@toblerone77:
I’ll move past the aircraft and move toward the 3 plane carrier concept HBG has several models of carriers that may work well for this “super carrier” concept.
The issue I have; historically speaking, with most of the HR topics regarding aircraft, is that the TB is being portrayed as almost as a modern-day multi-role aircraft. I really, really wish that some in-depth book research into aircraft was being done before proclaiming a rule is “historical” and true to the role each aircraft sculpt is portrayed in the game. The material is easily found. Dive bombers and torpedo bombers were even weaker defensively than a strategic bomber. They were slow, lumbering and many, many times missed their target entirely, or had defective bombs or torpedoes. Research into all aircraft that participated in the war would help anyone creating their own HRs rather than a few scattered examples.
I think the fault is mostly due to the naming conventions used by the producers of the game which may mislead house-rulers. The fighter’s OOB stats could well represent not just what we think of as a fighters, but fighter/bombers as well as other sub categories of aircraft. The same could be said for the other two categories of OOB aircraft.
If I were going to implement a more historical feel. I would use custom sculpts to portray the various “sub-types/categories” of aircraft. Tall Paul has done this with great success.
Added content*
I’m not discrediting the work put forth, but I would suggest If one is to move into such specialization, that custom sculpts are a must and more categories of aircraft must be introduced with such a heavy re-vamp of the OOB rules.
The idea of using various specific sculpts for different type of aircrafts is good advice. But with small scale sculpts, often it is needed to make marks unto them to recognize the difference at first glance, for example: OOB Destroyers can be taken for Cruiser (or the reverse) because some are almost similar in length or have similar features on the top of the hull.
Actually, I mainly see a visible difference between Medium and Heavy bombers based on the number of engines on the wings.
I cannot pretend to have “THE” historically accurate HR, I would just say that I try to be more accurate than OOB rules on TcBs and Fgs.
It’s more a relative comparison than an absolute statement.
For example, I can say that this one HR better depict TcB against Fgs than my previous one (TcB A3-4 D3-4, Fg A1 D2) when fighting above a SZ.
It happens quite often that German’s player have only 2 or 3 TcBs remaining against UK’s scrambled Fgs and Destroyers.
In this case, 3 TcBs got basic @3 against Fgs Def @2. The UK’s player choose to save his Destroyers and loose all Fighters.
This appear contrary to historical accuracy that TcBs have higher combat value and destroyed Fighters and no ships.
With my new HR, such 3 TcBs can only attack @2 while one of the Fg will defend @3 and others @2.
This weaker combat value seems more consistent with history than the previous one. Don’t you think?
Also, if a Fg is escorting 1 TcB, thus rising is attack factor to @3, and TcB rolls a hit which the defender put on a Fg unit instead of a warship.
This can be credited somehow to the Combined Arms bonus of being escorted by Fg.
It still makes sense somehow under the general A&A rules: each player choose his own casualties.
Of course, going further, maybe it can be possible to find a way to forbid a defending player to use his planes as casualty if the hit resulted from a TcB roll.
For now, it seems too detailed and over complexifying.
But, who knows?
Maybe this can become a special capacity for a specific Torpedo Bomber unit, in which any hit must applied against a Naval Unit first, and to a plane when there is no other choice…
About Fighter-bomber, I can see that Fighters making hits upon ground or naval units should certainly imply some kind of air-to-ground ordnance (such as rockets or smaller bombs) to be really effective.
So an Air Dominance only Fighter unit is probably too specific compared to the OOB Fg unit.
At the actual generic-level depiction of aircraft units, do you see Fighter-bomber more in the Fighter category or in the TacB category?
You put this elsewhere, I think it is still correct:
@toblerone77:
A tactical bomber is nothing more than a small bomber. In reality they are large and lightly armed compared to a fighter. They are also very much less maneuverable than a fighter. Planes like the Thunderbolt were already designed as fighters but could function in the role of a tactical bomber.
As for stats the tac bomber should absolutely never be equal to fighters on defense.
