Introducing Tactical Bomber and an evolved Fighter in a 1942 third edition?


  • 2017 2016

    The core game of A&A has already 4 ground unit types (Infantry, Artillery, Tank, Anti Aircraft Artillery) and 6 naval unit types! (Submarine, Transport, Destroyer, Cruiser, Aircraft carrier and Battleship.)

    I believe that 1942 A&A Editions, need one more aircrafts types to enhanced, at least, the historical scope of all the various weapons used during the war. And much more.
    Thus introducing Tactical Bomber unit (developed for Europe and Pacific 1940) to the initial roster of Fighter and Strategic Bomber.

    This addition would allow a different interaction amongst aircrafts and a more specific role to Fighter unit. This would be translated in a slightly different way of choosing casualty:
    Both bombers types (Tactical & Strategic) casualties will be done as OOB, letting owning players choosing amongst all units and usually picking grounds or cheaper naval units before aircrafts.
    Fighter’s casualty would be chosen amongst enemy’s aircraft first, then any other units when no plane is present.
    This last point will better simulate the nature of air-to-air combat going on during multi-unit type battles.
    Bombers will be mostly targeting units down below while Fighters will be trying to get down flying units above. So the weird part of the game mechanic about planes being protected behind a stack of ground units will be toss aside.

    To keep a mathematical balance due to an higher attrition rate amongst planes, this change will imply lowering cost and face combat value of Fg.
    Below you can see the abilities of this evolved Fighter unit.

    For the essential, this evolved Fighter units received the attack and defense factor of the Fighter during Strategic Bombing Raid optional rules of the 1942.2 version:
    Attack @1 first strike and regular Defense @2.
    This have the advantage of keeping the same value in all combat situations.

    Last point, this lowering of combat values imply an increase number of Fighter units allowed on board Carrier unit to provide the same defense factor as before: up to 3 Fighters unit will be allowed on 1 Fleet Carrier, or 2 Fighters and 1 Tactical Bomber or 2 Tactical Bombers.

    Such a change will also imply a cost reduction for Anti Aircraft Artillery units (1 or 2 IPCs) but this is beyond the scope of this poll.


    Units new values:

    Fighter
    Attack 1 first strike
    (as a pre-emptive roll before the defending Fg roll)
    Defense 2
    Move 4
    Cost 7
    A Destroyer is needed to be able to hit subs units (as OOB).
    When paired 1 on 1 with a Tactical Bomber, it gives +1 Attack to this Tactical Bomber.
    Novelty : Always hit enemy’s aircrafts first, if any plane is present.

    Tactical Bomber
    Attack 3 or 4 Edit: 4 also when get Air Supremacy (no enemy’s plane or AAA present)
    Defense 3 Edit: 4, when paired to Fg or get Air Supremacy (no enemy’s plane or AAA present)
    Move 4
    Cost 10
    Against Submarine (played as OOB), need Destroyer to be able to hit a Sub.
    Attack @4 when paired 1:1 to a Fighter or a Tank.

    Fleet Carrier
    Attack 1
    Defense 2
    Move 2
    Cost 14
    1 hit
    Change from OOB:
    Hold up to 3 Fighters or
    2 Fighters and 1 Tactical Bomber or
    2 Tactical Bombers.



  • Bad idea. Extra planes aren’t needed and any new sculpt would increase the price of the game, going against the spirit of 1942 (keep it simple and cheap).


  • 2017 2016

    @Zombie69:

    Bad idea. Extra planes aren’t needed and any new sculpt would increase the price of the game, going against the spirit of 1942 (keep it simple and cheap).

    Are you really talking about 1942?
    My copy was more than double price of 1941 and only 25% less than a single copy of Europe or Pacific 1940.
    I rather believe that 《cheap and simple》is the spirit of 1941.
    The idea above shouldn’t be discarded based on this point.
    However, their is probably more to say about 《extra planes aren’t needed》.
    Thanks for sharing Zombie69.



  • You’re right, I confused 1942 and 1941. Sorry about that!



  • I think the 2 planes already existing are enough.

    For a third edition I would rather see some balance changes to the initial setup:)


  • 2017 2016

    @seawolf:

    I think the 2 planes already existing are enough.

    For a third edition I would rather see some balance changes to the initial setup:)

    They already have the sculpts of Tactical bombers (in the 1940 games), one thing doesn’t exclude the other.
    Introducing a few Tactical Bomber units in one place or another can be a means.

    If you find that Allies need a little bump, my few play-tests showed that it helps UK providing a cheaper cover with Fighters and Carriers for Transports.
    It can allow Russia to had a little @4 attack combined with a cheaper Fighter, etc.



  • No new air units. But the current ones should be cheaper, and have slightly different rules.

    Fighters 8, bombers 10

    Fighters hits of “1” and the person rolling gets to assign that hit to an air unit if present.
    AA guns should continue to fire every round. 3 shots the first round, 1 shot every round after.


  • 2017 2016

    @oztea:

    No new air units. But the current ones should be cheaper, and have slightly different rules.

    Fighters 8, bombers 10

    Fighters hits of “1” and the person rolling gets to assign that hit to an air unit if present. AA guns should continue to fire every round. 3 shots the first round, 1 shot every round after.

    Fg Att 1 Def 1 Move 4 Cost 8 will make carrier operation very weak compared to all other warships:
    CV A1D2C14 + 2 Fgs = A3D4C30 compared to OOB: A7D10C34.

    In naval combat such a Fg able to target other plane will have no interest since anyone will take them as the first casualty instead of Submarines A2D1C6 or Destroyers A2D2C8 because of their higher combat value or the same cost (8 IPCs).

    The concept of a cheap Fighter (7-8 IPCs) targeting planes works better in naval combat when there is costlier targets.
    That’s one of the reason for introducing Tactical Bomber (10 IPCs) along with StB (12 IPCs).



  • Perhaps you misunderstood. Fighters would not be reduced to ‘1’. Their A/D would stay 3/4. But when rolling your planes roll them separately from other units.
    Dice that show 1’s are assigned by the person who rolled the 1.

    So if you have 6 planes attacking, and roll 1,2,3,4,5,6; you got 3 hits, but one of them you get to assign that hit to an enemy air unit.


  • 2017 2016

    author=oztea link=topic=34224.msg1319420#msg1319420 date=1410375278]
    Perhaps you misunderstood. Fighters would not be reduced to ‘1’. Their A/D would stay 3/4. But when rolling your planes roll them separately from other units.
    Dice that show 1’s are assigned by the person who rolled the 1.

    So if you have 6 planes attacking, and roll 1,2,3,4,5,6; you got 3 hits, but one of them you get to assign that hit to an enemy air unit.

    Ok I see now.
    We are almost on the same page.
    Did you read my thread on this Fg and 1942.2 SBR in House Rules?
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34227.msg1317357#msg1317357


  • Customizer

    It’s going to be years until we get a third edition.


  • 2017 2016

    @toblerone77:

    It’s going to be years until we get a third edition.

    Very true.
    But it doesn’t forbid to ask if people can accept such a concept or if they really want some big changes.

    On other part, as I see what has been done with Halifax HR (+18!!!) and the on going VC bonus HR I think YG and Black_Elk and other contributors are really making something that can be part of a more accessible and streamlined G40 Third edition.

    It needs time, thinking, talking and a lot of playtesting and a sharing enthousiasm in hope it can be part of any enhanced version of A&A.


  • Customizer

    Nothing wrong with HRs Baron. I’m just saying there’s not going to be anything new for Axis & Allies for quite some time with the releases that arrived in 2012.

    As far as projects go the membership of the forum have been up to some great work.


  • 2017 2016

    @oztea:

    No new air units. But the current ones should be cheaper, and have slightly different rules.

    Fighters 8, bombers 10

    Fighters hits of “1” and the person rolling gets to assign that hit to an air unit if present.
    AA guns should continue to fire every round. 3 shots the first round, 1 shot every round after.

    I tried a 3 IPCs AAA which fire 1 shot @1 against planes only every combat round.

    When there is few units, such AAA units are usually sacrifice after the second round of fire.
    Simply because Infantry get double the odds with Def @2.

    It also slow down the process due to risk evaluation for the defender, losing 2 AAA @1 is it better than loosing 2 Infs Def@2?
    It seems always a kind of gamble which is most appealing to player’s which like taking risks.

    The initial OOB first strike roll make this decision much simpler.
    You know if your AAA get a hit or not.
    You only have to wonder whether there is a chance that some defenders’ units can survive through the whole combat or not. It become easier to sacrifice AAA unit as a casualty hit taken.

    So, I believe that making this AAA unit similar to regular unit firing every round is going to slow down the combat.

    So, Oztea, do you have a similar game experiences with yours HR AAA unit?



  • Imho 2 air is enough. I’d rather kick the cruiser (not having a unique role) and make the destroyer a3 d3 cost10 (with anti sub vessel). Back to the roots as in Revised.


  • 2017 2016

    @oztea:

    No new air units. But the current ones should be cheaper, and have slightly different rules.

    Fighters 8, bombers 10

    Fighters hits of “1” and the person rolling gets to assign that hit to an air unit if present.
    AA guns should continue to fire every round. 3 shots the first round, 1 shot every round after.

    I agree about the reduced cost.

    What do you think about Fighters (A3 D4 M4 C8) hit enemy’s aircrafts on a “1” or a "2"
    while bombers (A4 D1 M6 C10) hit enemy’s aircrafts on “1” when on attack?
    However, owner’s choose his own casualty amongst plane. (No change from OOB, on this point.)
    Keeping the same numbers on SBR:
    Fg attack or defend @2. Strat Bomber attack @1.
    Wouldn’t that be better that all planes can hit planes somehow ?
    And this will be more balance when limiting A&A 1942 Edition to two types of planes?
    Don’t you think?

    Giving AAA unit a way to fire each combat round is also a manner of making Fgs on attack more vulnerable than Fighter on defense, even if both can directly hit each other with the same number: “1” or “2”.
    I find this more historically accurate.

    In addition, rising up to “2” will make Fgs a better weapon to hit aircraft than AAA unit, as it should be.


  • 2017 2016

    @arwaker:

    Imho 2 air is enough. I’d rather kick the cruiser (not having a unique role) and make the destroyer a3 d3 cost10 (with anti sub vessel). Back to the roots as in Revised.

    With such revised destroyer, A3 D3 C10 ASV, Battleship at 20 IPCs would be doomed.
    End of the story. Just because even without shore bombardement, this DD will outmached BB.
    2 Revised DDs A6 D6, 2 hits 20 VS BB A4 D4 1 hit cost 20.



  • Even the 2-2-8 Destroyer outmatches the 20 IPC Battleship. No great change here. Changing the Destroyer from 2-2-8 to 3-3-10 is in fact a small nerf for it (use calculator to prove that).

    However, I would of course appreciate 18 IPC for a Battleship, as this is is better balanced with the other navy prices.

    Destroyer 3-3-10
    Cruiser - kicked due to lack of specific role (more room in the box for regular units)
    Battleship 4-4-18
    Industrial Complex 12 IPC
    No changes to any of the rules or to other units.

    This would be my proposal for an imaginary 1942 .3rd Edition.
    (and of course some minor changes to the map and the initial setup)


  • 2017 2016

    Following your hypothesis and tossing aside Cruiser because of the redundance with Battleship.
    Why not introduce the Tactical Bomber which have specific abilities on offense and could do some kind of Tactical Bombing Raid?
    There was maybe too many ships units in the roster but why not getting a third type of aircraft in this hypothetical 1942.3?
    And the Tactical sculpts are far more different than Fighter units which is also an issue between Cruiser sculpt and Destroyer sculpt on the game board.
    I find UK’s Mosquitoes TcB sculpt pretty cool,
    And the US’ SBD Dauntless Avenger sculpt big and impressive on a Carrier unit. 🙂



  • 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.


  • 2017 2016

    @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


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 12
  • 8
  • 9
  • 48
  • 9
  • 23
  • 2
  • 4
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

49
Online

13.7k
Users

34.0k
Topics

1.3m
Posts