Looking for G40 experienced players opinions about Fighter unit


  • 2017 '16

    Please, I need everyone opinion.
    And more specifically, I’m asking people which have a lot of experience with G40 games.

    Because I’m still trying to keep the OOB Carrier and develop a real Fighter unit (able to hit directly planes) within the OOB combat values of G40 Full Carrier (A6 D10 / A7 D9 / A6 D8), I’m locked within some borders. Here they are.

    Do you think this can still be a viable Fighter unit?
    Or is this already and ultimately doomed because it remains too powerful with a Defense @3 which hit directly enemy’s planes?

    Does a reduced cost for planes, such as minus 2 IPCs, (ex.: Fg at 8 IPCs, TcB at 9 IPCs, StB at 10 IPCs) can change something about balancing this Fighter unit?
    (Here, I think about a reduced cost as a way to compensate for high attrition rates amongst planes.)

    This also rise the issue about such high SBR values, does an increased risk to loose valuable 12 IPCs Strategic Bombers still worth doing SBR? Or such reworked Fighter unit imply to revised SBR, anyway?

    Details below are provided to understand what I’m talking about.
    I’m not really trying to promote this new unit but rather asking people about obvious flaws which can be seen from experienced players POV get used to play with a lot of units and IPCs coming along with any G40 games.


    Down below are the three aircraft units combat values and cost:

    FIGHTER
    Attack 2 can rise to 3
    Defense 3 can rise to 4
    Move 4
    Cost 10
    Air combat unit: All hits are allocated to aircraft units first, if any available
    Air Supremacy bonus: +1 Attack/Defense when no enemy’s aircraft
    Air Superiority Weapon bonus:+1 Attack/Defense when fighting against only enemy’s aircrafts.
    This last point is an entirely new feature:
    it is provided to ensure that Fighters on Carrier can still have a high defense against any Strategic Bombers Spam, such as Darkened Skies strategy.

    Combined Arms bonus: gives +1 Defense when paired 1:1 with Tactical Bomber unit

    SBR escort mission: Attack @2
    Can intercept in SBR: Defense @3.

    Carrier operation: up to two units can be on board a fleet Carrier (max.: 2 units of any kind per fleet Carrier)

    TACTICAL BOMBER
    Attack 4
    Defense 3 can rise to 4
    Move 4
    Cost 11
    Air Supremacy bonus: +1 Defense when no enemy’s aircraft

    Combined Arms bonus: +1 Defense when paired 1:1 with a Fighter
    Combined Arms Bonus in Tank support, Tactical Bomber as a “Tank Buster”:
    Gives +1 Defense when paired 1:1 with Tank

    Tactical Bombing Raid: Attack @2
    TBR damage: 1D6 on Air Base or Naval Base
    On SBR can also do escort mission: Attack @2

    Carrier operation: up to two units can be on board a fleet Carrier (max.: 2 units of any kind per fleet Carrier)

    STRATEGIC BOMBER
    Attack 4
    Defense 1
    Move 6
    Cost 12
    Strategical Bombing Raid: Attack @1
    SBR damage: 1D6+2 on Industrial Complex, Air Base or Naval Base

    No Carrier Operation

    Now in SBR situations, aircrafts will be fighting each others with more logical values:
    Fighters: Attack 2 Defense 3
    Tactical Bombers: Attack 2 Defense 0
    Strategic Bombers: Attack 1 Defense 0



  • The best way to achieve the balance that you’re striving for is to have different combat factors for separate air to air, air-land and air-naval battles but that would transform A&A into a different game and add more complexity. Air to air combat would take place before any land or naval combat in an area. At the conclusion of the air battle phase, surviving victorious air units would be involved in the subsequent land/naval battle in the area but applying a different set of combat factors. Strategic bombing runs would be conducted as a fourth kind of combat (more or less as it already is OOB). To keep things manageable you’d need 3 different battle cards (or 4 if one is included for strategic bombing runs).
    To give you something to think about I suggest the following air combat factors:
    F A3 D4, TB A2 D2, SB A0 D1. In air-land battles: F A1 D4, TB A4 D2, SB A2 D1. In air-naval battles F A0 D4, TB A4 D3, SB A1 D-not applicable. Fighters are the unit of choice in air battles or defending, TB’s when attacking in air-land and air-naval and SB’s for strategic bombing runs.
    Needless to say, the IPC cost of air units would need to be changed.


  • 2017 '16

    @Chrisx:

    The best way to achieve the balance that you’re striving for is to have different combat factors for separate air to air, air-land and air-naval battles but that would transform A&A into a different game and add more complexity.

    Air to air combat would take place before any land or naval combat in an area. At the conclusion of the air battle phase, surviving victorious air units would be involved in the subsequent land/naval battle in the area but applying a different set of combat factors. Strategic bombing runs would be conducted as a fourth kind of combat (more or less as it already is OOB). To keep things manageable you’d need 3 different battle cards (or 4 if one is included for strategic bombing runs).

    To give you something to think about I suggest the following air combat factors:
    F A3 D4, TB A2 D2, SB A0 D1.

    In air-land battles: F A1 D4, TB A4 D2, SB A2 D1.

    In air-naval battles F A0 D4, TB A4 D3, SB A1 D-not applicable.

    Fighters are the unit of choice in air battles or defending,
    TB’s when attacking in air-land and air-naval and
    SB’s for strategic bombing runs.

    Needless to say, the IPC cost of air units would need to be changed.

    Thanks for answering my request Chrisx.

    Actually, I don’t want to play a different game than A&A, as you correctly imply that any HR making a separate air to air combat phase before any air-to-naval or air-to-land combat will effectively does. Mutual destruction of planes in a separate phase until one side prevails (a la 1914-style), will totally change such big battles as Germany’s last assault against Moscow.

    Still trying to be part of an A&A game, my Fighter unit must act during the regular combat phase, as any other units, and can be chosen as casualty anytime the owner decides.
    Sometimes, in combat situations with no attacking planes, such Fg units on defense is used as a regular OOB Fighter:
    nothing is different, the Fighter’s successful hits are allocated to land units in the order of casualty chosen by the opponent.

    Fighter units have a special target.
    It is somewhat similar to Subs which are designed to solely sink ships, mainly warships.
    It is also like an AA gun firing every round with higher odds against 1 single target.

    Being cheaper than TcBs and StBs, it is meant to protect other precious planes from enemy’s Fighters, the same manner as Destroyers are meant to protect other warships against Submarines.
    (Probably the costs needs to be reduced to better play this role of air fodder, 1 IPC increment between Fg, TcB and StB, is probably too short for a Fg being used as fodder.)

    Another aspect of this Fg mechanics (besides being part of the game flow), it doesn’t contradict historical facts:
    @crusaderiv:

    Don’t know if it’s really accurate.
    Most air to air combat happens in the same time as the land combat.
    Except rare case like Battle of Britain, Crete and Malta.

    AL


    Since your first post already suggest a different Air games for Fgs and al.
    What is your main objection against my Fg units above?
    Any obvious flaw, which bother you?


  • 2017 '16

    @knp7765:

    You know, I think a good idea that might fix this in some areas would be to treat aircraft like they do in the A&A 1914 game. In other words, have the aircraft battle it out before any aircraft can attack any land or sea units. So, you would have an “Air Combat” phase before the regular combat phase.
    First of all, the battle would go until one side or the other has no planes left.
    Second, the combat values would be different in the air combat phase. I think the following would work well:
    Strategic Bombers == A 1, D 1
    Tactical Bombers == A 2, D 2
    Fighters == A 3, D 3 or 4

    I figure Strategic Bombers do have armament and could get a possible hit. Tactical bombers would handle themselves a little better than strategic bombers in a dogfight, thus a value of 2. I wasn’t sure if fighters should retain their regular defense of 4 or drop to 3 for air combat. Either way they obviously outclass strats or tacs in air-to-air combat.
    I wondered if perhaps in the “Air Combat” phase, a fighter’s attack value be bumped up to 4, so a fighter would attack and defend @ 4. That would definitely make people want to include fighters in their air fleets. Also, for those that want to give different values to early-war and late-war planes, you could have the earlier, more obsolete models (like the Russian I-16 in HBG’s Russia Early War set) hit @ 3 in the “Air Combat” phase.
    This also might make the Axis alternate between bomber and fighter buys in this “bomber spam” strategy. After all, if you attack a force with 20 bombers but come up against 6-10 defending fighters, your precious expensive bombers could get wiped out before even dropping one bomb on the land troops.

    Now, this wouldn’t fix the “Bomber Spam” strategy everywhere because obviously the Allies can’t afford to put fighters in every strategic location, but perhaps it would slow it down and maybe even prevent really crucial locations from falling, thus preventing an Axis win (or Allied win if you are playing the other way).

    By the way, I agree that Tactical Bombers should be able to escort and intercept in SBRs as well. I think this “Air Combat” idea would be better used for the dogfight phase of an SBR as well. Maybe still leave it at one round of combat, but use the combat values (strats = 1, tacs = 2, fighters = 3 or 4)

    Hi knp7765,
    since you provide a radically opposite way of simulating air-to-air combat, I need to better understand how your 1914 inspired “air fight till the end of enemy’s plane” is a viable option.
    As far as I can see your high combat values mixed with the high cost of planes inside this dogfight phase will imply a very high and expensive attrition rate compared to OOB combat.
    Most of the time, a player fights until there is only a few ground units and all remaining planes will retreat.

    With high combat values and dogfight phase before regular combat, it has a major impact on the game.
    A completely different game IMO.
    Who wants to loose his precious planes before cheaper ground units?

    Even if the numbers you suggested have a sound basis and can be explained in themselves, their high value makes the multi-cycles air combat phase much more deadlier.
    Why don’t you kept the “half value” of SBR phase, such as bomber @1 and fighter @2?


    Talking about their values, I would probably put them like this, in your system:
    Strategic Bombers == A 1, D 1
    Tactical Bombers == A 2, D 1
    Fighters == A 2, D 3

    That way, it gives option (of buying Fg) and a better odds for the defender which cannot bring into combat all the other planes from adjacent TTs.
    And Tactical Bombers would keep their offensive bias.



  • I’d like to see a dedicated fighter unit done right in an Axis & Allies game, unlike the one in 1914.  It could be a purely defensive unit that you’ld want to leave at your ICs to defend against SBRs and massed bomber attacks.

    Another thing I really want to see (possibly in the next G40 edition) would be anti-tank guns.  They’d be just like the modern AAA guns except only fire at tanks.  They could cost the same, too.  At the very least a tech that makes your AAA fire at tanks, too.  3 shots for each before the attacker fires.  What do you think?


  • 2017 '16

    @robbie358:

    Another thing I really want to see (possibly in the next G40 edition) would be anti-tank guns.  They’d be just like the modern AAA guns except only fire at tanks.  They could cost the same, too.  At the very least a tech that makes your AAA fire at tanks, too.  3 shots for each before the attacker fires.  What do you think?

    Hi Robbie,
    it is not the same game mechanics but I developed, to my own surprise a kind of Anti-Tank Gun as a purely defensive unit in this thread.
    Feel free to comment on that thread about your other type of ATG. We can discuss it further there, I do not want to derail the actual thread beyond planes unit.
    Heavy (now renamed Anti-Tank) Artillery against Mechanized artillery and Tanks
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35315.msg1375523#msg1375523


  • 2017 '16

    @robbie358:

    I’d like to see a dedicated fighter unit done right in an Axis & Allies game, unlike the one in 1914. It could be a purely defensive unit that you’ld want to leave at your ICs to defend against SBRs and massed bomber attacks.

    I can say fairly, it is my obsession for a few months. I tried many many variations to reach a more balance dedicated Fighter unit.
    To get such a dedicated unit, it needs to be much cheaper. My last thought on this was still a bit inspired by 1914 Fg:

    FIGHTER
    Attack 2
    Defense 2
    Move 4
    Cost 6
    Air combat unit: All hits are allocated to aircraft units first, if any available.

    At such a low cost, people can choose to put 1 or 2 in less defended but still important TTs (as they could have put 1 or 2 Tanks there, too).
    The most develop post on this issue with other units is here, it is a complete units roster:

    Baron M’s G40HR Roster: 3-planes carrier, 6 IPCs Fighter A2D2 & Sub A3D1C7
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35222.msg1374545#msg1374545



  • @Baron:

    @robbie358:

    I’d like to see a dedicated fighter unit done right in an Axis & Allies game, unlike the one in 1914. It could be a purely defensive unit that you’ld want to leave at your ICs to defend against SBRs and massed bomber attacks.

    I can say fairly, it is my obsession for a few months. I tried many many variations to reach a more balance dedicated Fighter unit.
    To get such a dedicated unit, it needs to be much cheaper. My last thought on this was still a bit inspired by 1914 Fg:

    FIGHTER
    Attack 2
    Defense 2
    Move 4
    Cost 6
    Air combat unit: All hits are allocated to aircraft units first, if any available.

    At such a low cost, people can choose to put 1 or 2 in less defended but still important TTs (as they could have put 1 or 2 Tanks there, too).
    The most develop post on this issue with other units is here, it is a complete units roster:

    Baron M’s G40HR Roster: 3-planes carrier, 6 IPCs Fighter A2D2 & Sub A3D1C7
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35222.msg1374545#msg1374545

    This is a verry overpowered unit to have in your arsenal. Think what for instance UK pac can do with it with an early DOW. Inf take your losses while planes take the other guys losses.
    Also makes it a mandatory unit to use on attack against any zone having these units just to prevent losses to your own heavy hitting planes.


  • 2017 '16

    @ShadowHAwk:

    This is a very overpowered unit to have in your arsenal. Think what for instance UK pac can do with it with an early DOW. Inf take your losses while planes take the other guys losses.
    Also makes it a mandatory unit to use on attack against any zone having these units just to prevent losses to your own heavy hitting planes.

    Thanks ShadowHawk for taking time to comment.

    About your first point, I don’t understand how an early UK PAC DOW with only 2 Fighters and 1 Tactical can do a lot of damage against far away Japanese planes.
    Can you please explain what you see in it?

    United Kingdom

    Starting income: 16 IPCs

    India: 6 infantry, 1 artillery, 3 AAA, 1 fighter, 1 tactical bomber, air base, naval base, major IC
    Burma: 2 infantry, 1 fighter
    Malaya: 3 infantry, naval base
    Kwangtung: 2 infantry, naval base
    SZ 37: 1 Battleship
    SZ 39: 1 transport, 1 destroyer, 1 cruiser

    Japan
    Japan: 6 infantry, 2 artillery, 1 tank, 3 AAA, 2 fighters, 2 tactical bombers, 2 strategic bombers, air base, naval base, major industrial complex
    Iwo Jima: 1 infantry
    Okinawa: 1 infantry, 1 fighter
    Korea: 4 infantry, 1 fighter
    Manchuria: 6 infantry, 1 mechanized infantry, 1 artillery, 1 AAA, 2 fighters, 2 tactical bombers
    Jehol: 2 infantry, 1 artillery
    Shantung: 3 infantry, 1 artillery
    Kiangsu: 3 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 fighter, 1 tactical bomber
    Kiangsi: 3 infantry, 1 artillery
    Kwangsi: 3 infantry, 1 artillery
    Siam: 2 infantry
    Formosa: 1 fighter
    Palau Island: 1 infantry
    Caroline Islands: 2 infantry, 1 AAA, air base, naval base
    SZ 6: 1 transport, 1 submarine, 2 destroyers, 1 cruiser, 2 aircraft carriers (each carrying 1 fighter and 1 tactical bomber), 1 battleship
    SZ 19: 1 transport, 1 submarine, 1 destroyer, 1 battleship
    SZ 20: 1 transport, 1 cruiser
    SZ 33: 1 destroyer, 1 aircraft carrier (carrying 1 fighter and 1 tactical bomber)

    About the second point, it is intended to get this effect.
    We use Infantry (3 IPCs) as fodder for ground units and Destroyer (8 IPCs) for naval fodder, so a Fighter (6 IPCs) should be the air fodder.

    Would you risk a single Battleship without any escort?
    So, it is the same need to protect bombers.

    Risking Bombers against a small air defense Fgs group can still work if it takes only a few combat rounds to sweep enemy’s terrritory.
    At one point, if attacking ground units destroy the enemy’s ground, most of the time it can be them which get ride of defending Fgs.



  • It is not on attack that these things can shine but just think about what 3 of those things will do with a stack of chines or UK infantry under them.
    Normaly japan has a lot of air and not much ground forces but that does not mather much as they are trading inf for inf.
    What happens with your unit is that japan will be trading inf and air vs inf and these new planes.
    This unit being this cheap means that the whole balance of the game will need to be redone. Suddenly the overwhelming japan airpower suddenly is a lot weaker and can easy be countered.

    Having units that target specific other units kinda changes the whole dynamic of the game.
    Subs cant target specific type of ships they just target ships but get the disadvantage of never hitting air at all.
    Your new unit will target air specificaly first and if there is no air it will hit land units, so the advantage of specific targeting but no weakness.

    The whole balance of the game and how units interact is based on that the owning player selects the units to be taken as casualty if you take this away you are making a different game because well if you have fighters hitting only air why not have tank destroyers that only hit tanks and well arti cant really hit armor verry well but should be restricted to inf.
    So you will be making a rock->paper->scissors kinda game out of it. Might be a lot more realistic then the current game but will also be a lot harder to balance the setup.


  • 2017 '16

    @ShadowHAwk:

    It is not on attack that these things can shine but just think about what 3 of those things will do with a stack of chines or UK infantry under them.
    Normally Japan has a lot of air and not much ground forces but that does not matter much as they are trading inf for inf.
    What happens with your unit is that Japan will be trading inf and air vs inf and these new planes.
    This unit being this cheap means that the whole balance of the game will need to be redone. Suddenly the overwhelming japan airpower suddenly is a lot weaker and can easy be countered.

    Thanks for this reply ShadowHAwk.
    There is many points to understand and also I brought some occasions of misunderstanding also, my bads.
    Mainly because this Fighter A2 D2 C6 is a bit different from the opening post Fighter.
    To isolate a specific point, I would suggest to discuss about this Fighter unit instead (which have similar Att and Def value with the OOB):
    I believe you can agree with it, for the sake of discussion, since it is more powerful than A2 D2 but still directly hit enemy’s plane:

    @Baron:

    FIGHTER
    Attack 2 can rise to 3
    Defense 3 can rise to 4
    Move 4
    Cost 10
    Air combat unit: All hits are allocated to aircraft units first, if any available
    Air Supremacy bonus: +1 Attack/Defense when no enemy’s aircraft
    Air Superiority Weapon bonus:+1 Attack/Defense when fighting against only enemy’s aircrafts.

    Combined Arms bonus: gives +1 Defense when paired 1:1 with Tactical Bomber unit

    SBR escort mission: Attack @2
    Can intercept in SBR: Defense @3.

    TACTICAL BOMBER
    Attack 4
    Defense 3 can rise to 4
    Move 4
    Cost 11
    Air Supremacy bonus: +1 Defense when no enemy’s aircraft

    Combined Arms bonus: +1 Defense when paired 1:1 with a Fighter
    Combined Arms Bonus in Tank support, Tactical Bomber as a “Tank Buster”:
    Gives +1 Defense when paired 1:1 with Tank

    Tactical Bombing Raid: Attack @2
    TBR damage: 1D6 on Air Base or Naval Base
    On SBR can also do escort mission: Attack @2

    In the set-up, Japan has 11 Fighters and 8 Tactical bombers.

    Let’s assume that 3 Fighters along with 3 Tactical Bombers can be dispatched to support grounds units against a Chinese Infantry stack with 3 UK’s Fighters.

    The air combat would be 3 Zeros Fgs Attack @2 while the 3 TcBs cannot attack planes against 3 UK’s Fgs defending @3.
    I get this results:
    Average outcome of 10,000 battles
    Attacker: 3 Zero Fgs @2 (same as 3 DDs.) v. Defender: 3 UK’s Fg @3 (same as 3 Cruisers.)
    Average battle duration: 2.4 rounds of combat
    Overall %*: A. survives: 25% D. survives: 68.7% No one survives: 6.3%
    75% of complete Zeros destruction (on avg) against 24% to save 1 remaining UK’s Fg (on avg).
    http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=3&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=&dCru=3&dCar=&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Tra-Des-Fig-Car-Cru-JFig-dBat&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=

    So, on average, after three rounds, there will be no more attacking Fighters and 1 defending Fighter is still able to roll.
    3 Japanese Tactical bombers are now directly vulnerable to this defending UK’s Fighter.

    However, how much ground units are still part of the fight?
    Tactical Bombers (attacking @4) already got 3 rounds of attacking rolls.
    How much Chinese Infantry fodders can still be taken as casualty?

    Curiously, I would have think that UK’s defending Fgs are much more vulnerable since their high value Fgs cannot hide behind grounds units.
    The attacker can always choose how many planes he can brought into a fight, or decide to do or not to do a specific battle.

    If the above Japanese units are fighting against a pure Infantry stack, this would be treated as OOB.
    If the UK’s is attacked by ground units only, this would also be treated as OOB.
    (Hence, the specific ability for Air Supremacy +1 bonus which rise the combat values of Fg to OOB level.)

    Could you help me better understand your POV based on this example above?
    For now, I can’t really visualize what you did meant by “japan will be trading inf and air vs inf and these new planes”?
    Your help will be greatly appreciated, ShadowHAwk.


    The Fighter’s weakness is the lower attack and defense value from OOB and they are vulnerable against other Fighter units.
    Also, the best attack value @4 are given to bombers and this Fg gets basic attack @2 (half-value of bombers, same as Artillery or Destroyer).
    I’m also sorry because I forgot to mention that I boost:
    Anti-Aircraft Artillery unit at 5 IPCs would be able to hit with a regular @1, 1 plane each round, after the initial up to three preemptive roll @1 against up to three planes, which ever the lesser.

    Hope it can clarify some points.
    Baron.


    Probably, due to the high attrition rate the Fighter cost should be reduced to 8 IPCs and TcB cost to 10 IPCs, but I prefer to discuss with OOB cost parameter because in G40 there is a lot of money anyway.

    Another point which can preserve planes somehow is something like aerial retreat rule which allow the attacker to retreat his planes but continue the battle with other ground units.
    There is already a similar rule used when doing amphibious combat.
    Planes and other units which doesn’t perform the amphibious assault, can retreat while the unloaded units must pursue the fight to the death of one side.


  • 2017 '16

    @ShadowHAwk:

    The whole balance of the game and how units interact is based on that the owning player selects the units to be taken as casualty if you take this away you are making a different game because well if you have fighters hitting only air why not have tank destroyers that only hit tanks and well arti cant really hit armor very well but should be restricted to inf.
    So you will be making a rock->paper->scissors kinda game out of it. Might be a lot more realistic then the current game but will also be a lot harder to balance the setup.

    The idea is to try to make it workable, as far as it can be possible.
    Adding more specific targeting would make things be out of control.
    However, it is common sense that planes can fight planes.
    Finding a way to do this in a balance way, is the real challenge.

    The A&A system is based on the use of cheaper fodder units with lesser combat value compared to costlier units with higher combat value.
    An Air fodder is missing to have a complete system. Actually, we use Infantry or Destroyer to protect planes.
    Land fodder:
    Infantry A1 D2 3 IPCs to protect Tank A3 D3 6 IPCs.

    Naval fodder:
    Destroyer A2 D2 8 IPCs to protect Battleship A4 D4 20 IPCs or Carrier A0 D2 16 IPCs

    Air fodder:
    Fighter A2-3 D3-4 10 IPCs (or 8 IPCs?) to protect Bombers, either TcB A4 D3-4 Cost 11 IPCs (or 10 IPCs?) or StB A4 D1 Cost 12 IPCs.



  • @Baron:

    @ShadowHAwk:

    The whole balance of the game and how units interact is based on that the owning player selects the units to be taken as casualty if you take this away you are making a different game because well if you have fighters hitting only air why not have tank destroyers that only hit tanks and well arti cant really hit armor very well but should be restricted to inf.
    So you will be making a rock->paper->scissors kinda game out of it. Might be a lot more realistic then the current game but will also be a lot harder to balance the setup.

    The idea is to try to make it workable, as far as it can be possible.
    Adding more specific targeting would make things be out of control.
    However, it is common sense that planes can fight planes.
    Finding a way to do this in a balance way, is the real challenge.

    The A&A system is based on the use of cheaper fodder units with lesser combat value compared to costlier units with higher combat value.
    An Air fodder is missing to have a complete system. Actually, we use Infantry or Destroyer to protect planes.
    Land fodder:
    Infantry A1 D2 3 IPCs to protect Tank A3 D3 6 IPCs.

    Naval fodder:
    Destroyer A2 D2 8 IPCs to protect Battleship A4 D4 20 IPCs or Carrier A0 D2 16 IPCs

    Air fodder:
    Fighter A2-3 D3-4 10 IPCs (or 8 IPCs?) to protect Bombers, either TcB A4 D3-4 Cost 11 IPCs (or 10 IPCs?) or StB A4 D1 Cost 12 IPCs.

    Air is a support only unit in the game, it cannot take land. It therefore always has fodder in the shape of inf or destroyers.

    Also a combat is not a single engagement but a whole campaign, sure planes are used against planes but also against ground units and ground units all had their own AA companies so they could easy hit planes as well. A lot of planes where being lost on the ground or on airfields that where being attacked by ground forces.

    If you want to go the route of having a seperate air combat part it is not that i think it is a bad idea but it requires a lot more then just adding or changing a unit.
    The whole balance of the game will need to be changed. Because there is a balance between starting units and starting income, so ajusting means also changing the income or setup to make it balanced again.


  • 2017 '16

    Could you help me better understand your POV based on this example above?
    For now, I can’t really visualize what you did meant by “japan will be trading inf and air vs inf and these new planes”.

    Your help will be greatly appreciated, ShadowHAwk.

    Hi ShadowHAwk,
    does your last post being an answer to both previous posts?



  • @Baron:

    Could you help me better understand your POV based on this example above?
    For now, I can’t really visualize what you did meant by “japan will be trading inf and air vs inf and these new planes”.

    Your help will be greatly appreciated, ShadowHAwk.

    Hi ShadowHAwk,
    does your last post being an answer to both previous posts?

    O yes missed that part.

    Currently you not going to put air with the inf unless you got a decent chance of winning the combat, as japan can bring in overwhelming air power.
    Having for example 6 inf and 1 fig there you hit 3 times so if japan attacks with 3 inf all their air is now save ( lets asume LL for the sake of argument ) japan attacks with enough to hit 7 times.
    with your new unit having 6 inf and 1 fig there means suddenly japan might lose 1 air unit as well making the trade less efficient for them.

    Normaly you would not use units in such a throw away fashion but if you can destroy some japan air on a 1 to 1 basis almost sure why not take that.
    Even hitting on a 2 that isnt that good this unit will most likely replace the AA gun as for nearly the same price it has more range better combat value and can attack so it can be fodder for your bombers.


  • 2017 '16

    Even hitting on a 2 that isnt that good this unit will most likely replace the AA gun as for nearly the same price it has more range better combat value and can attack so it can be fodder for your bombers.

    That’s true.
    And this is the reason it needs an AA gun which cost half price of this special Fighter unit (at 10 IPCs it means AA gun cost 5 IPCs / but 8, means 4 IPCs / 6 IPCs’ Fg means 3 IPCs’ AAA) and able to hit on each round after the special preemptive defense rolls of the first round.
    So for the same cost, you get up to 6 preemptive defense roll @1, and 2 defense @1 after.
    With the Fighter unit, you get 1 def@3.
    AAA is better in the first round, when there is multiple targets. And also because of the first strike.

    This gives also a slight defensive advantage to the AA gun, after the first round, when comparing their defensive capabilities:
    Overall %*: A. survives: 39.4% D. survives: 52.6% No one survives: 8.1%
    http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=&aCru=&aCar=2&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=&dCru=1&dCar=&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=

    But I agree, the Fighter is more versatile.


  • 2017 '16

    @ShadowHAwk:

    @Baron:

    Could you help me better understand your POV based on this example above?
    For now, I can’t really visualize what you did meant by “japan will be trading inf and air vs inf and these new planes”.

    Your help will be greatly appreciated, ShadowHAwk.

    Hi ShadowHAwk,
    does your last post being an answer to both previous posts?

    O yes missed that part.

    Currently you not going to put air with the inf unless you got a decent chance of winning the combat, as japan can bring in overwhelming air power.
    Having for example 6 inf and 1 fig there you hit 3 times so if japan attacks with 3 inf all their air is now save ( lets asume LL for the sake of argument ) japan attacks with enough to hit 7 times.
    with your new unit having 6 inf and 1 fig there means suddenly japan might lose 1 air unit as well making the trade less efficient for them.

    Normaly you would not use units in such a throw away fashion but if you can destroy some japan air on a 1 to 1 basis almost sure why not take that.
    Even hitting on a 2 that isnt that good this unit will most likely replace the AA gun as for nearly the same price it has more range better combat value and can attack so it can be fodder for your bombers.

    Thanks for the input.
    That is exactly what I need to focus on (and what I was looking for), I would never thought about it that way all by myself.
    I will come back on this point in a few days, probably.


  • 2017 '16

    Hi ShadowHAwk,
    now I have something in mind which can play an incentive role toward committing Aircrafts into risky battle:

    Air supremacy: (no enemy’s plane is present, or they were all shot down) provides for all planes present +1 Offense/Defense.

    This bonus is somewhat inspired by 1914.
    In that 1914 WWI version, all ground units gained +1 Offense/Defense if their side gets the Air Supremacy during the previous air-to-air combat phase.
    The only difference is that my Air Supremacy Bonus gives +1 to all aircrafts instead of ground units.

    And each Fighter unit provides to any one Bomber paired with, the same bonus as given by Air Supremacy:

    Fighter Combined Arms bonus: gives +1 Attack/Defense when paired 1:1 with Tactical Bomber unit or Strategic Bomber unit
    Bombers (TcBs or StBs) Combined Arms bonus: gets +1 Attack/Defense when paired 1:1 with Fighter

    Here are changes on Aircraft combat values:

    FIGHTER
    Attack 2 can rise to 3
    Defense 3 can rise to 4
    Move 4
    Cost 10
    Air combat unit: All hits are allocated to aircraft units first, if any available

    Air Supremacy bonus: +1 Attack/Defense when no enemy’s aircraft

    Combined Arms bonus: gives +1 Attack/Defense when paired 1:1 with Tactical Bomber unit or Strategic Bomber unit

    SBR escort mission: Attack @2
    Can intercept in SBR: Defense @3.

    TACTICAL BOMBER
    Attack 3 can rise to 4
    Defense 2 can rise to 3
    Move 4
    Cost 11
    Air Supremacy bonus: +1 Attack/Defense when no enemy’s aircraft

    Combined Arms bonus: +1 Attack/Defense when paired 1:1 with Fighter

    Combined Arms Bonus in Tank Support, Tactical Bomber as a “Tank Buster”:
    Gives +1 Attack/Defense when paired 1:1 with Tank
    Tank Support bonus can be combined with either Air Supremacy bonus or Combined Arms bonus with Fighter.

    Tactical Bombing Raid: Attack @2
    TBR damage: 1D6 on Air Base or Naval Base
    On SBR can also do escort mission: Attack @2

    STRATEGIC BOMBER
    Attack 3 can rise to 4
    Defense 1 can rise to 2 (added to keep the rule straight and simple, with no exception)
    Move 6
    Cost 12
    Air Supremacy bonus: +1 Attack/Defense when no enemy’s aircraft

    Combined Arms bonus: +1 Attack/Defense when paired 1:1 with Fighter

    Strategical Bombing Raid: Attack @1
    SBR damage: 1D6+2 on Industrial Complex, Air Base or Naval Base


    I also believe Fighter and Tactical Bomber lower values can work very well on a three planes-Carrier.
    1942.2 FLEET CARRIER A1 D2 M2 Cost 14, 1 hit
    Carry 3 planes (Fgs or TcBs)
    Combined Anti-Air Defense when paired with 1 Battleship and 1 Cruiser: get up to 3 preemptive shots @1 against up to three planes.

    G40 FLEET CARRIER A0 D2 M2 Cost 16, 2 hits
    Carry 3 planes (Fgs or TcBs)
    Damaged Carrier can still carry 1 plane.
    Combined Anti-Air Defense when paired with 1 Battleship and 1 Cruiser: get up to 3 preemptive shots @1 against up to three planes.

    Cost should be reduced to 8 (Fg) - 9 (TcB) - 10 (StB) IPCs, because the air attrition is probably too high within a regular G40 games and because all aircrafts only get their plain OOB combat values in specific situations: Air Supremacy.


    To give you a whole picture, I would allow 3 types of defensive maneuvers for aircrafts to increase interactions between air units.

    DEFENSIVE MANEUVERS allowed for 2 or 3 types of aircraft:

    • Aerial Retreat for attacking planes (all aircrafts can retreat while letting ground units continue battle),

    • Limited Aerial Withdrawal of 1 space in a friendly territory is allowed any round after the first combat round for defending planes up to 2 StBs or 2 TcBs or 2 Fgs.

    • ****Limited landing in a just conquered territory (which includes at least 1 ground unit): 2 planes (either Fighter or Tactical Bomber)**, as long as each units can provide 1 extra movement point for this special landing.


      So ShadowHAwk, do you think this Air Supremacy bonus can be enough reason to bring along planes just to forbid the defender a +1 bonus on all his planes?
      1- Sending only ground units, would imply that all defending aircrafts have a much higher odds to hit.
      Thus, increasing the number of attacking casualties for the first combat cycles.

      2- Another reason to bring especially TcBs into combat, I added a special +1 bonus for both offense and defense given to Tank (which can raise to A4 or D4).
      So, not only attacking TcBs can block the defender Air Supremacy bonus, but this gives an additional boost to the attack.

      3- From the defender POV, even a single defending Fighter (or TcB/StB) can lower the attack value of all attacking aircrafts (at least for the first combat round).
      And if there is only Bombers (and ground units) on the attacker side, then this single Fighter (or TcB/StB) (as long as is it not taken as casualty) keeps all Bombers attacking value to 3.
      Hence, an attacker ought to bring Fighter units on his side, in hope of shooting down the enemy’s planes, to increase the offensive values of his attacking Aircrafts (in the next combat rounds to come) and to lower the number of combat cycles (to minimize casualties on the attacker side).

      Besides, I think this also provides an HR to fix the issue about Bombers spam, aka Dark Skies Strategy.**



  • The bombers spam is not something that would be really viable it is nice to have but attacking with bombers only against any combination of equal value is a losing proposition ( ok maby not against bombers )

    Not sure do we really need to force players to use specific units in combat even just to make it accurate?  Or to make the incentive to big to use it.
    Simply removing the combined arms bonus if there are enemy fighters on the board would make a simpler game and pretty acurate.
    Though the rules are nice it would become hard to play games with a lot more rules, and if you shift the combat abilities of units be carefull not to change the starting balance 2 much. Currently the game is fairly balanced in terms of setup. Changing 1 or even a set of units to be more or less powerfull changes this balance.

    ISO giving attacking air units a combat value and a bonus maby only limit this to attacking dive bombers, they needed air support to work.



  • I have been playing a game I bought form HBG (WWII Europe & Pac). They have changed how air units fight based more on what it rolls. Just a thought, but instead of adding in more combined arms, or a separate air to air step, maybe look at changing what an air unit hits based on what is rolled. This isn’t exactly what they did, but I hope you get the point (change it as you see fit).

    Take a ftr, you want better air to air, but probably a little weaker against ground and navy.

    Have ftrs attack/def values be the same at 4 or less (never really got why a ftr on def got a better roll). Rolls of 1-2 must be applied to opposing air unit (no opposing air then 1’s and 2’s are ignored so it is weaker vs ground/navy). Rolls of 3-4 can be applied to any unit def still chooses (including air). This makes the ftr primarily an air to air unit, and is weaker vs ground/navy. You could also stick with ftrs rolling at 1-2 in SBR as escorts/interceptors (rolls of 3-4 would be ignored).

    Tacs should be better against navy and ground units (and choose targets to a point), but weaker vs other air units. Keeping the combined arms in place tacs stay a 3/3 unit and still get a +1 when attacking and paired w/a ftr or tank. Rolls of 1-2 def chooses causalities. Roll a 3 and hit is applied to ground or naval units only. Rolls of 4 are targeted (w/combined arms) and attacker chooses the ground or naval unit (keep in mind that rolls of 3-4 can’t hit other planes, so it is weaker vs air).

    Nerf Srats down to say a 2/1 unit (maybe 3/1) in normal battles, but give them a bonus when doing SBR of up to 4 or less (like they should be).

    I have also played games where defending carrier’s roll at 2 (every round), but hits are applied only to air units (AA def).  This allows for some fleet AA w/o having to pair up ships etc……and I don’t think too many ships were sunk by carrier guns, they would be targeting enemy planes so it make more sense (to me anyway).

    Could also do split rolls for other units: Give art anti tank ability. Rolls of 2 are normal, but rolls of 1 and tanks are chosen before other ground units.



  • I like that idea, WB!
    Both simple and satisfying. Balance would probably need testing, since the axis have way more aircraft than the allies.



  • Thanks ItIsILeClerc.

    I think you have a good point about the axis air being over powering in G40, the game I’ve been playing has far fewer aircraft (and I’m just getting my feet wet). Maybe go with ftrs as a 3/3 unit (in attack/def). Only rolls of 1 are applied to enemy air units in regular battles (2-3 def choice). 1’s would still be ignored when enemy has no air units. That way you could still force Russian or UK air units into battle but attrition wouldn’t be as hard on them. It would still suck for China, but hopefully they have many inf w/flying tiger firing at those Japanese planes so an air sweep would hurt. Plus you could give China an AA gun at set-up to help (they should get one IMO regardless).

    You would still get more specialized air units, and tac bmrs would be pretty cool with some targeting ability in G40. I remember way back when Larry was first talking about the new tac bmr unit for G40. He said that they tested it w/targeting ability but scrapped that idea (wish they would have kept with it and allowed targeting at some level).


  • 2017 '16

    @WILD:

    I have been playing a game I bought form HBG (WWII Europe & Pac). They have changed how air units fight based more on what it rolls. Just a thought, but instead of adding in more combined arms, or a separate air to air step, maybe look at changing what an air unit hits based on what is rolled. This isn’t exactly what they did, but I hope you get the point (change it as you see fit).

    Take a ftr, you want better air to air, but probably a little weaker against ground and navy.

    Have ftrs attack/def values be the same at 4 or less (never really got why a ftr on def got a better roll). Rolls of 1-2 must be applied to opposing air unit (no opposing air then 1’s and 2’s are ignored so it is weaker vs ground/navy). Rolls of 3-4 can be applied to any unit def still chooses (including air). This makes the ftr primarily an air to air unit, and is weaker vs ground/navy. You could also stick with ftrs rolling at 1-2 in SBR as escorts/interceptors (rolls of 3-4 would be ignored).

    Tacs should be better against navy and ground units (and choose targets to a point), but weaker vs other air units. Keeping the combined arms in place tacs stay a 3/3 unit and still get a +1 when attacking and paired w/a ftr or tank. Rolls of 1-2 def chooses causalities. Roll a 3 and hit is applied to ground or naval units only. Rolls of 4 are targeted (w/combined arms) and attacker chooses the ground or naval unit (keep in mind that rolls of 3-4 can’t hit other planes, so it is weaker vs air).

    Nerf Srats down to say a 2/1 unit (maybe 3/1) in normal battles, but give them a bonus when doing SBR of up to 4 or less (like they should be).

    I have also played games where defending carrier’s roll at 2 (every round), but hits are applied only to air units (AA def).  This allows for some fleet AA w/o having to pair up ships etc……and I don’t think too many ships were sunk by carrier guns, they would be targeting enemy planes so it make more sense (to me anyway).

    Could also do split rolls for other units: Give art anti tank ability. Rolls of 2 are normal, but rolls of 1 and tanks are chosen before other ground units.

    I have already developed in an older version of HR units something nearer the OOB aircraft units.
    Without restricting any specific number such as “1” or “2” against plane:
    a specific roll hits planes first, it is still possible to take any other units as casualty if there is no plane available.
    It is simpler than what you suggest (which is original and clearly a new idea on this forum).
    The main drawback is about a given number means something for TcB and something else for Fighter.
    Your idea has more details to remember about a given “1” “2” or “4” rolls.

    @Baron:

    Maybe this can be an interesting variation which provides a better incentive to put at risk some costlier Aircrafts against ground and other defending planes:

    TANK A3-4 D3-4 M2 Cost 6
    Can Blitz or allow Mechanized Infantry and Mechanized Artillery to blitz on 1:1 or 1:1:1 basis.
    Gives +1A/D to Mechanized Artillery when paired 1:1 with
    Gets A4 or D4 from Tactical Bomber when paired 1:1 with

    Both bonus can work at the time.

    FIGHTER A3 D4 M4 Cost 8
    hits enemy’s planes on “1” or “2” roll, or even “3” roll for up to 3 Fg units if an operational Air Base is present.
    Gives +1 Attack or +1 Defense to 1 Tactical Bomber if paired 1:1 with.
    SBR/TcBR Attack @2, Defend @2, or even defend @3 for up to 3 Fgs if an operational Air Base is present.
    Can hit submarines without ASV.

    TACTICAL BOMBER A3-4 D3-4 M4 Cost 9
    hits enemy’s planes on a “1” roll,
    Gets A4 or D4 when paired 1:1 to a Fighter unit or when there is no enemy’s aircraft.
    Gives +1 Attack/defense to any Tank unit paired 1:1
    Both bonus can work same time.

    SBR/TcBR attack @1,
    Allowed to do escorting mission for StBs without doing TcBR on AB or NB,
    Cannot do interception mission on defense,
    TcBR damage: 1D6.
    Can hit submarines without ASV.

    This make for 8-9-10 IPCs Aircrafts.

    The older idea suggested a lower cost because of the higher attrition rate amongst planes.
    Do you think it can still be viable at G40 OOB cost: 10, 11, 12 IPCs (there is so much more money in Global, after all)?

    However, from the number you picked in your examples, I can say that you really prefer 1 or 2 out of 6.
    So do you think that a Fighter defending at 3 and targeting enemy’s aircrafts is way too much overpowered?

    The top ceiling should be at most: attack or defense at 2 against enemy’s planes, right?

    @WILD:

    I think you have a good point about the axis air being over powering in G40, the game I’ve been playing has far fewer aircraft (and I’m just getting my feet wet). Maybe go with ftrs as a 3/3 unit (in attack/def). Only rolls of 1 are applied to enemy air units in regular battles (2-3 def choice). 1’s would still be ignored when enemy has no air units. That way you could still force Russian or UK air units into battle but attrition wouldn’t be as hard on them. It would still suck for China, but hopefully they have many inf w/flying tiger firing at those Japanese planes so an air sweep would hurt. Plus you could give China an AA gun at set-up to help (they should get one IMO regardless).

    What  do you mean here?

    That way you could still force Russian or UK air units into battle but attrition wouldn’t be as hard on them.

    According to the maths below (which is only for a single round of fire during SBR), I believe that such Defending Fighter @3 is doing too much damage on the attacking side, over multiple combat rounds, attacker with mostly bombers (attacking @4) will loose all his fleet against such Fighters.

    The negative value is probably higher, since it doesn’t consider AAA firing @1 first against all incoming planes, not just StBs.

    In addition, the positive value will be lower, since a bomber will probably inflict +3 IPCs (Inf) or +4 IPCs (Art) damage in a single round, on the first rounds of the battle, at least. It is lower than a 5.5 (1D6+2 avg) IPCs/rnd or even a +7 (2D6 avg) IPCs/rnd damage on IC.

    A Bomber needs to hit on 2 successive rounds to be around the average damage on IC.

    @Baron:

    Thanks.
    I wouldn’t have think about it without ShadowHAwk commentaries on the special Fighter unit which can directly hit other planes.

    I basically used the OOB reverse value of Fg (A3 D4) and TcB (A4 D3) and I subtracted 1 Off/Def point.

    An incentive was mandatory to risk more valuable planes into battle with grounds and aircrafts.

    Also, with a high defense @3 for Fg, I believe it is necessary to have plenty rooms for air Fodder, hence the 3-planes Carrier and cheaper cost.

    Also, it is a really big deterrent against SBR, that’s why Fg and TcB gets A2 when doing SBR escort.
    I kept a low @1 for bomber, since their main function is to bombard ICs with D6+2 each.
    The lower 10 IPCs StB cost can somehow slightly compensate but not entirely for riskier SBR raid.

    For 6 StB you pay 60 IPCs instead of 72 IPCs.

    On average, you lost 1/6 StB and make 5/6 D6+2 damage (5.5 IPCs).
    5.5 x 5 = 27.5 IPCs minus 12 IPCs = + 15.5 IPCs net damage for 72 IPCs investment: 21.5% return on investment after 6 SBRs,
    5.5 x 5 = 27.5 IPCs minus 10 IPCs = + 17.5 IPCs net damage for 60 IPCs investment. 29.2% return on investment after 6 SBRs.

    However, this doesn’t consider the higher risk of even a single interceptor @3.

    Here is the summary for this very special House Rule  :

    Global40 SBR HRules : 1 StB doing SBR without interceptor, damage 1D6+2  / damage 2D6
    Sum: + 4.583 - 2 = +2.583 IPCs damage/SBR run                      Sum: + 5.833 - 2 = +3.833 IPCs damage/SBR run

    StB at 10 IPCs / Fg at 8 IPCs:
    Sum: + 4.583 - 1.667 = +2.916 IPCs damage/SBR run                Sum: + 5.833 - 1.667 = +4.166 IPCs damage/SBR run


    G40 SBR HRules :1 StB A1 vs 1 Fg D3
    Sum: + 4.213 - 7 = - 2.787 IPC. damage/SBR run                                   Sum: + 4.908 - 7 = - 2.092 IPC damage/SBR run

    StB at 10 IPCs / Fg at 8 IPCs:
    Sum: + 3.879 - 5.833 = - 1.954 IPC damage/SBR run                              Sum: + 4.574 - 5.833 = - 1.259 IPC damage/SBR run


    G40 SBR HR: **1 StB A1 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D3
    Sum: +2.813- 9.5 = - 6.687 IPCs damage/SBR run                                  Sum: +3.125 - 9.5 = - 6.375 IPCs damage/SBR run

    StB at 10 IPCs / Fg at 8 IPCs:
    Sum: +2.479 - 7.917 = - 5.438 IPCs damage/SBR run                              Sum: +2.791 -7.917 = - 5.126 IPCs damage/SBR run


    G40 SBR HR: 1 StB A1 & 1 Fg A2 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D3
    Sum: + 8.438 - 12 = - 3.562 IPC damage/SBR run                                    Sum: + 9.375 - 12 = - 2.625 IPC damage/SBR run

    StB at 10 IPCs / Fg at 8 IPCs:
    Sum: + 7.438 - 9.75 = - 2.312 IPC damage/SBR run                                  Sum: + 8.375 - 9.75 = - 1.375 IPC damage/SBR run


    G40 SBR HR: 2 StBs A1 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D3
    Sum: +7.918 - 14 = - 6.082 IPCs damage/SBR run                                         Sum: +9.168 - 14 = - 4.832 IPCs damage/SBR run

    StB at 10 IPCs / Fg at 8 IPCs:
    Sum: +6.531 - 11.667 = - 5.136 IPCs damage/SBR run                                     Sum: +8.5 - 11.667 = - 3.167 IPCs damage/SBR run


    G40 HR: 1 StB A1 & 1 Fg A2 doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fgs D3
    Sum: + 9.027 - 7 = + 2.027 IPCs damage/SBR run                                        Sum: + 10.277 - 7 = + 3.277 IPCs damage/SBR run

    StB at 10 IPCs / Fg at 8 IPCs:
    Sum: + 8.139 - 5.666 = + 2.473 IPCs damage/SBR run                                    Sum: + 9.389 - 5.666 = + 3.723 IPCs damage/SBR run


    G40 SBR HR: 2 StBs A1 doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fgs D3
    Sum: +9.931 - 9 = + 0.931 IPCs damage/SBR run                                     Sum: +11.806 - 9 = + 2.806 IPCs damage/SBR run

    StB at 10 IPCs / Fg at 8 IPCs:
    Sum: +9.319 - 7.5 = + 1.819 IPCs damage/SBR run                                   Sum: +11.194 - 7.5 = + 3.694 IPCs damage/SBR run
    ________________________________________________**


  • 2017 '16

    @ShadowHAwk:

    The bombers spam is not something that would be really viable it is nice to have but attacking with bombers only against any combination of equal value is a losing proposition ( ok maby not against bombers )

    Bombers spam or Dark Skies strategy is just a way to remember that weakening Fighter’s defending factor will increase the issue and not solve it.
    In the DS strategy, Strategic bombers are thrown against navy without fodder and there massive number gives their attack @4 a dissuasive factor even when a lot of Fighters defending @4 are on escorting Carriers.
    My first idea was about giving Fg a Defense @3 against enemy’s planes.
    In this particular instance, such Fighter unit will be weaker while, in any other games, it would appear as an assets.

    @ShadowHAwk:

    Not sure do we really need to force players to use specific units in combat even just to make it accurate?

    Though the rules are nice it would become hard to play games with a lot more rules, and if you shift the combat abilities of units be carefull not to change the starting balance 2 much. Currently the game is fairly balanced in terms of setup. Changing 1 or even a set of units to be more or less powerfull changes this balance.

    I was trying to change some bonus here and there to correct the issue you showed me.
    I wanted more planes interactions but given the older HR ideas, these would be the contrary.
    Japan would keep his planes against anything except grounds+planes, while Japan will launch ground troops only against them.
    Such inconsistency needed to be addressed.

    For now, overall balancing or starting set-up balancing is not a priority.
    I want something which can work between units in various combat situations, which appears more clearly to G40 experienced players.
    If it is possible to find the right combination of cost, values and special bonuses for Fg and TcB operating on a 2-planes Carrier, it will be a good start.
    Actually, I’m not sure it is even possible within the restriction of a Fg unit which hit enemy’s planes first.
    Keeping Defending @3 seems too much overpowered while reducing Fg to A2 D2 (+1 A/D if Air Supremacy) seems to make 2-planes Carriers too weak, especially on defense.
    See the questions in my last post.

    @ShadowHAwk:

    Not sure do we really need to force players to use specific units in combat even just to make it accurate?  Or to make the incentive to big to use it.
    Simply removing the combined arms bonus if there are enemy fighters on the board would make a simpler game and pretty acurate.

    ISO giving attacking air units a combat value and a bonus maby only limit this to attacking dive bombers, they needed air support to work.

    Sorry, I don’t understand what you said here. Can you explain, please?


  • 2017 '16

    @ShadowHAwk:

    Though the rules are nice it would become hard to play games with a lot more rules, and if you shift the combat abilities of units be carefull not to change the starting balance 2 much. Currently the game is fairly balanced in terms of setup. Changing 1 or even a set of units to be more or less powerfull changes this balance.

    ISO giving attacking air units a combat value and a bonus maby only limit this to attacking dive bombers, they needed air support to work.

    I finally develop something which can work for both 1942.2 and G40.2.
    A 3 planes-Carrier was needed.
    In addition, the G40.2 Carrier A0 D3 M2 C16, 2 hits have now an in-built AAA defensive capacity, thanks Wild Bill.  😉
    By the way, this improved and slightly stronger Carrier on offense and defense will make a better weapon to counter a Dark Sky Strategy.

    The cost are reduced for planes and for many units because the interactions will be much deadlier than OOB, here is the thread:
    Baron’s simplified TcB (less combined arms), Fg & 3-planes Carrier, full roster
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35643.msg1393799#msg1393799

    About the overall balance, here is the trick for planes:
    Initial set-up must be change a little:
    all full Carriers (1TcB and 1 Fg) received an additional Fg (or a TcB).
    Half loaded Carrier with TcB received 1 Fg.
    Half loaded Carrier with Fg received 1 TcB.

    The overall ratio is for each 2 Fgs you can add 1 Fg and for every 3 TcBs you can put on the start-up board 1 TcB.
    Good luck to find the better place to put them.
    Usually, it must be added on a given TT which already have plane(s) on it.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 6
  • 4
  • 8
  • 3
  • 57
  • 39
  • 14
  • 63
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

61
Online

14.4k
Users

34.9k
Topics

1.4m
Posts