Rethinking Air Units

[baron Münchhausen]

@Cmdr:

I am also seeing what you are with regard to aircraft:

• Fighter: Air-to-Air / Air-to-Ground general purpose aircraft.
• Tactical Bomber: Air-to-Ground / Air-to-Sea (i.e. Torpedo Plane) attack aircraft.
• Strategic Bomber: Area-of-Effect, High Level bombing damage. Like the Flying Fortress.
  Strategic Bomber:

*** Special: May not conduct naval combat**

Thanks for formulating my way of seeing air units.
I really disagree on your last restriction on STBs.
Mainly because I agree with CWOMarc.
@CWO:

@knp7765:

However, in reality strategic bombers were not that effective against navy ships.

Correct, an example being the attack during the Battle of Midway by nine B-17s against Admiral Kondo’s occupation fleet and by fifteen B-17s against Nagumo’s carrier fleet. They scored no hits. On the other hand, the FW-200C Condor and the B-24 Liberator did have some success in the Battle of the Atlantic, the former in a convoy-attack role and the latter in the ASW role.

B-25 Medium Bombers in Pacific Theater of Operation, B-24 Liberator and Halifax Heavy Bomber (UK’s actual Sculpt) in Atlantic were used against Subs and some other Naval units.
If you go as high as 15 IPCs, even with @5.
This would be less effective than TcB @4 for 10 IPCs.
6 TcBs A24 D18 C60 compared to 4 StBs A20 D4 C60.
TcBs get 42 points while StBs get 24 points.

Even OOB StB A4 D1 C12 will be better than this StB A5 D1 C15
5 OOB StBs A20 D5 C60. SBR damage 5D6+10= 15 to 40

That’s why I suggested a better SBR damage to 15 IPCs’ StBs:
4D2xD6= 8 to 48.
Their role will be much more specific that way.
Also, for such a high cost giving A1 during air-to-air combat isn’t a big deal.
And it keeps the risk for all planes involved, much more fun.
6 TcBs get A6 D6 against 4 StBs get A4 D0.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Cmdr:

We could even say that air units must attack other air units before attacking any other units until one side or the other have no defending air units left. In regards to Fighters/Tactical Bombers. Strategic Bombers, if present, would be permitted to be casualties, but could not engage in air-to-air combat rounds.

At such a high price, it should have a low combat value @1.
Rising the price is making a given combat number weaker compared to cheaper units with the same value.

However, I don’t go with a single phase of air destruction like 1914.
In my previous post, I come to a better intertaining phase each combat round.
Basically, all surviving planes will have 2 opportunities of firing.
1 roll against air units only.
1 roll against all units (in which it is mostly grounds or navals which are chosen as casualties).
A plane can get only 1 roll if their is no dogfight before regular combat or if they received a hit during the air combat phase.

In this increase air presence in battle, this imply higher attrition rate amongst planes.
That’s why I think an 8 -10 -12 cost (Fg, TcB, StB) is optimal.

---

However, there is many combat values which can fit according to your desire to strictly follow G40 OOB values of planes or not.
The idea is to get as near as possible the OOB value by combining Air-to-air values + regular combat values:

Air phase combat value / regular combat value
StB A1 D0 / A4 D1
TcB A1 D1 / A3-4 D3-4 get +1 A/D when there is no air combat
Fg A1 D2 / A2 D2

OR
Air phase based on G40 SBR / regular combat value
StB A1 D0 / A4 D1
TcB A1 D0 / A3-4 D3 get +1 A when there is no air combat
Fg A1 D1 / A2 D3

OR
Air phase loosely based on 1942.2 SBR / regular combat value
StB A1 D0 / A4 D1
TcB A1 D1 / A3-4 D3 get +1 A when there is no air combat
Fg A1 First Strike D2 / A2 D2

OR
A combined arms for Fighters / regular combat value with Air superiority bonus for TcB
StB A1 D0 / A4 D1
TcB A1 D1 / A3-4 D3-4 get +1 A/D when there is no air combat
Fg A1-2 D2 / A2 D2 get +1 A in air combat phase when paired 1:1 with TcB or with StB (Fg is playing an escort role, in which bombers are bait).

[crusaderiv]

Fgs can represent Air Superiority Fighter with Machine guns and 1 or 2 cannons.
TcBs can represent Dive Bombers, Torpedo Bombers and even Light bombers.
StBs can represent Medium and Heavy Bombers.
The in-between case is Fighter-bomber.
Since he can bomb specific target, I rather put it in the TcBs wide category.

Not enough taste for a plane lover like me…
AL

[baron Münchhausen]

@crusaderiv:

Fgs can represent Air Superiority Fighter with Machine guns and 1 or 2 cannons.
TcBs can represent Dive Bombers, Torpedo Bombers and even Light bombers.
StBs can represent Medium and Heavy Bombers.
The in-between case is Fighter-bomber.
Since he can bomb specific target, I rather put it in the TcBs wide category.

Not enough taste for a plane lover like me…
AL

I know some people have a lot more different units and values than just the 3 OOBs.
Just talking long range bombers, I think it is at least possible to find sculpts for medium bombers and Heavy flying fortress.

DK is just talking about these 3 units, wanting to introduce Tactical Bombers inside the previous and limited roster of Fgs and Strategic bombers.

[Der Kuenstler]

@Cmdr:

Results still proposed:
Fighter:

• Cost 10 IPC
• Attack 3
• Defend 4
• Move 4/5

Tactical Bomber:

• Cost 10 IPC
• Attack 4
• Defend 3
• Move 4/5

Strategic Bomber:

• Cost 15 IPC
• Attack 2@4, take best result
• Defend 1 (or even 0.)
• Move 6/7
• Special:  May conduct strategic bombing runs against bases/industrial complexes at 1d6+2 damage
• Special:  May not conduct naval combat
• Special:  May transport 1 infantry in combat IN PLACE OF ATTACKING as paratroopers (per paratrooper rules.)

I’m sold up until the strat bombers - I don’t think people will want to go back to paying 15 IPCs for the things. I know I don’t want to - when AA guns can knock them down before they can even fire.

How about Strat. bombers:

• Cost 12 IPC
• Attack @3 (reducing tactical effectiveness)
• Defend 1
• Move 6/7
• Special:  May conduct strategic bombing runs against bases/industrial complexes at 1d6+2 damage
• Special:  May not conduct naval combat
• Special:  May transport 1 infantry in combat IN PLACE OF ATTACKING as paratroopers (per paratrooper rules.)

[Jennifer]

5% odds in your favor is a lot especially when compounded over multiple rounds.  While there is currently no best of 2@4 there was in the Alpha project in regards to damage done to facilities - if I remember right, so it did exist before.

I could see making the flying fortress immune to AA Gun fire due to high level bombing campaigns.  In place of reducing the price.  Or reduce the price and nerf the plane as well so:

Strategic Bomber

• Cost 12 IPC
• Attack Best of 2 dice @ 4 or less
• Defend 0
• May Conduct Strategic Bombing Runs against Bases/Industrial Complexes @ 1d6+2
• May transport one infantry unit instead of engaging in combat
• May not engage in naval warfare

Just spitballing of course.

[baron Münchhausen]

*** Attack @3 (reducing tactical effectiveness)**
compared to
*** Attack Best of 2 dice @ 4 or less**
Very different directions.

DK, with such StB with reduced capacity, it can be 10 IPCs also.

Cmdr Jen,
just imagine you have 5 StBs and rolling dices.
You must roll 5 times each pairs separately to know the results.
With @5, you roll one shot of 5 dices and count the results in one eye blink. Much simpler.

I don’t think best of 2D@4 will get outside your HR players group.

Also, if you think the 5% is necessary, then lower the cost by 1 IPC and you increase the ratio odds/IPC so you can use the @5. Much easier.
Instead of StB cost 15 with Attack “best of 2D@4”,
make it StB A5 D1 M6-7 cost 14.

[toblerone77]

@Baron:

*** Attack @3 (reducing tactical effectiveness)**
compared to
*** Attack Best of 2 dice @ 4 or less**
Very different directions.

DK, with such StB with reduced capacity, it can be 10 IPCs also.

Cmdr Jen,
just imagine you have 5 StBs and rolling dices.
You must roll 5 times each pairs separately to know the results.
With @5, you roll one shot of 5 dices and count the results in one eye blink. Much simpler.

I don’t think best of 2D@4 will get outside your HR players group.

Also, if you think the 5% is necessary, then lower the cost by 1 IPC and you increase the ratio odds/IPC so you can use the @5. Much easier.
Instead of StB cost 15 with Attack “best of 2D@4”,
make it StB A5 D1 M6-7 cost 14.

Actually Baron it works fine. If you have five bombers roll ten dice and you score seven hits you only count five because there are only five bombers. The stats are still the same if you rolled them separately. One bomber rolling two hits still only gets one hit i.e. “the best result” of two dice. The odds are mathematically the same as long as your hit count never exceeds the number of attacking bombers.

[baron Münchhausen]

Your method will increase the odds for the attacker  because you don’t know when 2 hits were coming from the same StB.
9 or 10 hits nothing change for both method.
7 or 8  hits can results in 4 or 5 casualties.
5 or 6 hits can result in 3 or 4 or 5 casualties.
4 hits can results in 2 or 3 or 4 casualties.
3  hits results in 2 or 3 casualties.
2 hits results in 1 or 2 casualties.

[Der Kuenstler]

@Baron:

Your method will increase the odds for the attacker  because you don’t know when 2 hits were coming from the same StB.
9 or 10 hits nothing change for both method.
7 or 8  hits can results in 4 or 5 casualties.
5 or 6 hits can result in 3 or 4 or 5 casualties.
4 hits can results in 2 or 3 or 4 casualties.
3  hits results in 2 or 3 casualties.
2 hits results in 1 or 2 casualties.

Agreeing with Baron here. I don’t like the “roll 2 dice, pick one” thing. It is an exception to all other dice rolling in the game. IMO exceptions and “special rules” are the #1 enemy of streamlined gameplay and should be left out as much as possible.

It feels like a big 4 engine bomber should cost more than a fighter or tac bomber. I’m OK with the 12 IPC price, but make the Strat bomber more specialized. Weak enough tactically to not be very good for tactical missions. Keep their role primarily for industrial damage - I think that would fix it. Probably only rich countries (doing well) would use them, which would fit historically.

[baron Münchhausen]

At 12 IPCs, attack @3, paratroopers transport, SBR 1D6+2,
IMO, don’t need a complex Naval limitation.
It is already made less inaccurate bombers than TcB.

Don’t forget the story on this point is  on events at the beginning of the war.
Flying fortress bombing need time to be fully mastered.

[CWO Marc]

@Der:

It feels like a big 4 engine bomber should cost more than a fighter or tac bomber.

This makes good sense.  Just as an example, the 4-engined Lancaster bomber and the two-engined Mosquito used the same Rolls-Royce Merlin engine as the single-engine Spitfire, so with the power plants of a single Lanc you could build either two Mossies or four Spits.  I’m not suggesting that the IPC price ratio of these units should be 4-to-2-to-1; I’m just saying that it’s reasonable to assume that a heavy bomber would cost more than a tac bomber or a fighter.  My (very rough) impression is that the price difference between a a tac bomber and a fighter might be less drastic than the price difference between a heavy bomber and a tac bomber, since (in very general terms, because the tac bomber category is rather broad) tac bombers are likely to be closer in size to a fighter than a heavy bomber.  Some of the WWII planes that served successfully in the ground-attack role were, in fact, multi-mission fighters like the P-38 Lightning.

[Narvik]

Well, we could imagine that an A&A Bomber unit is 50 real Bombers, and an A&A Fighter unit is 500 real fighters. The combat value of a fighter unit represent so much firepower by machine guns and cannons, and the combat value of a Bomber is so much destruction you got from a bomb load

The same with inf. A real German inf division had 4 times more firepower than a Russian inf division, but the A&A inf have the same cost. So since all A&A inf units have the same combat value, its obvious that the German unit represent 100 000 men, and the Russian 500 000 men. You are paying for the firepower, not the numbers of men or planes

[crusaderiv]

It feels like a big 4 engine bomber should cost more than a fighter or tac bomber.
Of course…

[Jennifer]

I am really seeing strategic bombers more in a strategic role where it is mostly used for bombing facilities and bases.  I am kind of inclined to make them immune from AA Gun fire in order to encourage this.

The trade off for having built in paratroopers, and the ability to conduct SBR (which I am proposing be removed from dive bombers), etcetera is they cannot go to naval wars.  Makes sense, I have never heard of an Operation where fleets of ships were attacked by Flying Fortresses at high altitudes, not like cities, bases, and complexes were in World War II (i.e. stationary targets.)  I have heard of dive bombers attacking fleets however, Pearl Harbor, Taranto, Battle of the Bismarck, etc.

In my perfect world, Fighters and Tactical bombers are the main aircraft on the board.  Major super powers with money to burn are tossing out a few strategic bombers to tip the scales through carpet bombing economies.  Kind of like late in the game when the United States is sitting in Tokyo Harbor wit 12 battleships and using attrition to burn down the defenses of Japan - not because battleships are cost effective, but because the United States has IPC to burn and nothing better to do with it.

[toblerone77]

@Baron:

Your method will increase the odds for the attacker  because you don’t know when 2 hits were coming from the same StB.
9 or 10 hits nothing change for both method.
7 or 8  hits can results in 4 or 5 casualties.
5 or 6 hits can result in 3 or 4 or 5 casualties.
4 hits can results in 2 or 3 or 4 casualties.
3  hits results in 2 or 3 casualties.
2 hits results in 1 or 2 casualties.

Baron the odds are exactly the same. Ten dice rolled all at once are the same as ten dice rolled separately.  If it’s five bombers you have a max of five hits. That is simple math.

DK I don’t care for pick the better dice I’m just pointing out that the math is the same no matter how you roll it.

[baron Münchhausen]

Hi Toblerone,
here is a detailed example which show it is different, and that your method increase the odds toward attacker:

10 rolls, 6 hits : 1-2-3-4-5-5-6-6-1-2

A) pick in any order, necessarily 5 hits maximum.

B) Pick in the exact order, each being rolled in pair: 3 hits only (1-2) (3-4) (1-2) 2 misses: (5-5) (6-6)

[baron Münchhausen]

@Cmdr:

I am really seeing strategic bombers more in a strategic role where it is mostly used for bombing facilities and bases. I am kind of inclined to make them immune from AA Gun fire in order to encourage this.

The trade off for having built in paratroopers, and the ability to conduct SBR (which I am proposing be removed from dive bombers), etcetera is they cannot go to naval wars. Makes sense, I have never heard of an Operation where fleets of ships were attacked by Flying Fortresses at high altitudes, not like cities, bases, and complexes were in World War II (i.e. stationary targets.) I have heard of dive bombers attacking fleets however, Pearl Harbor, Taranto, Battle of the Bismarck, etc.

In my perfect world, Fighters and Tactical bombers are the main aircraft on the board. Major super powers with money to burn are tossing out a few strategic bombers to tip the scales through carpet bombing economies. Kind of like late in the game when the United States is sitting in Tokyo Harbor wit 12 battleships and using attrition to burn down the defenses of Japan - not because battleships are cost effective, but because the United States has IPC to burn and nothing better to do with it.

Hi Cmdr Jen,
Here is something about Japanese StB Betty (not a Flying Fortresses, but still an StB according to A&A) which should be notice:

Operational history
The G4M was similar in performance and missions to other contemporary twin-engine bombers such as the German Heinkel He 111 and the American North American B-25 Mitchell. These were all commonly used in anti-ship roles. The G4M Model 11 was prominent in attacks on Allied shipping in the 1941 to early 1944, but after that it became more and more an easy prey for Allied fighters.

The G4M’s baptism of fire occurred on 13 September 1940 in Mainland China, when 27 “Betties” and Mitsubishi C5Ms of 1st Rengo KōkÅ«tai (a mixed force including elements of the Kanoya and Kizarazu KōkÅ«tai) departed from Taipei, Omura, and Jeju City to attack Hankow. The bombers and the reconnaissance aircraft were escorted by 13 A6M Zeros of 12st[clarification needed] KōkÅ«tai led by the I.J.N. lieutenant, Saburo Shindo. A similar operation occurred in May 1941. In December 1941, 107 G4Ms based on Formosa of 1st KōkÅ«tai and Kanoya KōkÅ«tai belonging to the 21st Koku Sentai (Air Flotilla) crossed the Luzon Strait en route to bombing the Philippines, and this was the beginning of the large-scale invasion of the islands of the Southwest Pacific Theater.

IJN aviators pressed home a torpedo attack against American ships off Guadalcanal on 8 August 1942, suffering heavy losses. The plane on the left and at extreme low-level (approximately 5 meters) was flown by Jun Takahashi, who is still alive in 2013.

As a torpedo bomber, the G4M’s most notable use was in the sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse off the eastern coast of British Malaya on 10 December 1941. The G4Ms carried out the attacks along with the older Japanese bombers, the Mitsubishi G3M “Nells” which were doing high-level bombing runs. The battleship Prince of Wales and the battle cruiser Repulse were the first two large capital ships to be sunk exclusively by air attack during a war, while in open waters. The bomber crews were from the Kanoya Air Group of Kanoya KōkÅ«tai (751 Ku), Genzan Air Group of Genzan KōkÅ«tai (753 Ku), and the Mihoro Air Group of Mihoro KōkÅ«tai (701 Ku), trained in torpedo attacks at an altitude of less than 10 metres (30 ft), and in long-range over-ocean navigation, so they could attack naval targets moving quickly at sea. They later carried out an extended series of attacks against U.S. Navy and Allied ships, as well as on land targets during the six month long Battle of Guadalcanal (in the Solomon Islands) in late 1942.

On 8 August 1942 during the second day of the U.S. Marines landing on Guadalcanal, IJNAF’s 23 G4M1s conducted a torpedo attack against American ships at Lunga point, Guadalcanal. A total of 18 of the attacking G4M1s were shot down, due to very heavy anti-aircraft fire, and air attacks from Grumman F4F Wildcat fighters based on three American aircraft carriers. In all 18 Japanese crews – approximately 120 aviators– were missing at the beginning of August 1942. More than 100 Japanese G4M1s and their best pilots and crews (with no replacements or substitutes available) were shot down during the subsequent numerous battles on and near Guadalcanal (August to October 1942).[2] In the two days of the Battle of Rennell Island, 29 and 30 January 1943, 10 out of 43 Japanese G4M1s were shot down during night torpedo attacks, all by U.S. Navy anti-aircraft fire. About 70 Japanese aviators, including Lieutenant Commander Higai, were killed during that battle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_G4M

[toblerone77]

@Baron:

Hi Toblerone,
here is a detailed example which show it is different, and that your method increase the odds toward attacker:

10 rolls, 6 hits : 1-2-3-4-5-5-6-6-1-2

A) pick in any order, necessarily 5 hits maximum.

B) Pick in the exact order, each being rolled in pair: 3 hits only (1-2) (3-4) (1-2) 2 misses: (5-5) (6-6)

The odds are still the same no matter how you cook the books either example has equal chance to roll the same number of hits. Coming from you a guy who touts battle calc odds continually you should know this. I don’t even like the rule. I’m simply pointing out you’re wrong. Odds and math are odds and math.

[baron Münchhausen]

@toblerone77:

@Baron:

Hi Toblerone,
here is a detailed example which show it is different, and that your method increase the odds toward attacker:

10 rolls, 6 hits : 1-2-3-4-5-5-6-6-1-2

A) pick in any order, necessarily 5 hits maximum.

B) Pick in the exact order, each being rolled in pair: 3 hits only (1-2) (3-4) (1-2) 2 misses: (5-5) (6-6)

The odds are still the same no matter how you cook the books either example has equal chance to roll the same number of hits. Coming from you a guy who touts battle calc odds continually you should know this. I don’t even like the rule. I’m simply pointing out you’re wrong. Odds and math are odds and math.

True, it is the same odds to roll these numbers.

But the trick is on this specified thing: take the best results and never more than 1 hit per Strategic bomber.
So it is required to take separate StB dice rolls in pair. As I showed in the above quote, if all the good rolls are made twice by the same bomber, the result is lower than maximum.

If it was allowed to give 2 hits per bomber then you are totally right, you just throw all dices and makes the sum.