@Baron:
attacking SB’s cannot inflict battle casualties on fighters
Why not make it more general such as “cannot inflict battle casualties on other planes”?
That sounds even more sensible. Arguably, though, there’s always the chance that bombers could eliminate unprepared enemy planes that are on the ground (as happened in sneak attacks like Pearl Harbour and the first few hours of Germany’s attack on Russia) but as that’s rare it’s probably best to ignore it in favour of a good general rule.
@Baron:
attacking SB’s cannot inflict battle casualties on fighters
Why not make it more general such as “cannot inflict battle casualties on other planes”?
That sounds even more sensible. Arguably, though, there’s always the chance that bombers could eliminate unprepared enemy planes that are on the ground (as happened in sneak attacks like Pearl Harbour and the first few hours of Germany’s attack on Russia) but as that’s rare it’s probably best to ignore it in favour of a good general rule.
This can be restricted to: “in Naval Combat, cannot inflict battle casualties on other planes”
@Baron:
@Baron:
attacking SB’s cannot inflict battle casualties on fighters
Why not make it more general such as “cannot inflict battle casualties on other planes”?
That sounds even more sensible. Arguably, though, there’s always the chance that bombers could eliminate unprepared enemy planes that are on the ground (as happened in sneak attacks like Pearl Harbour and the first few hours of Germany’s attack on Russia) but as that’s rare it’s probably best to ignore it in favour of a good general rule.
This can be restricted to: “in Naval Combat, cannot inflict battle casualties on other planes”
Except that the same exception occurs there too. I believe in the Battle of Midway Japanese bombers destroyed some planes aboard Yorktown. Maybe allow planes to be hit by bombers only on the first wave of attacks?
Well you could make it where when bombers are attacking fleets with carriers and planes, have it where if bombers roll a 1 on first round of combat only, the plane or planes are destroyed due to they didn’t launch in time.
But now it’s just getting real complicated.
I still stand by the simple fix of keeping all OOB stats the same but only allowing Bombers to participate in the first round of combat.
Ya I hear ya amanntai. But I only play the more advanced games. Even more advanced than HBG’s Global 39.
@SS:
Ya I hear ya amanntai. But I only play the more advanced games. Even more advanced than HBG’s Global 39.
How long do these games take?
Well wasn’t able to get all of it Baron but here’s a triplea xml that has bombers A3 +1 when paired with fighter(1:1), TACs A4 D3 gives +1 to tanks D when paired 1:1. Fighter escort and interceptors A/D 2.
Wasn’t able to get the +1 when no enemy air is present, but I don’t think that will mess things up too much. Most ships have either ACs or ABs to protect them. One fighter shutting down a slew of bmbrs would be the same as one dstry shutting down subs. Not being able to hit a lone blocker or sub killer sets them back as well as solo infrantry attacks but we’ll just play the historical strats weren’t good at hitting ships anyway. :) We probably won’t see many SBRs without fighter escort but that’s the way it goes. Their main advantage is still their range and offense can be boosted with a ftr.
TACs get the 4 hit plus the boost to the tanks D. So they still have a connection. Not sure how that will play out but I think it will be OK. Just have to play it and see.
Anyway gonna start a playtest right now.
If you’re not familiar with adding XMLs to triplea: open triplea, open maps, open WW II Global zip, put the objectives there then open games and put the xml there.
Incredible job Barney!
I cannot believe that TripleA can be modified as you did.
Thanks for the hardwork.
I will download this as soon as I can.
Keep me posted after your playtests.
Well I’m not done with my test game yet but it looks like the Allies are going to pull it out.
Germany didn’t buy as many bmbrs as usual but that may have been due more to taking moderate air losses the first turn (4 planes) and Italy getting spanked in the Med. Germany built a Med fleet to try and regain the initiative and after successfully destroying a UK tranny fleet off of Guiana, was obliterated off the west coast of Gibralter by a slightly smaller Canadian fleet which suffered a mere dstry loss. Throwing good money after bad, they built a minor in Yugo and with predictable results that failed as well.
Anyway they didn’t really have the dough to go bmbr buying. But poor strategic decisions aside, I think I would have bought a few less but still invested in them. Germany kept their TACs on the eastern front with a fighter or two for when the bmbrs came by while the bmbrs and ftrs mostly stayed in W Germany. The RD 1 attacks weren’t effected because everything is paired anyway. Didn’t do any SBRs on London.
Japan had a -1 on the Yunnan attack wich doesn’t effect much. However with her huge air force she bought more bmbrs to pair with her ftrs. The TACs were deadly and I loaded some CVs with both TACs or ftrs for offense or defense punch. She SBR’d India to good effect since India didn’t want to risk her ftrs. US went fairly bmbr heavy as well. UK had a couple and Italy and ANZAC each had one.
The 3 attack definitely got my attention. A bit of a mind trip after playing at 4 all these years. While some attacks were made unescorted I usually had ftrs with them. It seemed to effect Italy more since she was having to keep her ftrs at home for the most part. Also she never really got a chance to get a 2nd one. I was playing a tech heavy game and when you get Hvy bmbrs you really appreciate the extra roll.
So it definitely slows them down a bit but their still effective at SBR’s if they get through. A little more chancy taking out solo blockers. It was fun sending solo TACs to boost small counterattacks. Next game I’ll try and get in some more SBR’s and crank up some U-boats. Get UK to trade some dstrys. See how that goes. I guess you could pair sub and bmbr +1 for a little more punch to take out blockers but that doesn’t seem very realistic to me.
Anyway it’s fun trying something new. Makes you think a little different. I’m a low to intermediate player but it seems like a nice adjustment to me. I recommend giving it a try.
Well I’m not done with my test game yet but it looks like the Allies are going to pull it out.
The RD 1 attacks weren’t effected because everything is paired anyway. Didn’t do any SBRs on London.
The 3 attack definitely got my attention. A bit of a mind trip after playing at 4 all these years. While some attacks were made unescorted I usually had ftrs with them. It seemed to effect Italy more since she was having to keep her ftrs at home for the most part. Also she never really got a chance to get a 2nd one. I was playing a tech heavy game and when you get Hvy bmbrs you really appreciate the extra roll.
So it definitely slows them down a bit but their still effective at SBR’s if they get through. A little more chancy taking out solo blockers. It was fun sending solo TACs to boost small counterattacks. Next game I’ll try and get in some more SBR’s and crank up some U-boats. Get UK to trade some dstrys. See how that goes. I guess you could pair sub and bmbr +1 for a little more punch to take out blockers but that doesn’t seem very realistic to me.
Anyway it’s fun trying something new. Makes you think a little different. I’m a low to intermediate player but it seems like a nice adjustment to me. I recommend giving it a try.
Thank you for the interesting report.
If you believe, as I do, that SBR is OP and can partly explain why StB can be very effective, you can read and compare some stats between various SBR OOB rules in this post:
Re: German bomber strategy - How to play and How to counter
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35390.msg1385642#msg1385642
@SS:
Ya I hear ya amanntai. But I only play the more advanced games. Even more advanced than HBG’s Global 39.
How long do these games take?
Games take 12 to 24 hours.
Ss…Yep…but last 3 games, we played 14 hours and played between 13 and 15 turns. The last games finish in a draw. I played Germany and at the end, only southern and Moscow still under control of Russia but soviets player stacked all his infantries in Moscow. Infantry défend at 3 in Russian cities but I hate this rules and I’m going to remove it from the rules.
Ss…Yep…but last 3 games, we played 14 hours and played between 13 and 15 turns. The last games finish in a draw. I played Germany and at the end, only southern and Moscow still under control of Russia but soviets player stacked all his infantries in Moscow. Infantry d�fend at 3 in Russian cities but I hate this rules and I’m going to remove it from the rules.
I’m promoting Anti-Tank Gun instead: A1 D3 Cost 4, +1D to Infantry paired 1:1.
Russia must pay to get the boosted defensive bonus, it is not free.
ATG is figuring for all extra defensive measures deployed by Russian in WWII.
Germany can also built an Atlantic Wall kind when stacking ATG+INF with them if they wish to pay.
Yes baron.in fact i have su 76 boosting Infantry + 1. Russian player may buy siberian Infantry attack at 2 in the first round of combat but only during winter. Same price as regular Infantry.
Yes baron.in fact i have su 76 boosting Infantry + 1. Russian player may buy siberian Infantry attack at 2 in the first round of combat but only during winter. Same price as regular Infantry.
Wow! Really advance and detailed game.
4 bucks for a D 3 unit sounds pretty badass. Especially if it boosts a dude.
I saw you wrote somewhere else about that but don’t recall the details. Have you done any playtests with it?
4 bucks for a D 3 unit sounds pretty badass. Especially if it boosts a dude.
I saw you wrote somewhere else about that but don’t recall the details. Have you done any playtests with it?
It was on the Heavy Artillery (Now named Anti-tank Gun) thread. The math looked pretty solid. Better defense than pure infantry, but worse offense.
As people are discussing it really comes down to the fact that its harder and more expensive for the Naval defender to put up 4’s (fighter defense hit) in the water, than it is for the Air attacker to put 4’s (tacB and especially stratB) in the water.
I mean for the Air attacker a strategic bomber costs 12 ipcs, and for 24 ipcs you can get a pair of Hit 4’s into the battle.
To match this on defense, you have to spend 16 ipcs on a Carrier and 20 ipcs on fighters, 36 ipcs to at least match the hits in the first round of combat. That’s a fairly large disparity, and it doesn’t include associated cost of the transport and destroyer fodder that the naval defender needs to be effective with their force. Then take that same sort of equation and run with it over a few rounds, basically the Air attacker buying bombers is likely to outclass the Naval defender (spending less money on average with more reach/options for the heavy hitting 4s.) If it turns out that the bomber strategy gets stale and people feel frustrated with it, then some simple HR solutions could help the game.
If you don’t want to change the ability of the bomber itself. I think the best idea proposed elsewhere, was for a carrier deck that holds 3 fighters. That was probably the most elegant solution I’ve heard. It has some ease of use advantages. First, you it doesn’t change the printed values on the battle board, or the unit cost/values printed on the map. Second, the carrier sculpts that come in the box can generally support 3 fighters if you rest them with their wings on the diagonal. Third, it doesn’t require you to change a whole lot of other rules to accommodate. It doesn’t alter the value of the bombers directly (so the battleboard and the rest of the rules can still remain. It change the OOB unit distribution on the mapboard. It’s just an feature of the carrier deck to put up better defense. It could potentially provide some interest with the opening combats though, as the ability to land a 3rd fighter on a carrier deck might allow for some novel openings. Baron has discussed the idea before. I don’t know that you’d really need to change much else for the concept to be viable in G40, at least then you could match the bomber buyer more easily on the water. You’d still incur the cost of the carrier deck to activate them, but the cumulative cost wouldn’t be as high for the hit 4’s, relative to the dude buying all the bombers.
Right now people use Air Bases as a way to get more three hit 4’s in the water on the scramble. But Air Bases are expensive as well, and they are limited to one per territory. It’s still possible for the bomber buyer to outclass this on hit 4’s, given enough time/bombers. Not to suggest that the bomber strategy is so out sized right now, that everyone would change the game like this. But since there doesn’t seem to be much discussion of a 1940 third Ed. game, HR stuff is probably the best way to go if you want to see bombers work in a less overpowered way, then at least the carrier could be brought more into line with it, giving players a way to get fighters additional fighters into the water.
I think either triple fighter carriers to match the bomber hits at 4, for less cost over time. Or something like this last suggestion to just to limit the ways in which bombers can attack other planes. Bombers dog fighting is kind of silly anyway granted hehe. But I don’t know which approach is best. I would like a solution that requires the fewest necessary changes, and has the widest application on this and other maps. I wish a third edition was considered by publisher, so some of these ideas could be addressed officially, but until then they’re interesting to explore.
About a 3 planes-Carrier, if everything else is kept OOB this meant an increase in combat defensive capacity for the carrier.
Full 2 planes Carrier (36 IPCs) gives 4 hits and A6 D10, compared to 3 StBs A12 D3 3 hits.
3 StB attacking a full 2 planes-Carrier:
Overall %: A. survives: 24.3% D. survives: 61.7% No one survives: 14%
24 StBs attacking 8 full 2 planes-Carriers:
Overall %: A. survives: 7% D. survives: 92.2% No one survives: 0.9%
46 IPCs Full Carrier gives 5 hits and A10 D14, compared to 48 IPCs which gives 4 hits and A16 D4 for StBs.
4 StB attacking a full 3 planes-Carrier (for a 2 IPCs disparity):
Overall %*: A. survives: 27.3% D. survives: 61.1% No one survives: 11.7%
23 StBs (12 IPCs) against 6 Full 3 planes-Carriers:
Overall %*: A. survives: 4.7% D. survives: 94.5% No one survives: 0.8%
It seems to be almost the same statistical results but the main point is as you said: for the same IPCs you can get more useful units.
36 IPCs 2 planes Carrier vs 46 IPCs 3-planes Carrier:
4x36 IPCs = 132 IPCs vs 3x46 IPCs= 138 IPCs
8 Fighters vs 8.4 Fighters
23x36 IPCs = 828 IPCs vs 18x46 IPCs= 828 IPCs
46 Fighters+ 23 Carriers vs 54 Fighters + 18 Carriers
One defense against the other defense values gives:
Overall %*: A. survives: 33.7% D. survives: 65.5% No one survives: 0.7%
However, the defensive value of a 2 hits 16 IPCs Carrier should not be taken lightly. It costs 8 IPCs to get 1 hit and a defense @2.
This compensate a bit making the exchange from adding 1 Fg unit on a Carrier not as overwhelming, as I first thought.
If, Fighter value was changed to A2 D3 C8, for a 40 IPCs 3-planes Carrier 5 hits A6 D11, slightly better than a 36 IPCs, 4 hits A6 D10 full Carrier:
10 full 2 planes Carrier (360 IPCs) vs 9 full 3 planes-Carrier at 40 IPCs (360 IPCs)
Overall %*: A. survives: 34.8% D. survives: 64.4% No one survives: 0.8%
Since, the Calc gives the same statistical results, this imply that:
A 46 IPCs planes-Carrier with 3 OOB Fighters is similar to a 40 IPCs 3 planes-Carrier with 3 Fgs A2 D3 C8. :-o
If everything else is the same, then it is simpler to keep your suggestion Black_Elk. No need to change the cost of Fg. :-)
Allowing an additional OOB Fg or TcB on G40 Carrier will rise the defending factor of a fleet.
However, wanting to introduce a special Fighter unit A2 D3 M4 specifically designated to hit planes first, then other kind of units, it imply a cost redux to 8 IPCs.
Consequences: 3 Fgs D@3 scramble will be inferior Def 9 instead of Def 12.
But, any Fighter put to defend a Territory would hit directly StBs even when this bombers stack is supporting a few ground units.
These dedicated Fighter against enemy’s planes (and able to use ground units as fodder) would be a good repellent against bombers, which are rolling casualty as usual.
Here is my solution to change G40 StBs stack strategy:
So, with a G40 16 IPCs Aircraft Carrier, 2 hits, A0 D2 M2, able to carry 3 Fgs or TcBs:
Fighter A2 D3 Cost 8, hits planes first / SBR value: A2 D3
Tactical Bomber A3-4 D3 Cost 10, rise to A4 when paired 1:1 with Fg, TBR at D6 damage / SBR value: A2 D1
Strategic Bomber A4 D1 Cost 12, SBR at D6+2 damage / SBR value A1 D0
AAA A0 D1* Cost 4, 1 hit, hit always planes (if any), on the first round up to 3 preemptive @1 against up to 3 planes, which ever the lesser.
After first round, regular roll @1 against plane.
Special Fleet Combined arms :
1 Carrier+ 1 Cruiser+ 1 Battleship get 1 preemptive AAA shot: on the first round up to 3 @1 against up to 3 planes, which ever the lesser.
Now, trying to answer ShadowHAwk objections, I found an incentive to commit Aircrafts into risky battle, but also a different way of resolving the issue on Strategic bombers spam, but it is mainly to create an A&A game oriented for Airplanes interactions:
it gives Fighters an air-to-air combat role,
while giving TacBs and StBs an air-to ground combat role with higher offensive values compared to Fighter.
Air supremacy: (no enemy’s plane is present, or they were all shot down) provides for all planes present +1 Offense OR Defense.
This bonus is somewhat inspired by 1914.
In that 1914 WWI version, all ground units gained +1 Offense/Defense if their side gets the Air Supremacy during the previous air-to-air combat phase.
The only difference is that my Air Supremacy Bonus gives +1 to all aircrafts instead of ground units.
And each Fighter unit provides to any one Bomber paired with, the same bonus as given by Air Supremacy:
Fighter Combined Arms bonus: gives +1 Attack/Defense when paired 1:1 with Tactical Bomber unit or Strategic Bomber unit
Bombers (TcBs or StBs) Combined Arms bonus: gets +1 Attack/Defense when paired 1:1 with Fighter
Here are changes on Aircraft combat values:
FIGHTER
Attack 2 can rise to 3
Defense 3 can rise to 4
Move 4
Cost 8
Air combat unit: All hits are allocated to aircraft units first, if any available
Air Supremacy bonus: +1 Attack/Defense when no enemy’s aircraft
Combined Arms bonus: gives +1 Attack/Defense when paired 1:1 with Tactical Bomber unit or Strategic Bomber unit
SBR escort mission: Attack @2
Can intercept in SBR: Defense @3.
TACTICAL BOMBER
Attack 3 can rise to 4
Defense 2 can rise to 3
Move 4
Cost 9
Air Supremacy bonus: +1 Attack/Defense when no enemy’s aircraft
Combined Arms bonus: +1 Attack/Defense when paired 1:1 with Fighter
Combined Arms Bonus in Tank Support, Tactical Bomber as a “Tank Buster”:
Gives +1 Attack/Defense when paired 1:1 with Tank
Tank Support bonus can be combined with either Air Supremacy bonus or Combined Arms bonus with Fighter.
Tactical Bombing Raid: Attack @2
TBR damage: 1D6 on Air Base or Naval Base
On SBR can also do escort mission: Attack @2
STRATEGIC BOMBER
Attack 3 can rise to 4
Defense 1 can rise to 2 (added to keep the rule straight and simple, with no exception)
Move 6
Cost 10
Air Supremacy bonus: +1 Attack/Defense when no enemy’s aircraft
Combined Arms bonus: +1 Attack/Defense when paired 1:1 with Fighter
Strategical Bombing Raid: Attack @1
SBR damage: 1D6+2 on Industrial Complex, Air Base or Naval Base
Fighter and Tactical Bomber lower values fit very well for a three planes-Carrier.
1942.2 FLEET CARRIER A1 D2 M2 Cost 14, 1 hit
Carry 3 planes (Fgs or TcBs)
Combined Anti-Air Defense when paired with 1 Battleship and 1 Cruiser: get up to 3 preemptive shots @1 against up to three planes.
G40 FLEET CARRIER A0 D2 M2 Cost 16, 2 hits
Carry 3 planes (Fgs or TcBs)
Damaged Carrier can still carry 1 plane.
Combined Anti-Air Defense when paired with 1 Battleship and 1 Cruiser: get up to 3 preemptive shots @1 against up to three planes.
ANTI-AIRCRAFT ARTILLERY
Attack 0
Defense 1* **
NCM 1
Cost 4
1 hit
Cost has been reduced to 8 (Fg) - 9 (TcB) - 10 (StB) IPCs, because the air attrition is certainly too high within a regular G40 games and because all aircrafts only get their plain OOB combat values in specific situations: Air Supremacy.
To get a whole picture of this HR, I would allow 3 types of defensive maneuvers for aircrafts to increase interactions between air units.
DEFENSIVE MANEUVERS allowed for 2 or 3 types of aircraft:
Aerial Retreat for attacking planes (all aircrafts can retreat while letting ground units continue battle),
Limited Aerial Withdrawal of 1 space in a friendly territory is allowed any round after the first combat round for defending planes up to 2 StBs or 2 TcBs or 2 Fgs.
****Limited landing in a just conquered territory (which includes at least 1 ground unit): 2 planes (either Fighter or Tactical Bomber)**, as long as each units can provide 1 extra movement point for this special landing.
This gives many reasons to put planes against planes into Naval or Ground combats:
1- Sending only ground units, would imply that all defending aircrafts have a much higher odds to hit.
Thus, increasing the number of attacking casualties for the first combat cycles.2- Another reason to bring especially TcBs into combat, I added a special +1 bonus for both offense and defense given to Tank (which can raise to A4 or D4).
So, not only attacking TcBs can block the defender Air Supremacy bonus, but this gives an additional boost to the attack.3- From the defender POV, even a single defending Fighter (or TcB/StB) can lower the attack value of all attacking aircrafts (at least for the first combat round).
And if there is only Bombers (and ground units) on the attacker side, then this single Fighter (or TcB/StB) (as long as is it not taken as casualty) keeps all Bombers attacking value to 3.
Hence, an attacker ought to bring Fighter units on his side, in hope of shooting down the enemy’s planes, to increase the offensive values of his attacking Aircrafts (in the next combat rounds to come) and to lower the number of combat cycles (to minimize casualties on the attacker side).**
