Rethinking Air Units

The odds are just as good that five seperate rolls will score five hits. The base odds are the same for each die rolled. By your logic rolling for ten bombers with one die each separately decreases the number of hits that rolling for all ten at once would. The bases numbers and odds are still the same. Each die has an equal chance of rolling a hit no matter what. You will still hit or miss either way.

If you don’t like the rule fine. I get it. But your reasoning still doesn’t make sense mathematically. It doesn’t matter which bomber hit what singularly or in a group because whether you roll them together or seperately the odds are equal that the same amount of hits or misses will be rolled.

I’m harping on this because you frequently use stats to show favor or proof of your ideas and in this instance you have totally ignored the base numbers, statistics and the math.

@toblerone77:

The odds are just as good that five seperate rolls will score five hits. The base odds are the same for each die rolled.
1 dice roll of 1 single dice = 1 hit or miss. Right.

By your logic rolling for ten bombers with one die each separately decreases the number of hits that rolling for all ten at once would.
I agree with you, there is no difference here as long as 1 dice determined a hit or a miss. Rolling separately or together doesn’t change anything. The reverse would be absurd.
The bases numbers and odds are still the same.
Each die has an equal chance of rolling a hit no matter what. You will still hit or miss either way.

If you don’t like the rule fine. I get it. But your reasoning still doesn’t make sense mathematically.

It doesn’t matter which bomber hit what singularly or in a group because whether you roll them together or seperately the odds are equal that the same amount of hits or misses will be rolled.
Probably here that we disagree.

I’m harping on this because you frequently use stats to show favor or proof of your ideas and in this instance you have totally ignored the base numbers, statistics and the math.

No problem, if I’m wrong it’s fair-play that you corrected me.
Actually I’m wondering is it you or me which miss something in this particular mechanics brought up by Cmd Jen?
I thought I bring mandatory evidence. But you still disagree.
Maybe it is me which miss something to really understand that there is absolutly no difference at all between both procedures.
If you have anyway to provide me some explanations to help me think the right way. Please show me step by step.
Do we agree on the basic procedure?
1 StB throw 2 dices: 1-4 + 1-4 = only 1 hit, 1-4 + 5-6 = 1 hit, 5-6 + 1-4= still 1 hit, only 5-6 + 5-6 results in a miss.
Right?

Okay Baron take out your dice and your board. Roll out either method and see what results you get. If there is a cap on hit equal to the number of units it still doesn’t matter. The odds will still be the same whether you roll each plane single or in groups.

Don’t believe me fine. I’ll drop it but go ahead and actually roll it out both ways you’ll see no difference.

@toblerone77:

Okay Baron take out your dice and your board. Roll out either method and see what results you get. If there is a cap on hit equal to the number of units it still doesn’t matter. The odds will still be the same whether you roll each plane single or in groups.

Don’t believe me fine. I’ll drop it but go ahead and actually roll it out both ways you’ll see no difference.

It’s not a matter of believing or not, maths is about understanding.
Your stand, in itself, makes me doubt about my maths intuition…
Fine. I want to know where is my mistake.
I will think about it.
See you around.

If you roll multiple bombers together and just cap the max hits at the # of bombers, you won’t change the probability that the bombers will score at least one hit (what i think toblerone is getting at), but you do actually raise the probability of scoring more hits.

Some basic stats so we’re clear:
2d6 (1-4 hit, 5-6 miss, max 1 hit)
2/32/3 =4/9 chance of scoring “2” hits (only 1 counts)
2/31/3+1/32/3=4/9 chance of scoring 1 hit
1/31/3=1/9 chance of scoring 0 hits
overall 8/9 chance of scoring a hit

Rolling 2 of these bombers separately:
8/98/9=64/81 chance of scoring 2 hits
8/91/9+1/98/9=16/81 chance of scoring 1 hit
1/91/9=1/81 chance of scoring 0 hits

Now, rolling 4d6 (1-4 hit, 5-6 miss, max 2 hits)
2/32/32/32/3=16/81 chance of scoring “4” hits (only 2 count)
(2/32/32/31/3)4=32/81 chance of scoring “3” hits (only 2 count)
(2/32/31/31/3)6=24/81 chance of scoring 2 hits
these total to 72/81 chance of scoring 2 hits
(2/31/31/31/3)4=8/81 chance of scoring 1 hit
1/31/31/31/3=1/81 scoring 0 hits

As you can see, lumping bomber dice together raises the chance of scoring higher numbers of hits, but it does so by lowering the chance of scoring a lower number of hits, while the chance of missing altogether stays untouched. Thus, to avoid this rise in average hits, you have to roll each bomber’s 2 dice separately from each other.

CC you model shows the point that any unit on the boards odds of scoring go up as more of the same unit is applied. The pick the best of 2 dice provides a cap so you don’t have 2D6 heavy bombers. The point I’m trying to make is that we don’t roll out tanks one at a time so why the bombers?

@toblerone77:

CC you model shows the point that any unit on the boards odds of scoring go up as more of the same unit is applied. The pick the best of 2 dice provides a cap so you don’t have 2D6 heavy bombers. The point I’m trying to make is that we don’t roll out tanks one at a time so why the bombers?

No, it doesn’t. I compared 2 separate bombers (4 dice total) to 4 dice thrown at the same time. They should have the same probabilities of every outcome if what you claim is true, but they don’t. Rolling multiple bombers at the same time allows ones that score “multiple” hits to cover for those that get none, thus raising the average hits.

@Der:

I really don’t care for the “pick the best dice” mechanic - regardless of the math.

What if Strategic bombers attacked @ 2 or even 1? Do you think people would still buy them @ 12 IPCs for strategic bombing purposes? Or is attacking @ 3 enough? I might still attack units with them @3 because of their superior range.

I don’t care for it either. It’s clumsy, forces you to roll them separately, and requires the extra restriction against sea attack. Reducing their normal attack to 2 I think could work for the combat department. They can still work if you need a tad extra firepower, but they’ll generally deal more damage on SBR. Attacking @1 would definitely warrant a reduction in cost; you might have to reduce them to 11 anyway for attacking @2.

Though this could solve the fact that people avoid SBR since it could cost them their expensive, high-powered bomber, another problem I feel is that instead of losing ~1/6 of your bomber squadron each raid, there’s just a 1/6 chance you’ll lose the entire squadron to Anti-Aircraft fire (before they even drop a bomb!), which is a bit absurd.
Maybe give Strat Bombers a damage counter (attack @1, can’t SBR when damaged), and change AA (against SBR) to rolling a die and dealing shown # damage on a 1-3?(Radar roll 2 dice) Then you can pay 1 IPC per damage to repair them like factories.

Hmm…

DK I know your game is custom and you don’t like the OOB rules for Tacs. I wouldn’t nerf the SB though. I would simply make it:

Cost: 10
Attack:4
Defense:3
Move:4

These stats are simply the reverse of the fighter and reflect the fact that it is an attack weapon rather than a defensive weapon like the fighter.

@Der:

@ColonelCarter:

Though this could solve the fact that people avoid SBR since it could cost them their expensive, high-powered bomber, another problem I feel is that instead of losing ~1/6 of your bomber squadron each raid, there’s just a 1/6 chance you’ll lose the entire squadron to Anti-Aircraft fire (before they even drop a bomb!), which is a bit absurd. Maybe give Strat Bombers a damage counter (attack @1, can’t SBR when damaged), and change AA (against SBR) to rolling a die and dealing shown # damage on a 1-3?(Radar roll 2 dice) Then you can pay 1 IPC per damage to repair them like factories.

Or how about roll AA fire AFTER the bombing is done - that way there is always damage done to the IC whether you lose the plane or not.

I also don’t like when running an SBR that a lucky shot from the AA kills your bomber with nothing to show for it. I had an idea a while back of giving the bomber full damage roll if the AA gun misses and half damage roll if the bomber is hit by AA fire.
So if you take a bomber on an SBR and the AA gun hits it, you still roll 1 die and get half the number rolled (rounding UP). So the least you could get is 1 damage on the enemy factory. So if your hit bomber rolls a 1, obviously you can’t put 1/2 damage point on the factory so you get 1 damage point. If you roll a 3, you get 2 points of damage.  If you roll a 5, then you get 3 points of damage.
At least this way while you are out a 12 IPC bomber, at least the enemy has to pay a little to repair his factory so it’s not a total loss.

@ColonelCarter:

No, it doesn’t. I compared 2 separate bombers (4 dice total) to 4 dice thrown at the same time. They should have the same probabilities of every outcome if what you claim is true, but they don’t. Rolling multiple bombers at the same time allows ones that score “multiple” hits to cover for those that get none, thus raising the average hits.
@Der:

I really don’t care for the “pick the best dice” mechanic - regardless of the math.

I don’t care for it either. It’s clumsy, forces you to roll them separately, and requires the extra restriction against sea attack. Reducing their normal attack to 2 I think could work for the combat department. They can still work if you need a tad extra firepower, but they’ll generally deal more damage on SBR. Attacking @1 would definitely warrant a reduction in cost; you might have to reduce them to 11 anyway for attacking @2.

Thanks Col. Carter for the time taken providing explanations and all the maths in your previous post. I wouldn’t been able to be say it that clearly.

I only think about a reverse argument adopting the defender POV.
1 StB throw 2 dices and pick the better results:
1-4 + 1-4 = only 1 hit,
1-4 + 5-6 = 1 hit,
5-6 + 1-4= still 1 hit,
only 5-6 + 5-6 results in a miss.
So, to get a miss defender needs 2 dices with high 5 or 6.
Using my previous detailed example:

10 rolls, 6 hits : 1-2-3-4-5-5-6-6-1-2

A) pick in any order, necessarily 5 hits maximum.

B) Pick in the exact order, each being rolled in pair: 3 hits only (1-2) (3-4) (1-2) 2 misses: (5-5) (6-6)

The defender will say that since there is four dices at 5 or 6 then there is two misses.
If attacker follow A (1 dice 1-4 gives a hit) and defender the reverse of A (2 dices at 5 or 6 gives a miss), this gives contradictory results.

So the 2 methods A (disorder) and B (keeping order) aren’t the same.

This was a minor issues which I tought would be solved in 1 or 2 posts.
I was wrong. Sorry.
It has no high stakes. I agree.
I’ll be back to main topic on next post.

@Der:

What if Strategic bombers attacked @ 2 or even 1? Do you think people would still buy them @ 12 IPCs for strategic bombing purposes? Or is attacking @ 3 enough? I might still attack units with them @3 because of their superior range.

I think you are opening a way to introduce more than just Tactical Bomber.

It can be possible to have heavy bombers and medium bombers with capacity following partly Cmdr Jen on naval restriction and going into your direction for High Altitude bombers.

Heavy bombers A2 D1 C10 M6-7 SBR damage 1D6+2, cannot attack Naval target

Medium bombers A4 D1 C12 M5-6 (with Air Base) SBR damage: 1D6

For those who want to make B-25 Doolittle raid:
1 Medium Bomber can be put on a Carrier if produce at the same time.

@knp7765:

I also don’t like when running an SBR that a lucky shot from the AA kills your bomber with nothing to show for it. I had an idea a while back of giving the bomber full damage roll if the AA gun misses and half damage roll if the bomber is hit by AA fire.
So if you take a bomber on an SBR and the AA gun hits it, you still roll 1 die and get half the number rolled (rounding UP). So the least you could get is 1 damage on the enemy factory. So if your hit bomber rolls a 1, obviously you can’t put 1/2 damage point on the factory so you get 1 damage point. If you roll a 3, you get 2 points of damage. If you roll a 5, then you get 3 points of damage.
At least this way while you are out a 12 IPC bomber, at least the enemy has to pay a little to repair his factory so it’s not a total loss.

@ColonelCarter:

@Der:

What if Strategic bombers attacked @ 2 or even 1? Do you think people would still buy them @ 12 IPCs for strategic bombing purposes? Or is attacking @ 3 enough? I might still attack units with them @3 because of their superior range.

I don’t care for it either. It’s clumsy, forces you to roll them separately, and requires the extra restriction against sea attack. Reducing their normal attack to 2 I think could work for the combat department. They can still work if you need a tad extra firepower, but they’ll generally deal more damage on SBR. Attacking @1 would definitely warrant a reduction in cost; you might have to reduce them to 11 anyway for attacking @2.
Though this could solve the fact that people avoid SBR since it could cost them their expensive, high-powered bomber, another problem I feel is that instead of losing ~1/6 of your bomber squadron each raid, there’s just a 1/6 chance you’ll lose the entire squadron to Anti-Aircraft fire (before they even drop a bomb!), which is a bit absurd.
Maybe give Strat Bombers a damage counter (attack @1, can’t SBR when damaged), and change AA (against SBR) to rolling a die and dealing shown # damage on a 1-3?(Radar roll 2 dice) Then you can pay 1 IPC per damage to repair them like factories.

Hmm…

Instead of lowering cost, I would rather increase the SBR damage on ICs.
Because some people above showed that it is counter-intuitive to give the same cost to Fg and StB (such as 10 IPCs).
In addition, it is possible to give a consolation prize for destroyed StB.
There will be no need of creating a complex system on damaged bombers.

What about this really dangerous Strategic bomber and all the other aircraft units?
I’m pretty sure anybody getting one will commit to SBR and nothing else.

High Altitude Strategic Bomber, 4 engines bombers
A2 D1 C12 M6-7,
cannot do Naval attack,
SBR damage 2D6,
SBR damage 1D6 if destroyed by IC’s AAA,
No damage if destroyed by Fg interceptor.
A1 D0 in air-to-air combat

Long range Medium Bomber, 2 engines bombers (basically near the same as OOB StB but less SBR damage: not 1D6+2)
A4 D1 C12 M6-7
SBR damage 1D6,
No damage if destroyed by IC’s AAA or Fg interceptor.
A1 D0 in air-to-air combat
Can land 1 unit only on a Carrier if a new Medium Bomber is put on board a Carrier during the place unit phase.

Tactical Bomber
A4 D3 C10 M4-5
No SBR damage,
TBR damage D6 (Tactical Bombing Raid against AB or NB as G40 OOB)
A1 D1 in air-to-air combat
(A1 D0 if playing G40, cannot intercept incoming bombers)
Can do interception, in 1942.2 settings.
Can do escort mission with either Medium Bombers or HAStBs
Can land 2 units on a Carrier.

Fighter
A3 D4 C10 M4-5
A1 D2 in air-to-air combat (higher than G40 OOB: A1 D1)
Can do interception.
Can do escort mission with all bombers.
Can land 2 units on a Carrier.

The additional Move point is for Air Base.

I said No Naval attack for StB but I think it is unnecessary.

The low attack factor @2 is enough deterrent and can really figure their effectiveness compared to @3 or @4 of Fg and TcB in Naval operations.

QUESTIONS: Do you thing the cost of such HAStB should be higher? Around 14 or 15 IPCs?
And should they be able to bombard Air Base and Naval Base? At 2D6/1D6 if hit? Or only 1D6+2/zero if hit?

Medium bomber gets only D6 when bombing Air Base and Naval Base (same as TcB but lower than G40 OOB StB).

I increased the SBR air combat values of Fgs and TcBs to provide some counter-measure to the High Altitude Strategic Bomber because HAStB can still make SBR damage if destroyed by IC’s AAA.

Now, Fighter have a double defense value (and TcB can make interceptions if playing 1942.2).
Fg defend @2 (while TcB defend @1 if playing 1942.2).

On the other side, Fgs and TcBs can be use as escort planes for Medium and High Altitude Strategic Bomber.
All units attack @1 (as G40 OOB).

There is no need to have an Air Base or Naval Base with the Industrial Complex to attack with Tactical Bombers as it was the case OOB.
The TcBs don’t have to submit to AAA from IC or AB & NB if they don’t commit on a Tactical bombing raid upon AB or NB.
The owning player must say his intention for TcBs’ objective at the start of the Air Raid.

This is SPECIFICALLY why I said I didn’t want to get into the math of it.  Best of 2@4 is slightly better than 1@5.  I don’t like @5 because no other unit in the game has an @5 chance - period.  However, there was an Alpha rule that had best of 2@4 and so we can infer that Larry would be okay with making an adjustment that increases the price of the unit but gives them the 2@4 rule.

That is all I am getting at there.

As for price, if 15 IPC per bomber was okay back in Classic when there was significantly less IPC available in any given game, I fail to see why it is unacceptable now when 15 IPC is chump change, mere walking around IPC, on this board.  Especially if we outfit the bomber to have the innate ability to carry infantry to battle and do significantly more SBR damage than they could in classic (1d6+2 means no less than 3 IPC per hit) and keep them safe from AA Guns and make them the only unit able to do SBR.

I also did not read the article, but from what I understand the G4M “Betty” does not really fit any classification of aircraft as we use them in our game.  It was unarmored, long range, high flying bomber, but it didn’t carry a lot of bombs and was part of the navy - despite being land based.  It sounds like a mix of the Tactical Bomber and the Strategic Bomber taking the worst from both, IMHO.

In my opinion, it would be better to look at the G3M instead, which was a bomber that could carry more ordinance and was used in a more strategic role against the Chinese and SE Asia.  Note, again, this bomber wasn’t really used as an Anti-American surface fleet bomber - despite that it COULD be outfitted with torpedoes and used as a torpedo plane.

In any case, I really look at the strategic bomber like the B-17.  It was great at carpet bombing enemy infantry units, enemy cities, enemy factories, enemy rail yards.  It wasn’t all that great at bombing enemy submarines or enemy destroyers.  I explain this in an effort to help you understand why I am arguing for certain changes over other ones - not because I think you should agree with my opinions.  I can’t force you to be correct, you know. lol (that’s a joke!)

So to reiterate:

Strategic Bomber
Game Role:  Mass Damage, High Altitude Bombing OR Airborne Delivery Vehicles
Specials:

• May Conduct SBR (only unit that can) - 1d6+2 dmg
• Immune to AA Gun Fire
• +2 Range (compared to all other air vehicles)
• 90% accuracy in ground combat (rounded of course.  You figure out if you want best of 2@4 or 1@5 or 1d10 @ 9 or less or you want to stick the die in your nose and blow it out, I DONT CARE! :P  )
• May carry 1 infantry as a paratrooper instead of attacking a territory
• No defense value (may still be a casualty, but defense like a transport in other regards.)
  Cost: 15 IPC

So I bet that you rather put this HAStB unit at 15 IPCs instead of 12, isn’t Cmdr Jen?
Maybe the range should also be increase to M7-8?

High Altitude Strategic Bomber, 4 engines bomber
A2 D1 C12 C15 M6-7, M7-8
cannot do Naval attack,
SBR damage 2D6,
SBR damage 1D6 if destroyed by IC’s AAA,
No damage if destroyed by Fg interceptor.
A1 D0 in air-to-air combat

But B-17 were they that accurate?
I rather think that Medium bombers like B-25 were more precise.

I input Betty bombers because I think it is the IJN sculpt for StB in the actual game.

Too much math….loosing time to play…

Good with the increased range.

Prefer if the bomber did 2@2 attack damage (per bomber) but make it defense 0.  Bombers on the tarmac were targets, they were not defending themselves. :P

Well I apologize to Colnel Carter and Baron Munchausen. I’m no mathametician and I was incorrect. I apologize mostly to Der Kuenstler for derailing his thread. Asked for an official ruling from Krieghund and the Heavy Bombers tech is to be rolled seperate per bomber.