• '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    It was an example because Berlin, Germany happens to start the game with an Airbase.  It had nothing to do with Germany or America outside of the two nations being on opposing teams.  I could easily have chosen Leningrad or London, England.

    What I wanted to demonstrate how I saw a preceding air battle prior to a ground attack and the role of the Strategic Bomber in said air attack on the attacking side.  Specifically, that the attacking bombers would roll @1 in the dogfight and then 3@1 each bomber that survived against the enemy ground forces.

    Airbases area already restricted to a maximum of three scrambled aircraft, so it feels right that it stays as such.  Just like in naval battles, the attacker can bring as many aircraft as s/he wants to the fight (the defender’s option to deal with that is to choose not to scramble!)

    Naval engagements against scrambled aircraft wouldn’t change.  (IE your example of transports and destroyers conducting an amphibious assault with the enemy scrambling 1-3 fighters against them.  There would be no change at all, since there would be no dogfight.)

  • Customizer

    I’ll offer one last thought on this before the topic becomes hamburger.

    More information on WWII aircraft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_World_War_II
    I would do this:

    All planes cost 10 IPCs with these stats:

    Fighter: A3-D4-M4 Lighter attack, Heavy defense

    Tactical Bomber: A4-D3-M4 * no combined arms bonus. Heavier Attack, Lighter defense.

    Strategic Bomber: All stats OOB except they may only select infrastructure to attack and cannot be used in conventional combat at all.

    Personally I don’t like this idea, but it does limit the StB to the desired effect of many whom have posted, in many ways who just want to use OOB units.

    Also to the topic of Tacs and their role and what they encompass, The POV of SBs being “dead on the ground” would apply by the same logic be “Dead in the Air” in reference to TBs. Dive bombers as well as torpedo bombers were frequently slaughtered in the air in countless battles. Their attacks were more precise than the heavy bombers yes, but their fire power was limited, and the crews frequently missed their targets, especially in the case of naval warfare.

    I’m not sure of what the aim of this HR is intended to simulate. But I give the suggestion to relegate the SB to a weapon that simply simulates the bombing of bases and industry and take it out of regular combat entirely if that is the desired goal. I will say however if this is to reflect historical factors, the TB should be significantly weaker and not so close in stats to the fighter on defense by any means. However the stats I gave to the TB seem to reflect the desire of the HR’s goals in relegating the SB to a more strategic role.

  • '17 '16

    It is KISS and at 10 IPCs still a viable purchase even if StB is specialized only in SBR.
    And less tragic if an StB is shot down by Fgs or AAA guns.
    Good you think about it.
    In your custom games did you ever have more than 3 types of combat aircrafts?
    I let aside Air Transport.

  • Customizer

    As I’ve said I still don’t like the idea but it fits into the idea of the topic. As of late I’ve been using OOB rules and stats because I’m teaching new players. I’ve also mentioned that I have a significant arsenal of custom units so IMO I can better adapt to more or different HRs than OOB provides if my group moves in that direction at some point.

  • '16 '15 '14 Customizer

    If SBs can’t attack anything other than infrastructure, why leave them attacking @ 4? And making them cost just 10 they would murder peoples factories. There is already a strategy out there of the USA buying all bombers and doing that.

    I agree the TB and Ftr shouldn’t be so close in stats. What about:

    Fighters: Cost 8, attack 2, def 4, cost 8 **
    Tac Bombers: Cost 10, attack 4, def 2, cost 10
    Strat Bombers: Cost 12, Attack 2, def 1, industrial bombing ability

    ** This probably wouldn’t work, because of fighter vs fighter combat.

  • '17 '16

    You are slightly weakning Fgs, I’m not against this.
    I dare to keep OOB Fg but put it a 8 IPCs, so yours is less problematic from a cost-balance POV.

    To me, the pricing should logically have been changed to:
    Fighters- 8 IPCs
    Tactical Bombers - 10 IPCs
    Strategic Bombers - 12 IPCs

    Fighter Stats - unchanged
    Tactical Bomber Stats - always ATT 4, DEF 3 (throw out facility bombing, 1:1 rule with tanks and fighters)
    Strategic Bombers - ATT 3, DEF 1 (Industrial, facility bombing ability)

    Are you playing a G40 game, or a 50th Ann. Ed?
    Even if the price seems nicer, it has an impact on balance.
    Once this said.
    Maybe this doesn’t really bother you, if you played an heavily modified AA50 game.

    Fighter A3 D4 M4 at 2 IPCs lower are a big deal.
    On the same IPCs basis, I’m pretty sure Fighter on offense will still be a bargain.
    (5 Fgs= A15 D20 vs 4 TcBs= A16 D12)
    Even though, on an historical basis, we could say that Fgs are better against TcBs.

    About Strategic Bomber at 12 IPCs, I would say that there is nothing to change about them if you put TcBs A4 D3 C10.
    The 2 IPCs higher cost make them far less interesting and less versatile than TcBs at 10 IPCs for the same attack value.

    Just compare: 6 TcBs = A24 D18 M4 C60 vs 5 StBs (A4) = A20 D5 M6 C60.

    You really get more for your bunks with your TacBs.
    This also means that on the same IPCs basis, StB are less effective than TacBs.
    This is also what you are looking for.
    Put them against a same enemy group and compare on a battle calc. The TcBs will always get the better hand.

    I’m pretty sure, leaving StB OOB will not make it as popular as before, because TcBs will be way more competitive to provide the high A4.

    So, in your next game, I suggest this:
    Fighters- A3 D4 M4 Cost 8 IPCs, can escort or intercept on SBR and can land on carrier
    Tactical Bombers A4 D3 M4 Cost 10 IPCs, keep TacBR 1D6 damage on AB & NB, can land on carrier
    Strategic Bombers A4 D1 M6 Cost 12 IPCs, keep SBR damage 1D6+2

    The main question is will you try some kind of aircraft combat phase or not?

    You already underlined the problem of Bombers attacking Fgs defending @4.
    In such a situation, everything is upside down. All planes are even.
    StB or TcB get a high A@4 while in a real combat they would be chunk into pieces by Fgs.

    The basic combat value of plane should be lower to reflect the air-to-air combat of one against another. Then, in Air Supremacy case, an appropriate bonus should be allowed to planes to keep up with the actual game mechanics.

    Making StBs A2 D1 C12, SBR damage 1D+2 makes it against Fg A3 D4.
    In any situations StB will be weaker against Fg unit.

    According to your numbers:
    Fg against TcB = A2 vs D2
    TcB against Fg = A4 vs D4

    No different than previous Fg A3 vs TcB D3 / TcB A4 vs Fg D4.

    In fact, Tactical Bombers should have lesser combat value against fighters.

    The simple scale sequence should be something like:
    StB A1 D1
    TcB A2 D2 (or A2 D1)
    Fg A3 D3 (or A2 D3)
    So this reflect their relative value in air-to-air combat.
    But against ground units (or when planes are behind stacks of ground fodders), things should be something like:

    StB A4-3 D4-3 (depending of how we see the bombers and relative efficiency)
    TcB A3-4 D3-4
    Fg A2 D2

    Trying to simplify the gap between air-to-air value and air-to-ground,
    Fighters (cost 8 IPCs) should keep a constant A3 D3 in all situations.

    Tactical Bomber (8-10 IPCs) should have a basic low A2 D2 but gains
    +1 A/D with Air Superiority (more planes on 1 side)
    +2 A/D paired with Fg or Air Dominance, Air Supremacy (no ennemy’s plane).

    Strategic Bomber (10-12 IPCs) should have a low A1 D1 but gains
    +2 A with Air Superiority (more planes on 1 side)
    +3 A paired with Fg or Air Dominance, Air Supremacy (no ennemy’s plane).

    After that, you need to find an acceptable way of having such air-to-air phase in each round or just in a opening phase of the first round (with 1 single cycle or multiple cycles, such as 1914).

    Let’s suppose it is a fight like 1914, in which 1 side can withdraw after 1 combat round or one of the opponent decides to.

    1 Fg A3 + 1 TcB A2 against 2 Fgs D3.
    Results of dogfight: 1 attacker’s unit is down

    After the combat round, the attacker chose to withdraw and not stay for another (since he already lost 1 unit).
    Now the combat is regular phase.
    And the combat value for the remaining of the battle is:
    If the Fg survived, it keeps A3.
    If the TcB survived, it stays A2, because there is no Fighter pairing and no air superiority.

    There is many more ways, just thinking out loud.

  • '17 '16


    Hey Jennifer,
    I like your ideas. I think they more reflect how strategic bombers worked. One thing that always bothered me is someone sending transports for an amphibious assault escorted by bombers to fight any scramble planes. For the game it does make sense, bombers attack @4 so they would be great to deal with scrambling fighters and/or tacs. However, in reality, it is just ludicrous.
    Also, I think the idea of defending bombers having a defense of 0 is a great idea, as well as your “chosen last as casualties” idea.

    Hey KNP,
    I agree on what you found ludicrous.

    I provided a way of turning things a bit differently not only for Strategic Bombers but mainly for Tactical Bombers,
    in this more defined HR on aircrafts units:

    Rethinking Air units simulating historical air-to-air combat

    Hope, you can like it.

Suggested Topics

  • 14
  • 27
  • 30
  • 17
  • 20
  • 28
  • 12
  • 1
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys