In my group we generally skip the tech development. To my opinion too it is unbalancing the game for one player. It feels more like a fair fight to play without the tech development.
Making Bombers viable
-
Long Range Aircraft.
-
Now you are rolling for TWO techs…
That is a hell of a lot of cash to spend on reasearch, then building your HB’s… all the while Japan and Germany have only UK and USSR fighting them…
By the time USA gets their HB squadron built to take out the Japan Navy (assuming it sails into range of even LR HB’s… no reason for them to do so…) it is probably going to be all over for the Allies.
-
But as Axis Roll pointed out, building up sufficient heavy bomber squadron is faster than building up a normal KJF navy. It’s only one more turn to finish up the long range aircraft. Unfortunately the Japanese navy does have good reason to wander into HB/LRA range because otherwise they cannot offload anything off of Japan.
By the time USA gets their HB squadron built to take out the Japan Navy (assuming it sails into range of even LR HB’s… no reason for them to do so…) it is probably going to be all over for the Allies.
Is this any different than if the US went sub heavy?
-
SZ61 is out of range if you want to base from WUS. If you want to move to the islands… Then I am going to come after your BOM’s that defend on 1’s.
And yes it is different from a fleet buildup, because that fleet can (and should) include TRNs that can island hop and trash Japan income.
AIRCRAFT CANNOT TAKE TERRITORY, and the game is won and lost by controlling territory…
Turn 1: Pearl destroyed, USA rolls HB tech
Turn 2: Japan Fleet consolidates in SZ60, USA rolls LRA
Turns3-5: USA builds squadron of 6-8 HB’s. Japan dumps troops into Asia and adds 1 unit per turn to their fleet.Turn 6: USA unleashes 8 HB’s on Japan’s fleet of 6 TRN, 2 SUB, 1 DST, 2 AC, 4 FIG, 2 BB
Japan wins with 2 BB, 2 AC, 2 FIGs. Builds 4 TRN and resumes dumping into Asia and building a naval unit per turn. USA starts building HB’s for a subsequent attempt…
-
SZ61 is out of range if you want to base from WUS. If you want to move to the islands… Then I am going to come after your BOM’s that defend on 1’s.
I would base in W. Canada.
AIRCRAFT CANNOT TAKE TERRITORY, and the game is won and lost by controlling territory…
Neither can subs.
Turn 6: USA unleashes 8 HB’s on Japan’s fleet of 6 TRN, 2 SUB, 1 DST, 2 AC, 4 FIG, 2 BB
Japan wins with 2 BB, 2 AC, 2 FIGs. Builds 4 TRN and resumes dumping into Asia and building a naval unit per turn. USA starts building HB’s for a subsequent attempt…
Why would the US make an incomplete attempt? That’d be as ridiculous as assuming the US would attack with say 12 subs and allow Japan to win, then gear up again and repeat.
And in spite of all this, Peter Morrison and I’m sure many others realized HBs were overpowered well over 2 years ago. There are other good examples to give besides the US pursuing HBs; Japan can also pursue HBs and make a wreck of the Atlantic shuck by flying a couple HBS from India to W. Europe every turn. The point is that heavy bombers at 2d are imbalanced.
-
You want to try to prove your theory on the US knocking out the Imperial Fleet?
I am game for it…
Do you have TripleA?
-
I’ll take the Axis (of course since you want to test HB’s to take out the Imperial Navy).
Bid of $8 (pretty typical).
Can you handle it?
-
I’m already behind on a lot of games. I have to refuse. I don’t care if you see this as a cop out. I am at my limit with A&A games right now. I have 3 or 4 games going on with Jen, 1 with aadog, and one upcoming with Mazer Rakham. That may not be a lot of games from some perspectives, but I assure you it is already more than I personally can uphold a commitment to right now.
-
No problem Wes.
Eventually we will play again… It has been quite a while since we played each other :-)
-
I’m grateful you understand Ike, I do look forward to the day which we face each other once again (and I apologize again for copping out on you last year in the doubles tourney, I know it’s a sore spot).
To be plainly honest though, if we were to play right now to “test my theory”, I don’t think you would get what you would expect. I wouldn’t straightly build bombers along the W. Coast, because I agree that would just let Germany and Japan go free for too long, it would be like any other ill-conceived KJF where the US tilts 100% at Japan while letting everything else go to waste. I think it’s better than trying to out-sub Japan, but that doesn’t make it a winning strategy, and I don’t play to lose.
I would still use heavy bombers, and that I would say is the real theory being tested, the use of heavy bombers, but first to contain Germany, and then to make sure Japan never again has a navy. But the alternate problem is that Japan can also develop heavy bombers which I said earlier would make an Atlantic shuck at some point impossible as well as island hopping. I think the real point I would be testing is that heavy bombers are too upsetting to game balance in the long run, but I’m already pretty certain of that because players from well over 2 years ago complained about and also LHTR nerfed them…
-
Let me say that in this case I think Bean is right. Before we started using the LHTR HBs were what cleaned up the IJN. Now in these cases it was never a from the start strategy. Someone would build up some bombers and get heavies. At that time they would simply send in whatever fleet they had and the heavies. Since this occurred latter in games generally there was a base to hit the IJN with or it was out at sea after the Americans. And also in some games long range was also added in.
All that aside does everyone still think with nerfed heavies that going back to each bomber being capped by the territory as opposed to all is such a deal breaker? Or say each bomber is capped by the territory limit with a limit on bombers that can be employed per attack. Again my thoughts are a way to make SBRs more palpatible against placed ICs that are in lower limit TTs.
-
I have to be honest…
I think Tactical Bombers make a better Tech than HB’s (as they are in LHTR 2.0).
It allows a bomber-focused strategy that is not as limited as it is at present with the territory limits, and does not unbalance the naval game to favor HB’s as the primary component of an offensive navy (I have never said that HB’s were not good for killing navy, just that they should not be used alone for that purpose).
-
I do agree Switch, HBs shouldn’t only be used to blow up navy. Usually the first best use is to SBR with them, then switch over later to kill navy. Both parts of 2d heavy bombers are overpowered. The SBR portion of hbs makes the game too much of “hmm who got hbs first and who evaded the aa guns the most?” and the 2d offense makes it basically the Silent Seas in the late game.
-
So just remove HB’s completely and add Tactical Bombing as a tech…
No screwing up the naval game, still adds some very nice SBR potential (or should I say TBR?) :-D
-
Again my thoughts are a way to make SBRs more palpatible against placed ICs that are in lower limit TTs.
And IMO mr dog I think Revised is fine as it is with SBRs. I think the main lure of the game is in the basic core strategies of pushing with inf and transporting efficiently. If you want games with a heavier emphasis on the less-used units/techs/NAs/economic raids, try a variant like AARE. AARE has a lot of interesting things with bombers.
And what is Tactical Bombing anyways, Switch? I didn’t catch that.
-
All that aside does everyone still think with nerfed heavies that going back to each bomber being capped by the territory as opposed to all is such a deal breaker? Or say each bomber is capped by the territory limit with a limit on bombers that can be employed per attack.
When it comes to comparing SBRs in LHTR vs. OOB, IMHO the difference is small. Assuming cap limits per LHTR at PER COUNTRY(JEN), the most the allies can take is $10 for Germany (most likely bombing target).
If US brings in one HB bomber per OOB rules, their average is 7 (2 dice)… could get up to 10, as little as 2. Using LHTR, new max is 7 (best die +1). Max difference is $3, not that significant. You will generally not throw as low as OOB HB’s cause you take the better of both dice +1. Even at a (1, 4), you’re still getting $5, not bad. It’s the cap limits that restraint bomber SBRs, not SO much the mechanism of the taking (2 dice vs. best of 2 dice +1).
Note this difference is more appearent on SBRs over Berlin; Over SEU, it’s even less of a difference.
This leads to the major nerfing of LHTR of HB’s. Only 1 military hit in other ‘combats’. This went too far, IMHO, as to make them an undesirable tech to go for. I’d rather go for rockets.
I guess we would discuss this in theory back and forth all day. We’ll have to agree to disagree as I do not think OOB rules with 2D6 dice are too powerful. Perhaps putting SBR cap rules per territory per round would help that even more, but then I fear no one would buy bombers.
Larry Harris’s preferences be damned, SBRs and bombers were a big part of the war, especially for the allies. Remember the Axis could employ these HB’s too if they wanted.
Again my thoughts are a way to make SBRs more palpatible against placed ICs that are in lower limit TTs.
Not sure what you are trying to get at with this statement. I think you meant:
“SBRs more palatable against placed ICs in lower TTs”Are you suggesting that India should be bombed for MORE than $3 IPCs?
-
@Bean:
And what is Tactical Bombing anyways, Switch? I didn’t catch that.
Allows you to “SBR” a non-IC territory for up to half of its IPC value (rounded up). This would represent the bombing of bridges, ports, etc. that would cripple the economy of a given region.
So if you replaced HB’s with TB’s, you could bomb Berlin, Rome, Paris, Warsaw and Bucharest using 6 BOMs and do up to $23 in damage.
-
@ncscswitch:
@Bean:
And what is Tactical Bombing anyways, Switch? I didn’t catch that.
Allows you to “SBR” a non-IC territory for up to half of its IPC value (rounded up). This would represent the bombing of bridges, ports, etc. that would cripple the economy of a given region.
So if you replaced HB’s with TB’s, you could bomb Berlin, Rome, Paris, Warsaw and Bucharest using 6 BOMs and do up to $23 in damage.
So there is no military advantage to the HB’s, correct?
AAA guns could get a shot at these TB’s, right?Just trying to understand your idea.
-
Tactical Bombing would be a replacement tech for Heavy Bombers.
And yes, AA could always fire at those bombers (same as always), it just broadens the number of potential targets and increases the potential damage. This is offered as a way of making an SBR campaign more viable, though still costly and risky, without having to have Heavy Bombers which dramatically alter the naval situation.
HB’s were not really used at sea in WWII, they were almost exclusively engaged only in SBR and TBR campaigns. So by adding the ability to do SBR’s of ports and bridges in Northern France, to bomb oil fields in the Middle East, to bomb ports in the Pacific Islands, to bomb rail and roads in central Europe… It simply makes the use of bombers closer to the way they were actually used.
I will say that I WOULD combine Tactical Bombers with the “per game turn” instead of “per national turn” limit for SBR damage that Jen mentioned previously. Heck with that limitation, Tactical Bombers might not even be a tech option, just an alternate rule for SBR’s…
-
@ncscswitch:
HB’s were not really used at sea in WWII, they were almost exclusively engaged only in SBR and TBR campaigns. So by adding the ability to do SBR’s of ports and bridges in Northern France, to bomb oil fields in the Middle East, to bomb ports in the Pacific Islands, to bomb rail and roads in central Europe… It simply makes the use of bombers closer to the way they were actually used.
In terms of realism, yeah its just about right o remove HB (or even normal bomber) in naval combat.
In terms of gameplay, it makes players balance between navy and army. (another thing in the carrier fighters)
Suggested Topics
