.  strB do not get the +2 modifier. 
If modDef roll is 4 or 5, then the bomber is lost.  This would change odds of shooting done a strB to 1:18 and tacB to 5:36.  The build cost should probably just stay same as OOB rules.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Ichabod:

Black_Elk,

I like that you included both options for the 1 role bomber. I would be interested to try both dice levels for the air battle (A0 / A1/D1) and (A1 / A2/D2).

When do you think this HR idea will be available for play on tripleA? Please make it for the Global setup. Should I contact you when/if I find a bug or problem with the HR?

If only I had a group who played table top so much that they’d be willing to try out several different House Rules. What really happens is that people say, oh yeah, “let’s try out this or that house rule.” However, what actually happens when we get together 3 weeks later for the scheduled game, is that they’re too “scared” to “waste” time trying out a house rule. We end up bidding for the allies under OOB rules.

I’m really interested in trying this out.

Good Job!

Ichabod

Barney is working hard on it, night and days. (Literally!)  :roll:
He is on G40 actually. Later, he will insert options into V5 1942.2
You will probably enjoy all the options you will get from this Triple A Redesign project.
I’m happy you feel enthusiastic about it.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Carolina:

The discussion seems to be centered around risk.  Risk to the bomber against damage inflicted.

I would propose the risk should be low to losing the aircraft, but the damage inflicted would be less.  B17 raids were, on average, only 20% effective during the war.  So the dice roll for defense should not be just a hit against the bombers but a subtraction against the roll by the attacker.  Maybe use 1d6-1 for tacB AAA, and 1d6-2 for strB. 
**That modified number is then subtracted from the damage done by the bomber. ** strB do not get the +2 modifier. 
If modDef roll is 4 or 5, then the bomber is lost.  This would change odds of shooting done a strB to 1:18 and tacB to 5:36.  The build cost should probably just stay same as OOB rules.

Actually, Triple A engine does not allow for such a change like AAguns reducing damage to StB roll.
The actual play-tested is StB A0 C5 vs Fg D1. Bombing : D6 damage.
But, on the principle you are very right. Damage should be reduced.
And odds of shooting down as low as possible.
Hence, with Triple A we preferred A0 vs Fg D1, then IC’s AAgun @1 is the lowest casualty rate we can get if a 1:1 interception occurs.
Meaning, 25/36 (5/6*5/6) odds of survival for StBs: 69.44% for an StB to survive both rolls.
To rise this rate around 83% (17% of being shot down), you need 2 StBs or 3 StBs per 1 Fg.
And giving attack factor to StB increase so much the interceptor casualty rate, that A0 was chosen.
That way, only escorting Fg A1 can attack in SBR dogfight.

Lowering to 5 IPCs StBs A0 D0 makes for a single purpose StB which is more willingly sacrifice.
Otherwise, we return to OOB paradigm: which makes StBs better than any unit in power and threat projection.

Do you know where you get this number of 20% of accuracy on target?
I only found casualty rate from 12% to a high 30%, if I recall correctly.

[Ichabod]

I wish the triplea dice for strategic bombing was OOB. Right now, and probably for a long time it’s been rolling an 8 sided dice rather than a 6 sided dice with the +2 for bomb damage bonus. Maybe this is just a tripleA thing that can’t be fixed…

This sucks; especially for the 12 IPC costly bomber being risked. You could risk 3 bombers and literally roll a 1, 2, 3 (6 damage), when that should at least have been 12 damage.

In a way, the bomber only role (and costing just 5 IPCs), I think this actually helps mitigate the 8 sided dice thing.

[barney]

@Ichabod

Are you using latest triplea ? I thought this was fixed a while back. I think it’s 3-8 for potential damage.

[Ichabod]

Yes.

Ok…so if the dice really only rolls 3-8, then it is fixed. Huh…totally missed this then thinking that it was not working right due to having some times of getting very minimal amounts of damaged.

[barney]

@Ichabod:

Yes.

Ok…so if the dice really only rolls 3-8, then it is fixed. Huh…totally missed this then thinking that it was not working right due to having some times of getting very minimal amounts of damaged.

Know what you mean. First time I was trying it I never got a 7 or 8 for a long time. thought it was broke. :)

[Black_Elk]

Yeah it should be pretty cool, giving players some flexibility to test the bomber concept under different conditions. I think it will be nice to accomodate the balance mod style dogfighting as well as the A0 situation.

It’s sure to be a work in progress for a time, while we figure out the best way to implement stuff, but at least we’ll have some other options to explore beyond just the standard bid. I’m excited
:-D

[baron Münchhausen]

@Gamerman01:

@Shin:

I prefer OOB G40 SBR, but only marginally. ** I think if you take away the +2 damage and leave fighters defending at 1, that would probably be fine.**  But then, I’ve only ever seen it as a nice option to have, one that is used sometimes.  For some reason, others saw it as an absolute must and a major problem.  I never really understood why.

Yeah, see he said in the first place it was minor to him.

I agree with his assessment here, about the +2 damage and fighters defending at 1

That’s the same thing I’m saying, really, that when Larry changed strats to a whopping +2 damage, no change was made to interceptors/escorts.  BM made the appropriate change and I think SBR is good in BM

@Gamerman01:

@Baron:

It doesn’t bother you that maxing out IC already reduced the effectiveness of StBs and Fg D2 deters bombers?

No
A big factor to me, is that with +2 damage the Strats are guaranteed to disable an airbase or naval base (if AA misses of course)  So the defender needs interceptors with defense of 2 I think, with +2 damage strats

So yeah, like you said, if bombers don’t have +2, then interceptors defending on a 1 is OK

Here is a good point about D6 C5 bomber against Air Base and Naval Base.
It is still possible to not render it inoperative in a 1 shot.

[baron Münchhausen]

However, here is IMO a cons against StB A0 D6 vs Fg A1 D1:

@simon33:

@Baron:

You don’t like it because it is broken?
Or because you don’t like the  rationalization behind?

I can see that USA increase Lend-lease toward Russia because they have to fight a two fronts war.
I see no issue. Why do you have one?

I don’t like the USSR-Japan interactions because they provide too much incentive for peace and I don’t consider that they make logical sense.

Re-SBR. The BM rules are good because they model the reality that unescorted bombers got totally massacred in the daytime without a massive numerical superiority. They’re also good game play wise because it allows a reasonable defence against an SBR. OOB a 3 bomber on 4 interceptor raid is close enough to a wash. I don’t reckon we should remove the +2 damage and reduce the defence to a 1. That would take you back to interception being usually a miss from both sides.

Probably an issue about what can be done against a lot of StBs bombing.
It comes a time in 1942.2 when there is not enough Fg to launch and they don’t have that much impact.

Should we allow that AAA unit in TTy can also have @1 non-stackable 1 shot roll up to 1 per plane max in dogfight phase?
It would be cheaper than Fg but same defense and would increase AAA usefulness.

---

Probably a vivid description of an issue which might arise about Japan bombing G40 India IC:

@simon33:

@Shin:

I prefer OOB G40 SBR, but only marginally.  I think if you take away the +2 damage and leave fighters defending at 1, that would probably be fine.  But then, I’ve only ever seen it as a nice option to have, one that is used sometimes.  For some reason, others saw it as an absolute must and a major problem.  I never really understood why.

I’m in the camp of seeing it as a major problem. Case in point, Calcutta. OOB, if the UK doesn’t buy an extra fighter, Japan will probably bomb it into submission from J2. I don’t think they should have to. The two starting fighters should be enough to defend against two unescorted bombers.

Moscow is similar but there you might send 3 bombers + 3 escorts against 6+ interceptors OOB which is a bit unreasonable to my way of thinking.

Do you think 2 StBs A0 against 2 Fg D1 is a reasonable defense when Japan can easily grow with 2 StBs C5 for each Fighter C10 India may provide?

The rate with no casualty is increasing 1 for 2:
R2 2:2, 50% casualty for 1 and 17% for the second
R3 3:4, 67% casualty for 1 and 17% for all another
R4 4:6, 84% casualty for first and 17% for five other.
R5 5:8, near 100% for first and 17% for seven other, near 117% or 1 and 1/6
R6 6:10, near 100% for first, and 17% for nine other near 150% or 1.5 StBs

It seems a reason for StB A1 vs Fg A2 D2.

At least on surface, fortunately it will be possible to try both SBR types.

I found my old table in Redesign thread, I bumped it here to be easier to find:

@Baron:

@SS:

So if you went 1D6 +2 be TUV swing of 3 or 4 ICPs ?

If you suppose most of SBR are against IC’s AAA only.
If you play within combat values Bomber A0 C5.
Using D6 damage (recommended ) avg TUV swing going to be 2.084 IPCs.
Using D6+2 damage (OP) avg TUV swing will be 3.750 IPCs.
(OOB G40 is actually 2.583 IPCs)

SBR HRules with StB A0 C5 and Fg A1 D1 C10: damage 1D6 or 1D6+2

1 Strategic Bomber doing SBR against no interceptor

AAA roll = odds casualties

5/6 StB survived * 5.5 IPCs = +4.583 IPCs or (D6) 5/6*3.5= +2.917
1/6 StB killed *5 IPCs = -0.833 IPCs

D6: +2.917-0.833= +2.084 IPCs
D6+2: + 4.583 - 0.833 = +3.750 IPCs damage/SBR

Global40 SBR HRules : 1 StB doing SBR without interceptor, damage 1D6+2 / damage 1D6

5/6 StB survived *3.5 IPCs = +2.917 IPCs

5/6 StB survived *5.5 IPCs = +4.583 IPCs

1/6 StB killed *5 IPCs = -0.833 IPCs
1/6 StB killed *6 IPCs = -1 IPCs
1/6 StB killed *8 IPCs = -1.333 IPCs

Cost 5
1D6 (avg 3.5 IPCs): +2.917 - 0.833 = +2.084 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2 (avg 5.5 IPCs): +4.583 - 0.833 = +3.750 IPCs damage/SBR
Cost 6
1D6 (avg 3.5 IPCs): +2.917 - 1 = +1.917 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2 (avg 5.5 IPCs): +4.583 - 1 = +3.583 IPCs damage/SBR
Cost 8
1D6 (avg 3.5 IPCs): +2.917 - 1.333 = +1.584 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2 (avg 5.5 IPCs): +4.583 - 1.333 = +3.250 IPCs damage/SBR
G40 BMode
1D6+2: + 4.583 - 2 = +2.583 IPCs damage/SBR run

---

Another link toward more developed tables on StB A1 C5 vs Fg D2 C10
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35883.msg1632974#msg1632974

I found the exact table to analysis StBs A0 C5 damage D6 vs Fg D2 C10:

@Baron:

1942.2 SBR Black Elk hypothesis

Strategic Bomber
Attack 0
Damage 1D6, 1D6+2
Cost 5

Fighter
Attack 1
Defense 2
Cost 10

Break even point StB A0 C5, 1D6+2 damage vs Fg A1 D2:  21 StBs vs 30 Fgs: 0.700 StB/Fg
1StB D6+2 vs 1Fg D2: + 3.056 - 2.222= + 0.834 IPC damage/SBR12= +10.008
1StB D6+2 vs 2Fgs D2: +2.037 - 3.148 = -1.111 IPC damage/SBR9= -9.999 (Diff.: +0.009)
21 StB vs 30 Fgs:   0.700 StB/Fg
No FIT (Fighter Interception Threshold), always beneficial to Intercept.

Break even point StB A0 C5, 1D6 damage vs Fg A1 D2: 17 StBs vs 15 Fgs: 1.133 StBs/Fg
1 StB D6  vs 1Fg D2: + 1.944 - 2.222 = -0.278 IPC damage/SBR13 = -3.614
2 StBs D6 vs 1Fg D2: +4.861 - 3.056= +1.805 IPCs damage/SBR2= +3.610 (Diff.: -0.004)
17 StBs vs 15 Fgs: 1.133 StBs/Fgs
No FIT (Fighter Interception Threshold), always beneficial to Intercept.

@Baron:

Black Elk Strategic Bomber 5 IPC A1 D0

Strategic Bomber in air-to-air combat SBR:
Attack 1
Bombard IC or AB or NB damage: 1D6

Fighter in air-to-air combat SBR:
Attack 2
Defend 2

Tactical Bomber in air-to-air combat SBR:
Attack 1
Bombard AB or NB damage: 1D6

IC’s AAA: @1 against each Strategic Bomber
Naval Base or Air Base: @1 against each Strategic Bomber or Tactical bomber

Break even ratio for x StB A1 vs y Fg D2 C10:
OOB G40 SBR: 10/19= 0.526 StB/Fg
Cost 5 D6 damage: 16 StBs vs 31 Fgs, 16/31= 0.516 StB/Fg
Cost 6 D6 damage: 19 Stbs vs 29 Fgs, 19/29= 0.655 StB/Fg

Fighter Interception Threshold (FIT) and Fighter Interception Gap (FIG)
G40 OOB: from 1.55 StB/Fg and less   (.526 to 1.55)
Cost 5: near 6 StBs vs 4 Fgs= from 1.5 StB/Fg and less (.516 to 1.5)
Cost 6: near 5 StBs vs 3 Fgs= from 1.67 StB/Fg and less (0.655 to 1.67)

Break even point C5, 1D6 damage: near 1 StB A0 vs 2 Fgs D1 C10: 0.5 StB/Fg
1 StB A0 vs 2 Fgs D1 : + 2.025 - 2.106 = -0.081 IPCs
12 StB vs 23 Fgs: exactly 0.522 StB/Fg
No FIT (Fighter Interception Threshold), always beneficial to Intercept.

Break even ratio: 16 StBs D6 dmg A1 C5 vs 25 Fgs D2 C7 = near 0.64 StB/Fg
1 StB A1 C5 vs 1 Fg D2 C7
1D6: +3.111 - 2.222 = +0.889 IPCs damage/SBR7= +6.223
1 StB A1 C5 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D2 C7
1D6: +2.463 - 3.148 = -0.685 IPCs damage/SBR9= -6.165 [Diff.: +0.058]

Fighter Interception Threshold (FIT): 5 StBs A1 C5 vs 2 Fg D2 C7 = 2.5 StBs/Fg.
So the FIGap is between .64 StB/ Fg to up to 2.5 StBs/Fg

[baron Münchhausen]

@Baron:

However, here is IMO a cons against StB A0 D6 vs Fg A1 D1:

@simon33:

@Baron:

You don’t like it because it is broken?
Or because you don’t like the  rationalization behind?

I can see that USA increase Lend-lease toward Russia because they have to fight a two fronts war.
I see no issue. Why do you have one?

I don’t like the USSR-Japan interactions because they provide too much incentive for peace and I don’t consider that they make logical sense.

Re-SBR. The BM rules are good because they model the reality that unescorted bombers got totally massacred in the daytime without a massive numerical superiority. They’re also good game play wise because it allows a reasonable defence against an SBR. OOB a 3 bomber on 4 interceptor raid is close enough to a wash. I don’t reckon we should remove the +2 damage and reduce the defence to a 1. That would take you back to interception being usually a miss from both sides.

Probably an issue about what can be done against a lot of StBs bombing.
It comes a time in 1942.2 when there is not enough Fg to launch and they don’t have that much impact.

Should we allow that AAA unit in TTy can also have @1 non-stackable 1 shot roll up to 1 per plane max in dogfight phase?
It would be cheaper than Fg but same defense and would increase AAA usefulness.

---

Probably a vivid description of an issue which might arise about Japan bombing G40 India IC:

@simon33:

@Shin:

I prefer OOB G40 SBR, but only marginally.  I think if you take away the +2 damage and leave fighters defending at 1, that would probably be fine.  But then, I’ve only ever seen it as a nice option to have, one that is used sometimes.  For some reason, others saw it as an absolute must and a major problem.  I never really understood why.

I’m in the camp of seeing it as a major problem. Case in point, Calcutta. OOB, if the UK doesn’t buy an extra fighter, Japan will probably bomb it into submission from J2. I don’t think they should have to. The two starting fighters should be enough to defend against two unescorted bombers.

Moscow is similar but there you might send 3 bombers + 3 escorts against 6+ interceptors OOB which is a bit unreasonable to my way of thinking.

Do you think 2 StBs A0 against 2 Fg D1 is a reasonable defense when Japan can easily grow with 2 StBs C5 for each Fighter C10 India may provide?

The rate with no casualty is increasing 1 for 2:
R2 2:2, 50% casualty for 1 and 17% for the second
R3 3:4, 67% casualty for 1 and 17% for all another
R4 4:6, 84% casualty for first and 17% for five other.
R5 5:8, near 100% for first and 17% for seven other, near 117% or 1 and 1/6
R6 6:10, near 100% for first, and 17% for nine other near 150% or 1.5 StBs

It seems a reason for StB A1 vs Fg A2 D2.

At least on surface, fortunately it will be possible to try both SBR types.

To specifically adress this issue about how StBs C5 are quite unstoppable and that Fg A1 D1 cannot do much to stop such cheap bombers to maxed out IC (as Simon33 rightly put), here is what I think is more balanced and probably more funny, because there will be more hits on bombers:

In this link you will find a thing or two about offense over defense cost ratio concept:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37653.msg1642721#msg1642721

I believe it is actually the issue at hand to solve Moscow in 1942.2 and India (G40) being utterly maxed out.

In addition, it allows Russia to be less dependent on Allied Fighters for its IC defense.
Here is my new values:

Redesigned Strategic Bomber 5 IPC A0 D0

Strategic Bomber in air-to-air combat SBR:
Attack 0
Bombard IC or AB or NB damage: 1D6
Cost 5

Fighter in air-to-air combat SBR:
Attack 2
Defend 2
Cost 10

Tactical Bomber in air-to-air combat SBR:
Attack 1
Defense 1
Bombard AB or NB damage: 1D6
Cost 10

IC’s AAA: @1 against each Strategic Bomber
Naval Base or Air Base: @1 against each Strategic Bomber or Tactical bomber

I gave Fg A2 D2 and TcB A1 D1 will be considered kind of Night-fighter interceptor.

That way, you get a simple progressive A0-A1-A2 vs D0-D1-D2 for aircraft values.

First, I was reluctant about this StB A0 C5 vs Fg D2 C10,
but what convinced me is clearly the cost effectiveness when you compared both unit SBR values to their cost.
It is an higher break even point: 17 StBs vs 15 Fgs: 1.133 StBs/Fg
Meaning you need to bring 1 StB above the interceptor number to make odds better for attacker.
Which is not difficult because 2 StBs worth 10 IPCs, same cost as Fg.
For example 6 StBs against 5 Fgs would give positive odds for attacker.
When adding costs of each, it is 30 IPCs worth of StBs against 50 IPCs worth of Fg.
If 30 IPCs was what is only available on both side, it means 6 StBs vs 3 Fgs.
And 2:1 ratio is a good odd for making significant damage on ICs.

This fact can be explained by cost/ratio concept:
Even at these values, StB A0 C5 remains at 0.567 offense/defense cost ratio.
This is even better than OOB G40 SBR at 0.632 offense/defense cost ratio.

And we all know how efficient they were for their 12 IPCs.

So, this is my advice for a better balance with C5 A0 bomber.
And it is still possible to make bomber C5 A1 as an option toggle.

[barney]

so I think all that needs to be added is the tac’s defending at 1 then ? Another reason to buy them. Wonder if we should add a fighter option to hit subs again too ? As you pointed out earlier, the US might spam them to whack JPN. Although a lot of games JPN is shut down in SZ 6 anyway.

[baron Münchhausen]

@barney:

so I think all that needs to be added is the tac’s defending at 1 then ? Another reason to buy them. Wonder if we should add a fighter option to hit subs again too ? As you pointed out earlier, the US might spam them to whack JPN. Although a lot of games JPN is shut down in SZ 6 anyway.

And the Fg attacking and defending @2.

For Fg against Subs, IDK.
I like how TcBs are able to fight them.

1942.2 economy cannot probably afford to too much specialized Fg and TcB.

IDK for G40.
As an option along StB A1, noone can be against it IMO.