DK's Strategic Bombing Rules - submitted for your review

  • '17 '16

    @BJCard:

    **What about during the bombing raid- the only thing that actually kills units is AA fire?  What if the interceptors getting a ‘hit’ causes a bomber to turn back (could still be subject to AA fire); and an escort ‘hit’ causes a negation of the interceptor ‘hit.’?  **
    Every air unit represents hundreds of aircraft- I for one would strategic bomb more often if it were only AA fire I had to get through-�  interceptors would cause the bombing run to be aborted (If they get a ‘hit’).

    Maybe this isn’t historical, but dang aircraft are so expensive in this game, more than 25% of most countries’ income.�  I rarely see strategic bombing raids as it is because everyone is afraid of the ‘1’ being rolled in AA fire.�  If one side is doing Strategic bombing, likely they are already winning the game as it is (because they can afford a bomber loss).

    I’m not quite sure to fully understand your idea. Need more explanations.

    Is it like a no damage situation? If the case, how can it be interesting to put fighters in it either escort or interceptor?

    If their is only the StrB and Fgt escort making the “hits”? Will it negates an AAA fire for each hit against Fgt interceptor?


  • Well, my point is- say Germany is bombing London with

    2 bombers, 2 fighter escorts

    London scrambles 2 fighters as interceptors

    Battle of Britain ensues- London rolls- 1, 3 <-  yes! a 1! 
    Germany rolls for escorts- 2,3 <- nothing (If either got a ‘1’, they would negate the interceptor ‘1’ - as if it didn’t happen).
    Now, because a British escort got a ‘hit’, one of the German bombers must abort the bombing run.
    The other German bomber has to get through AA gun fire, but can otherwise finish the bombing run.

    So, Germany and Britain are much less afraid to have an aerial combat because the results are still beneficial to both parties if successful (Either they get to bomb London or are repulsed), but not as devastating (Only lose planes from AA fire).  You may have strategic bombing every turn with this-

    In the normal A&A rules- why would the British scramble its 2 fighters?  They can’t afford to lose one, and unlikely they get a hit anyway.  In WWII they scrambled as often as possible!

  • '17 '16

    @BJCard:

    Well, my point is- say Germany is bombing London with

    2 bombers, 2 fighter escorts

    London scrambles 2 fighters as interceptors

    Battle of Britain ensues- London rolls- 1, 3 <-� � yes! a 1!� �
    Germany rolls for escorts- 2,3 <- nothing (If either got a ‘1’, they would negate the interceptor ‘1’ - as if it didn’t happen).
    Now, because a British escort got a ‘hit’, one of the German bombers must abort the bombing run.
    The other German bomber has to get through AA gun fire, but can otherwise finish the bombing run.

    So, Germany and Britain are much less afraid to have an aerial combat because the results are still beneficial to both parties if successful (Either they get to bomb London or are repulsed), but not as devastating (Only lose planes from AA fire).� � You may have strategic bombing every turn with this-� �

    In the normal A&A rules- why would the British scramble its 2 fighters? � They can’t afford to lose one, and unlikely they get a hit anyway. � In WWII they scrambled as often as possible!� �

    Thanks for your reply,

    That’s why it was better to give Fgt interceptor @2 instead of OOB Global SBR rule @1: option A.
    Defending with 2@2 is far better than 2@1.
    The temptation to fight for the kill attacker @1 is an advantage in DK’s SBR rules: option B.
    In house rule option B: it is 2A1 vs 2D2. In my SBR rule option D it is 1A1 and 1A2 vs 2D2.

    With your option E, you will probably have more SBR and it worth a try.
    I’m wondering: why not allow fighters making also real risky mission.
    In this case, SBR is like a first stage before the Combat Move start.
    Of course Bombers in SBR can not attack other targets. But you can allow fighter to be usefull elsewhere.


  • If interceptors hit on a 1 or 2, then UK/USA will likely never strategic bomb Germany because they likely have 3+ fighters in Berlin.

    I like that you are trying to come up with better rules though, just hard to keep it all straight.

  • '17 '16

    @BJCard:

    If interceptors hit on a 1 or 2, then UK/USA will likely never strategic bomb Germany because they likely have 3+ fighters in Berlin.

    I like that you are trying to come up with better rules though, just hard to keep it all straight.

    Let’s give it a try 4 against 4:
    2 StrB @1 + 2 Fgt 1@2 &1@1= 5 points � vs 4 Fgt @2 = 8 points
    Suppose 1 hit “1” and 2 hits “2” from interceptors and a “3”.
    Results: 1 StrB is damaged and 2 Fgt down. 1 SBR (Lost 20 IPCs)

    The same dice against interceptors could result: at least 1 Fgt down and at most 2 Fgt down. (Lost 10-20 + 3-8 IPCs)

    Net result: Worse Allies scenario: 1 SBR, keep 2 StrB vs 3 Fgt / or the better one vs 2 Fgt.

    So Allies kept their bombers vs Axis may have lost the same number of fighter.

    If we change one “2” for a “1”, it becomes interesting:
    Allies can keep both StrB  damaged for the next turn and 1 Fgt but cannot SBR IC. (Lost 10 IPCs)
    Axis lost 2 fighters and even 1 third one depending on which aircraft roll the “2”. (Lost 20 or 30 IPCs but save 3-8 IPCs)
    Net result: Axis save their IC and trade 2 or 3 fighters for 1 allies Fgt.

    I think the balance is kept because giving 2 hits to StrB and 1Fgt@2 for each pair of attacking fighters that allows to give all interceptors @2. Otherwise, you came to the conclusion of OOB Global SBR minimize all @1 thus defending Fgt get no advantage and it is sheer number the decisive point.
    And this is in favor of attacker which decide how many StrB and Fgt it will place in the SBR.
    The Defense @2 and increase damage against IC when no interceptors can motive a player to engage incoming aircrafts (so the attacking player don’t get the impression of loosing a precious fleet of Fgt doing nothing to support the ground combat during SBR.)

    For me, the SBR rule is not only about IC damaged, it is also about killing $$$ precious aircraft. It must be a balance gamble for both the Axis and the Allies.

  • '17 '16

    As I work the last post out I’m pondering:
    if to keep balance, and still introducing 2 hits bombers, is it necessary to expose them to AAA fire even when they are damaged?
    Because in a situation of loosing 1 Bomber and doing 1 SBR or keeping 2 damage Bomber, attacking player will probably prefer keep a 12 IPCs unit rather trying inflicting a 3-8 IPCs damage.

    If the damage bomber can still be destroy by AAA fire, the attacking player will had a more difficult tactical decision: risking both Bombers for no damage on IC (0-24 IPCs lost) or lose 12 IPCs and making 3-8 damages but it can still be a 24 IPCs lost if AAA hit “1”.

    The option D is much more preserving attacking StrB, by introducing the AAA exposure for all StrB it may decrease the frequency of SBR because of a psychological fear of loosing this precious unit.

    So by trying to equilibrate the loss between Att and Def, it can decrease what we want to promote…


  • By jove I think I have it!

    Picturing the battle, the bombers would be flying with an interceptor shield around them, so you are right - some of the interceptors should hit escorts. To simplify it: of those that hit, half may hit escorts, half may get through to hit bombers.

    Therefore:

    1. Attacking bombers and escorts all roll @ 1. (casualties all return fire)

    2. Interceptors roll @ 2

    All ones destroy bombers first as priority, then escorts

    All twos destroy escorts first as priority, then force bombers home

    So….

    A bomber and an escort dogfight with three int:

    • Roll 2 dice for attackers - a “1” is rolled - defender loses a fighter.

    • The three fighters fire back - and get two “2’s” - attacker loses the escort. Since there are no other escorts, the bomber is forced home by the other “2”.

    This adjustment makes the interceptors twice as effective as the attackers - as they should be over home soil, but softens them a bit by spreading their hits over both plane types and by sending 1/2 the bombers back home where they can attack another day. Â

  • '17 '16

    @Der:

    By jove I think I have it!

    Picturing the battle, the bombers would be flying with an interceptor shield around them, so you are right - some of the interceptors should hit escorts. To simplify it: 1/2 may hit escorts, 1/2 may get through to hit bombers.

    Therefore:

    1. Attacking bombers and escorts all roll @ 1. (casualties all return fire)

    2. Interceptors roll @ 2

    **All ones destroy bombers first as priority, then escorts

    All twos destroy escorts first as priority, then force bombers home**
    So….

    A bomber and an escort dogfight with three int:

    • Roll 2 dice for attackers - a “1” is rolled - defender loses a fighter.

    • The three fighters fire back - and get two “2’s” - attacker loses the escort. Since there are no other escorts, the bomber is forced home by the other “2”.

    This adjustment makes the interceptors twice as effective as the attackers - as they should be over home soil, but softens them a bit by spreading their hits over both plane types and by sending 1/2 the bombers back home where they can attack another day. �

    That’s work but it is still a StrB grinder vs OOB Global.
    A different situation 2StrB+2 Fgt /3 Int Fgt.
    Rolls: “3” “3” “1” “4” � � � vs “2” “2” “3”

    A) Global 1940: only @1 count so Defender loose 1Fgt / still 1 SB on IC.
    B) Dk revised: only @2 for Def Fgt : Def loose 1 Fgt/ Att loose 2Fgt.
    D) BM version 2: StrB get 2 hits Def loose 1 Fgt / Att loose 2 Fgt.

    So at first B and D are similar but change the two “2” for “1”
    Rolls: “3” “3” “1” “4” � � � vs “1” “1” “3”

    A) Attacker loose 2 Fgt.
    B) Attacker loose 2 StrB No SB on IC
    D) Attacker whether loose 1StrB but get 1 SB on IC/ or No SB but 2 damaged StrB can turn back home.

    I make some thoughts simulation of scenarii.
    The less aircraft the more A B and D have similar effect. The more aircraft the more A B and D diverge and get their essential traits.
    A) Escorting Fgt killers � (1/6vs Fgt first for each interceptors)
    B) StrB & Fgt killers (1/6 vs Fgt&StrB for each Interceptors)
    C) Mainly Fgt killer but can tgt StrB (1/6 vs Fgt, 1/6x1/6=1/36 vs StrB for each Interceptors.)

    Thus DK’s SBR rules revised works but “1s” are still fearsome for the attacker.
    That why introducing StrB with 2 hits reduced somewhat this effect of the terrible “1”.
    To be clear I’m not trying to convince you that mine D are better than your B.
    Your tread with “2” forcing StrB to turn back opens a wide number of thinking outside the box. :-)
    The StrB get two hit was a way to adjust your idea with A&A system and the nearer rule was about the 2 hits BB.
    This is not a final point, I think their is still many fine tuning to reach a SBR rule that will promote a lot more aircrafts battle than actually.

  • '17 '16

    I have a new version of SBR rule, I call it F because E was � :
    @BJCard:

    What about during the bombing raid- the only thing that actually kills units is AA fire? � What if the interceptors getting a ‘hit’ causes a bomber to turn back (could still be subject to AA fire); and an escort ‘hit’ causes a negation of the interceptor ‘hit.’? �
    Every air unit represents hundreds of aircraft- I for one would strategic bomb more often if it were only AA fire I had to get through- � interceptors would cause the bombing run to be aborted (If they get a ‘hit’).

    Maybe this isn’t historical, but dang aircraft are so expensive in this game, more than 25% of most countries’ income. � I rarely see strategic bombing raids as it is because everyone is afraid of the ‘1’ being rolled in AA fire. � If one side is doing Strategic bombing, likely they are already winning the game as it is (because they can afford a bomber loss).

    Version F:
    Apply only for the SBR battle, not any ground combat.
    StrB 2A@1 can take 1 hit before being destroyed.
    TacB A3 can take 1 hit before being destroyed.
    Fgt A3 can take 1 hit before being destroyed.
    Fgt Def 4 can take 1 hit before being destroyed.

    _The airbattle lasts for 2 rounds.

    Any aircraft can retreat after first round.
    On second round all hits must be allocated, no retreat allowed._

    After this 2 rounds,
    any attacking StrB survivors (even damaged) can proceed toward AAA and IC. Only undamaged TcB can proceed and attacks AB & NB.

    I prefer to allow each StrB Att2@1 to simulate the Flying Fortress MGs.
    And gives a better defense against the interceptors when alone just to be able to get one Fgt down.

    Attacker and defender allocate hits as they want, except for this one rule:
    The attacker, after allocating a hit to an undamaged fighter, must allocate a hit to a StrB  or a TacB or a damaged Fgt. This obligation is reset for each round. Thus, even if the last hit of the first round was allocated to an undamaged Fgt, the attacker can allocate a first hit on an undamaged Fgt on the second round.
    This rule is a way to integrate “Bomber are ennemy’s priority target”.

    Example 1: 1 StrB vs 2 Fgt
    Rolls: � “2” “2” � � � � � � � “6” “4”
    Result: 1 StrB damaged.
    Before 2nd round: StrB can retreat.
    Because, on the other round the StrB can be destroyed if any 1 Fgt hits.

    Example 2: 2 StrB vs 2 Fgt
    Rolls: � � “1” “2” "1"“2” � � “2” “4”
    Result: � 2 StrB damaged / 2 Fgt damaged
    2nd rolls: “1” “3” � � “2” "3 � � � � � � � � � � � � “4” “5”
    Result: 1 StrB down 1StrB can SB IC / � 1 Fgt destroyed � 1Fgt damaged

    The second round lets every player a chance to retreat before getting too much damage on his or her aircrafts.

    Do you think this SBR rules could generate more SBR because it let more calculated risks for both attacker or defense?

    That’s what I hope.

  • '17 '16

    Version F:
    Apply only for the SBR battle, not any ground combat.

    TacB A3 can take 1 hit before being destroyed.
    Fgt A3 Def4 can take 1 hit before being destroyed.

    I know somebody would prefer a more historical accuracy for TacB:
    TacB Att2, if the case, add paired with Fgt give 1@4 to this Fgt.
    It’s Ok for me, I chose TacB A3 because it is the OOB 1940 attacking value.
    It was for simplicity.

  • '17 '16

    @toblerone77:

    Just my humble opinion but SBR has gone out of control, improperly moddded, and just plain stupid in every game since classic. The point was to stop production and destroy resources. The further the distance the the more danger bombers had to face. i’m going to work on this……

    I feel here melancholy for the “old time classics”… :wink:

    But there is truth in what you said.
    Thus, if we like aircrafts battles over UK and Germany and keep the odds as the classics every thing over the AAA IC should get inside a 1/6 chance to hit each bombers, every thing else is more dangerous than the basic rules about SBR. Worth thinking about it.
    Thanks for your comments: back to basic, yah!!!

  • Customizer

    @Baron: I like the simplicity of the classic SBR rules, and I think there’s room for some type of interception. I don’t want to derail the topic by going into my version of IPC and production theory however. I think there’s a better way and I like some these ideas getting kicked around.

  • '17 '16

    @toblerone77:

    @Baron: I like the simplicity of the classic SBR rules, and I think there’s room for some type of interception. I don’t want to derail the topic by going into my version of IPC and production theory however. I think there’s a better way and I like some these ideas getting kicked around.

    Please let us know.

    I’m actually working on a way to balance dangerous “1” against bomber and a way to give room for interception and escort.

    For now what do you think of this?

    To promote more aircrafts battle let’s up to 2 fighters escorts on 1 SBR and making another 1 combat mission with 1 or 2 of the surviving Fgt of this SBR.

    Reason: I think many players are reluctant to engage 1 Bomber on SBR as soon as their is one Fgt on a IC territory because they need fighters elsewhere. Results: far less more SBR and no aircraft battle.


  • There is almost always something better to do with air units than engage in Strategic Bombing, so if you raise the amount of aircraft lost in Strategic Bombing, you are going to have even less of it.

  • Customizer

    @BJCard:

    There is almost always something better to do with air units than engage in Strategic Bombing, so if you raise the amount of aircraft lost in Strategic Bombing, you are going to have even less of it.

    You may be right. However I think SBR (as well as commerce raiding) really should play a better role in any WWII game.

  • '17 '16

    @BJCard:

    There is almost always something better to do with air units than engage in Strategic Bombing, so if you raise the amount of aircraft lost in Strategic Bombing, you are going to have even less of it.

    That’s the point.
    The idea is to engage Fgt in SBR and more usefull battle.
    Normally, not all Fgt in SBR should be lost, � maybe 1 from 1 side or the other, because “1” and “2” and a single round is not made to obliterate all aircrafts in a SBR.

    The attacking player gain the advantage of using twice his Fgt instead of a single escort round with no benefit or impact (even negative ones because these Fgt were needed elsewhere) as long as the defender keep his Fgts grounded.

    I think it should be a kind of calculated risk for both side like:
    “If I engage Fgt escort, it will not become a waste of usefull units because the other side put no interceptors.”
    The defender should pay somehow for not protecting is IC from StrB.
    The other way, the attacker should pay for letting StrB unprotected against interceptors.

    If you want more SBR and aircraft battle you should have some “gain” in it with some risk also but not too overwhelming odds.
    So everyone would see an advantage in playing it or real penalty in not doing it.

    If not, you got 2 situations: a) regular SBR on unprotected IC, or b) no SBR at all if any Fgt is in the territory.

    The game has units and opportunity to simulate something that happen often in WWII (SBR and aerial combat) but the rules give no interest or strategic advantage in doing it, so nobody wants to play it. That is very understandable.

    The simplest way is to give up and say: keep it simple: no escort, no interceptor only 1 IC AAA against each bomber.

    But I think together we can find other interesting ways to play SBR.


  • Well, my point wasn’t to ‘give up,’ but to either:

    A) make Strategic bombing less risky by not losing planes but by making them abort the bombing run

    B) make bombing runs more deadly.  Like- instead of repairing IC at the beginning of your turn and then being able to build there at the end, perhaps the IC only gets repaired at the end of the turn and if your major had 8 damage, you can only build two units there this turn.  (Maybe you can always build at least one unit).  This would certainly get more bombing runs and more interceptor/escorts involved.

    Germany rarely gets strategic bombed (Have not seen it much).
    UK gets bombed once in a while in London, but rarely hurts because they are building in the Middle East/South Africa/Canada.
    Russia gets bombed sometimes- but rarely in Leningrad or Ukraine because the Germans would just have to repair them when they take them.
    If Japan is getting bombed then they are already losing the game.

  • '17 '16

    @BJCard:

    Well, my point wasn’t to ‘give up,’ but to either:

    A) make Strategic bombing less risky by not losing planes but by making them abort the bombing run

    B) **make bombing runs more deadly.**� � Like- instead of repairing IC at the beginning of your turn and then being able to build there at the end, perhaps the IC only gets repaired at the end of the turn and if your major had 8 damage, you can only build two units there this turn.� � (Maybe you can always build at least one unit).� � This would certainly get more bombing runs and more interceptor/escorts involved.

    Germany rarely gets strategic bombed (Have not seen it much).
    UK gets bombed once in a while in London, but rarely hurts because they are building in the Middle East/South Africa/Canada.
    Russia gets bombed sometimes- but rarely in Leningrad or Ukraine because the Germans would just have to repair them when they take them.
    If Japan is getting bombed then they are already losing the game.

    I think that is one of the breakthrough of this tread:

    “make Strategic bombing less risky by not losing planes but by making them abort the bombing run.”

    Germany rarely gets strategic bombed (Have not seen it much).

    Maybe it’s depend if playing 1940 or other version 1942.2. (I played 1942 and it is the more frequent type of SBR).

    make bombing runs more Deadly

    I think we can also play on this factor: increase or decrease damage according to the situation.
    Example: StrB alone make more damage (1D6+2) vs regular 1D6
    StrB + escort vs interceptor: regular damage 1D6
    Even damaged StrB could still bomb IC, maybe 1D3 (1D6/2).

    The objective is to create a real motive in doing SBR and interception.


  • After learning some more about the math I’ve come to the conclusion that the best SB rules are in the latest edition.

    From AA1940 SE:
    1. All attacking  planes fire @1
    2. All defending planes fire @1
    Remove casualties. Bombers proceed to take aa fire.

    That’s it.

    The “bomber turned back” idea, although interesting, violates the rest of the rules of unit interaction. I just don’t see how to make it better.

    Once a bomber faces one interceptor @1 and then one aa gun @1, he’s already has a 1/3 chance of being shot down, right? That’s double the worst losses ever historically! You can’t reduce the odds either, due to the limits of the D6 dice.

  • '17 '16

    @Der:

    After learning some more about the math I’ve come to the conclusion that the best SB rules are in the latest edition.Â

    From AA1940 SE:
    1. All attacking  planes fire @1
    2. All defending planes fire @1
    Remove casualties. Bombers proceed to take aa fire.

    That’s it.

    The “bomber turned back” idea, although interesting, violates the rest of the rules of unit interaction. I just don’t see how to make it better.

    Once a bomber faces one interceptor @1 and then one aa gun @1, he’s already has a 1/3 chance of being shot down, right? That’s double the worst losses ever historically! You can’t reduce the odds either, due to the limits of the D6 dice.

    This situation at 1/3 to being shot down is in worst case: StrB with no escort Fgt.
    That’s why the OOB 1940 SBR rules destroy Fgts escort first. To reduces this high rates of casuality in StrB ranks.

    The “bomber turned back” idea, although interesting, violates the rest of the rules of unit interaction.

    Retreat for the attacker is in A&A system rules.
    Instead of “must turn back” “must retreat or can retreat”

Suggested Topics

  • 1
  • 15
  • 13
  • 4
  • 5
  • 15
  • 4
  • 8
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

23

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts