More Powerful Airplanes #2

B.AnderssonGameMaster

@Imperious:

I think your retreats are fine but this covers pretty much everything.

I will be more precise, but first a few Qs you did not answer:

I would like to know what you think the 4 and 1 in attack and defense for a bomber represents. As you know bombers can be used for more than just SBRs in the original game. If they are not to represent tactical bombing raids, then you tell me?

@Imperious:

NOW… what about the “like for like” hits?? thoughts?

I like it as it is, however the idea is fine! I will stick to the the system as it is today and just add optional rules. It is easier for people to accept new rules in portions. In swedish we have something that says “hast slowly”. I think your rules represent a new game, not just a refinement. If you still dont like the Bomber Strikes rule of mine, skip it and just stick to air supremacy and/or Antiaircraft Artillery rule. These other two rules are good enough to be used separately. The poll however just concerned the air supremacy rule, what did you vote (and why)? :o

Imperious Leader

I would like to know what you think the 4 and 1 in attack and defense for a bomber represents. As you know bombers can be used for more than just SBRs in the original game. If they are not to represent tactical bombing raids, then you tell me?

This is its potency rating in combat measured with the abilities of other units. Its contribution symbolizes the bombing raids of Dresden and central Germany 1943-45. The daily sorties flown by our pilots over germany. Nothing more than that because that is quite enough. Thats why the Bomber represents a B-17 or B-26… it has a payload of many bombs that carpet bomb an entire area. If you want tactical battlefield missions you call on the “smaller” planes what can actually DIVE and deliver that ONE bomb they are carrying IN A PRECISE MANNER. they are represented by smaller planes like the FIGHTER. the BOMBER is a strategic weapon used to fight a nations industry and lonf term investments, while a fighter is a tactical weapon that can destroy a tank which is something that was just built from a factory. SO bombers go after factories and fighters go after what the bombers missed that the factories built. It cant get simpler then that!

B.AnderssonGameMaster

@Imperious:

…. SO bombers go after factories and fighters go after what the bombers missed that the factories built. It cant get simpler then that!

So you practically says that tactical bombing raids involving light and medium bombers (not your singel engined fighter-bombers) did not take place during WWII! So you think that I am lying when I say that those light and medium bombers were actually used in targeted attacks like shipping attacks and airfield attacks as well as in the antitank attacks. You better do your home work next time.

Ok, next perspective! If one stick to your point of view that bombers only were used to carpet bomb an entire area. What is the difference between a shore bombardment and an attack by a bomber. Nothing, right! So you simply say that it would be alright that bombers should attack in the opening fire step of combat or that shore bombardment should take place during normal combat! Which do you think would give a more balance and at the same time historical correct rule? You maybe like it as it is, for other reasons? I can live with the old rule, but I don’t like it in a historical perspective. However the Air Supremacy seems to be somthing in your taste, right? I think it will become a standard optional rule for A&A!

Imperious Leader

So you practically says that tactical bombing raids involving light and medium bombers (not your singel engined fighter-bombers) did not take place during WWII! So you think that I am lying when I say that those light and medium bombers were actually used in targeted attacks like shipping attacks and airfield attacks as well as in the antitank attacks. You better do your home work next time.

Your imagination is legendary! please look at the numbers (by type) of shipping loses and attacks on moving armored columns by your glorious light bombers and medium bombers by nation and compare them with all other planes that accomplished this same duty. Airfield attacks were fixed targets and fall under regular bombing attacks (unless your talking about a quick raid to take out planes with strafing attacks).

what the game needs in a new dive bomber piece for both naval and ground based missions.

Ok, next perspective! If one stick to your point of view that bombers only were used to carpet bomb an entire area. What is the difference between a shore bombardment and an attack by a bomber. Nothing, right! So you simply say that it would be alright that bombers should attack in the opening fire step of combat or that shore bombardment should take place during normal combat! Which do you think would give a more balance and at the same time historical correct rule? You maybe like it as it is, for other reasons? I can live with the old rule, but I don’t like it in a historical perspective. However the Air Supremacy seems to be somthing in your taste, right? I think it will become a standard optional rule for A&A!

Shore bombardment should occur before the battle and not be allowed each round of combat. Each infantry unit represents an entire army level unit so how can a group of ships simply destroy that many lifes? This is not reality, but in this game anything seems possible so only allow it to be of marginal value. The Bomber hits should be taken as loses preemtively each round. In fact bombers should not be allowed to attack every round, but should get to attack twice (roll two dice) when they do and again loses are taken before the remaining ground units can fire back. Also, bombers should be allowed to attack naval targets such as subs and transports only because a level attack required the bombers to fly in a direct flat pattern at a slow speed and the aa guns on warships would overwhelm them and cause too many causualties. The only event when your “Bombers” actually took out large naval targets was against the HMS Repulse and Prince of Whales which had no carrier support or CAP to protect them from jap bombers. otherwise “bomber” attacks were relegated to shipping, subs, and very small escort ships and not front line warships. Dive-bombers on the other hand had this duty.

I dont know whay you simply hate the idea of “fighters” having the job of striking against armor in the combat sequence with the attack bonus. Perhaps you want the pricy bombers to have more value so you will buy them. But its clear that their role is not exactly as you originally stated.

Shore bombardment should be changed consider:

Shore Bombardment and Infantry Support
During Ground Combat, for amphibious assaults, all surface warships with a combat value of four or higher have one â€œshore bombardmentâ€ attack. In order to support landings for each shot you roll for you must land four Land units. Defender losses do not fire back. In addition, similar to attacking artillery, each shore-bombarding warship improves one attacking infantry (class unit) to an attack die roll modifier of +1 on the first round only. Warships that participate in Naval Combat may not also shore bombard and provide infantry support for amphibious assaults.

B.AnderssonGameMaster

@Imperious:

I dont know whay you simply hate the idea of “fighters” having the job of striking against armor in the combat sequence with the attack bonus. Perhaps you want the pricy bombers to have more value so you will buy them. But its clear that their role is not exactly as you originally stated.

You are right about, not exactly as I originally “stated”, when it comes to the importance of bombers. However I did not really state it! I stated that bombers were used in tactical bombing raids and you said something else! You are wrong! But this is not about thing like that, it is about what can be done to raise the playability. My suggestion if one does not like the bomber strikes rule to just continue with old ones! And when it comes to the antiaircraft rule, it would be better to say that the artillery unit may only be used for air in a SBR. That would make fighters even better. Especialy when used in conjunction with my air supremacy rule. What do you think? I do not agree with you about a D10 instead of a D6, since I speak game balance and you historic relevance! I was in that loop ones too, but I got over it for more than ten years ago.

Imperious Leader

Bombers and Fighters were used for many missions that either could accomplish. IN the case of Tactical ground support missions the “fighter” class unit representing the plane with a directed single bomb that is delivered against specific hard or soft targets should have the rule associated with targeted attacks against armor units, While the “bomber” piece representing the “strategic” bombing of mass targets such as “carpet bombing” or “air interdiction” such as in D-day should become the responsibility of these Bombers. The roles of each in this manner are more realistic (historically accurate) and dont negatively effect play balance.

B.AnderssonGameMaster

@Imperious:

Bombers and Fighters were used for many missions that either could accomplish. IN the case of Tactical ground support missions the “fighter” class unit representing the plane with a directed single bomb that is delivered against specific hard or soft targets should have the rule associated with targeted attacks against armor units, While the “bomber” piece representing the “strategic” bombing of mass targets such as “carpet bombing” or “air interdiction” such as in D-day should become the responsibility of these Bombers. The roles of each in this manner are more realistic (historically accurate) and dont negatively effect play balance.

I dont really get what you are saying. Are you saying that the bomber should stay on a 4 in attack and a 1 in defense, where as fighters should target tanks???

Imperious Leader

Yes , yes just make your rule about “bombers” attacking armor units and substitute it with “fighters” so now fighters do this job. Bombers allready have too much to do (SBR, attack naval, Paratroopers, air transport, a- bomb dropers). That is all im saying again and again…

B.AnderssonGameMaster

@Imperious:

Yes , yes just make your rule about “bombers” attacking armor units and substitute it with “fighters” so now fighters do this job. Bombers allready have too much to do (SBR, attack naval, Paratroopers, air transport, a- bomb dropers). That is all im saying again and again…

What do you think about only using artillery for air in a SBR (my variant, see below), not a regular attack? More over using the interceptor/escort rules for dogfights (in a SBR) from A&AP? Or this one: #1 Dogfight (intercepting fighters on a 3 and escorting fighters on a 2 and bombers on a 1) for 1 turn then #2 artillery may shoot on any surviving bombers only then #3 any surviving bombers may roll for IPC damage. :o

Antiaircraft Artillery

The regular antiaircraft gun unit is dismissed and replaced by a more versatile artillery unit. In addition to its normal combat ability, artillery can choose to defend against bombers in a strategic bombing raid during the first cycle of combat only. All regular antiaircraft guns on the game board are replaced by artillery units.

Your artillery may fire against abombers in a strategic bombing raid during the opening fire step of combat. Roll two dice for each artillery, but each attacking bomber may not be targeted by more than two artillery units. The total for each artilleryâ€™s two dice must add to 3 or less to shoot the targeted air unit down, a casualty cannot bomb the industrial complex. The artillery unit may fire again during combat.

Imperious Leader

Its just like mine except the “3 or less thing” so you roll two dice the total has to be 3 or less… hmmmm…too much especially with 2 artillery doing it. I like the fact that your rules are getting closer to the mark. good job!!

More Powerful Airplanes #2

Featured Topics

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

Global 1940 with 20 Powers

1942.2 House Rules

1939 Scenario for the 1942.2 Map and Pieces

Rethinking Air units simulating historical air-to-air combat: 2 planes carrier

The US as an aggresive Axis power, Japan as a peaceful Allied power.

2 turn system: How to re-balance the game with such a system

AARHE: Phase 2: Technology

US Lend Lease 1/2 IPCs, only attacks when NA/SA attacked…

132

17.3k

39.8k

1.7m