I know. It’s great isn’t it? Every day I grow fonder and fonder of bombers. It’s only historical. The dramatic rise of airpower during the war signaled the eclipse of the world’s navies.
All jesting aside, I believe that the cost of SOME naval units should be lowered. To me transports, subs, and destroyers are priced fine how they are. By virtue of how essential the transport is, we should set that as the baseline for determining the value of units. In that case, I believe Cruisers should cost 10 IPCs, Carriers 12 IPCs (and their defense bumped back up to 3), and Battleships cost 18 IPCs. Sounds fair?
I’m okay with this, although perhaps keeping the ACs at 2 defense is best, and Battleships could even go to 16-17 IPCs in my book.
The thing about cruisers though is their endless supply of bombardments with no risk of loss. Since the UK will routinely dropping off 8 units and has multiple targets in Europe, having 4 CA at your disposal might be better long term considering you’re probably going to lose 2-3 bombers taking out the Med fleet.
The shore bombard rules have been somewhat nerfed in this version’s rules, so I don’t see this as a big problem. Someone in another thread, I believe, suggested that if the naval costs for Cruisers/Battleships were lowered, then perhaps the shore bombards could also be lowered. (i.e. Cruisers bombard at “2”, and Battleships bombard at “3”.) I would also be okay with this to get the naval units’ price lower so that they are not so tempting to my opponent’s Bombers.
You can’t drop the price of cruisers, otherwise you will obsolete AC/ftrs in terms of naval defense.
3 ca @ 10 ipc = 30 ipc, att/def = 9/9
1 ac @ 14 (1/2)
2 ftrs @ 10 (3/4) = 34 ipc, att/def = 7/10
You’d have to drop the price of ac’s to about 10 to even make the ac/ftr combo worth it, or up the defense of acs, but even back at 3 defense (if price stayed at 12-14), I’d still probably go with the cheaper cruiser knowing that I still get the 9 for Att.
Also the bombardment (even if nerfed) is still very valuable, it essesntailly makes a cruiser a ftr for any coastal territory and for the UK that is gold. Sz 12, 7, 6, 5 are all frequented by the UK and combined touch like 9 territories. That is a lot of uses. You also don’t have to worry about AA guns.
I also don’t think you can drop the price of BBs without obsoleting another naval unit. Either the cruiser or ac/ftr combo will be phased out. Unless the CA is so cheap it makes BBs pointless and if that is the case then DDs become useless. In order to make an 18 BB, you’d need a 10 ipc cruiser but I think that just messes everything up, you’d have to drop the price of acs, ftrs and dds and then we are back to the same spot.
At some point you have to realize that navies only serve 1 purpose, to get land units from A to B. So navies will always be the bare minimum needed to protect your trns.
You could make ships as cheap as possible but if there is no threat to your fleet they still won’t get built. (exception - trns)
Instead of dropping or raising prices, would it be possible to just prevent bombers from engaging in naval warfare?
Note, I did not say historically accurate. I did not say best solution. I just asked if it was perhaps a viable, simple, solution that could be implemented to negate the problem?
Ah! Cmdr J. the good old days of Billy Mitchell and the Ostfriesland. You had to go pick at that scab, didn’t you… some wounds never heal!
One of the versions of AARHE has the rule of not allowing bombers to engage in naval warfare – I thought it played pretty well and made sense from a historical point of view as well.
In the few games of AA50 I’ve played I’ve found the German bombers to be very effective at keeping the Atlantic free of pesky ships trying to invade France. I’d hate to play without them, but it sounds like an option that might be worth exploring.
@Cmdr:
Instead of dropping or raising prices, would it be possible to just prevent bombers from engaging in naval warfare?
Note, I did not say historically accurate. I did not say best solution. I just asked if it was perhaps a viable, simple, solution that could be implemented to negate the problem?
I like that. Or maybe just make aircraft weaker in the seas.
Did Bombers have any significant impact upon navies in WWII?
I thought that Bombers bombing carriers and battleships and cruisers and destroyers was non existent in WWII?
Was there any significant such encounters? If not, then ban the use of bombers against naval assets.
Perhaps they attack at 2’s not 4 agst naval targets??
germany used bombers against allied shipping
germany used bombers against allied shipping
Yup. Tin is absolutely correct the Germans used a relatively small ammount of Condor four-engined bombers in conjunction with the u-bootewaffe to attack shipping. The production of the Condor was small and they had chronic mechanical problems due to the fact that it was orginally designed as an airliner and had difficulty in dealing with the stresses of combat flying. That being said the low operational quantities played a big role.
Also, the American’s in World War II invented a technique called “Skip Bombing” where the bomber would basically throw the bomb out of it’s cargo bay, let it skip like a stone across the waves and impact an enemy ship.
I don’t know if it can account for any significant damage to the enemy or even if it was employed on a large scale at all. I just remember from AFROTC that it was invented by an American Air Corps pilot in the early 1940s or maybe late 1930s.
Also, America at least, employed bombers in significant numbers in the Atlantic to locate and destroy German U-Boats. The bombers would use sonar buoys to find them, and then drop depth charges from their bays. It was significantly faster and cheaper then sending out thousands of destroyers to cover the same area.
However, this is a game, not a recreation of history. If this was a recreation of history, then the axis would start in 1942 and never rise to power beyond their initial territories. We don’t want to recreate history too well, but rather make the game more enjoyable. Given that, I think it might be best suited to just exclude bombers from naval combat. Not only do you negate the cost benefit of a bomber vs a pair of destroyers or a cruiser, but you also negate the effect of heavy bombers on fleets as well.
@Cmdr:
However, this is a game, not a recreation of history. If this was a recreation of history, then the axis would start in 1942 and never rise to power beyond their initial territories. We don’t want to recreate history too well, but rather make the game more enjoyable. Given that, I think it might be best suited to just exclude bombers from naval combat. Not only do you negate the cost benefit of a bomber vs a pair of destroyers or a cruiser, but you also negate the effect of heavy bombers on fleets as well.
See, I’d go the other route and continue to allow it for simplicity.
Although, I think it might be cool to package the game with “Basic” Rules (think 2nd-3rd Ed combat) and then a set of “Advanced” or “Historical” Rules (think AA50, maybe add anything else that might be unrealistic etc).
Make these indepth additions legitimate optional rules (kind of like tech), but also allow the simplified combat for new players or people that may just want to sit down for a game and not worry about can a bomber really kill a sub or needing a dd to see a sub, etc.
Did Bombers have any significant impact upon navies in WWII?
YES.
Jennifer already beat me to it, but bombers had a HUGE role attacking enemy navies, especially in the Pacific. The role of skip bombing and dive bombing were two crucial elements in American tactical superiority over the Japanese shipping. I’m can’t provide exact numbers, but medium bombers accounted for a large percentage of enemy shipping lost. Search the Battle of Bismark Sea for an example of tactical of bombing when employed effectively.
Also, I believe the Luftwaffe had a role in sinking Allied shipping other than just the condor bomber. Much less so, since they simply didn’t have the resources to commit to a land and sea operation at the time.
Personally, I don’t like the idea of air power not being able to attack naval units. It limits the game and makes it less interesting, as well as being ahistorical.
These I think are the main reasons the cheapness of bombers won’t upset the game:
Historically, enough has been said. The demise of the battleship was performed by aircraft.
Let me clarify, what I am saying is it might be beneficial to game play to prevent BOMBERS from attacking naval assets at sea. Fighters would still be available both on offense and defense.
The only reason I am suggesting that bombers be limited to land only combat is because the bomber unit is significantly cheaper than it used to be after getting a 20% off discount. Coupled with its range, range of uses and damage potential it almost seems unfair to have them in the same battle with other units.
Instead of raising the price up to 14 IPC (a much more reasonable price in my opinion) or even back to 15 IPC each, or trying to reduce the costs of naval units to ridiculously low levels to compensate, we could simply write a tournament rule that bombers cannot engage in naval combat.
This might even make submarines more valuable as assets to attack unprotected shipping in the back shipping lanes, now that bombers wouldn’t be allowed to exploit their long range and attack those assets, while submarines can ignore most surface vessels and slip through to attack anyway.
The Japanese also used the Betties to bomb ally shipping.
Let me clarify, what I am saying is it might be beneficial to game play to prevent BOMBERS from attacking naval assets at sea. Fighters would still be available both on offense and defense.
Allow me to clarify,
I believe restricting Bombers, Fighters, or any combination of the two would have a Negative imapct on the game. I believe it will limit the options given to players when planning out their combat phase and would stagnate air power to a degree. Furthermore, I believe it throws any notion of combined arms, at a tactical level, out the window.
i’ve never had a problem with bombers being ‘overly’ used in killing fleets. it happens, but not so much that i’d ever contemplate denying them that option, changing their price, etc. the multiple uses for bombers just makes them a good purchase in general
that said, i really would be worrying about a players sanity if that’s all they purchased. mixed buys make for a good game
if you’re so worried about it, make your own house-rule and be done with it. i’d suggest upping the price again, rather than just saying no to naval combat. poor bombers :|
Tin,
Thing is, in AA50 it is much easier to build a massive bomber force and sink anything in the water than it is to build ships. This results in no ships.
That’s why it would be better to eliminate bombers from naval combat. You can have all the fighters in the world you want too, their price has not changed. But bombers are just too cheap to be viable at sea without disrupting the balance.
I see everybody saying bombers were used to hurt enemy shipping… is there even any enemy shipping in Axis and Allies?
Were they used extensively in all out naval warfare, to the extent where they wouldn’t have been just an accessory to a fighter squadron but a significant force?
I don’t know, I always pictured the bombers in Axis and Allies as carpet-bombing land machines, not things that go after boats.
I have to agree with Rakeman. I always pictured fighters as both fighters and scout planes and small/medium bombers while bombers were the big nasties that flew way up in the sky, had belly gunners and generally made life a living hell for anyone living in a city either through firebombing or other means.
I never really pictured them being a machine used for sinking ships. That’s why I always figured they had a defense value of 1, not 2 or 3, because they were not equipped to handle being attacked, only to bring death to the enemy from way up in the clouds.
But don’t take that to mean I don’t ever want to see bombers in naval combat. I have no problem with them in all the other major editions of the game (AAR, Classic, etc) they just seem over powered with the huge cost reduction they got.
I guess an alternative would be 2 hit Aircraft Carriers to force the enemy to build that many more bombers to sink a fleet and thus restore the cost. /shrug
I see everybody saying bombers were used to hurt enemy shipping… is there even any enemy shipping in Axis and Allies?
In the board game abstraction that we call A&A, the answer is Yes – they’re transports.
Were they used extensively in all out naval warfare, to the extent where they wouldn’t have been just an accessory to a fighter squadron but a significant force?
Yes. One fine example would be the sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse. By bombers – and these were capital ships!
I don’t know, I always pictured the bombers in Axis and Allies as carpet-bombing land machines, not things that go after boats.
The problem with Axis and Allies is that the pieces can confuse people sometimes. You look at the USA and UK and see B-29s and Lancasters. These must be heavy bombers! But then you look at Japan’s bomber and say, “That’s a Betty Bomber!” These must be medium bombers! That’s true. And it’s also false. Yes, those are the bombers represented in this game. But also remember, these pieces are just abstractions and represent the bomber arm of air power as a whole. So a more “correct” way of looking at it is each bomber represents a medium, light, or heavy bomber or perhaps a combination of all three.
