SBR in Alpha plus
-
http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=4035
A lot of discussion is going on about this topic. How can we keep the SBR rules simple but cost worthy.
I like the idea of interceptors and escorts and registering damaged in the rules but it is not really worth it at this point.If anyone has any new ideas, they should post them with Larry Harris. He has been very responsive this past week with the brainstorming of ideas.
What would make it worth it for you? Main points posted below.
So where are we now…
1. ICs and facilities should simply be “On” or “Off”.
2. There should no longer be a system of registering damage.
3. ICs and facilities need to keep their own AA gun defense systems.
4. Allow Tac Bombers to conduct bombing raids (equal to Strategic bombing raids) against facilities (airbases and naval bases).
5. No cost changes to aircraft.
6. No restrictions on number of aircraft that can participate in interceptor roles.
7. Change attack and defense numbers so that escorts and interceptors have the same numbers (I’m far from sure about this one, but interested in the possibility).
8. Need to get rid of the damage percentage system. “On” and "Off "system will do that.
9. Considering changing the “when ICs and facilities are repaired” rule. Presently they are repaired at the beginning of the next turn. This probably should be changed and repairs occur at the end of the next turn. Thus assuring at least one turn of down-time. -
Where did your “where are we now” part come from? It’s way off from what Larry has posted.
-
Where did your “where are we now” part come from? It’s way off from what Larry has posted.
It’s on the bottom of the 28th page
-
Is he just summarizing the longer posts? I’m not sure what are his thoughts…this one sounds like turning all bombers into something like the old heavies.
“The order of the SBR should be:
Air battle escorts/Bombers vs interceptors
All involved aircraft are rolled for, looking for either 1/1/1(I’m becoming partial to these number. Remove casualties. Escorts & interceptors are now out of the battle.
AA gun fire
Surviving bombers are fired at. AA gun hits w/1s
Bombing run.
Roll 1 die for each bomber. Total rolled is the number of damage markers placed under each target (ICs, AB, NB)
(Here’s where it becomes somewhat different)
Bombing damage must be cleared from the target. failure to do so will shut down the facility and/or IC. Damage markers are removed as usual, during the Phase 1 Purchase & Repair units. Here’s the kicker… Each repair cost 2 IPCs instead of 1. Scoring 3 hits cost 6 IPCs to repair. How about if repairs cost 3 IPC each? 3 hits cost 9 IPCs to repair. I think this makes SBRs more effective and more attractive to conduct. The impact on the game will be interesting to observe as well. I feel that more money will be drained from everyone income. Less income means less purchases and less purchases may mean shorter games.” -
I think he’s listing all of the ideas people have posited.
-
this is what i posted…
As for the Interceptors/ Escorts, I’m thinking of creating a sub unit for these because fighters were not designed for this type of combat in the game. So here’s my proposal, lets say Strategic Bombers were given another “ability”. Each bomber or IC is assigned three tokens representing an Interceptor/ Escort these are specifically for Strategic Bombing Raids or for IC deffence. their properties would include:
-Escorts/Inerceptors-
1. Attack: 3, Defense: 3, Movement: 6 (6 when using Escorts; Interceptors are stationary.), Cost: $0
2. Cannot attack land units, sea units, they are solely for Air Combat missions.
3. Each Strategic Bomber is assigned 3 of escorts; if destroyed they can be replaced @ 10 IPCs for a set of 3 on Purchase/Repair Units Phase. The maximum being 3 a Bomber can be escorted with IC’s do not have a limit. (still toying around with the idea). =)
4. They retreat with Strategic Bombers they can never go rogue, (they stick to Strat Bombers till the end).Sample Combat:
-Western Germany sends 1 Strat Bomber (with 3 escorts) to London with the intent of Strategic Bombing.
-London dispatches his tokens to intercept the luftwaffe bombers.
-A battle breaks out in the Air!
3 German Escorts Attack:
@4, 2, 2 - (2 Hits)
3 UK Interceptors Defend:
@4, 3, 4 - (1 Hit)at this point Germany is asked to continue or pull back…
Germany presses.
2 German Escorts Attack:
@3, 5 - (1 Hit)
1 UK Interceptor Defends:
@3 - (1 Hit)Bombers continue… AA Fires!
AA Defends:
@5 - MissGermany rolls 2 dice: 1st for IPC loss, 2nd for damage.
1st: @3 - (UK Loses 3 IPCs)
2nd: @4 - (UK IC gains 4 damage points)German Bomber heads home.
(Note: The German Bomber cannot replace the Escorts until they are all destroyed. The UK may replace the Interceptors for 10 IPCs.) -
Less income means less purchases and less purchases may mean shorter games.
good. then get rid of NO’s
-
Instead of making new units for escorts, just reduce cost of fighters to 6 ipcs across the board. range should not extended, must aquire long range aircraft tech for that. Keep attack and defense values the same for air combat. Reduce attack and defense values to attack 2, defend 2 , for land and naval attacks to reflect lower cost. A fighter should not really cost more than a tank and should really only show greater fire power is against aircraft. The idea that a fighter can sink a battleship or aircraft carrier is rediculous and this is the way to start fixing it. any suggestions?
-
What about keeping it the way it is, but if a bomber gets hit by an AA it is hit on the way back (so does do damage before being destroyed).
-
Even more setup and rule changes??? :x Man, this is getting ridiculous!
A la porra con todo :lol: I’ll stick to OOB
-
If its too much for you definately stick to OOP. thats fun. As far as AA firing after bombers deliver payload? Makes SBRs too strong. They didnt Make it to target 100% of the time. Thats the rub. SBRs sometimes cost more than they are worth. A nation must have a ton of capital to absorb causilties of failed SBR raids. Leave it up to the dice.
-
The red I posted was Larry’s summary of others in the long pages of posts. I actually do not agree with everything in red in my previous post, I just wanted to jump start the brainstorming.
At this point, I could keep the current rules with a small change of damage (3 +1d6).
or just 2d6.A lot is going on at the Larry Harris site and I wanted more participation by members of this forum.
Many of us do not post at the other site very often.
Suggested Topics
