@Baron:
I share the same belief that a Cost 5 works for a totally attackless/defenseless bomber and giving more reg attack punch and 1 hit need to rise to 6 at least.
Yeah… I agree. The only issue with giving them an attack value at all is that they can then be brought in on attacks as screening fodder, whereas if they had no attack value this would be prevented.
Cost at 6 may still be too low for A1 M6 unit. It is cheap enough that being used as fodder for naval battles in particular is highly likely, IMO.
My mind is mostly sets on these SBR values for 5 IPC attackless-defenseless StB:
Here is what makes a similar SBR odds of damage compare to G40 SBR.
Almost same Break even point 0.522 StB/Fg (OOB 0.526 StB/Fg) but no FIT.
Strategic bomber A0 D0 M6 C5, A0 SBR but D6 damage
Fighter A3 D4 M4 C10, A1 D1 SBR
But if I prefer to keep combat values, and hit point, do you see some issues with these 8 IPCs StB
Weak Strategic bomber:
Attack 1, SBR A1 damage 1D6+2
Defense 0
Hit 1
Move 6
Cost 8
Fighter A2 D2 in SBR
It would be a second option for player which dislike defenseless combat unit but enjoy TP bombing.
8 IPCs is the basic cost of naval fodder DD, 2 IPCs higher than Sub.
Also, why would anyone add such low attack unit in Naval Combat?
It becomes a last chance effort which might become a turkey shoot for defending Naval fleet.
I’m just trying to figure what kind of combat values can work before crunching numbers.
I don’t want to make a random guess and make unuseful calculations.
In my own HR,
StB A1 D0 M6 C8 would be at same cost than my
TcB A3 D2 M4 C8 (Target ground unit) and
Fighter A2 D2 C7 (hit enemy’s plane first, then AAA).
Do you see some issues which can arise?
@Baron:
My mind is mostly sets on these SBR values for 5 IPC attackless-defenseless StB:
Here is what makes a similar SBR odds of damage compare to G40 SBR.
Almost same Break even point 0.522 StB/Fg (OOB 0.526 StB/Fg) but no FIT.
Strategic bomber A0 D0 M6 C5, A0 SBR but D6 damage
Fighter A3 D4 M4 C10, A1 D1 SBRBut if I prefer to keep combat values, and hit point, do you see some issues with these 8 IPCs StB
Weak Strategic bomber:
Attack 1, SBR A1 damage 1D6+2
Defense 0
Hit 1
Move 6
Cost 8Fighter A2 D2 in SBR
It would be a second option for player which dislike defenseless combat unit but enjoy TP bombing.
8 IPCs is the basic cost of naval fodder DD, 2 IPCs higher than Sub.
Also, why would anyone add such low attack unit in Naval Combat?
It becomes a last chance effort which might become a turkey shoot for defending Naval fleet.
I’m just trying to figure what kind of combat values can work before crunching numbers.
I don’t want to make a random guess and make unuseful calculations.
Upping the cost to 8 IPCs looks like a good balance to A1 value and hitpoint. Makes it in the expensive range for fodder. Honestly, I can only give you my opinion as it pertains to an ‘eye test’. Your calculations are great and are the most important justifications for any changes we propose. Let’s see what others think about it.
@Baron:
In my own HR,
StB A1 D0 M6 C8 would be at same cost than my
TcB A3 D2 M4 C8 (Target ground unit) and
Fighter A2 D2 C7 (hit enemy’s plane first, then AAA).
Do you see some issues which can arise?
I like the secondary targeting attributes for these. Been wanting to implement something similar. I don’t see an issues right away.
Does TacB targeting ground unit also include targeting naval units? If so, should TacB be allowed to target Transports?
Ok just going to put this out there.
Let’s say the move 6 strat B, is removed from a combat role, defensless as I suggested earlier.
Players lament, 'but the global map is so large, we need a mobile air unit!" Possible solution, increased movement bonus from the airbase unit from +1 to +2.
This does several things at once. First it means that a move 4 fighter or TacB can have their range boosted to 6 from an opperation airbase (this is still 1 less than an OOB stratB from an OOB airbase.) Limits the total possible range from +7 to +6. Allows escort aircraft to fly farther, and be better at fleet screening. Simplifies the counting of movement considerably by eliminating the the odd number.
This way it’s either 2 moves out and 2 back, or 3 out and 3 back if taking off from an AB.
To offset the extended air coverage on the water, I would seriously consider just doing the same for the naval bases. A movement of +2 from an operational NB would open up more shuck options, and accelerate the pace overall.
This keeps things very simple, both bases at +2 movement, making them a much stronger purchase option for the cost at 15, and a more significant target for SBR.
Then you’d have a game where both the defensless transport and defensless bomber are able to shine. Still provides the entertainment of mobile combat air units (since both fighters and tacBs would get a boon of +1 to movement over OOB if taking off from an AB) and would be way more useful in the escort intercept role. The new defensless stratB definitely doesn’t get a hitpoint here, but with a potential
+8 movement the SBR options are way more glorious 4 out and 4 back.
On the water, the whole naval game would get a reset. Any takers?
:-D
Upping the cost to 8 IPCs looks like a good balance to A1 value and hitpoint. Makes it in the expensive range for fodder. Honestly, I can only give you my opinion as it pertains to an ‘eye test’. Your calculations are great and are the most important justifications for any changes we propose. Let’s see what others think about it.
I crunch some numbers on StB A1 D0 C8 1D6+2 damage vs Fg D2 C10.
It appears that Break even point is around 2 StBs for 3 Fgs giving 0.667 StB/Fg.
This is slightly less efficient than OOB G40 0.526 StB/Fg but compared to Balanced Mode (1.156 StB/Fg) it is far much better to get more SBRs.
(Break even point: 89 StBs A1 C12 D6+2 vs 77 Fgs D2 C10 : 1.156 StB/Fg)
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37653.msg1521517#msg1521517
IMO, this may work. And it can be easily tried on a modified Balance Mode XML files.
It only requires to change the Strategic bomber combat values A1 D0 and cost 8 in regular combat.
SBR in BMode is already adjust for Fighter A2 D2 and bombers A1 (both StB and TcB).
@Baron:
In my own HR,
StB A1 D0 M6 C8 would be at same cost than my
TcB A3 D2 M4 C8 (Target ground unit) and
Fighter A2 D2 C7 (hit enemy’s plane first, then AAA).
Do you see some issues which can arise?I like the secondary targeting attributes for these. Been wanting to implement something similar. I don’t see an issues right away.
Does TacB targeting ground unit also include targeting naval units? If so, should TacB be allowed to target Transports?
There is no issue with TcB ground unit targeting capacity as I playtested. (Your idea, remember?)
But never tried with Naval unit.
May probably slow down combat phase and increase the TcB power to destroy Capital warships.
Ok just going to put this out there.
Let’s say the move 6 strat B, is removed from a combat role, defensless as I suggested earlier.
Players lament, 'but the global map is so large, we need a mobile air unit!" Possible solution, increased movement bonus from the airbase unit from +1 to +2.This does several things at once. First it means that a move 4 fighter or TacB can have their range boosted to 6 from an opperation airbase (this is still 1 less than an OOB stratB from an OOB airbase.) Limits the total possible range from +7 to +6. Allows escort aircraft to fly farther, and be better at fleet screening. Simplifies the counting of movement considerably by eliminating the the odd number.
This way it’s either 2 moves out and 2 back, or 3 out and 3 back if taking off from an AB.
To offset the extended air coverage on the water, I would seriously consider just doing the same for the naval bases. A movement of +2 from an operational NB would open up more shuck options, and accelerate the pace overall.
This keeps things very simple, both bases at +2 movement, making them a much stronger purchase option for the cost at 15, and a more significant target for SBR.
Then you’d have a game where both the defensless transport and defensless bomber are able to shine. Still provides the entertainment of mobile combat air units (since both fighters and tacBs would get a boon of +1 to movement over OOB if taking off from an AB) and would be way more useful in the escort intercept role. The new defensless stratB definitely doesn’t get a hitpoint here, but with a potential
+8 movement the SBR options are way more glorious 4 out and 4 back.On the water, the whole naval game would get a reset. Any takers?
:-D
Always interesting idea coming from nowhere. :-) :-o :-D
I like how you can get a better historical depiction of escorting bombers dynamics with +2 Movement bonus.
Attackless-Defenseless Bombers can reach 4 TTys and going back while Fgs reach only 3 TTys.
It clearly provides more targets from UK/USA POV in Great Britain against Germany.
It allows Fgs and TcBs to fly over France, Western Germany but StBs can reach Germany, Greater Southern Germany, Northern Italy.
IDK if Southern France was within range for Fighters and TcBs…
But at least you get an interesting mobility if someone want to recreate Allies Strategic bombing and escort operations.
I insist on to these values to be somewhat balanced for the cost:
StBomber A0 D0 M6-8 C5 SBR 0 Damage 1D6 and
Fighter A3 D4 M4-6 C10, SBR A1 D1
It nicely solve the lack of mobility for higher attack @4 if TcB is A4 D3 M4-6 C12 Damage D6.
From Airbase you get 6 spaces move, but it can be a one way ticket if not landing on an Air Base.
For Naval Base, it is a very different beast since Naval units cannot NCM to a starting NB.
Going in this direction, I suggest you give all Naval units a basic 3 Move and keep NB+1 bonus.
Probably easier to adjust in XML files.
Otherwise, some fleet action will remain moving from NB to NB, knowing that going where there is no NB, a NO Man’s land for Warships, will totally screwed up the overall fleet mobility compared to an enemy fleet in NB’s SZ.
Seems reasonable enough to me. I’m sure I’m not alone in feeling that naval units are a bit hamstrung OOB. In a period where ships could cross oceans in a month, and the game round is imagined to represent roughly the same or greater lengths of time. Ships don’t have quite the same issue with odd movement numbers that aircraft do. Move 3 as the standard on the water would be a lot more dynamic, and the NB+1 would still be very useful. You’d have better shucks all around for your transports, and carriers would be easier to use in tandem with NB + 1 for ships and AB + 2 for fighters/tacs.
This still isn’t the silver bullet for the zero ipc islands (which is another issue), but I do think it would make those islands with operational bases more attractive all around.
This still isn’t the silver bullet for the zero ipc islands (which is another issue), but I do think it would make those islands with operational bases more attractive all around.
You meant Operational Air Bases on Islands more attractive, right?
Yeah, exactly. There are quite a few of them at the start of play, but even at purchase I can imagine new options you wouldn’t see otherwise. With a full move at 3 out 3 back for fighters/tacs the AB is way better for turning those islands into combat lilly pads. Likewise 4 moves out and 4 back for defenseless stratBs from an island airbase makes many locations a lot more viable for launching raids.
Taken together, I don’t see these rules as being any more complicated than the OOB situation. If anything it feels more streamlined to me.
A simpler tacB, a simpler stratB (with a much more singularly defined role in the roster.) Better bases. More SBR and an escort/intercept system that’s somewhat easier to understand. Addresses to a large extent one of the main issues with the defenseless transport (since they’re not as easily sunk by the +7 screen of the death from OOB stratBs anymore). Instead you get more fleet dynamism and less overall drag on the pace of the game where ships are concerned.
It’s not all that much of a departure from the OOB rules, but I like the way these changes play off one another. Would certainly be nice if we could get away with not really having to change the starting unit set up at all. But right now I’m mainly interested in the mechanics for their own sake, because I think they might produce a more compelling game, and perhaps a more historical feel.
Other issues that remain a thorn in my side… the lack of new production options or some form of “land” base unit, the combat aaagun (everyone’s favorite non com headache), and a few others, but I’ll leave those for now hehe. I’d settle for fixing the strategic bombing campaign while addressing the air/naval disparity introduced originally by the defenseless transport concept. I think something like the above would shore up the air umbrella issue, and get us back to a normal naval game on the high seas. One that leaves strategic bombers out of the combat equation, and puts the emphasis on carriers, fighters and tacs, as it should be.
:-D
You forgot to mention a Substantial 5 IPCs unit in the roster.
There are units in these spots:
3-4-5-6-7-8-10-12-14 or 16- 20
A simpler tacB, a simpler stratB (with a much more singularly defined role in the roster.) Better bases. More SBR and an escort/intercept system that’s somewhat easier to understand. Addresses to a large extent one of the main issues with the defenseless transport (since they’re not as easily sunk by the +7 screen of the death from OOB stratBs anymore). Instead you get more fleet dynamism and less overall drag on the pace of the game where ships are concerned…I think they might produce a more compelling game, and perhaps a more historical feel.
Brilliant. This is exactly what it would take to get me to finally go play a game of Global 1940. This patch has fewer, simpler rules than the standard balanced mod, and yet I’m convinced it would be much more fun to play! I would even swallow my pride and overlook the atrocity that is the starting French setup if we played with Balanced mod, the new, leaner SBR/intercept/base/TacB/naval speed rules, and a chess clock (I can supply one) so that people don’t take 20 minutes pondering whether to move their stack of 57 infantry to Upper Southwest Transdneistria or Lower Southwest Transdneistria.
@Baron:
There is no issue with TcB ground unit targeting capacity as I playtested. (Your idea, remember?)
But never tried with Naval unit.
May probably slow down combat phase and increase the TcB power to destroy Capital warships.
I don’t remember if I can claim it to be my idea originally, but I definitely am a proponent. I haven’t actively tried it in any games. I am glad that the land unit targeting works in practice.
I would push the naval targeting even more; both because it was a defining feature of ‘tactical bomber’ aircraft and because it would introduce some direct attrition to capital ships. I hope that implementing Tac ship targeting would not overpower aircraft, but WWII was replete with examples of ‘tactical bomber’ class aircraft making targeted strikes on specific ships, often successfully. This involved completely ignoring or bypassing screening ships in favor of attacking carriers and battleships. Maybe only first round of combat targeting for Tacs, if it appears too powerful. This is the HR I am most interested in promoting.
@Baron:
Going in this direction, I suggest you give all Naval units a basic 3 Move and keep NB+1 bonus.
I like this.
Other issues that remain a thorn in my side… the lack of new production options or some form of “land” base unit, the combat aaagun (everyone’s favorite non com headache),
Land base unit… as in a AB/NB type movement booster for land units? I haven’t studied HBGs Global War system in depth, but do they not have a Rail Road feature for land unit movement bonus? Maybe something similar.
Combat AA gun? I don’t want to pull you off track of the discussion you intended to have…
Brilliant. This is exactly what it would take to get me to finally go play a game of Global 1940. This patch has fewer, simpler rules than the standard balanced mod, and yet I’m convinced it would be much more fun to play! I would even swallow my pride and overlook the atrocity that is the starting French setup if we played with Balanced mod, the new, leaner SBR/intercept/base/TacB/naval speed rules, and a chess clock (I can supply one) so that people don’t take 20 minutes pondering whether to move their stack of 57 infantry to Upper Southwest Transdneistria or Lower Southwest Transdneistria.
:lol:
Other issues that remain a thorn in my side… the lack of new production options or some form of “land” base unit, the combat aaagun (everyone’s favorite non com headache),
Combat AA gun? I don’t want to pull you off track of the discussion you intended to have…
On this topic, here is an AAA at 5 IPCs which explained why it needs to move only in NCM.
@Baron:
This is a very different way of seeing AAA unit which can increase its usefulness and add a few interesting defensive tactics.
@Baron:
Good thoughts Barney, thanks for sharing. Never played NWO (actually just looked it up now). I considered something similar in my initial brainstorming but I really want to involve the tactical element: thinking of Fortifications like bases for ground units, rather than ground units themselves.
One old idea to make AAA unit more interesting was this little tweak, which can represents fortified hardpoints, is to make it a 2 hits unit:
Anti-Aircraft Artillery
Attack 0
Defense 0, 1 @1 preemptive, up to three planes, 1 per plane max.
NCM 1
Hits 2, auto-repaired after combat
Cost 5
In addition, if no combat unit is with it, then it is auto-destroy, per OOB rule.For 15 IPCs, you get 3 regular hits, 3 buffer hits, and up to 9 preemptive strike @1 on aircraft.
With Infantry, it is 5 hits and 10 defense points, but you loose 3 units on first casualties.An additional ability to figure Atlantic Wall and Siegfried Line can be that when attacked, you may roll 1 defense @1 of preemptive fire on ground unit attacking per AAA unit.
Another possibility can be this:
Anti-Aircraft Artillery as Fortifications
Attack 0
Defense 1, up to three preemptive roll @1, against up to three units, ground or plane, 1 per attacking unit max.
NCM 1
Hits 2, auto-repaired after combat
Cost 5
The one time preemptive roll can simulate the fact that once fortifications are overwhelmed, they can no more use their defensive weapons.
@Baron:
There is no issue with TcB ground unit targeting capacity as I playtested. (Your idea, remember?)
But never tried with Naval unit.
May probably slow down combat phase and increase the TcB power to destroy Capital warships.I don’t remember if I can claim it to be my idea originally, but I definitely am a proponent. I haven’t actively tried it in any games. I am glad that the land unit targeting works in practice.
I would push the naval targeting even more; both because it was a defining feature of ‘tactical bomber’ aircraft and because it would introduce some direct attrition to capital ships. I hope that implementing Tac ship targeting would not overpower aircraft, but WWII was replete with examples of ‘tactical bomber’ class aircraft making targeted strikes on specific ships, often successfully. This involved completely ignoring or bypassing screening ships in favor of attacking carriers and battleships. Maybe only first round of combat targeting for Tacs, if it appears too powerful. This is the HR I am most interested in promoting.
I like this.
I believe a single combat round will not work. Because, it is already capital ships hit points which are chosen as casualty.
Maybe something like all TcBs hits must be allocated to warships first, if any, owner’s choice.
Once all hits are known, then casualty are chosen with this special condition to be fulfilled.
More you make combat rounds, less undamaged Capital ship remains.
Probably the opponent may kept 1 or 2 undamaged Capital ships to not see them being sunk by TcB.
It seems an increase of “pressure” on opponent shoulder. It almost forbid to use the additional hit point from Capital ships.
IDK if it improves the gameplay experience.
Or just demand more focus on which hit must be taken on which unit.
I already have Fg vs planes which requires to pick them out, Sub’s hit which cannot be allocated to air units nor Subs. (And TP which roll as 1AA vs plane only.)
It makes 3 special casualty rules to follow in Naval combat.
Maybe if a lower cost structure is used with this HR, that can work.
(SS5, DD6, CA9, CV12, BB15)
Losing 12 or 15 IPCs unit is less an impact than 16 and 20.
Also, my Fg A2 D2 and TcB A3 D2 have lower combat values, that way you take dice as a whole.
Otherwise, Fg A3 D4 and TcB A4 D3 cannot do a full targeting roll, IMO it should be “2” or less to apply this critical casualty. Another special rule. As such, all special target rules delay combat resolution compare to OOB, let aside Subs/DDs/planes/TP interactions, which BTW I simplified to focus on Fg and Subs.
So, IDK how to get to an interesting and functional naval TcB against warships.
Hope my shared experience from a few playtests might help.
The only way I can see tac targeting in the game without making the unit totally overpowered for the cost, is with some kind of opening phase, but you’d have to provide a chance that the tac might be destroyed in the process or else the defender is at a serious disadvantage. Not sure how that would look exactly. The first strike with submarines doesn’t adequately cover the situation as a model. Subs are cheap and weak on defense (in subsequent turns they only defend at a 1), so they naturally serve as fodder if they miss the opening strike when the enemy returns fire. Whereas a tacB at 12 ipc (and defend 3 in subsequent turns) would rarely make sense as fodder. Since targeting doesn’t currently exist in the game, it would require a more complex or at least less familiar addition to the combat process. I think it would probably be better as a single opening phase, similar to aaafire or bombardment, rather than as a repeating phase like the first strike of subs. I like it for historical accuracy, but it is a departure from the defender chooses casualty model, so to work there would have to be some risk to the attacker (like a built-in chance that the TacB is destroyed while attempting to target.) The only thing that prevents me from embracing the idea, is the practical concern that an ability to target would be so valuable that it’d make every other combat unit instantly obsolete. There is another practical concern which might hold it back as well, and that’s that I don’t see a way to enforce the attacker targeting in tripleA. You could do it by player agreement I suppose where the defender assigns the hit demanded by the attacker, but that would be entirely up to player enforcement. I like the ambition, but I worry about the implementation.
For the aaagun, put simply, I think it should be able to move in the combat phase. There are so many gripes associated with having a unit that only moves in non com, with aaaguns contantly being forgotten or purposely left behind, that I can’t imagine much opposition to such a change.
Right now though, just focusing on the changes proposed earlier, most of this stuff is easily handled in tripleA.
Tactical Bomber: Attack 4, Defend 3, Move 4, Cost 12 ipcs, with no combined arms.
Airbase: +2 movement, cost 15 ipcs, with scramble for 3 aircraft.
All ships Move 3
Strategic Bomber (defenseless): 0/0/0 costs 5 ipcs.
The only issue is whether the defensless StratB can be handled under tripleA’s current factory aaa fire and escort/intercept system. Still hoping maybe Barney has some thoughts on that hehe.
But if we can handle the defenseless stratB, then an HR mod could be assembled in fairly short order, for use with Global 1940, Global 1942, or any variants that use the global unit roster.
@Baron:
I believe a single combat round will not work. Because, it is already capital ships hit points which are chosen as �casualty.
Maybe something like all TcBs hits must be allocated to warships first, if any, owner’s choice.
Once all hits are known, then casualty are chosen with this special condition to be fulfilled.
More you make combat rounds, less undamaged Capital ship remains.
Probably the opponent may kept 1 or 2 undamaged Capital ships to not see them being sunk by TcB.
It seems an increase of “pressure” on opponent shoulder. It almost forbid to use the additional hit point from Capital ships.
IDK if it improves the gameplay experience.
Or just demand more focus on which hit must be taken on which unit.
I already have Fg vs planes which requires to pick them out, Sub’s hit which cannot be allocated to air units nor Subs. (And TP which roll as 1AA vs plane only.)
It makes 3 special casualty rules to follow in Naval combat.Maybe if a lower cost structure is used with this HR, that can work.
(SS5, DD6, CA9, CV12, BB15)
Losing 12 or 15 IPCs unit is less an impact than 16 and 20.Also, my Fg A2 D2 and TcB A3 D2 have lower combat values, that way you take dice as a whole.
Otherwise, Fg A3 D4 and TcB A4 D3 cannot do a full targeting roll, IMO it should be “2” or less to apply this critical casualty. Another special rule. As such, all special target rules delay combat resolution compare to OOB, let aside Subs/DDs/planes/TP interactions, which BTW I simplified to focus on Fg and Subs.So, IDK how to get to an interesting and functional naval TcB against warships.
Hope my shared experience from a few playtests might help.
Thanks for your input and experience, I do find it valuable, particularly since I am operating completely on theory right now.
I am beginning to like your revised air unit cost and attack/defense attributes. Combined with the price reduction, it looks like it could make for better gameplay.
The more modifications and intricacies, the slower and less fun the game becomes; I certainly understand that. My suggestion for Tac targeting was under the assumption that it is used with OOB rules for the most part, which has at least one fewer naval combat hit/roll rule than you have in your HR set. That said, I can see that by allowing Tacs to target by default and in every combat round is likely too powerful. Capital ship attrition will likely rise precipitously and it becomes almost a no brainer to purchase Tacs over Fighters. Sounds like there need to be some limits such as targeting first round only or targeting on rolls of 2 or less.
Decreasing overall warship cost is appealing, in that it may offset attrition and result in larger navies. However, will that have any effect on land and air purchases if they remain at similar to OOB values? Initial thought is no, it will not. Only because those units are needed to take and hold territory which actually wins the war. Ships/Sea Zones are meaningless in this respect because having a huge navy will not win you the war in and of itself. You still need occupying land forces.
The only way I can see tac targeting in the game without making the unit totally overpowered for the cost, is with some kind of opening phase, but you’d have to provide a chance that the tac might be destroyed in the process or else the defender is at a serious disadvantage. Not sure how that would look exactly. The first strike with submarines doesn’t adequately cover the situation as a model. Subs are cheap and weak on defense (in subsequent turns they only defend at a 1), so they naturally serve as fodder if they miss the opening strike when the enemy returns fire. Whereas a tacB at 12 ipc (and defend 3 in subsequent turns) would rarely make sense as fodder. Since targeting doesn’t currently exist in the game, it would require a more complex or at least less familiar addition to the combat process. I think it would probably be better as a single opening phase, similar to aaafire or bombardment, rather than as a repeating phase like the first strike of subs. I like it for historical accuracy, but it is a departure from the defender chooses casualty model, so to work there would have to be some risk to the attacker (like a built-in chance that the TacB is destroyed while attempting to target.) The only thing that prevents me from embracing the idea, is the practical concern that an ability to target would be so valuable that it’d make every other combat unit instantly obsolete. There is another practical concern which might hold it back as well, and that’s that I don’t see a way to enforce the attacker targeting in tripleA. You could do it by player agreement I suppose where the defender assigns the hit demanded by the attacker, but that would be entirely up to player enforcement. I like the ambition, but I worry about the implementation.
Valid concerns for sure. I will think about it a bit more. It needs to work properly and efficiently if it is to be included.
Baron did say that his testing of Tac targeting against land units is not problematic. If that is true, I have a couple questions:
Is Tac targeting on land not so problematic because the land units are cheaper and there are more of them than naval units? (Presumably, every Tac target on land is going against a Tank, when possible.)
How exactly do you have this system working against land units? Is it targeting every round of battle? Do they hit @4 or do they have to roll lower (2 or 1) to allow targeting?
Right now the make or break point for me, is whether the bomber proposal could be realistically implemented in tripleA’s current build. This is not to say that feedback or testing in face to face games isn’t valuable too, but for proof of concept I’d want a mod that is easy to load up and start playing online. If it works easily in tripleA there’s a much better chance that people will actually try it. Moving balance and gameplay enjoyment discussions from the hypothetical into an arena where we can actually start looking at game saves for evidence.
Granted, the goal stated at the beginning of this thread goes well beyond a quick fix. But if the defenseless bomber concept works, I think it could form the basis of a new (relatively simple) universal rule for use in both the current Global 1940 game and in 1942.2. That would be major.
1942.2 is particularly useful for a proof of concept, because there is just way less going on in that game. Would the defenseless bomber work there, using the standard rules for everything else? Can it work with no intercept (leaving the “Raids may be proceeded by air battles” option unchecked) and just using standard factory aaafire?
In a nutshell, can we have a strategic bomber with no hitpoint in normal combat, but which otherwise still functions as normal vs factory aaa fire?
I think the sweet spot at 5 ipcs is a powerful motivator. I can easily imagine players using a 2 IPC remainder to get a defenseless stratB during purchase. I’m not as convinced, if the unit had to be more expensive (such as at 8 ipcs) in order to accomodate a hitpoint. I would worry in that case that we just lose strat bombing as a feature of the game altogether (with players calculating that the money is better spent on artillery or a destroyer, or using bombers merely as fodder with awesome movement), which would be rather the opposite of what I’m hoping for. I want a game that gets us realistic bombing raids, but which doesn’t screw the naval dynamics in the process.
If that works for 1942.2 and Global, then I’m excited for the next step, which would be improving the expanded 1940 roster, with streamlined TacBs, Air Bases etc.
The interesting thing with Triple A 1942.2 is that bomber already D6 damage and Fg A1 D1 if interception option is checked.
It needs only to give A0 to bomber in SBR, maybe Barney can see where is this code value in XML files.
I believe you already know how to change other combat values from A4D1C12 to A0D0C5. Am I right?
I see there’s been some activity since I was here last : ) I’m not positive if you can have a A0 D0 unit and no HP. Maybe. I’ll be able to find out tomorrow.
So using global as our “test” game what do we want ? Bomber A0 D0 M6 +1 w/AB ? C5 SBR only ? Or M+2 W/AB ? Bump Tacs up to 12 bucks hit at 4 all the time ?
As mentioned earlier, the Rd1 German, JPN, UK and Italy Bmbr attacks will be affected. Once you get past that, just let it roll I’d say.
Anyone ever consider carpet bombing for attack?
strat bomber rolls 3 die for a 2 or less in the attack….a defend 1 in SBR and SBR 3 rolls at 2 or less…defend at 0 in a battle like an air transport
I’ve been checking out this discussion and am looking to see where this goes. I could test this in my 40 game.
I did some die rolling for the Stg Bomber being C5 A0 D0 M6 1D6.
I did test rolls on 3 bombers after getting through interceptors and AA guns. I rolled 3 dice for 3 bombers 20 times and came up with a 220 total number for 20 die rolls. So ave. roll for SBR was 11 damage. When I was doing test rolls , I was thinking maybe it was to strong. So I made it where bomber gets 1D6 -1 roll for SBR and that comes out to 10 damage for 3 bombers avg. attack.
With a D6 die being a 3 on ave roll would = 9 damage a attack and at -1 8 damage per attack on ave.
When I did the die rolls with 5 bombers it was to high for damage to the point of SBRing taking over the game. I also don’t want that in game. Just ave would be 5 bombers doing 15 damage per turn. 10 damage with the -1 factor. So would have to spend 1 icp to build a piece.
So trade off would be does a country want to spend 25 icp’s to do ave 15 damage on IC. It would cost IC 6 icp’s before it could build 1 piece but if country lost 2 bombers to interceptors or AA gun now they spent 25 icp’s for ave 9 damage on IC.
Cost attacker 10 icp’s to defender fix IC cost 1 to 9 icp’s. Doesn’t include icp costs for escorts. Most of the time the escorts can’t reach IC unless there close.
May have to have +1 to D6.
3 bombers ave 9 +3 = 12 damage. Cost defender 3 to 12 to fix.
I checked ave rolls with the Baron SBR rules I’m trying in my game.
3 bombers ave 9 +6 =15 damage and 9 ave roll for IC reduced damage would = 6 damage total. Won’t work.
So looks like have to do 1 game each to see how Stg Bomber gets a 1D6 for SBR or 1D6 +1. If bombers get a @1 on air battle then make it 1D6 for SBR.
Maybe Baron can crunch numbers, where would attacker gain anything on defender when it came to losing bombers to making attacker repair IC and keep them from building less pieces.
The Tac bomber may have to be C8-9 A3-4 D2-3 M4-5 and gets a First strike hit on ground and navy since now you lose the Bomber attack.
