Rethinking Air Units

[baron Münchhausen]

@crusaderiv:

Fighter
Light bomber
Dive bomber
Bomber…(Don’t know why you wanna split into tactical and strategic bomber).

For the navy fan…dive bomber and torpedo bomber…

allow either side to retreat in full after any combat round
Yes…and it works….

AL.

In my oversimplify thinking:
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.

Since DK want to introduce TcB units, it is easier to know what it represents in a Naval setting: Dive and Torpedo Bombers since there was limited choice of planes which can do Carrier Operations.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Cmdr:

I’d be good with:

Fig - 10 IPC, ATT 3, DEF 4
TBmb - 10 IPC, ATT 4, DEF 3
SBmb - 15 IPC, ATT 4, DEF 1, SBR @ 1d6+2 DMG, 2 Attack Dice take better of the two results in combat

Or even make both FIG and TBOMB 12 IPC each.  Heck there’s MORE than enough money on the board.

You seems to have a knack for a high cost StBs.
I think that 2 dices @4, keeping only 1 hit, is statistically even to @5.
It would be simpler to put StB A5 D1 M6 C15.

Nonetheless, I have the impression that your are going in a different directions because StB were not that accurate.
Probably an STB A4 D1 M6 C15 could work if you allowed SBR damaged to be like the old Heavy bombers Tech: 2D6. Keeping A1 during SBR dogfight.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Baron:

@Narvik:

Fighter cost 8, A1 D2
Tac B. cost 10, A3 D4
S. Bomber cost 12, A4 D1

Hi Narvik,
with such values for Fighters, there is a problem with Carrier operation.
Such Fg is too weak against all other units while the TcB will be cut into chunk if it is an air combat to death or retreat before regular combat.

At least, I think every rounds there must be an air fight phase before regular combat.
Only Fg and TcB can roll.
Fg is treated as you say.
But TacB should roll A1 D1.
Any survivor can make an attack against naval or ground units.
However, TcB should be at A3 D3 and when there is no dogfight get +1A/D bonus.
Fgs should keep the same attack and defense value in regular combat phase.
So all surviving planes in a given combat round have 2 rolls to hit.
Tcb 1/1 + 3/3
Fgs 1/2 + 1/2

Due to the higher cost of StB, on offence it should get A1 in dogfight phase.
It seems the same as TcB but not really since TcB also get D1 and it is only 10 IPCs.
The Fighter as the same A1 but it is only 2/3 of StB cost.

StB 1/0 + 4/1

Fgs A1 D2 C8 is probably too low on attack when there is no dogfight.
Here is the 2 differents value, for each phase:
Air to air combat phase: Fg A1 D2.
Regular combat phase: Fg A2 D2.
Sums: A3 D4 like the old Fighter.

This way, you have a reduced cost: 8 IPCs for Fgs and 10 IPCs for TcBs which can compensate for the higher attrition rate.
The new Fighter has the same full strength as the OOB when their is an aerial combat.
And when there is only regular combat, it gets an acceptable combat value A2 D2.
This is the same value as a Destroyer units.

To summarize:
Every combat round have an air-to-air combat phase of 1 cycle only, when there is planes on both sides.
And it is followed by regular combat in which all surviving planes can participate.

Only attacker can retreat his planes while continuing combat with ground units.

Each other rounds keeps the same 2 phases until one side have no more plane.

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

[Jennifer]

I do not want to get into a HUGE debate over statistics, PLEASE, but the odds should be:

2@4 most 1 hit:  88.45% chance of getting a hit
1@5 most 1 hit:  83.33% chance of getting a hit

It’s about 5% better odds with best of 2 dice per bomber.

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.

Might even go so far as to propose replacing all strategic bombers that start on the board with tactical bombers.

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.)

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.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Cmdr:

I do not want to get into a HUGE debate over statistics, PLEASE, but the odds should be:

2@4 most 1 hit:  88.45% chance of getting a hit
1@5 most 1 hit:  83.33% chance of getting a hit

It’s about 5% better odds with best of 2 dice per bomber.

OK.
I believe you on the 5% difference.
I didn’t run any battlecalc. How did you get the results?

Is  the 5% so important from a game perspective?
Rolling 2 dices and keeping only the better is nowhere in A&A system.
While an exceptionnaly high @5 is still inside a known mechanics?
And what about the 2D6 damage SBR  for a 15 IPCs bomber ?
You don’t like it?

[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.