Are Bombers broken? HR adjustment explorations continuating the Global tread

I just feel JamesAleman find a real problem about strategical bombers mass-buying strategy, and I wish to explore some adjustment possible in this tread. Let’s have an open mind.

@JamesAleman:

Bombers are broken because:
They are +2 to bomb damage, (we send 3 fighters, 4 bombers to shut down Moscow builds beginning on turn 3) (Indian builds beginning on turn 3 as well)

They get to shoot at interceptors, (I will trade German, Japanese and Italian bombers for Moscow fighters any day)

They can move 7 from airbases (I can stack in Southern Italy and hit Moscow, London, Egypt, and West coast of Gibraltar)
They are cheaper than any other naval war units save destroyers and subs. (3 bombers costs the same as a carrier and 2 fighters)

AAguns are limited to shooting 3 times against land unit strikes, meaning you are better off defending your builds with infantry then aaguns as you will hit more bombers that way since infantry fire each round if they get a second round.
AAguns may be destroyed by air unit strafes (making them worthless except for casualties and blocking blitzes).
When Germany has 18 bombers , 5 tacticals and 5 fighters, Allies need a large navy to approach Europe as well, and you can ignore this navy and simply counterattack the weaker land force after it lands.

@Uncrustable:

Your not going to build up AAA against a good player without paying for it severely

AAA needs lower cost or more shots or go back to classic
Right now it’s plain dumb to build AAA over other units

Will an AAA A1D1M1C5 + OOB rule vs 3 attacking planes will make them better than Infantry vs Bombers?

I’m asking the question because I see a better future for this more regular AAA unit, suggested by Uncrustable  than the actual with A0D0. Maybe it is just the little correction need to help AAA being able to be a good buying against this powerful strategy.

P.S. Don’t forget that it is not just the number of casuality, when any Axis Bombers has some “ground support”, few hits from Infantry will not destroy any Bombers at all.

Maybe it needs a stronger one to fend off this Bombers Strategy without destroying it:
Will an AAA A1D1M1C6 + 1@1 Preemptive strike up to 4 attacking planes which ever is lower (as OOB AAA limitation to 1 roll/plane) will make them better than Infantry vs Bombers?

1AAA @1 up to 4 planes vs 2 Inf@2 or 1 Tank@3, which one is better against Bombers airfleet?

Maybe it needs a full blown AAA to fend off this Bombers Strategy without destroying it:
Does it need a AAA A1D1M1C5 + 1@1 Preemptive strike up to 4 attacking planes which ever is lower (as OOB AAA limitation to 1 roll/plane) will make them better than Infantry vs Bombers?

@JamesAleman:

Bombers are broken because:
They are +2 to bomb damage, (we send 3 fighters, 4 bombers to shut down Moscow builds beginning on turn 3) (Indian builds beginning on turn 3 as well)

They get to shoot at interceptors, (I will trade German, Japanese and Italian bombers for Moscow fighters any day)

They can move 7 from airbases (I can stack in Southern Italy and hit Moscow, London, Egypt, and West coast of Gibraltar)
They are cheaper than any other naval war units save destroyers and subs. (3 bombers costs the same as a carrier and 2 fighters)

AAguns are limited to shooting 3 times against land unit strikes, meaning you are better off defending your builds with infantry then aaguns as you will hit more bombers that way since infantry fire each round if they get a second round.
AAguns may be destroyed by air unit strafes (making them worthless except for casualties and blocking blitzes).

When Germany has 18 bombers , 5 tacticals and 5 fighters, Allies need a large navy to approach Europe as well, and you can ignore this navy and simply counterattack the weaker land force after it lands.

About SBR and TacBR with a massive Bombers airfleet

Here is the most recent OOB SBR and interception rules for reference and comparison:
1942.1 : AA fires, then surviving Fgt A1/Bmb A0  vs Fgt D2
1942.2 : Fgt A1/Bmb A1 preemptives shots vs Fgt D2, then AA fires
Global 1940: Fgt A1/Bmb A1 vs Fgt D1, then AA fires

We see clearly that on Global, bombers are still much better than 1942.1 but weaker than 1942.2:

In 1942.1, AA was firing first then, Fgts were defending D2 and Bmb attacking at 0.
Bombers were clearly too weak. But in mass, are able to pass throw the defense but it will probably cost more to the attacker than defender. So, under this rule Bombers won’t be able to crush opponent economically.

In 1942.2 Bombers get a first strike @1, far better attacking power than ever. A Bmbs airfleet can crush many Fgts interceptors before they can be able to fire back @2.

In Global, Bombers still keep @1, First Strike has diseappeared, but now Fgts are as weak as bombers.

This aspect need a little correction, because of this StrB massive economical warfare gap.

Just say that 2 StratB must be paired together to get 1@1 for the interception phase of a SBR or TacBR.

So, for example, 10 Bombers only, will just have 5 rolls @1.
5 bombers + 5 fighters = 7 @1.

Or, for a little bit weaker depending on the 4 spaces range, 1 StratB must be paired by another Fgt or TacB to get @1 for the interception phase of a SBR or TacBR.
10 bombers = 0 @1
5 Bombers + 5 fighters = 10 @1

Now, the economical aspect will be correct.
And it will better reflect the historical weakness of Strategical Bombers vs fighters interceptors during SBR.

That’s was the flaw of the last SBR from revised Global rule.

What do you think of this?

But, it will not correct the main danger of the bombers strategy which rely more on real combat than just SBR.
Don’t forget AA fire from IComplex or AB or NB is much more dangerous because all attacking Bombers get 1 out of 6 (17 %)  of being shooted down, than the regular AAA.

Because of this in-built AA, that’s why I prefer the first rule correction (being paired with 1 bomber allow 1 @1) than the second above (which I see as too much limiting, especially for Allies UK vs Western Germany IC, which is at 3 territories far from UK landing-zone).

@JamesAleman:

Bombers are broken because:
They are +2 to bomb damage, (we send 3 fighters, 4 bombers to shut down Moscow builds beginning on turn 3) (Indian builds beginning on turn 3 as well)

They get to shoot at interceptors, (I will trade German, Japanese and Italian bombers for Moscow fighters any day)

They can move 7 from airbases (I can stack in Southern Italy and hit Moscow, London, Egypt, and West coast of Gibraltar)
They are cheaper than any other naval war units save destroyers and subs. (3 bombers costs the same as a carrier and 2 fighters)

AAguns are limited to shooting 3 times against land unit strikes, meaning you are better off defending your builds with infantry then aaguns as you will hit more bombers that way since infantry fire each round if they get a second round.
AAguns may be destroyed by air unit strafes (making them worthless except for casualties and blocking blitzes).

When Germany has 18 bombers , 5 tacticals and 5 fighters, Allies need a large navy to approach Europe as well, and you can ignore this navy and simply counterattack the weaker land force after it lands.

I just better see that it is not so bad to get a little humph to Cruisers and even BBs by giving them some preemptive AAA.
My HR just suggested that when paired, each get 1@1 First Strike AA (not a great revolution. And if you add 1 Carrier to those two, then you got the 3 preemptives AA@1 as a regular OOB AAA for the ground but in a sea-zone at a cost of 48 IPCs, almost 10x more).

I know it is not enough, but this overpowering of Bmbs airfleet, help thinking about letting the navy some preemptive AAA capacity to counterweight it slightly on the sea.

As pointed in another tread, Cruisers+Battleships+Carriers was a very effective formation against airplanes.

Re: Cont From the AAA Thread, but about warships not AA Guns
Reply #103 on: May 28, 2013, 03:03:24 pm

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=31177.90

This 3@1 AA can be considered historical, since:
Around 3min. 25 s.: they explain how a fleet defensive formation was organized.
From outer circles, to the most inner circles: DDs, cruisers, BBs, fleet carriers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxhzWUhBJgE

The last solution (and not the better one)  :| is to raise back the bomber price to the original 15 IPCs.

But, I think everyone like the 12 IPCs price which give more units on the board.
That’s why I prefer the solutions posted above.

P.S. Maybe there is a real strategical solution inside the OOB, let’s wait the future posts in Global tread.

But the rules around Bombers (cost+AB move), SBR+interception and AA (vs AAA) has change during the A&A improvement and maybe JamesAleman have find a blind spot which need some cure.

Anyone an opinion?

My last adjustment is on this post.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30248.msg1155024#msg1155024

This HR provides a special first round roll for defending fighters and TacB.
In addition to the regular D@4 and D@3, if this roll is a “1” then it destroy 1 enemy’s plane (owner’s choice).
In this way, each fighter and TacB are similar to AA vs 1 plane but without the preemptive strike.
And this special attack is only for the first round.

Thus a defending strategy of Fighters and AAA could be a little more dangerous for bombers, even when attacking with some ground troops to soak some hits.

However, attacking bombers are not empty hand. In the HR, I give them a special Air Supremacy strike against ground troops if they are in larger number than the opposing airfleet.

I would rather prefer this:
1 StratB A4-0D1M6C12 can SBR and TacBR,
when paired with another stratB one of the two get 1@1 & the other 0@0 against incoming fighter interceptors.

OOB SBR in Global give every planes 1@1, I think it is strat bombers which were out of balance.

Fighter, TacB are similar and able to do something in historical dogfight.
UK’s Bomber command lost many bombers vs german’s fighters and weren’t able to defend by themselves against them.

In addition, to keep balance in SBR 1942.2, Larry gives escorting fighters and bombers preemptive strike against defending Fgt@2.

It let suppose giving D@2 to interceptor like you suggest is a bit overpowering.

@Uncrustable:

Let interceptors in SBR roll at 2 instead of 1, while escorting fighters and bombers remain at 1
This, in my opinion, also betters follows ‘historical accuracy’

We also discuss in the tread about SBR how raising interceptors @2 will greatly reduce SBR because it reduces greatly the rate of survival for StrB. And many says, it wasn’t already a very popular strategy.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30596.msg1107357#msg1107357

It will ruined SBR and TBR in all games if there is any fighters in the IC, NB, AB territory.
1942.2 SBR give first strike @1 to all fgt and StrB. At least, give a preemptive strike @1 to all fighters escorting any StrB or TacB.

@toblerone77:

@Uncrustable:

Honestly the problem is not broken bombers
But broken AA, would bomber spam work vs classic AA? Or even pre alpha AA?
It likely would not

I think that the AAA unit was going to be used in an entirely different way than what we have now. I just don’t see making an entirely new sculpt that’s nation specific, that only moves defensively, but gets destroyed. They could’ve used the old plastic guns like before. That’s a lot of money and production for something that works as strangely as it does.

That’s why I see a better future for  an artillery division unit like this one, as first proposed by Uncrustable :
AAA A1D1M1C5-6 + when on defense as OOB rule vs 3 attacking planes.
It would be far more integrated in the A&A system rules.
And keep the old AA linked to IC, NB and AB.
It was absurd to protect preemptively a large territory against all planes.
But it make sense in a limited area like ICs or bases when it is heavily protected by AA guns.

And if Bombers spam still need a fix via AAA, give them AAA vs 4 or even 5 planes, but not unlimited preemptive strike @1 vs all planes.