Tactical Bombers (Dive & Torpedo Bombers)


  • '10

    Gent

    I want to add Dive/Torpedo Bombers to Spring 1942 but I’m torn between 2 version.

    Version-1:  3-2-4-8

    This is basically a simplified version.  However, it is generally known that such aircraft can inflict much more damage if there are no opposing Fighters but on the other hand can suffer great losses if there is an opposing Fighters and they have no escort.  So I was thinking of a rule to reflect this.

    Version-2: 3(4)-2(1)-4-8

    If there is no opposing Fighter it can attack at 4.  If there is an opposing Fighter and has no fighter escort it defends at 1.  If both sides have fighters it attacks normally.  This reflects closer to reality but is more complicated.

    What version would you prefer?  If you have other idea for this rule, please share them.



  • @Black:

    Gent

    I want to add Dive/Torpedo Bombers to Spring 1942 but I’m torn between 2 version.

    Version-1:  3-2-4-8

    This is basically a simplified version.  However, it is generally known that such aircraft can inflict much more damage if there are no opposing Fighters but on the other hand can suffer great losses if there is an opposing Fighters and they have no escort.  So I was thinking of a rule to reflect this.

    Version-2: 3(4)-2(1)-4-8

    If there is no opposing Fighter it can attack at 4.  If there is an opposing Fighter and has no fighter escort it defends at 1.  If both sides have fighters it attacks normally.  This reflects closer to reality but is more complicated.

    What version would you prefer?  If you have other idea for this rule, please share them.

    Torpedo Bombers should make a special role if their is an enemy naval unit in the opposing side, and if I’m understand  what you want you should name them torpedo bombers and not dive bombers since the JU-87 is considered a dive bomber



  • i like version 2 of this idea. i use this already. i also have additional rules. torpedo/dive bombers are allowed to target ships. if a tac bomber goes into naval battle and doesnt annonce its targeting a specific ship, use your rules version 2. if tac bombers go into naval battle and you can apply the bonus ( no interceptors or even amount of escorts to interceptors) tacs can target specific ship. if target is battleship, carrier or cruiser, ship gets to fire AA shot @1. same as SBR. thats the way i do it.


  • Customizer

    I went back to several of my older games and incorporated tacs, mechs and in the older games cruisers.  It required some altering of the starting setups, although I guess I could have just started each country without those units and simply made them available for purchase.  What I had to do was simply use the battle strip and IPC costs from the 1940 games with the exception of ICs.  The older games don’t have major or minor ICs, simply ICs that production capability is dependant on the IPC value of the territory.
    That would seem simpler to me than totally changing the values, not to mention those special abilities you came up with.  That just makes things too complex to me.



  • i would use version 2  😛



  • Dive bomber 
    att = 3 (4 in the first round)
    def = 1
    move = 4
    cost 8

    torpedo bomber
    att = 2 (3 in the first round and can choose his target)
    def = 1
    move = 4
    cost = 8



  • it should be def:2 Because real dive and torpedo bombers had 50 cal or 7.62 cal machine guns



  • No…… most of the dive bomber (as Stukas) was poor defensively)
    Torpedo bombers were easy preys against fighters but this type of planes must have a kind of first shot attack capability.



  • but SBD’s were superior and had 8 50 cal MG’s and could house 4 torpedos


  • '10

    @crusaderiv:

    Dive bomber  
    att = 3 (4 in the first round)
    def = 1
    move = 4
    cost 8

    torpedo bomber
    att = 2 (3 in the first round and can choose his target)
    def = 1
    move = 4
    cost = 8

    Crusaderiv/450th

    Thanks for your input.  However, I’m not sure I would agree with the attack values for the torpedo bombers.  Just looking back at what the Swordfish aircraft did to the Italian fleet would be a good argument against that.

    Anyway, for simplicity, I’m just going to combine both dive & torpedo as one type of aircraft.  Because on a strategic level I don’t really think there is a big difference between the two.

    As for defensive value, I see good arguments for both a “2” and “1”.  What needs to be considered here is what is the average defensive value for all tactical bomber aircraft?  If I were to go with a Def-1 though, I would almost feel compelled to reduce the IPC value to 7.  Maybe my “Version-2” option is the best solution.



  • i think its a good idea to reduce fighters to 7 ipcs. keep tacs at 10 or 11 ipcs. these planes need to be cheaper to encourage people to buy them. once your airforce is gone its too hard to replace them. reducing cost on planes will have more aircraft on your carriers and on the board in general. that makes for a better game. people would take more chances with fighters, like tanks and destroyers.



  • also, stratigic bombers should be 15 ipcs.
    fighters = 7 ipcs
    torpedeo/dive bomers = 10 ipcs
    strategic bombers = 15 ipcs
    heavy bombers = ?
    what do you think?



  • but SBD’s were superior and had 8 50 cal MG’s and could house 4 torpedos
    You’re right…but without fighter escort SBD is easy prey. (For example just take a look on the US first strike during the battle of midway).

    Anyway, for simplicity, I’m just going to combine both dive & torpedo as one type of aircraft.  Because on a strategic level I don’t really think there is a big difference between the two.
    I used both because in my game I split the aircraft in two type (air force (dive bomber) and naval air force (Dive bomber and torpedoes bomber).
    That’s why the attack capability is different.

    also, stratigic bombers should be 15 ipcs.
    fighters = 7 ipcs
    torpedeo/dive bomers = 10 ipcs
    strategic bombers = 15 ipcs
    heavy bombers = ?
    what do you think?

    Two years ago a reduce the price of aircraft with great result. My friends love that.
    After all, planes are the most strongest pieces in A&A games.
    Personnaly I don’t like the startegic bomber term.
    I prefer light bomber.

    FT = 8
    LB = 12
    DB/TB = 10
    HB = 15


  • '10

    @lnmajor:

    i think its a good idea to reduce fighters to 7 ipcs. keep tacs at 10 or 11 ipcs. these planes need to be cheaper to encourage people to buy them. once your airforce is gone its too hard to replace them. reducing cost on planes will have more aircraft on your carriers and on the board in general. that makes for a better game. people would take more chances with fighters, like tanks and destroyers.

    Yes, my thoughts exactly.

    It is the main reason why I wanted to create a second class of aircraft that is more economical.  There are areas of the map that could use fighters but simply don’t get it because of cost.  The Pacific islands are one example.  In the games I’ve played, I’ve never seen a player base a plane there that was not in transit.  Most of the time there are just one or two infantry on an island and most people don’t want to spend 12 or 10 IPC to protect 3 or 6 IPC.

    One of my reasons for giving the tactical bomber a Def-2 is to make it more playable.  If you included ground attack aircraft in the tactical bomber group, it give a stronger reason to give a Def-2 and it would not at all be unreasonable.  Because ground/dive & torpedo bomber on a strategic level are all primarily built to attack ground/surface target.  If it is left at def-1 then they will always be in the rear with heavy protection.  With a Def-2, there would be more incentive to use them closer to the front line or for protection for more remote areas such as Australia.


  • '10

    @lnmajor:

    also, stratigic bombers should be 15 ipcs.
    fighters = 7 ipcs
    torpedeo/dive bomers = 10 ipcs
    strategic bombers = 15 ipcs
    heavy bombers = ?
    what do you think?

    Strategic & heavy bombers are one and the same.  A heavy and even a medium bomber are both capable of strategic and tactical bombing.  The only bomber that was ever restricted to strategic bombing was the B-29.  Although it did see some tactical use in the Korean war.

    I think bombers should be left at 12 IPC.  It makes them more playable.  At 15 IPC, they are very difficult to replace.  I would make a super bomber, such as a B-29, 15 IPC.

    In my game use the following when it comes to bombers.

    Super Bomber 4-1-6-15 (2 dice for strategic bombing)
    Heavy Bombers 4-1-6-12 (1 dice for strategic bombing)
    Medium Bombers 3-1-6-10 (1 dice for strategic bombing, divide by 2 and round up).

    Fighters at 7 IPC & T/D bombers at 10 IPC would throw the game out of whack.  Fighters are just too strong for 7IPC and would pretty much would make buying T/D bombers worthless.  Why buy a plane that cost more but does less.



  • Strategic & heavy bombers are one and the same.
    I agree

    A heavy and even a medium bomber are both capable of strategic and tactical bombing.
    Yes but the heavy bomber is more power ful than a medium.
    So you must make a category if you want a realistic game.
    For example, Germany cannot build heavy bomber at the beginning of the game whatever you play 39,40,41 or 42.

    I agree with you that 7 IPc for a fighter is cheap. 8 or 9 sounds good to me.


  • '10

    @crusaderiv:

    Strategic & heavy bombers are one and the same.
    I agree

    A heavy and even a medium bomber are both capable of strategic and tactical bombing.
    Yes but the heavy bomber is more power ful than a medium.
    So you must make a category if you want a realistic game.
    For example, Germany cannot build heavy bomber at the beginning of the game whatever you play 39,40,41 or 42.

    I agree with you that 7 IPc for a fighter is cheap. 8 or 9 sounds good to me.

    I was rewriting my last post and you posted before I finished.

    In my game use the following when it comes to bombers.

    Super Bomber 4-1-6-15 (2 dice for strategic bombing)
    Heavy Bombers 4-1-6-12 (1 dice for strategic bombing)
    Medium Bombers 3-1-6-10 (1 dice for strategic bombing, divide by 2 and round up).



  • hes right strat and heavy bombers are the same thing



  • I was rewriting my last post and you posted before I finished.
    😄 sorry if I’m faster

    Super Bomber 4-1-6-15 (2 dice for strategic bombing)
    Heavy Bombers 4-1-6-12 (1 dice for strategic bombing)
    Medium Bombers 3-1-6-10 (1 dice for strategic bombing, divide by 2 and round up).

    I think medium must be: defend at 2 and movement 4.
    Also medium may attack sub and warship but heavy and super bomber can’t


  • '10

    @crusaderiv:

    I was rewriting my last post and you posted before I finished.
    😄 sorry if I’m faster

    Super Bomber 4-1-6-15 (2 dice for strategic bombing)
    Heavy Bombers 4-1-6-12 (1 dice for strategic bombing)
    Medium Bombers 3-1-6-10 (1 dice for strategic bombing, divide by 2 and round up).

    I think medium must be: defend at 2 and movement 4.
    Also medium may attack sub and warship but heavy and super bomber can’t

    No, medium, bombers move at 6.  When you look at the average stats of medium & heavy bomber in WWII carrying a full bomb load (and this is the key point), both had about the same combat rage.  The only difference was that medium bombers typically carried half to 2/3 of what a heavy bomber could.



  • heavy bombers had side top rear foward bottom gunners to



  • _No, medium, bombers move at 6.  When you look at the average stats of medium & heavy bomber in WWII carrying a full bomb load (and this is the key point), both had about the same combat rage.  The only difference was that medium bombers typically carried half to 2/3 of what a heavy bomber could.

    Yes but not before 1943.
    So if you want a medium bomber with better performance (mosquito is a good example) that must be a special unit or a special weapons._


  • '10

    @450thMSAF:

    heavy bombers had side top rear foward bottom gunners to

    That’s a defensive issue and it’s already at 1.  Medium bombers had guns too and you really can’t go lower than that and zero is not an option.  Personally I would give heavy bombers a Def-2.



  • i would to


  • '10

    @crusaderiv:

    _No, medium, bombers move at 6.  When you look at the average stats of medium & heavy bomber in WWII carrying a full bomb load (and this is the key point), both had about the same combat rage.  The only difference was that medium bombers typically carried half to 2/3 of what a heavy bomber could.

    Yes but not before 1943.
    So if you want a medium bomber with better performance (mosquito is a good example) that must be a special unit or a special weapons.

    That’s not true.  Americans had the B-25, German the Junker-88 and the Japanese the Betty’s as an example.  When you consider stats for a unit type, you need to combine the units from all the nations and then base it off the average performance of that type.  Yes, you can always find exceptions.  But unless these exception were produced in great numbers, then it really doesn’t effect the strategic equation. A&A is a strategic game but people sometime tend to forget that when trying to create new units.  They get too focused on the tactical abilities of a few units rather than looking at the overall picture.  On top of that you also have to consider game playability.  Some capabilities have been fudge to make for a balance game play.  Aircraft not being able to attack sub unless there is a friendly destroyer is an example.

    Through out the war, everyone’s unit’s became better and better.  In general though, these improvements increased fairly equally on all side.  However, there were some improvements that were exceptional and these are usually represented in the Tech Rolls._


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 1
  • 5
  • 5
  • 14
  • 17
  • 13
  • 3
  • 59
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

25
Online

13.7k
Users

34.0k
Topics

1.3m
Posts