@panther This is indeed the recommendation I’ve followed. Forgot to mention I’m testing with low luck dice.
Alternate 3 planes Carrier, Air oriented for G40 or 1942.2 with TacBs
-
While I understand your wish for more historical accuracy, you could end up flooding your game with too many different values. I was in danger of doing that myself a while back when someone here on the Forum reminded me that you don’t need to assign different values and/or abilities to every different sculpt available. In some cases, it’s simply a different type of plane to represent the “fighter” piece.
Never had this problem…no ‘‘flooding’’ in our group…
AL
-
I have no problem with 3 plane carriers. Have that in one of the games. But Dive bombers can’t attack ground troops and naval fighters, fighters and tacs from carriers should have a lower att-def value against ground troops. If planes leave from a carrier they have to land back on carrier.
In one of my games, planes can scramble from carriers and defend against a ground attack next to the territory thats being attacked. but get to use the same defense value for dive bombers, naval fighters and fighters ( that get to attack or defending against ground or ships at any time ) which for me is wrong. But I will request that to be changed.Amen brother….
BTW It is very useful to have your set of house rules. Thanks.
I better understand your standing POV.
I’m sure that you can aknowledge that your House Games are not for everyone and have a high level of historical and tactical details with much more different types of aircrafts than all the regular A&A versions.Actually, I’m just trying to make all the three genuine aircrafts from the A&A franchise working together more consistently and as much as possible balance and historically accurate.
In fact, the basic Attack 2 Defense 2 values for both Fighter and Tactical Bomber are also consistent with the aircraft unit of the new A&A 1914 game.
In this game, the planes are also fighting each others.
I think it is two steps foward on the issue about aircraft mostly hitting ground units, as the usual casualty, instead of taking down some units amongst them. -
My problem with many of the HRs regarding aircraft are that the TB is basically being turned into some “super plane” the strategic level but using tactical level justification to weaken the fighter and using singular examples to also justify weakening both the Fighter and STB but making the TB a cheap alternative to both.
If that’s how someone wants to run their game I’m totally okay with that. But claiming it’s historical and solves flaws in the OOB game IMO is totally incorrect.
As far as custom units, I know many don’t own or may not be able to obtain them, but they do help those who want to customize.
Also I want to emphatically state that I’m pro house rules. I’m a firm believer that this game benefits from people doing things to make the game even better than what comes in the box.
Do you have the impression that the above rules are making Tactical Bombers into a monster compared to Fighter units?
It is not the case, in fact, Fighter units are much more interesting in most cases because of this specific rule:
Air combat unit: All hits are allocated to aircraft units first, if any available.This makes Fighter able to shoot down enemy’s Tactical Bomber while the reverse is not possible as long as there is some ground or naval units on the Fighter’s side to pick as casualty.
Basically, each round with a mix on both sides of ground units, Fgs are rolling @2 and even @3 to destroy TacBs while the TacBs are virtually unable to touch them since they roll regular @2 or even a regular roll @3 (if paired to a friendly fighter).IMO, it is as closely as it can a description of what you said here:
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.
Don’t you think?
I think you provided a very good summarized description of the role of Fg and TcB in this post. I probably take some past inspirations (or reminiscence) when I tried to draw the actual aircraft HHR.:
@toblerone77:A tactical bomber or any bomber of WWII is only as good as it’s air cover. The only reason any bomber of WWII was able to inflict maximum damage/firepower was because of ability to dominate airspace over enemy territory, either through air superiority or absence of sufficient defensive air-cover on the part of the defender.
TBs and StBs rely on the ability to bomb/attack at will. That will is only provided by the absence or inferior defensive measures of fighter aircraft on the part of the defender. Fighter aircraft are the essential key of air superiority. Bomber aircraft are strong because of their ability to attack ground targets from above, if they are harassed in the air, than they cannot be effective against ground targets. Hence the fighter, the defender of the airspace, can hamper the effectiveness of ground attack aircraft because any bomber is easily bested in any air-to-air combat, because their primary job is to harass ground targets not to dogfight with or against aircraft to whose primary job is to destroy other aircraft whether they are bombers of any type or fighter aircraft.
This is a point that I clearly remembered when I developed this actual HR on Fgs and TcBs:
@toblerone77:As I’ve said before and many a time. HRs are HRs I as well as anyone else can love them or hate them; use them or leave them, and do what they please. You will never convince me at the tactical or strategic level that at tactical bomber is better at defense than a fighter. Just my opinion, but trying to bend the TB as this multi-role aircraft (IMO seems to be a modern connotation) is neither historical nor game balancing in any way and does not fit in any way to the game historically or balance-wise, even for the sake of just imagination. I’ve loved and studied WWII especially aircraft all of my life, there is no way in hell that any tactical bomber in WWII is better than a fighter of the same era in dogfighting than a fighter of the same era.
-
From all your comments people, I’m happy to see that the 3 planes Carrier doesn’t seem a major issue.
-
@CWO:
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.
I very much agree, and in one or two earlier discussion threads I’ve given some historical examples of the TB weaknesses to which toblerone77 refers. And he makes a good point about the problem originating at least in part from that fact that the OOB “tactical bomber” (which can be thought of as a kind of generic surface-attack aircraft in terms of the game rules) is depicted by OOB sculpts which are modeled on eight actual aircraft which in some cases had very different roles and capabilities.
I guess the thing that should be kept in mind when designing HRs for TBs is the question of whether the HRs are meant to govern the TB as a generic unit (in which case the combat values of the unit can plausibly be generic too, as long as they’re credible) or whether it’s meant to represent realistically a specific historical subtype of TB (in which case a finer degree of combat value modeling will be needed). Either approach is perfectly okay, since the two approaches serve different purposes: simplicity and ease of play versus detail and enhanced unit variety. But either way, the combat values of the TB need to be historically credible. Handling the TB as a generic unit is fine, but there’s a difference between giving it generic abilities and giving it exaggerated abilities.
Thanks for your analysis, it helps me better understanding where I’m going with this actual House Rule on Aircrafts.
For now, I’m more at the generic level, trying to make it as historically credible inside the actual games parameters to balance all the three units values and abilities.That’s why I added this to Tactical Bombers bonuses:
Combined Arms Bonus in Air Supremacy situation:
**_Gives +1 Attack / +1 Defense to any Tank paired 1:1 with, when no enemy’s aircraft is present.
Both Air Supremacy associated bonus can be added.
In this case, a lone TcB reach Attack @3 or Defense @3 while the paired Tank reach Attack @4 or Defense @4.I’m reviewing the thread on Tactical Bombers and their use, it helps understanding why Fighter units have a better defensive role.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33181.0Here is another interesting description of the Tactical Bombers compared to Strategic Bombers by kcdzim, I present here for completeness and better comparison between the three generic units:
Part of this stems from simplified game mechanics and part of it certainly stems from earlier versions.
In the previous games, they weren’t called Strategic Bombers. They were bombers.
And “Bombers” certainly included more than just high altitude heavy bombers.The nomenclature changed but their roles haven’t: Strategic Bombers still include medium bombers. The fact that Tactical bombers are compatible with carriers, implies they represent smaller planes. Yes, the Mitchell flew off a carrier for the Doolittle Raid, but that was a VERY specialized use of a medium bomber that was essentially stripped to even get off the flight deck. So Strategic bombers still include medium bombers like the Mitchell, and Tactical bombers are more akin to heavy fighters, ground attack, dive bombers, torpedo bombers, etc., which were more often single engine or single pilot or pilot/navigator, and not manned with a substantial crew, didn’t carry substantial loads.
Historically, medium Bombers like the Mitchell, Invader, Havoc, etc., were effective in low altitude bombing/torpedo attacks on naval units. Torpedoes obviously worked well, but Skip bombing was also very effective against transport and warship alike and used extensively by the allies in the south pacific (battle of the Bismarck sea being a good example). B17’s even got in on the action. It’s just not a high altitude bombing run that you imagine from “strategic bombers” and movies like Memphis Belle.
Look at the Tac bombers we have: a ground attack tank killer (Sturmovik), 3 dive bombers (Stuka, Dauntless, Val) and a Mosquito, which is a blurred recon/day and night fighter/torp bomber/fast bomber/pest. None of those are really close to the role of the Mitchell (which is certainly a “tactical bomber” by any standard definition EXCEPT this game). There’s no good single name that covers the roles of aircraft in between Air superiority Fighter and Strategic Bomber. Tactical Bomber is what we have, but you NEED to imagine it means heavy fighter/dive bomber/torpedo bomber/ground attack/night fighter/fighter-bomber as well. And NOT medium bomber.
Until the game differentiates further with medium bombers vs high altitude bombers (it’s not likely to as that favours the allies), then “strategic bombers” is still somewhat accurate as they don’t simply represent Heavy Bombers alone and it’s acceptable to use them to represent the role of Medium bombers in Naval warfare.
http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=5629_**
-
The 3 planes per carrier concept is an interesting way to approach a reduced cost/attack/defense value for the standard fighter. I had seen some suggestions before about a lowered cost/ability for fighters, and the thing that seemed to be problematic for it was the effect on carrier warfare. 3 spots on the deck seems to offer some interesting opportunities. I’d be curious to see how it plays out.
Thanks for your opening post.
I played it quite a few times but only with 1942.2.
My previous play-test were more restrictive because a Fleet Carrier was up to 3 Fgs or 2 TcBs Max, or a mix of 2 Fgs with 1 TcB.This time, this 3 planes carrier HR is simpler, each plane need the same room on the deck, there is no difference whether it is a Fg or a TcB unit.
Another bothering aspect was the combat value given to Fg on attack: @1 First strike.
This proved to be a disturbing procedure to segregate the special values amongst all planes rolling dices. Always starting with AAA, then attacking Fighters, then defending Fgs, finally regular planes attack and defense.
This time, with all simple combat values 2-3-4, the attacker and defender Fgs rolls can be done simultaneously.I also tried on the Battlecalc some simulations of full Carrier against full Carrier with different complement units and it is almost the same odds as full 2 planes Carrier against 2 full planes Carrier.
The new Carrier at 40 IPCs (16 IPCs + 24 IPCs) and 5 hits is necessarily better than OOB Carrier at 36-38 IPCs (16 IPCs+ 20-22 IPCs) and 4 hits. Compared to other naval units, this means that 3 places Carrier get an increase in combat values.
Does the other inferior Capital ships (Battleships or Cruisers) on the Battlecalc need more than ever an adjustment cost? IDK. At most, this should be 20 to 18 IPCs and 12 to 11 IPCs.
From a physical perspective on a real board, there was enough physical space on a carrier sculpt for 3 Fgs or 2 Fgs and 1 TcB or just 2 TcBs.
However, putting 3 TcBs sculpts on 1 Carrier plastic sculpt will probably be an impossible challenge. -
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.
-
BTW It is very useful to have your set of house rules. Thanks.
I better understand your standing POV.
I’m sure that you can aknowledge that your House Games are not for everyone and have a high level of historical and tactical details with much more different types of aircrafts than all the regular A&A versions.No problem…
AL
-
_Actually, I’m just trying to make all the three genuine aircrafts from the A&A franchise working together more consistently and as much as possible balance and historically accurate.
In fact, the basic Attack 2 Defense 2 values for both Fighter and Tactical Bomber are also consistent with the aircraft unit of the new A&A 1914 game._
I understand that but you know we started to play World at war 20 years ago. We make some evolution but progressively. Play the same game with the same during so many years….it must be boring…
AL.
-
_Actually, I’m just trying to make all the three genuine aircrafts from the A&A franchise working together more consistently and as much as possible balance and historically accurate.
In fact, the basic Attack 2 Defense 2 values for both Fighter and Tactical Bomber are also consistent with the aircraft unit of the new A&A 1914 game._
I understand that but you know we started to play World at war 20 years ago. We make some evolution but progressively. **Play the same game with the same during so many years….it must be boring…**AL.
Probably not possible to always play it with the same set of rules. A&A seems a game which constantly appeal to develop House Rule one way or another.
-
Do you think these different bonuses can be accurately described by the associated underlined comments?
FIGHTER
Attack 2, same in SBR
Defense 2 or 3, same in SBR
Move 4
Cost 8
1 hit
Air combat unit, Fighter as an Air Superiority aircraft:
All hits are allocated to aircraft units first, if any available.Combined Arms Bonus, Fighter as a close-escorting aircraft for Dive or Torpedo Bombers:
Gives +1 Attack/Defense to any Tactical Bomber paired 1:1 with, if TcB is able to attack Ground or Naval units or defend against them.Fighter as Carrier Air Patrol or as part of an extended Air Defense System:
Receive +1 Defense if paired 1:1 with an Aircraft Carrier unit or paired 1:1 with an AAA unit.
Up to 3 Fighter units receive +1 Defense if protecting a territory with an operational Air Base, (or 1 Fg unit for a Victory City if playing 1942.2)
1 scrambled Fighter from an operational Air Base received +1 Defense._Only this unit can intercept in SBR or TBR*_**: Attack @2 / Defense @2, or @3 for up to 3 Fgs if an Air Base is present or +1 Def per any AAA unit paired with.
TACTICAL BOMBER
Attack 2 or 3 or 4, SBR @1
Defense 2 or 3 or 4
Move 4
Cost 8
1 hit
Combined Arms bonus, Tactical Bomber as a less vulnerable “Dive” or “Torpedo” Bomber when escorted by Fighter:
Gain +1 Attack / +1 Defense, when paired 1:1 with a Fighter and, also, attacking or defending against any Ground or Naval units.
Said otherwise: if there is only enemy’s aircrafts units remaining in a SZ or a Territory, Combined Arms bonus doesn’t apply.Air Supremacy Bonus, Tactical Bomber as a “Dive Bomber”:
Gain +1 Attack / +1 Defense when no ennemy’s aircraft is present.
These two bonuses can be added to raise up to Attack @4 or Defense @4.Combined Arms Bonus in Air Supremacy situation, Tactical Bomber as a “Tank Buster”:
Gives +1 Attack / +1 Defense to any Tank paired 1:1 with, when no enemy’s aircraft is present.
Both Air Supremacy associated bonus can be added.
In this case, a lone TcB reach Attack @3 or Defense @3 while the paired Tank reach Attack @4 or Defense @4. -
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.
Toblerone,
do you think this can reduced the impression that TacB is like a multi-role aircraft?
Is it what you were criticizing about my Tactical Bomber unit?TACTICAL BOMBER: Torpedo Bomber Example: IJN “Kate” Nakajima B5N or TBF Avenger or TBD Devastator (Midway’s celebrity)
Attack 2 or 3,or 4 / SBR @1No SBR
Defense 2 or 3,or 4
Move 4
Cost87
1 hit
Combined Arms bonus, Tactical Bomber as a less vulnerable “Torpedo Bomber” when escorted:
Gain +1 Attack / +1 Defense, when paired 1:1 with a Fighter and, also, attacking or defending against any Naval units only.
Said otherwise: if there is only enemy’s aircrafts units remaining in a SZ , Combined Arms bonus doesn’t apply.Air Supremacy Bonus, Tactical Bomber as a “Dive Bomber”:
Gain +1 Attack / +1 Defense when no ennemy’s aircraft is present.
These two bonuses can be added to raise up to Attack @4 or Defense @4.~~Combined Arms Bonus in Air Supremacy situation, Tactical Bomber as a “Tank Buster”:
**_Gives +1 Attack / +1 Defense to any Tank paired 1:1 with, when no enemy’s aircraft is present.
Both Air Supremacy associated bonus can be added.
In this case, a lone TcB reach Attack @3 or Defense @3 while the paired Tank reach Attack @4 or Defense @4.Can do a Tactical Bombing Raid (TBR**) vs Air Base and Naval Base.
Tactical Bombing Raid: Attack @1
TBR damage: 1D6 on Air Base or Naval Base
On SBR can also do escort mission*: Attack @1Up to 2 TcBs can land on a newly captured territory, if there is still 1 movement point left. (Max: 2 units, 2 Fgs or 2 TcBs or 1 Fg & 1 TcB)Carrier operations: up to three units can be on board a Fleet Carrier (Max.: 3 units whether Fgs or TcBs per fleet Carrier.)
Torpedo launcher unit:
_Any hit must applied against a Naval Unit first, and to a plane when there is no other choice.__**~~ -
And is this also to your taste Toblerone?
TACTICAL BOMBER: Naval Dive Bomber Example: SBD Dauntless or IJN “Val” Aichi D3A
Attack 2 or 3 or 4, SBR @1
Defense 2 or 3 or 4
Move 4
Cost 8
1 hit
Combined Arms bonus, Tactical Bomber as a less vulnerable “Naval Dive Bomber” when escorted:
Gain +1 Attack / +1 Defense, when paired 1:1 with a Fighter and, also, attacking or defending against anyGround orNaval units.
Said otherwise: if there is only enemy’s aircrafts units remaining in a SZor a Territory, Combined Arms bonus doesn’t apply.Air Supremacy Bonus, Tactical Bomber as a “Naval Dive Bomber”:
Gain +1 Attack / +1 Defense when no ennemy’s aircraft is present.
These two bonuses can be added to raise up to Attack @4 or Defense @4 against Naval Target only.~~Combined Arms Bonus in Air Supremacy situation, Tactical Bomber as a “Tank Buster”:
**_Gives +1 Attack / +1 Defense to any Tank paired 1:1 with, when no enemy’s aircraft is present.
Both Air Supremacy associated bonus can be added.
In this case, a lone TcB reach Attack @3 or Defense @3 while the paired Tank reach Attack @4 or Defense @4.Can do a Tactical Bombing Raid (TBR**) vs Air Base and Naval Base.
Tactical Bombing Raid: Attack @1
TBR damage: 1D6 on Air Base or Naval Base
On SBR can also do escort mission*: Attack @1Up to 2 TcBs can land on a newly captured territory, if there is still 1 movement point left. (Max: 2 units, 2 Fgs or 2 TcBs or 1 Fg & 1 TcB)
Carrier operations: up to three units can be on board a Fleet Carrier (Max.: 3 units whether Fgs or TcBs per fleet Carrier.)
TACTICAL BOMBER: Dive Bomber or Ground Attack aircraft Example: Sturmovik Il-2 or Stuka Ju 87 or UK’s Mosquito or Hawker Typhoon
Attack 2 or 3 or 4, SBR @1
Defense 2 or 3 or 4
Move 4
Cost 8
1 hit
Combined Arms bonus, Tactical Bomber as a less vulnerable “Dive Bomber” when escorted:
Gain +1 Attack / +1 Defense, when paired 1:1 with a Fighter and, also, attacking or defending against any Ground units.
Said otherwise: if there is only enemy’s aircrafts units remaining in a SZ or a Territory, Combined Arms bonus doesn’t apply.Air Supremacy Bonus, Tactical Bomber as a “Dive Bomber”:
Gain +1 Attack / +1 Defense when no ennemy’s aircraft is present.
These two bonuses can be added to raise up to Attack @4 or Defense @4 against Ground and Naval units.Combined Arms Bonus in Air Supremacy situation, Tactical Bomber as a “Tank Buster”:
**_Gives +1 Attack / +1 Defense to any Tank paired 1:1 with, when no enemy’s aircraft is present.
Both Air Supremacy associated bonus can be added.
In this case, a lone TcB reach Attack @3 or Defense @3 while the paired Tank reach Attack @4 or Defense @4.Can do a Tactical Bombing Raid (TBR**) vs Air Base and Naval Base.
Tactical Bombing Raid: Attack @1
TBR damage: 1D6 on Air Base or Naval Base
On SBR can also do escort mission*: Attack @1Up to 2 TcBs can land on a newly captured territory, if there is still 1 movement point left. (Max: 2 units, 2 Fgs or 2 TcBs or 1 Fg & 1 TcB)
Carrier operations: up to three units can be on board a Fleet Carrier (Max.: 3 units whether Fgs or TcBs per fleet Carrier.)****~~ -
Okay Baron in answer to your PM, here’s an analogy.
You have three big boxes of A&A/HBG sculpts one or two of every type of aircraft in WWII along with a real world historical description. Each box represents a class/type of unit bomber, tactical bomber and fighter. Now that you have a sculpt representing every aircraft that served in WWII, you must decide which box each plane will go in. Once you have decided what each box means game-wise. You must pick one sculpt from each box that represents all the other planes in each box the best.
That is how you will find your answer.
-
Thanks for answering.
A&A already provided some (debatable) sculpts as paradigma of Tactical Bombers.
My perspective is the reverse of starting from WWII weapons.
I started with the A&A 2 units: Fighter and Tactical Bomber, and trying to simulated something in the game similar to what was done with that type of weapons and trying to stay balance as much as possible.I realized that your main critics was that abilities and bonus given to TcBs went in all directions. It was because the generic TcB unit was used in all game situations: inland, naval and carrier operations. (That’s why I cut some abilities from the generic TcB unit to describe specific ones, and asking you if it is still accurate somehow.)
It is also true if we keep a generic Fg unit: it will mostly attack and hit ground units and all Fg units can land on an aircraft carrier.
The last point clearly contradicts what was done with any air superiority aircrafts. A few were able to land on carrier and were not mainly used to strafe ground units.
So I tried to solve the main issue about aircraft: planes not able to shoot planes in land combat, or only possible at the end of many combat rounds (to the contrary of the moto: “control the air space first”).
Do you think this Fg unit can work and can figure air superiority aircraft, as well as Fighter bombers, because it is still possible for Fg unit to hit ground units when there is no more enemy’s aircraft?
FIGHTER
Attack 2, same in SBR
Defense 2 or 3, same in SBR
Move 4
Cost 8
1 hit
Air combat unit, Fighter as an Air Superiority aircraft:
All hits are allocated to aircraft units first, if any available.Combined Arms Bonus, Fighter as a close-escorting aircraft for Dive or Torpedo Bombers:
Gives +1 Attack/Defense to any Tactical Bomber paired 1:1 with, if TcB is able to attack Ground or Naval units or defend against them.Fighter as part of Carrier Air Patrol or of an extended Air Defense System:
EDIT: Up to 3 Fighter units receive +1 Defense if paired with an Aircraft Carrier unit
1 Fighter receive +1 Defense if paired 1:1 with an AAA unit.
Up to 3 Fighter units receive +1 Defense if protecting a territory with an operational Air Base, (or 1 Fg for a Victory City if playing 1942.2)
1 scrambled Fighter from an operational Air Base received +1 Defense. -
Because of the higher attrition rate amongst plane and also because OOB Fg at 10 IPCs has 7 points for combat and lowering 3 points for 3 IPCs (1 point for 1 IPC basis) make it at 7 IPCs and 4 combat points, I’m wondering if it is not better to put Fg at 7 IPCs while keeping generic TcB at 8 IPCs.
Does anyone think it is too low and too near Subs A2 D1 cost at 6 IPCs, making Subs a far less interesting unit compared to this Fg A2 D2 cost 7 when put on Carrier?
Or too low compared to Destroyer A2 D2?
According to Battle Calc, an OOB Fg Defense @4 for 10 IPCs is similar to Fg Defend @2 for 7 IPCs.
10 units A2 vs 7 OOB Fgs D4 = Overall %*: A. survives: 49% D. survives: 48.1% No one survives: 2.9%But OOB Fg Attack @3 is similar to Fg attacking @2 for 8 IPCs.
8 OOB Fgs A3 vs 10 units D2 = Overall %*: A. survives: 46.3% D. survives: 51.7% No one survives: 2%So, this means that Fg should be at 7.5 IPCs.
This is one of the main reason why I put Fighter at 8 IPCs but keeping many Combined Arms situations giving a better defense value up to @3 for Fgs.
-
@Baron:
Because of the higher attrition rate amongst plane and also because OOB Fg at 10 IPCs has 7 points for combat and lowering 3 points for 3 IPCs (1 point for 1 IPC basis) make it at 7 IPCs and 4 combat points, I’m wondering if it is not better to put Fg at 7 IPCs while keeping generic TcB at 8 IPCs.
Does anyone think it is too low and too near Subs A2 D1 cost at 6 IPCs, making Subs a far less interesting unit compared to this Fg A2 D2 cost 7 when put on Carrier?
Or too low compared to Destroyer A2 D2?
I revised the three opening posts.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34676.msg1338630#msg1338630You get the final result for the three generic aircrafts.
Fighter stay at 8 IPCs and Aircraft Carrier gives a +1 Defense bonus to up to 3 Fighters.
Of course, if playing a game considering that Fighters from USAF cannot be mixed with USAN aircrafts, then this bonus only apply to USAN planes able to land on a Carrier, such as Grumman F6F Hellcats, and never apply to any scrambled P-38 Lighting Fighter, for example.With such a cost redux for planes and a more than able Aircraft Carrier holding 3 planes,
AAA is now revamped and at 4 IPCs while Cruiser and Battleship should be put at 10 IPCs and 18 IPCs.
Subs, Transports, Destroyers and Carriers stay at the same cost.Here is the (most balance, IMO) combat units roster:
Name : Cost
Infantry: 3 IPCs
Artillery: 4 IPCs
Mech Inf: 4 IPCs
AAA: 4 IPCs *Give +1 Defense to up to 3 Fighter units as special Combined Arms Bonus when paired with
Tank: 6 IPCs **Received +1 Attack or Defense as special Combined Arms Bonus when paired 1:1 with Tactical Bomber.Submarine: 6 IPCs
Transport: 7 IPCs
Destroyer: 8 IPCsFighter: 8 IPCs *** All hits are allocated to aircraft units first, if any available.
Tactical Bomber: 8 IPCs **** Gain +1 Att / Def, when paired 1:1 with a Fg or a Tank and, also, attacking or defending against any Ground or Naval units.
Strategic Bomber: 10 IPCs ***** Naval combat restriction against aircrafts: when no more enemy’s warships, combat value get down to Attack 1Cruiser: 10 IPCs
(Escort Carrier: 11 IPCs)
Aircraft Carrier: 16 IPCs (14 IPCs in 1942.2) Hold up to 3 planes : 3 Fgs / or 2 Fgs and 1 TcB / or 1 Fg and 2 TcBs / or 3 TcBs
Battleship: 18 IPCs
The ultimate 5 IPCs unit now should be a Mechanized Artillery / Assault Gun.
Now, do you think it can works, or is it totally doomed, anyway?
Do you agree with Wild Bill statements? Or the cost redux is a good counter-weight against some issues he forsees?
Dog fights would be cool, but very costly especially at full values (just think of how dog fights have cut down SBR and it uses lower values). As you said you could force air to air combat to knock out your opponents defending planes. The flying tiger was a good example, but would still get destroyed even if there was ground units involved because Japan could overwhelm it, in even a one round dog fight. China needs the final battle to go several rounds so the tiger can roll 2-3-4 times to take out some Japanese ground units.
The battle for Moscow would be another major blow to the defender. Imagine a 1-2 punch with Japan or Italy forcing the Russian/allied fighters to a dual to weaken the overall defense of the Russian capital, then the Germans hammer the ground units. The ground game is balanced partially on having defending fighters rolling higher, and surviving till the end. If you allow the attacker to call those defending planes out into a dog fight, you have taken away what was a defensive advantage and given a huge advantage to the attacker IMO.
With that said, I agree with you that it is silly for the fighters to be the last unit standing in a ground battle and you can’t call them out to some degree. We have tinkered with some stuff in the past. One of those house rules were to have the ground battles as normal, but if a fighter or tac rolled a 1 (attacker or def) that casualty had to be applied to an air unit. If no air on the other side, then to a tank and so on (higher ranking units). In sea battles it was similar (1’s rolled by ftr/tac applied to air units, then to capital ships etc.) That way some of your air hits went to something other then infantry or destroyers. I will say in sea battles sometimes you would rather take out a destroyer then air (scrambles or subs involved) so it could back fire if you use this at sea. We have also just allowed the person who rolled the “1” with an air unit to choose the opponents casualties (targeting). As an option you could allow attacking strat bmrs that roll a 1 to choose causalities as well. We have also at times given defending carriers AA defense at sea allowing them to roll as normal each round, but if they hit (2 or less) it goes to attacking air units.
I’m not saying that I’m against some kind of air combat, but I think something would have to change in the game mechanics to incorporate a full fledged dog fight. I would also be interested in Larry’s view on this subject, and some of his own house rules or test runs involving air. I know that initially the tac bomber was given target capabilities (but that was scrapped).
http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=18642&p=66073&hilit=air+retreat#p66073
-
Here is, follow the link, and you will find the new placement set-up for G40 second edition adapted for weaker Fighter and Tactical Bomber units.
It is the third post in this thread:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34676.msg1338661#msg1338661 -
Happy New Year everybody!
During Christmas vacations I played a few games with regular 2 planes Carriers and custom 3 planes Carriers.
My main conclusion is that too many specific bonus for this or that situation is slowing down the game during combat rounds. Especially when there is too many different units which get them and when it depends on other side to get the bonus or not (Air Supremacy or presence of ground/naval units). It needs to constantly be aware of any change occurring during the combat round. It also slow down the decision process on which casualties must be chosen.It is also easier to balance and smooth the play with a 3 planes Carrier with weaker Fighters A2 D2 C7 unit able to hit planes than with a 2-planes Carrier.
The main reason is that starting with a low Fg A2 D2-3 C8 requires many bonus for Air Supremacy, pairing with other planes or with Carrier to reach the OOB A3 D4 in situation when there is no enemy’s plane.
And adding a TacB A2-4 D2-4 into the mix is also a complex matter about pairing in Combined Arms, Air Supremacy and the availability of ground/naval targets.In addition, in some battles this specific bonus only apply in one combat round and not the previous or the following (simply because the unit has been taken as casualty).
This doesn’t add much too the overall experience.So, I tried with better success this much more stable (and simpler) values for Fighter and Tactical on defense and only Tactical Bomber get special bonus on attack for specific situations:
FIGHTER
Attack 2, same in SBR
Defense 2 or 3, same in SBR
Move 4
Cost 7
1 hit
Air combat unit, Fighter as an Air Superiority aircraft:
All hits are allocated to aircraft units first, if any available.Combined Arms Bonus:
Gives +1 Attack to any Tactical Bomber paired 1:1 with.Fighter as part of an extended Air Defense System:
Up to 3 Fighter units receive +1 Defense if protecting a territory with an operational Air Base, (or 1 Fg for a Victory City if playing 1942.2)TACTICAL BOMBER
Attack 2 or 3 or 4, SBR @1
Defense 3
Move 4
Cost 8
1 hit
Combined Arms bonus, Tactical Bomber as a less vulnerable “Dive” or “Torpedo” Bomber when escorted by Fighter:
**_Gain +1 Attack, when paired 1:1 with a Fighter .Air Supremacy Bonus, Tactical Bomber as a “Dive Bomber”:
Gain +1 Attack when no ennemy’s aircraft is present.
These two bonuses can be added to raise up to Attack @4.Do you have any opinion about this?_**
-
wow
I thought I could just read this and not have to think :)Sounds way cool. I wonder how it will effect naval battles? In a good way I’m thinking
Yea I 'm gonna try it :)Well I just read the whole thing! And yea sounds better.
Have you played any games yet?
Suggested Topics
