[House Rules] Tactical Bombers and their use

[baron Münchhausen]

@CWO:

@Baron:

Between cruiser and battleship is correct to consider that both provide a kind of anti-air cover for carriers? Mainly Cruiser (mostly light cruisers with AA batteries)? Mainly BB? What is your opinion?

US battleships and US cruisers both carried a decent number of 5-inch dual-purpose guns (typically 5-inch/38-caliber models), which had good performance both as surface-attack weapons and as anti-aircraft weapons.  Anti-aircraft light cruisers, I think, carried even more of them than light and heavy cruisers or battleships. In addition to the 5-inchers, battleships and cruisers also carried large numbers of 40mm and 20mm anti-aircraft autocannons and of .50 caliber heavy machine guns, so they could put up quite a wall of AAA fire of assorted calibers when all of that stuff was fired all at once.  (Interestingly, when the kamikaze attacks started, it was found that only the shells from the 5-inch guns had enough kinetic energy and explosive power to have a good chance of stopping an approaching kamizaze plane dead in its tracks, assuming that a hit could be scored.  The machine guns, the 20mm Oerlikons and even the 40mm Bofors could kill the pilot and/or set the plane on fire, but wouldn’t necessarily blow it out of the sky, so kamikaze planes would sometimes continue flying in the general direction of the target even though the pilot was dead.)  So yes, I’d say that both battleships and cruisers should confer an anti-aircraft defensive bonus to carriers when paired with them. American carriers and destroyers carried 5"/38cal guns too, but in much smaller numbers than battleships and cruisers – so those weapons don’t need to be taken into account because of their small numbers.  For the carriers, I’d regard the presence of these guns as already built into their standard defense values.  For destroyers I wouldn’t see them as giving any anti-aircraft bonus to carriers.

I’m amazed by the precision and details you get out of your hat. I really like reading your post. :-)

I truly agree with you on DDs and Carriers.

Did you take a look at the documentary?
Is it accurate ?

On the combined arms, is there some pairing which shouldn’t work?
BB + CV? You already suggested it.
Cruiser + CV ? It is implied in your post.
Cruiser + BB + CV? It is the heavier combination, so it is for sure.

But about Cruiser + BB ?
**Can they have a combined arms by themselves when put together?

Or Carrier should be needed absolutely in the mix?
Or is it just a matter of game preference and HR?**
As my old HR was intended to create an incentive for buying more cruiser units.

On the other side, does this defensive formation based on 3 concentric rings of units cannot simply be part of the OOB values of BB, CA and CV?
I’m wandering, does UK or Japan did the same thing with their warships?

Or is it a distinctive coordination of USN warships working in a Task Force or a Carrier group?
Hence, justifying the in game combined arms bonus for an AAA umbrella cover.

[baron Münchhausen]

@CWO:

To carry this principle one step further, I’d argue that in a fighter + tac bomber + tank situation, both the tac bomber and the tank should both get a boost because the fighter is supporting the tac bomber and the tac bomber is supporting the tank.  A perfect example of why combined arms techniques – when correctly used – were so valuable during WWII.

So keeping the OOB as the basic scenario:
does this way of using 1 TcB unit and being able to get 2 +A1 bonus should be considered unbalance or not?

So, instead of just having a combined arms in pair, it could work in trio:
1 Fg is protecting a TcB (can be matched with) on offence, gives TcB A4.
this TcB is also protecting (can also be matched to) a Tk on offence, gives Tk A4.

If someone have to choose to give the bonus +1 on attack only.
Or giving the bonus +1 for both A/D.
Is there some historical objection against a combined arms able to work on defense or not ?
Fighter should be the best on defense of a territory, so why it couldn’t do it?

Of course, at first glance, nothing forbids to give also these bonus on defence.
In this case Fg-TcB-Tk (A11D12C27) become a dangerous triumvirate on the battlefield.

And this raise the question of balance between units:
4 Inf+Art= A16D16C28. 7 Art= A14D14C28. 9 Inf= A9D18C27.
Would you find the triumvirate too overpowered?

But TcB and Tk seems more offensive kind of units, even if the basic value is for both A3D3.

---

Is it possible to understand the game aircraft defense over a territory by TcB or Fg, as being nearer their airfields and nearer the front line (being more able to replenish more easily) than the aircraft on offense?

For example, during the Russian campaign, can we believe that Russian planes have a shorter distance to travel before engaging Luftwaffe over ground units?
(First part of Kursk Battle, when Germany launch the offensive?
2000 German’s planes vs 2700 Russian’s planes with many Sturmovik TcBs amongst them.)

Can this be a sufficient justification to allow a +1 bonus for both situation A/D to Tk supported by TcB?

I’m still wandering how can we depict a defensive Tank maneuver supported by Tactical bombers.
Any ideas?

---

We can also look at this usual offense/defense situation:

During any A&A regular attack, what will happen?
The defender will take ground casualties as long as possible.
The attacker will do the same.

Basically, Fighters and TcBs on defense are killing attacker’s ground units and, when it is the time for the attacker to lose precious planes, he will retreat.

Such situations, usually didn’t turn into an Air-to-air only fight.
When attacker is pushing all-in, it needs to keep at least 1 ground unit to conquer the territory.
So there is very few situation when a boosted up TcB D@3+1 by combined arms with a Fg will seems to directly dogfight other attacker’s planes.

So there is so few counter-intuitive game situation that a TcB D3 gaining D4 paired with a Fg can be easily integrated in the game without creating a big turmoil.

But, it is slightly different for TcB supporting Tk.
As far as I understand their combined arms on the battlefield, TcBs were mostly used to destroy enemy’s armored units which were more or less out-of-reach for Guns on Tk and other armor units.

If I’m correct, this would imply that bonus to a Tk should be given only if there is attacking armored units at the beginning of the battle.
For instance, if an attacker send only Inf and Art, the defending Tk shouldn’t receive any bonus from the TcBs because enemy unit weren’t MechInf or Tk.

So, to reflect this historical situation, which should apply on offense and defense:
Tk can get +1A/D when paired to a TcB and only if there is at least 1 enemy’s MechInf or Tank at the start of the battle.

But here we have the contrary of the “presence of x enemy units, such DD, forbid something”, it becomes: the presence of x type of enemy units, allows a bonus A/D.

That become more difficult to deal with and it is stretching the OOB A&A game mechanics.

As a reference, I found this documentary about Stuka used on various campaign (very interesting and rarely develop angle on the WWII):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrsvKh9GBZc

[CWO Marc]

@Baron:

Did you take a look at the documentary? Is it accurate ?
[…]
But about Cruiser + BB ?
Can they have a combined arms by themselves when put together?
Or Carrier should be needed absolutely in the mix?
Or is it just a matter of game preference and HR?
As my old HR was intended to create an incentive for buying more cruiser units.

As I said before, I won’t comment on the specific details of your proposed house rules because I’m no good at converting real-life combat performance into A&A statistics, and also because I’ve never been much interested in working my way through long, intricate HR proposals, especially when they get into the specific details of things like +2 bonuses for such-and-such a unit.  I prefer to just stick with discussing very general concepts related to how units in WWII actually functioned (and I don’t really have the time for anything else).

One general comment that I’ll make has to do with your “my old HR was intended to create an incentive for buying more cruiser units” remark.  I would recommend that you be very cautious about modifying unit combat values for the purpose of encouraging purchases.  The danger here is that you could end up distorting reality by approaching combat values from the wrong direction.  By “the wrong direction”, I mean proceeding in the following order:

1. Deciding that you want to encourage the purchase of a particular unit

2. Adjusting combat values (for example through combined arms bonuses) to produce the intended encouragement, regardless of whether or not the adjustment reflects how those units actually worked in real life

There’s nothing wrong with this approach as long as you’re clear in your own mind (and in the way in which you present your proposed HRs to others) that historical accuracy is not your primary consideration.  If historical accuracy is your primary consideration, then you need to work in the opposite direction:

1. Study the actual performances of WWII weapon systems, both individually and in combination with each other

2. Adjust the combat values of the corresponding A&A units to reflect this reality

In following this alternate method, you may end up discovering some combined arms pairings that are very cool from a gaming point of view…but you may also find that it creates situations that don’t encourage the purchase of some particular unit that you’re very fond of.  And at that point you have to decide between two options: accepting historical reality and going along with the combat values that the historical evidence has generated, or ignoring the historical evidence and creating a house rule that makes the units behave the way you want them to behave.  As I said, either approach is perfectly legitimate, but you need to be clear about which approach you’re following.  This is why I think Toblerone77 gave you excellent advice in Reply #76 when he recommended that you start each HR project by doing some background reading about the units that you want to modify, to see what their actual function in combat was, what their basic characteristics were, and how they interacted with other units (both friendly and enemy).

[baron Münchhausen]

@CWO:

@Baron:

Did you take a look at the documentary? Is it accurate ?
[…]
But about Cruiser + BB ?
Can they have a combined arms by themselves when put together?
Or Carrier should be needed absolutely in the mix?
Or is it just a matter of game preference and HR?
As my old HR was intended to create an incentive for buying more cruiser units.

As I said before, I won’t comment on the specific details of your proposed house rules because I’m no good at converting real-life combat performance into A&A statistics, and also because I’ve never been much interested in working my way through long, intricate HR proposals, especially when they get into the specific details of things like +2 bonuses for such-and-such a unit.  I prefer to just stick with discussing very general concepts related to how units in WWII actually functioned (and I don’t really have the time for anything else).

That’s the way I understood the nature of all of your intervention.

One general comment that I’ll make has to do with your “my old HR was intended to create an incentive for buying more cruiser units” remark.  I would recommend that you be very cautious about modifying unit combat values for the purpose of encouraging purchases.  The danger here is that you could end up distorting reality by approaching combat values from the wrong direction.  By “the wrong direction”, I mean proceeding in the following order:

1. Deciding that you want to encourage the purchase of a particular unit

2. Adjusting combat values (for example through combined arms bonuses) to produce the intended encouragement, regardless of whether or not the adjustment reflects how those units actually worked in real life

There’s nothing wrong with this approach as long as you’re clear in your own mind (and in the way in which you present your proposed HRs to others) that historical accuracy is not your primary consideration.  If historical accuracy is your primary consideration, then you need to work in the opposite direction:

1. Study the actual performances of WWII weapon systems, both individually and in combination with each other

2. Adjust the combat values of the corresponding A&A units to reflect this reality

Your two steps describes mostly my main guidelines while trying to introduce an HR.
In following this alternate method, you may end up discovering some combined arms pairings that are very cool from a gaming point of view…but you may also find that it creates situations that don’t encourage the purchase of some particular unit that you’re very fond of.  
Exactly. That’s why I mention about my old HR on cruiser. If BB and Cruiser cannot combine arms, then I’ll have to consider the followings options you describe below:

And at that point you have to decide between two options: accepting historical reality and going along with the combat values that the historical evidence has generated, or ignoring the historical evidence and creating a house rule that makes the units behave the way you want them to behave.
You explained the dilemma very well. At one point or another, there is a necessary compromise which is taken. Whether toward history over game balance, mechanics, details, simplicity, etc. or the reverse.

As I said, either approach is perfectly legitimate, but you need to be clear about which approach you’re following.  
We are on the same page here.

This is why I think Toblerone77 gave you excellent advice in Reply #76 when he recommended that you start each HR project by doing some background reading about the units that you want to modify, to see what their actual function in combat was, what their basic characteristics were, and how they interacted with other units (both friendly and enemy).

If I hadn’t started it, there will be no link toward Stuka documentary. But usually, I’m more a game driven-guy than an historical-driven. It is a game topics which create an incentive to make some research and rarely the other way around. Unless I fall on something big.

However, I can’t resist asking questions toward people which have a lot more experience and understand of the historical aspects of WWII. It helps to get a better picture more rapidly, or provides some appropriate links, as Toblerone did. Before this thread I have no idea of the complexity and all variations about WWII aircrafts. Now I’m little bit more aware of.

So are we on the same page? I believe so.

And that’s why I was asking about these points:
Did you take a look at the documentary?
Is it accurate ?

On the combined arms, is there some pairing which shouldn’t work?
BB + CV? You already suggested it.
Cruiser + CV ? It is implied in your post.
Cruiser + BB + CV? It is the heavier combination, so it is for sure.

But about Cruiser + BB ?
Can they have a combined arms by themselves when put together?
Or Carrier should be needed absolutely in the mix?
Or is it just a matter of game preference and HR?
(Meaning that there is no decisive clues toward one way or another.
BBs and Cruisers have a lot of the AA guns and both worked with CV.)

I explained the background:
the cruiser HR I developed give a combined arms bonus (a naval AA fire) when combined with either a CV or a BB. And a bigger one if combined with both.
However, (and in contradiction about your first suggestion) a BB paired to a CV cannot had AA bonus until he is paired to a Cruiser.
So BB+CV is no bonus.
Cruiser +  CV get a bonus AA.
Cruiser + BB+ CV get a bigger bonus,
but, contrary to you, 1 BB + 1 Cruiser get a AA gun bonus.

Hence my historical questions about BB and CA working together.
Because the documentary didn’t provide enough details on them to make a decision.
Is the AAA umbrella fire air cover was somehow a defensive formation which can be done by both warships, after all they were with the most AA guns?

Or is it necessary to paired one or the other to a Carrier, because only Carrier received a support combined arms  according to history?

Said otherwise, does it happen that Cruisers provides a sufficient Air Support cover for Battleship?

Or it is just the weakness of Carriers which allows the development of specific air protection by warships for them.

[CWO Marc]

@Baron:

But about Cruiser + BB ?
Can they have a combined arms by themselves when put together?

No.  Cruisers and battleships have similar anti-aircraft armament and can both defend themselves satisfactorily against air attack, so pairing them changes nothing because doing so doesn’t give either of them any ability that they don’t already have on ther own.  Pairing a cruiser and a carrier, or a battleship and a carrier, or a cruiser and a battleship and a carrier, does give the carrier enhanced anti-aircraft protection because carriers don’t carry a lot of anti-aircraft guns or cannons.

[baron Münchhausen]

@CWO:

@Baron:

But about Cruiser + BB ?
Can they have a combined arms by themselves when put together?

No.  Cruisers and battleships have similar anti-aircraft armament and can both defend themselves satisfactorily against air attack, so pairing them changes nothing because doing so doesn’t give either of them any ability that they don’t already have on ther own.  Pairing a cruiser and a carrier, or a battleship and a carrier, or a cruiser and a battleship and a carrier, does give the carrier enhanced anti-aircraft protection because carriers don’t carry a lot of anti-aircraft guns or cannons.

Thanks, true. I understand.
CA or BB has no need of a special defensive formation since each individual has enough guns to fight planes.

Here is a kind of compromise which can be made to a full historical depiction while keeping an incentive toward cruisers:

1. Give cruiser 1 preemptive AA@1 on defense when paired with 1CV.
2. Give cruiser 2 preemptives AA@1 on defense when paired with 1BB and 1CV.

That would imply that 1 BB and 1 CV doesn’t get any 1 preemptive AA@1.
A cruiser unit would be needed first.

And here is the historical twist:
the in-built A4D4 and second hit is enough to show how it protected carrier.
Many light Cruiser units were outfitted specifically with only AA batteries.

Is there many occasions in which Carriers and Battleship were without Cruiser warships?

But if it was true.
And if Navy relies more on Battleship to provide AA gun cover than Cruiser.

Then this kind of HR becomes counter-intuitive from an historical perspective.

What do you think?
Can an historical description can go this far in the details to provide the decisive argument?

---

I cannot based my answer on Midway for IJN since, carriers were separated from Battleships and cruisers. So Japan didn’t provide a good AA gun cover during this battle.
But US Carriers have cruisers with them as I could read on it.

[CWO Marc]

In my opinion, it should make no difference whether you pair a carrier with a cruiser alone, with a battleship alone, with a cruiser and a battleship together, with two cruisers, with two battleships, or any other such combination.  The type of anti-aircraft defensive bonus given to the carrier should remain the same in all cases.  Why?  Because cruisers and battleships both have the same type and roughly the same quantity of anti-aircraft firepower.  Cruisers don’t have any special anti-aircraft ability that battleships don’t have.  Battleships don’t have any special  anti-aircraft ability that cruisers don’t have.  Neither therefore brings to the carrier any unique bonus, so I disagree with the notion that cruisers should be treated any differently from battleships in that regard.  If you want to treat them differently anyway, that’s up to you.  I’m just giving you my personal view of what I think is historically realistic.

My above opinion is based on the premise that, for A&A OOB rule purposes, all units represent a single generic type with a common set of abilities for all nations.  In other words, “cruiser” in A&A OOB terms means a generic cruiser.  A cruiser is a cruiser is a cruiser, with a single set of combat abilities, and with no distinction made between heavy cruisers, light cruisers, anti-aircraft cruisers, early-war cruisers, late-war cruisers, American cruisers, Japanese cruisers, or whatever.  If the house rule system you’re creating makes such distinctions, that introduces a potentially huge jump in the level of complication for a game which (in its Global 1940 version) is already pushing the limits of practicality.  You’re free to do so if you wish, but I’m not going to offer any opinions about combat bonuses at that level of detail because I think it’s excessive to fracture units into too many sub-types in a strategic-level game.

Regarding your question “Is there many occasions in which Carriers and Battleship were without Cruiser warships?”, the question is too broad to answer definitively for the entire sweep of WWII.  All I can say for certain is that the USN’s standard and most effective configuration for a carrier-based naval task force was the put the carriers in the middle of the formation, to dispose the battleships around the carriers, to dispose the cruisers around the battleships, and to dispose the destroyers around the cruisers, similarly to the concentric rings of an archery target, so that as you go further out from the bull’s eye (the carriers) the surrounding ships become smaller in size but greater in number.

[baron Münchhausen]

@CWO:

In my opinion, it should make no difference whether you pair a carrier with a cruiser alone, with a battleship alone, with a cruiser and a battleship together, with two cruisers, with two battleships, or any other such combination. The type of anti-aircraft defensive bonus given to the carrier should remain the same in all cases. Why? Because cruisers and battleships both have the same type and roughly the same quantity of anti-aircraft firepower. Cruisers don’t have any special anti-aircraft ability that battleships don’t have. Battleships don’t have any special anti-aircraft ability that cruisers don’t have. Neither therefore brings to the carrier any unique bonus, so I disagree with the notion that cruisers should be treated any differently from battleships in that regard. If you want to treat them differently anyway, that’s up to you. I’m just giving you my personal view of what I think is historically realistic.

I was almost sure that neither BB or CA should have a different treatment. So it would be a breaking point between an in-game incentive and balance of units vs historical realism.

My above opinion is based on the premise that, for A&A OOB rule purposes, all units represent a single generic type with a common set of abilities for all nations. In other words, “cruiser” in A&A OOB terms means a generic cruiser.  A cruiser is a cruiser, with a single set of combat abilities, and with no distinction made between heavy cruisers, light cruisers, anti-aircraft cruisers, early-war cruisers, late-war cruisers, American cruisers, Japanese cruisers, or whatever.

If the house rule system you’re creating makes such distinctions, that introduces a potentially huge jump in the level of complication for a game which (in its Global 1940 version) is already pushing the limits of practicality. You’re free to do so if you wish, but I’m not going to offer any opinions about combat bonuses at that level of detail because I think it’s excessive to fracture units into too many sub-types in a strategic-level game.

Regarding your question “Is there many occasions in which Carriers and Battleship were without Cruiser warships?”, the question is too broad to answer definitively for the entire sweep of WWII. All I can say for certain is that the USN’s standard and most effective configuration for a carrier-based naval task force was the put the carriers in the middle of the formation, to dispose the battleships around the carriers, to dispose the cruisers around the battleships, and to dispose the destroyers around the cruisers, similarly to the concentric rings of an archery target, so that as you go further out from the bull’s eye (the carriers) the surrounding ships become smaller in size but greater in number.

You have a gift to clearly formulate  overall principles of depiction of game units.

I made a kick search about US Cruisers and Battleships to see what was their respective function.

All that I could find was about the introduction of the fast BB (Iowa-class?, I can’t remember.) which have 2 purposes: shorebombardment and AAA air cover.

Based on this someone may prefer give AAA combined arms only for BB and CV since it their is no sign of a Navy doctrine which specified the AAA purpose for Cruiser, right?

But, in one of your post above you showed that Cruisers and BB have similars weapons against aircrafts and the main difference is the sheer numbers, am I right? Hence, both can give AAA cover in combined arms with CV.

An other aspect is about the kind or degree of AAA cover provided by BB and Cruiser.
You said this:

it should make no difference whether you pair a carrier with a cruiser alone, with a battleship alone, with a cruiser and a battleship together, with two cruisers, with two battleships, or any other such combination. The type of anti-aircraft defensive bonus given to the carrier should remain the same in all cases.

And that the best defensive formation was the concentric ring of an archery target, from outside to inside: DDs, Cruisers, Battleships then Carriers.

My intuitive impression based on this historical defensive formation was that, keeping the same ratio number of real warships / game unit, a ring with DDs & CVs was weaker agains aircrafts than DDs, CAs & CVs or DDs, BBs & CVs, and both were weaker than the full Carriers group Task Force: DDs, CAs, BBs & CVs.

And because of this, it was more accurate to give a better AAA cover to the full Carriers group TF.
To provide HR illustrations:

**A- “When 1 Cruiser or 1 BB is paired to a CV, give them an AAA cover @1 against up to 3 planes, as a regular AAA fire.”
vs
B-

1. Give 1 Carrier unit 1 preemptive AA@1 on defense when paired with 1 Cruiser or 1 BB.
2. Give 1 Carrier unit 2 preemptives AA@1 on defense when paired with 1 Cruiser and 1 BB.**

Another question, does this concentrated ring formation would have been as much efficient if there was no smaller warships such as cruisers in the outer perimeter but another group of Battleships?

Because in the doc mentioned above Battle 360 E8 D-Day in the Pacific Part 3/6, they suffer a lot about friendly cross-fire.
Does the problem would have become worse with double the number of BBs?

If not, then there is no compelling historical reason to not provide this:

**C-

1. Give 1 Carrier unit 1 preemptive AA@1 on defense when paired with 1 Cruiser or 1 BB.
2. Give 1 Carrier unit 2 preemptives AA@1 on defense when paired with 2 Cruisers or 2 BBs or 1 CA & 1 BB unit.**

In other words, does the combined arms of Cruiser unit and Battleship with CVs could have provided a better AAA defensive cover?

[baron Münchhausen]

Coming back to the topic:

TcB and Tk seems more offensive kind of units, even if the basic value is for both off and def: A3D3.

---

Is it possible to understand the in-game aircrafts defense over own territory by TcB or Fg, as being nearer their airfields and nearer the front line (being more able to replenish with ease) than the aircraft on offense?

For example, during the Russian campaign, can we believe that Russian planes have a shorter distance to travel before engaging Luftwaffe over ground units?
(First part of Kursk Battle, when Germany launch the offensive?
2000 German’s planes vs 2700 Russian’s planes with many Sturmovik TcBs amongst them.)

Can this be a sufficient justification to allow a +1 bonus for both situation A/D to Tk supported by TcB?

I’m still wandering how can we depict a defensive Tank maneuver supported by Tactical bombers.
Any ideas?

[Spendo02]

You could always just have TacB roll @4 in naval combat in all situations to simulate dive bomber / torpedo strikes.  Or maybe simply 1st round sneak attack capability for dropping those torpedos.

There are probably synergies to be had pairing specific naval units together as certain naval units moved much faster than others creating the ability to attack and withdraw before the larger ships could navigate into position to retaliate.  But, from by observation normally navies are kept in a big rolling mess so it would become overtly confusing to move up this cruiser to defend at 4, or this destroyer to attack @2.

One thing I always questioned was why aircraft in a zone were not on “patrol” and you could simply fly over them.  I’ve suggested before that AB allow aircraft to basically be “on station” and “on patrol” and the defending nation could roll @2 or less to detect and intercept aircraft flying over the territory which would initiate combat and stop units from flying to their intended destination.  If you didn’t have an AB, you could roll@1 to detect and intercept.  Most of this use would probably be seen in the Pacific, but there are probably a few places in Europe where there could be strategic value for such a HR.

[CWO Marc]

@Baron:

If not, then there is no compelling historical reason to not provide this:

**C-

1. Give 1 Carrier unit 1 preemptive AA@1 on defense when paired with 1 Cruiser or 1 BB.
2. Give 1 Carrier unit 2 preemptives AA@1 on defense when paired with 2 Cruisers or 2 BBs or 1 CA & 1 BB unit.**

This discussion is starting to look as if it could go on indefinitely without getting anywhere other than where you keep wanting it to go, so I’m not going to spend any more time on it.  The simplest solution to your problem would be for you to just give your units whatever bonuses you’re eager to give them, without your going to the trouble of proposing one increasingly complicated theory after another to try to justify on historic grounds why they should get those bonuses.

[baron Münchhausen]

@CWO:

@Baron:

If not, then there is no compelling historical reason to not provide this:

**C-

1. Give 1 Carrier unit 1 preemptive AA@1 on defense when paired with 1 Cruiser or 1 BB.
2. Give 1 Carrier unit 2 preemptives AA@1 on defense when paired with 2 Cruisers or 2 BBs or 1 CA & 1 BB unit.**

This discussion is starting to look as if it could go on indefinitely without getting anywhere other than where you keep wanting it to go, so I’m not going to spend any more time on it. The simplest solution to your problem would be for you to just give your units whatever bonuses you’re eager to give them, without your going to the trouble of proposing one increasingly complicated theory after another to try to justify on historic grounds why they should get those bonuses.

Sorry, if you got this impression that I have an agenda on this point. The 3 versions of HR were their to provide illustrations of different ways of trying to depict the historical situation of BB and CA providing Anti-Air support to carrier.

Excuse me if my last post was confusing, English is not my mother tongue and sometimes I have the impression of carving woods with a butter knife…

Trying to be straight to the point:
1- Cruisers and Battleships have a lot of Anti-air guns.
2- Both can be used to provide anti-air cover for the carriers,
in addition it was an explicit purpose and mission for fast US Battleship.
3- There is a special defensive formation develop during the war to provide a maximum air-cover to Carrier:
the concentrics rings going from the outward to the inward: DD, CAs, BBs, CVs.

Based on combined arms bonus as a way of depicting Fg providing escort and support to TcB, you applied this idea in the Carriers group and naval combat.

My interrogation was about these historicals points and the way to translate them in a significant way in game terms.
Do you know how effective the 4 concentrics rings of warships was and if one type in the group was missing it makes a difference or not? So, was it more accurate to give a better AAA cover to the full Carriers group Task Force or not?

Here a different illustration, and simplified, of what it can means in game:

Point 1 and 2 can be illustrated by
Version A-
“When 1 Cruiser or 1 BB is paired to a CV, give them an AAA cover @1 against up to 3 planes, as a regular AAA fire.”
vs
Point 3 can be more illustrated by
Version D-
" Only when both Cruiser and BB are paired to a CV, you give it, as a whole, an AAA cover @1 against up to 3 planes, as a regular AAA fire."

How far can we go to give a special AAA cover status to the 4 rings defensive formation?
I thought it was one of the main reason of the efficiency of the “Marianas Turkey’s shoot”, as the documentary seems to underlined it.

[General 6 Stars]

KISS  Baron    KISS. :-D

[baron Münchhausen]

@Baron:

@CWO:

As I recall, the two examples I cited were the Battle of Britain, from which the Luftwaffe’s Stukas were withdrawn when it became clear that they were being cut to pieces by RAF fighters, and the Battle of Midway.

I see the Battle of Britain as UK on defense and Germany on offense.

And in the game, it is depicted as 1 or 2 SBR with Fgs escorting Germans StBs and TcBs against UK’s Fgs having an interceptor role.

In G40, do Fgs unit have an advantage over TcB or even StB? Nope.
No difference. All the same.
Fg, TcB, StB A1 vs Fg D1.

We must turn toward 1942.2 SBR rule to better see the difference, but there is no TcB in it:
Fg/StB A1 preemptive vs Fg D2 regular.

---

Then we must look at the regular combat.
(…)
And we cannot limit the TcB vs Fg to air-to-air combat here.
(…)
So we are describing StB A4 and TcB A4 with Fg A3. Fighting UK’s Fgs D4.

Basically, all bombers are at the same combat level than defending Fgs.

I’ve just read an interesting description of the 2 different ways for Fgs of doing escort mission.

This example here is based on the US SBR against Germany, but it can probably also apply to German’s SBR against UK, as describe in the first quote above:

Those fighters are talented; they can multi task. And honestly, this is exactly what the USA did when they were bombing Germany, yes strategically bombing them. At first they kept the escorts close to the bombers and the Luftwaffe would just hit and run at will and the fighters couldn’t pursue. When the americans gave the orders for the fighters to roam free, it helped them go from air superiority to air supremacy (edit) but it was hell on the bombers. Note that these fighters still came over as escorts, but once the interceptors showed up, their top priority was air superiority not bomber protection.

During Big Week in February of 1944, one of the purposes of the major series of bombing attacks was to use the bombers as bait to draw up the Luftwaffe defensive fighters to be engaged by the US fighter escorts. The purpose was to increase losses to the Luftwaffe fighter command prior to the D-Day invasion.

http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1669&hilit=dogfight+phase&start=16

If this tactical use of Fgs with StBs and TcBs is a genuine and historical one, was it somehow depicted or not by the new OOB SBR rules?

Is there a way to depict these historical Fgs escorting tactics inside SBR OOB rules or is it just another sacrifice made for game simplicity?

As I noted above, the depiction of Fg as an Air superiority weapon was given up in the second edition of G40 SBR interception rule.
Maybe it could be different with this other dual escort tactics?

The poster describe this tactical situation here (the OOB SBR, at that time, was based on the “StB and TcB are always choose as the first casualty”:

The old rule was that the escorts could never be taken as losses.

The new rule is that the escorts probably will be taken as losses, it’s the losing players choice.

My proposal is that if the escorts are restricted in their role, they have limited ability to score hits, however, by staying close to the bombers they make it more likely that they will be taken as a casualty, the losing player gets to decide their losses.

If on the other hand, the escorts are allowed to pursue interceptors, they are more effective at shooting them down (hit on a 2 or less), but in that case, they are not as effective at protecting the bombers, therefore, the interceptors get to choose their hits.

I can understand your objection to the firing player getting to choose the lost units as being un-axis and allies, but the reality is that we already had something like this in the old rules (at least the bombers were chosen as losses).

So if the escorts are allowed to pursue enemy interceptors, the losing player loses bombers first,
if the escorts are tight to the bombers, lose fighters first, that takes choice out of the equation, like it better?

I guess what I’m hearing from you is that you like the idea of all fighters and bombers shooting at 1 at the same time, fair enough, you’re entitled to your opinion. It makes it almost impossible for the Battle of Britain to take place however, since it’s very easy for the German player to overwhelm the British air defence forces.

http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=6491&start=136

I think that Corriganbp try as best as he can to depict in game terms this historical situation.
Maybe, there is still a way to see the OOB SBR to fit in this description. IDK.
Any idea?

Otherwise, this guy picked up another element of inconsistency with the actual OOB Fg unit A1/D1 during SBR.

---

At least, the TcBs can be better describe as a victim of UK Air command (not exactly RAF fighters but better than nothing) while bringing them as “escorts” for StB. Especially when no AB or NB needed to be bombard (because already max-out damaged) but, and contrary to Fgs, nonetheless have to roll against the in-built AAA @1 of NB or AB.
@ChocolatePancake:

That’s how we play tac bomber’s too. Even if the naval and airbases are fully damaged, you can still go on the raid, and they are still shot at by AAA.
It’s just territories like, say, Ukraine that don’t have a naval or airbase that you couldn’t send them on a raid.

@CWO:

As I recall (…) the Battle of Britain, from which the Luftwaffe’s Stukas were withdrawn when it became clear that they were being cut to pieces by RAF fighters.

[baron Münchhausen]

I played my first game with the new SBR system and I think it is perfect and should not be changed a bit. We saw more raids in the last game then all previous alpha 3 games combined. Both sides were conducting them. Even though I advocated for interceptors and escorts rolling at 2 or less, I like that everything rolls at a one. It makes me more willing to conduct raids that are out of my escorts range because the interceptors are only rolling 1s.

http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=6491&start=144

Maybe it is harder to have an accurate description of Fighters on escort mission and air superiority in SBR, at least the game have his way to depict the historical long range StB runs (move 6+1) without Fgs (move 4+1) escorts.

[baron Münchhausen]

Trying to depict the two escorting fighters tactics with an additional HR inside the actual G40 OOB SBR escort and interception rules, I come to this:
It would be an attacker’s choice whether he chooses the close-escort mission or an Offensive Counter-Air mission.

Close-escort mission:
When playing as OOB SBR (all @1), it is like Fgs are providing close-escort to bombers.

Offensive Counter-Air mission version A:
Air-to-Air combat phase in SBR with Fgs actively chasing intercepting Fgs :
All attacking Fgs can roll A@1. Remove casualties.
All other planes (TcBs, StBs and defending Fgs) roll A/D @1. Remove casualties.
Then, defending Fgs roll D@1 a second cycle inside the A-to-A phase.
And all hits in this second cycle are allocated to bombers. Remove casualties.

Proceed to SBR over IC, NB or AB.
AAA fires against StB and TcB.
Then roll damage as OOB.

I think it is a way to simulate the two tactics at a Strategical level game.
It can give a better historical feel and variation of attacking SBR strategy, at least on this point, than just the actual OOB.
Attacking Fighters get a preemptive strike, and any hit is also a way of protecting bombers,
while defending Fgs get special treatment on the second cycle: a second chance to make a hit @1 on bombers specifically.

In addition, maybe the comparison can provide us a way to explain why Fgs are not better than bombers and stay A/D @1:

the escorts are restricted in their role, they have limited ability to score hits, however, by staying close to the bombers they make it more likely that they will be taken as a casualty, the losing player gets to decide their losses.

If on the other hand, the escorts are allowed to pursue interceptors, they are more effective at shooting them down, but in that case, they are not as effective at protecting the bombers, therefore, the interceptors get to choose their hits.

On one part, we can say that for escorting Fgs providing cover impaired all of them, moving at a slower pace and keeping an eye on bombers.
On the other part, defending interceptors are also somewhat impaired by the defensive formation of Bombers and Fgs, so they didn’t get any advantage of the “flying over homeland territory” would normally provide against less maneuverable target.
So, after all, Fgs get A1D1 while the rest of TcBs and StBs just getting A1 but D0.
(And based upon IPC cost, it is just enough to say a Fg unit is slightly better than the rest.)

---

In summary, about Offensive Counter-Air mission :
The first cycle is a regular for defending planes, because they have to scramble and can be caught off guard by attacking Fgs. They get the superiority once in the air.

The first cycle of SBR interception phase is as OOB, except for attacking Fgs.
The second cycle is for surviving defending Fgs which get an advantage since there is no close-escort Fgs for Bombers.

In addition, this can provide a distinctive ability toward Fgs vs TcBs.

---

This HR was only a way to depict in game term this historical tactics, but if there is already a way to rationalize it inside OOB rules, feel free to develop it, so it can add a layer of historical depiction and feeling toward Fighter unit.

EDIT:
Here is another way of depicting this Offensive Counter Air-Mission version B:

What could happened historically?
A typical example from the Battle of Britain:
A flight of Ju88, He111 and Do17 Bombers sent in to bomb British ABs with a group of 109’s in support.
A group of Spitfires and Hurricanes comes up to intercept.
The 109s jump the interceptors.
The interceptors try to blow by the escorts and get at the bombers.

Escorts are flying in ahead of the Bombers and meet the interceptors before the wing of Bombers.

Escorts and Interceptors fight one round.
Escorts and interceptors roll on A/D@1. Remove casualties.
Then, escorting and intercepting Fgs and Bombers all roll on A/D@1. Remove casualties, but Bombers are taken as casualties.
Then, AAA fire, remove casualties.
Proceed to bombing damage.

[baron Münchhausen]

On one part, we can say that for escorting Fgs providing cover impaired all of them, moving at a slower pace and keeping an eye on bombers.
On the other part, defending interceptors are also somewhat impaired by the defensive formation of Bombers and Fgs, so they didn’t get any advantage of the “flying over homeland territory” would normally provide against less maneuverable target.
So, after all, Fgs get A1D1 while the rest of TcBs and StBs just getting A1 but D0.
(And based upon IPC cost, it is just enough to say a Fg unit is slightly better than the rest.)

Thinking about this, maybe a combined arms bonus for Fgs escorting TcBs and StBs should be provided in SBR, or a disadvantage of not a having Fgs on his side.
Example:

If there is no attacking Fgs, then all defending Fgs interceptors can roll a preemptive strike @1.
Once the casualties are removed, attacking TcBs and StBs can make there attack rolls against Fgs interceptors.

I also found something similar and interesting, developed by IL, about how Fg can negate some offensive capacity of a StB:

OK look at this:
perhaps bombers stay at normal values if the defense has no air support.
If planes are on both sides, the bombers effectiveness goes down to 3-1-6

---

Think of it like a reverse bonus.

Fighters and Tactical boost the tactical +1 on attack.
Bombers attacking against enemy force that includes fighters -1 on attack.

http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=9150&start=72

[baron Münchhausen]

About the way of seeing TcB vs Fg and, even StB in an historical perspective, I must show an excerpt of this interesting post from Wild Bill, he briefly describes the evolution of units in A&A with the introduction of new ones.
In addition, it suggested an interesting way of giving more depth to Fg as an escorting unit with combined arms method in addition to an Air Base, but this time with a StB (I made some edit work on it):

BUT….strat bombers IN THE GAME are being used for everything BUT strat bombing. so i guess if players dont WANT strat bombing to be a viable tactic used in the game and they want to keep using strat bombers as the long arm of the seas…than leave it as is. it obviously works, the strat bomber has gotten us this far in the games history. why tweak it.

but if “economic warefare” is to ever be a viable and integral part of the game, the rules need to be tweaked because right now, strat bombing and convoy raiding either dont happen or are back a** wards.

no one does these tactics IN THE GAME with any real “plan” to do them; they are done some times but always as an after thought.

Thanks Yope, you have hit on several points.

The first being the game system itself. Each unit can have multiple roles, but has a blanket value for attack, def, and movement. The pairing of units allow for some modifications with-in the system (art giving inf an attack boost when paired, and the tac/ftr, tac/tank como etc…)

That’s why I thought that a ftr strictly doing escort duties for an SBR run could get +1 range. So the pairing rule would be for each strat bmr you have doing a bombing run, one ftr gets +1 range to escort it. That way a bmr/ftr pair could make it from UK (London) to W Germany and return together. They would have to both start in the same tt (London in this case), but could land separately if you want, (like a ftr lands on a carrier?). This would kinda bring the AB into play, because in the above situation the frt would need the +1 from the AB and +1 for bmr escort pairing to perform the mission and return to London (6 spaces).

The 6 sided dice also restricts these values a bit, but modifications like +2 for bmrs in SBR bandages that to a point.

As the game has evolved, new units have developed (art, cruiser, tac bmr) to give the game more dimension (or to fill a gap). Some of the original base units have had slight tweaks to allow for these new units to exists, or to mesh into the current system. Some revisions like when the cruiser was added called for a tweak to destroyers. DD no longer got bombardment, and its attack value & cost went down (2-2-2-8 unit) when the cruiser was introduced. Now the dd is used primarily vs subs (also as blockers, or as sea fodder). Anniversary (AA50) saw the cost of many units lowered, as some new units were added.

When the tac was added to the line up in G40, really nothing else was changed to the air units (cost of the bmer was already lowered in AA50). The other values for the bmr stayed the same. It could have been easier to make a change to the bmr back when the tac was introduced (might have been more exceptable by the masses), making it more of an SBR unit (like the dd primary use is vs subs). IDK, maybe the values and role of the strat bmr was looked at then, but was left as is (and here we are).

I will say that in the game we are in right now we lowered the attack value and cost of the bomber by one making it a 3-1-6-11 unit. We are only in the 3rd turn, but let me tell you the axis player(s) hate it. It was the unit of choice for a casualty for the Germans in the opening round sea battles (although he may regret it later losing a range unit). Every time a battle occurs that has a bmr in it all I here from the Japs is that should have been a hit etc….LOL. The Germans won’t be doing SBR runs, because he lost both starting bmrs G1 (I don’t see him buying any). Now we haven’t seen the other side of the coin yet, as the USA is still on the sidelines. I think lowering the cost was a mistake, maybe keeping it at 12 IPCs would make the German player think twice about keeping it, and the US won’t get a cost reduction if he decides to buy into them.

Yope, I agree that an AB restriction for the bmr shouldn’t happen. No other unit does this, and Larry doesn’t like exceptions. You certainly don’t want it in play for SBR, because it would hamper it even more.

As far as concentration of production/targets, G40 has more production ares (ICs) then any of the global games, and the intro of the bases gives new targets. Most of the high production territories have bases that can also be bombed which aids in SBR IMO because you can also bring in your tacs for the dog fight. I see what you mean though as far having to protect more tt’s if there were more factories etc… you would have to def more tt leaving some w/o interceptors. Fewer dog fights may lead to more SBR. Right now to bomb W Germany or London can be tough because it is also were the enemy air force is in most cases.

Maybe you should be able to somehow bomb these higher IPC producing tt w/o a facility. Like S Germany for instance is worth 3 IPCs. You know that the tt contributes to the German econ, but the only way for you to do something is to capture it. Could you do a limited SBR on such tt’s? IDK.

The recent changes to the function/role of the AA gun also makes its mark here. Facilities having built-in AA that is always on (even if the base/IC is rendered in operational) is contributory to the lack of SBR IMO. Built in AA should probably be limited to 3 shots (like regular AA is now), and if you shut down a facilities abilities then maybe its built-in AA gun also gets shut down. If they don’t fix it, you get to hit it again if you want w/o the risk of AA fire. In the old days if he moved his AA gun out, that was a great target of opportunity. At least allow a certain amount of damage to have the same effect (no AA fire) which leads me to my final point…

I believe that it is too easy to repair the damage of both minor ICs & bases to get their abilities back. It should cost more then 4 IPCs to get it running again when maxed out. I still contend that you should be able to bomb these facilities to 2/3’s of there cost just like a major IC. Everything else stays the same as far as 3 damage renders it in-operable.

http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=9150&start=96

All this let me believe that it is not only TcB and Fg which were not quite able to give a good symbolic  historical feel, but even StB, as all the three planes interactions can be delineated and defined in a more consistent way with major historical components.

Just to add an interesting historical details on StB accuracy:

Bombers use their defence value of 1 when they attack ships. Remember that the UK Lancaster Heavy bombers used 2 years and more than 30 attempts before they sunk Tirpitz.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Spendo02:

One thing I always questioned was why aircraft in a zone were not on “patrol” and you could simply fly over them.  I’ve suggested before that AB allow aircraft to basically be “on station” and “on patrol” and the defending nation could roll @2 or less to detect and intercept aircraft flying over the territory which would initiate combat and stop units from flying to their intended destination.  If you didn’t have an AB, you could roll@1 to detect and intercept.  Most of this use would probably be seen in the Pacific, but there are probably a few places in Europe where there could be strategic value for such a HR.

This specific point of your post should be treated and develop in this thread on Airbase, it seems a way to enhanced its impacts by adding some historical aspects, I believe:

Planes from Airbases or carriers scrambling to defend adjacent territories.
@knp7765:

Okay, I know this goes against the rules, but it seems to me that your planes stationed on an Airbase or even on an Aircraft Carrier should be able to scramble to defend adjacent territories. Now, planes on a regular territory (no Airbase) could not do this because they are considered “in the field” and would not be available for a quick response (lack of communications, etc.).
(…)

[baron Münchhausen]

@Spendo02:

You could always just have TacB roll @4 in naval combat in all situations to simulate dive bomber / torpedo strikes.  Or maybe simply 1st round sneak attack capability for dropping those torpedos.

I believe the main historical objections against an A4D4 TcB is this kind of situation is described here:
@CWO:

In another House Rules thread (I can’t recall which one) where this whole subject came up, I expressed skepticism at the idea that a tac bomber could have a great defensive performance against a fighter.  As I recall, the two examples I cited were the Battle of Britain, from which the Luftwaffe’s Stukas were withdrawn when it became clear that they were being cut to pieces by RAF fighters, and the Battle of Midway.  At Midway, the American torpedo bombers were slaughtered by the defending Zeros, and the late-arriving American dive-bombers were greatly helped in striking their targets successfully by the fact that the Zeros had been pulled down from their combat air patrol stations by going after the early-arriving enemy torpedo bombers, thus leaving the carriers with no fighter cover.

You need to provide some alternate historical rationalization for TcBs to allow an unescorted A4 to them against defending Fgs.