Fighter defense

All fair points. I look forward to your upcoming house rule releases!

@Argothair:

My question is more about what do you do when you only have enough sculpts or enough attention span to play with one type of fighter. Is there a way to keep island bases vs. carrier bases balanced with only one type of fighter?

Or to put it another way: introducing a special extra unit simply for the sake of creating more unit variety is one thing, but introducing a special unit in order to fix a perceived problem with the game map or with the game rules is something else.  It’s not necessarily a bad idea, but perhaps an adjustment to the rules would be a more direct approach.

@arwaker:

The less different types of units you have in the game, the more of the specific sculpts are in the box.
I dont see the advantage in stategic depth of the game a tactical bomber could offer, to compensate the reduction of specific sculpts and the complification of the rules.

However, one can introduce as many new types of units he wants (as a house rule). What about assault guns, interceptors, frigates or landmines? Would they increase the funfactor of the game? I’m not sure. Same as with tactical bombers.

If there is no Air Base or Naval Base and having only the combined arms: giving +1 to attack if tactical bomber is paired to Fg or Tank, I agree there is not much additional strategic depth about it.
The fun thing is only about having more different sculpts Inside the Box.
From a collectors POV, it seems more interesting having more different units than fewer types but more of them. Isn’t it?
Chips are provided when you have many units of the same type.

Of course, it adds more specific rules. That’s the issue specifically treated by 1941 game.
Simpler and shorter for beginner.

1942 can be more develop with sculpts without extending the play-time or the whole map (not excluding a few changes, like the no-IPC value Islands in Pacific, for instance).
Global is made for hard-core players who have a lot of time.

From what I experimented, I could say that adding Mechanized Infantry and Tactical Bomber (and even a 5 IPCs’ Mechanized Artillery (assault Gun) and 9-10 IPCs Escort Carrier, HBG sculpt) can provides a deeper experience and feel of WWII at a strategic level without having to plan for a 2-days event.

Although, your focus on increasing “strategic depth”, makes we think about the two game mechanics brought to hit directly planes. And in this perspective, one seems better compared to the other.
The one I introduced in my opening post is better because it allows a specific unit (Fighter), a specific capacity: targeting enemy’s plane first (costlier target), while Tactical Bomber also received his specific capacity (being a better hitter on ground targets, but not necessarily on costlier targets).

The other way of creating somekind of dogfight between planes is to allow “1” or “2” rolled by aircrafts to destroy enemy’s.
The mechanic can work but doesn’t seems to increase the strategic depth as much as the former.
Fighter and Tactical have similar abilities, (carrier operation, regular hit, special roll) one have more of this and the other less of that (Fg on “1” or “2” / TcB on “1” only, cannot intercept in SBR).

Do you agree on this last point?

Here is a complete roster with a different Fighter unit (A2 D2 M4 C6) combined with an entirely 3 planes Fleet Carrier for either Fighter or Tactical Bomber units.
Even with a radical change in cost, I think it brings a much better interactions between units and mainly aircrafts from a gameplay perspective than the one I suggested in the opening post and poll of this actual thread.
You should take a look.
Baron Munchhausen’s G40HR Roster for 3 planes carrier & 6 IPCs 1914 Fighter
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35222.msg1370798#msg1370798

I will summarize 3 ways of doing G40 SBR with Fgs escort and interceptor which could be use as 3 different historical tactics by the attacker trying to whether reduce the enemy’s air power or the IC production while better protecting StBs.

First, is A) the Close-Escort Mission, which is done as OOB SBR.

Second, is B) the Offensive Counter-Air Mission, which gives Fgs A1 first strike and D1 but an opportunity to roll a second time against bombers in A-to-A dogfight.

Third, is C) the Night Bombing Mission, in which Fgs units cannot participate neither offense nor defense.

A) Close-Escort Mission, as OOB
Air-to-Air phase
All attacking planes (Fg,TcB, StB) inside roll A@1.
All defending Fgs roll D@1.
Remove casualties.

Bombing phase
Proceed to SBR over IC, NB or AB.
AAA fires @1 against StB and TcB
Then roll damage as OOB: StB D6+2, TcB D6.

B) the Offensive Counter-Air Mission, Fgs are actively chasing intercepting Fgs
Air-to-Air phase
First cycle:
All attacking Fgs can roll A@1. Remove casualties.
All other attacking planes (TcBs, StBs) roll A@1.
All defending Fgs roll D@1.
Remove casualties.

Second cycle:
Then, defending Fgs roll D@1 a second time inside the A-to-A phase.
And all hits in this second cycle are allocated first to bombers, if any. Remove casualties.
All surviving attacking Fgs can now roll A@1 in this second cycle. Remove casualties.

Bombing phase
Proceed to SBR over IC, NB or AB.
AAA fires @1 against StB and TcB
Then roll damage as OOB: StB D6+2, TcB D6.

C) the Night Bombing Mission

Night Bombing phase
Proceed directly to SBR over IC, NB or AB.

AAA fires @1/D12 against StB and TcB or
@Baron:

“Historical” light projector “search and spot” in the night sky:
Each StB/TcB is spotted on a 3 or less.

Then roll to A@1 on spotted StB with AA gun: on “1” roll a spotted StB/TcB is destroyed.
(Work as the usual in-built AAA in IC.)

All surviving StBs bombard roll for damage: (1D6+2)/2 rounded down against IC.

All surviving TcBs bombard roll for damage (1D6)/2 rounded down, minimum 1 IPC, against IC.

@Baron:

Trying to depict the two escorting fighters tactics with an additional HR inside the actual G40 OOB SBR escort and interception rules, I come to this:
It would be an attacker’s choice whether he chooses the close-escort mission or an Offensive Counter-Air mission.

Close-escort mission:
When playing as OOB SBR (all @1), it is like Fgs are providing close-escort to bombers.

Offensive Counter-Air mission version A:
Air-to-Air combat phase in SBR with Fgs actively chasing intercepting Fgs :
All attacking Fgs can roll A@1. Remove casualties.
All other planes (TcBs, StBs and defending Fgs) roll A/D @1. Remove casualties.
Then, defending Fgs roll D@1 a second cycle inside the A-to-A phase.
And all hits in this second cycle are allocated to bombers. Remove casualties.

Proceed to SBR over IC, NB or AB.
AAA fires against StB and TcB.
Then roll damage as OOB.

I think it is a way to simulate the two tactics at a Strategical level game.
It can give a better historical feel and variation of attacking SBR strategy, at least on this point, than just the actual OOB.
Attacking Fighters get a preemptive strike, and any hit is also a way of protecting bombers,
while defending Fgs get special treatment on the second cycle: a second chance to make a hit @1 on bombers specifically.

In addition, maybe the comparison can provide us a way to explain why Fgs are not better than bombers and stay A/D @1:

the escorts are restricted in their role, they have limited ability to score hits, however, by staying close to the bombers they make it more likely that they will be taken as a casualty, the losing player gets to decide their losses.

If on the other hand, the escorts are allowed to pursue interceptors, they are more effective at shooting them down, but in that case, they are not as effective at protecting the bombers, therefore, the interceptors get to choose their hits.

On one part, we can say that for escorting Fgs providing cover impaired all of them, moving at a slower pace and keeping an eye on bombers.
On the other part, defending interceptors are also somewhat impaired by the defensive formation of Bombers and Fgs, so they didn’t get any advantage of the “flying over homeland territory” would normally provide against less manoeuvrable target.
So, after all, Fgs get A1D1 while the rest of TcBs and StBs just getting A1 but D0.
(And based upon IPC cost, it is just enough to say a Fg unit is slightly better than the rest.)

In summary, about Offensive Counter-Air mission :
The first cycle is a regular for defending planes, because they have to scramble and can be caught off guard by attacking Fgs. They get the superiority once in the air.

The first cycle of SBR interception phase is as OOB, except for attacking Fgs.
The second cycle is for surviving defending Fgs which get an advantage since there is no close-escort Fgs for Bombers.

In addition, this can provide a distinctive ability toward Fgs vs TcBs.

This HR was only a way to depict in game term this historical tactics, but if there is already a way to rationalize it inside OOB rules, feel free to develop it, so it can add a layer of historical depiction and feeling toward Fighter unit.

EDIT:
Here is another way of depicting this Offensive Counter Air-Mission version B:

What could happened historically?
A typical example from the Battle of Britain:
A flight of Ju88, He111 and Do17 Bombers sent in to bomb British ABs with a group of 109’s in support.
A group of Spitfires and Hurricanes comes up to intercept.
The 109s jump the interceptors.
The interceptors try to blow by the escorts and get at the bombers.

Escorts are flying in ahead of the Bombers and meet the interceptors before the wing of Bombers.

Escorts and Interceptors fight one round.
Escorts and interceptors roll on A/D@1. Remove casualties.
Then, escorting and intercepting Fgs and Bombers all roll on A/D@1. Remove casualties, but Bombers are taken as casualties.
Then, AAA fire, remove casualties.
Proceed to bombing damage.

All these extra dice just completely change the game. Large battles are gonna mess up the Soviets because they can’t really afford a “combined arms” thing.

The whole benefit should be one of movement: 2 movers paired with 1 movers in NCM at 1:1 basis should all move two.

Combat should be toned down to this: 1 air, 1 armor, 1 Inf/Art/Mech gets one re-roll if missed. Don’t add more dice, just take the dice you got and possible re-roll.

However, the movement won’t change the game too much, like this 3 or less thing.

Besides, that idea was submitted by Larry Harris like 3 years ago and people shot it down then too. He considered it before AAP40 came out.

I agree 100% art needs a boost defensively to keep its place in the game, especially with the new units introduced.

Thats perfectly cool dude.  I have no time to play A&A during the school year.  Play it out and let me know.  I have a feeling artillery might be a bit too powerful on my board.  Just out of curiosity what else are you thinking of tweeking.  Where is your blog?

Its only a dream.  :-(