Tactical bombers

There is a few threads on Tac bombers here and there.
When I get time, I will try to find them.
My average idea on them was to switch attack values between TacBs and StBs.
TacB gets attack @4 while strategic bomber gets @3.
Keeps the same cost.
No more pairing with Fg or Tank.
Here is a first quote, just follow the link to the thread:
@Baron:

Good idea to open a thread on this issue.

I see one situation which is not really adressed: a swarm of StBs attacking a naval fleet.
All defender’s hits directly affects the StBs.
As far as I understand, Dark Skies is a big detterent against US fleet moving to Gibraltar SZ.
US player wait longer to build up a lot of Carrier and planes.

What was suggested in previous discussion was a drastic overhaul:
StB A3-4 D1 M6-7 cost 12, pairing 1:1 with Fg gives +1 Attack.
TcB A4 D3 M4-5 cost 11, no need for combined arms.

Do you see some flaws in this change?

Here is an older one more directly talking about TcBombers:
@Chrisx:

The recent thread on OP bombers got me thinking that when the game had only one type of bomber unit it performed a composite of strategic, anti-naval and tactical battlefield roles. However, the introduction of actual tactical (TB) bombers to perform the anti-naval and battlefield functions should have reduced the role of strategic bombers to, well, strategic bombers. Consequently, they should have an attack and defence of 1 each, making them of little use in battles and more or less requiring an escort to keep them safe on strategic bombing runs (as was usually the case historically). Their ability to conduct strategic bombing should remain unchanged and, with the reduced attack factor, will be their primary function in the game. TB’s, while great at attacking surface targets, were weak against enemy fighters so should have a defence of 2. Also, TB’s, with their heavy bomb loads, generally had shorter ranges than fighters so should have a movement range of 3. To provide a fighter escort for strategic bombers, a new rule will probably be needed to allow fighters to move at the same rate as bombers that they escort throughout a strategic bombing mission (starting and returning to the same area). As these changes give each air unit type more clearly defined roles they should probably all cost the same, say, 11 IPC’s

Here is the older thread dedicated to Tactical bomber:
@aequitas:

A Tactical Bomber is described as an 11 IP credit costly unit, wich attackers value is to 3 and defending value is to 3 of a dice roll and is allowed to move 4 spaces.

How do you put your tactical bombers in your play (any nation), what do you like about it the most. What experience you have, gained with them in your gameplay?
Do you more then frequently buy them, in order to achieve your goals in your Strategy?

Any thoughts?

@Ozymandiac:

Thanks, I will have a look into these.

It seems people have bigger issues with the StB, so any revisions to the TacB automatically review the StB as well. And I’ve never really had a problem with these Dark Skies strategies (but that’s just because I’ve never seen it used  :-D)

I can say that 2 bombers types imply a more defined function for both.
A&A have StB since Classic.
TcB is a newborn and need is own niche.
Classic StB gets all bombers role except dive and torpedo bombers on Carrier.
Now 12 IPCs Strat bomber should figure historic StBs while all land and sea tactical bomber activities should be reflected by the new TcB.

@Baron:

@barney:

Here’s the latest update:

Returned Tac Bomber to OOB abilities. Since TBs are rarely bought and slightly weaker due to fighters now having the option to boost bombers instead of Tacs, they now provide Close Air Support for infantry, elite and mech infantry units by giving +1 attack. May only support 1 unit per attack. Does not stack with any other bonuses. This promotes some tac buys and makes for some fun counterattacks and amphibious landings.

What are the abilities of redesigned Tactical Bomber now?

Attack 3-4
Defense 3
Move 4
Cost 11
Gets +1A when paired with Tank or Fighter ?
Gives +1A to Infantry, Mechanized Infantry, Elite Infantry

And the issue about previous Tactical Bomber, is that this one was too costly to be interesting?
Attack 4
Defense 3
Move 4
Cost 12
Gives +1A to Infantry, Mechanized Infantry, Elite Infantry

and also because revised Strategic Bomber abilities was like this, always in need of Fg bonus?
Attack 3-4
Defense 1
Move 6
Cost 12
Gets +1A when paired with Fighter

@Baron:

@Baron:

From my gameboard POV, I rather prefer to let combined arms between ground units and aircrafts having plain and always same values.
It is already a bit time consuming to check for paired ground units.

I can even have Tactical Bomber like:
Attack 4
Defense 3
Move 4 +1 with AB
Cost 12
TBR dmg:  1D6

And Strategic Bomber like:
Attack 3
Defense 2
Move 6 +1 with AB
Cost 12
SBR dmg : 1D6+2

It is the same 11 points for Att/Def/Mov but different settings.

Historically speaking, I believe these attack values relative to one another better reflect the offensive abilities of StBs, A3, and TcBs, A4, against combat units.

StBs longer distance and slower speed to go back and forth on target, provides more packing per flight but less tonnage of bombs on target than TcBs shorter distance and higher speed to go back and forth on target provides a higher amounts of bombs even with less packing per flight.

In addition, there is many instances during WWII in which StBs were far less accurate than TcBs.
For example, B-17s misses in Battle of Midway against Nagumo’s Carriers compared to SBD Dauntless which sunk three Carriers.
Lancasters having a hard time to hit BB Tirpitz in Norway harbour.
Swordfishs making their marks on BB Bismarck.
The lower A3 is also a way to compare accuracy vs TcB, A4.
D-day carpet bombing too far from shore defenses.
I believe there is also friendly fire StBs bombing on Allies during assault on Caen.

That way, A3 StB would be a less interesting in combat against units and more useful for SBR.

In case you ask me, I think too many combined arms possibilities makes the game too complex, so maybe just go for infantry and artillery, since the cooperation between aircrafts and land units in 1940 were more random.

I think Tacs should attack on 4 and defend on 3, since they could add surprise to the attack. Its true that combining air ground support to fast moving land units like Tanks is a firepower multiplikator, but it was not that great in 1940, maybe let Tacs boost Tanks as a Tech is more historical correct ? Same with the Fighter combo, the fighter escort offers protection so the Tacs can do their ground support, but in that case it would be better to have a dogfight sequence to get air supremacy before the general combat, like the A&A 1914 battleboard have.

Strategicall Bombers should be just that, strategicall, they should bomb factories and facilities, and maybe the occasional carpet bombing of infantry stacks, but they should never act as long range fighters, like they do currently. Bombers do roll two dice against facilities, so why not roll several dice against infantry stacks and call it carpet bombing ? Either two dice of 2 or less as hit, or four dice with every 1 as hit. That would make sense. Heavy but un accurate barrage to weaken and soften the enemy far away. Then Tacs can be the accurate pin point ground support unit that can target specific units like Tanks, together with attacking land units. In fact, Stukas acted as long range artillery from above that softened the defense to help the Panzer Divisions break through the enemy line.

In this game Tanks works wrong too, they should be like the Tanks in the A&A 1914 edition, Tanks should absorb two hits, because massing of tanks work like a shock wave that run over the enemy, or scatter them, before they can defend themselves. Some kind of hex and counter wargames usually got two kind of combat, the Blitz attack and the Assault, but that is a step up the complexity ladder.

Fighters should do dogfight and struggle for air supremacy, and not do the job of the Bombers. They could strafe land units, but at a 1 or 2 as hits, not the 3 or 4. Add an air to air sequence before the general combat, like A&A 1914 got. Fighters cost like 6 or 8 IPC but roll attack on 1 and defend on 2, both against other aircrafts and against land units. There are no way a WWII Fighter had stronger firepower against land units than a Tank.

Naval combat is different from land combat. Naval combat takes a day, land combat goes on for weeks and months.
I will come back to this later, wife calls now….

We share a common basis about what units should do to better depict WWII combat.
As you probably know, I rather prefer a Fg at 6 IPCs with A2 D2 M4 which target planes first. It depicts dogfight without the need for additional phase, like a prior air battle similar to A&A 1914.

Here is how it can be done inside actual game mechanic and OOB cost structure:

@Baron:

FIGHTER A3 D4 M4 Cost 8
Air combat unit, Fighter as an Air Superiority aircraft: All “1” or “2” rolls are allocated to aircraft units first, if any available, then AAA, and finally other kind of units.

Just consider that Fg cost is 10 IPCs in the quote.

@Baron:

@LHoffman:

You are getting closer. It all comes down to how well the rules work in gameplay. Unfortunately the only way to assess that is at least a couple playtests. If your method works better then I am all for it.

What I was getting at by assigning any Tac rolls of 1 to hit tanks first was to build on your tagline of the Tac as a “tank buster”. Even in the rules you just revised, Tac rolls of 1 will still go against fighters and AA before tanks. My concern is twofold: (1) air forces are going to be obliterated with 3 unit types essentially targeting them and (2) tactical bombers were just that, bombers, not fighters. Their mission is not air superiority but land/sea attack. To be accurate their assigned hits should go to specific ground units, i.e. tanks.

Also, air superiority was not a necessity for ground/sea attack by tactical bomber aircraft. The Soviets did not have total air superiority at Kursk, yet their Sturmovik attack aircraft destroyed huge numbers of German tanks. US planes in the Pacific rarely had complete air superiority when attacking Japanese held islands or ships, yet dive and torpedo bombers were able to successfully attack their ground targets; sometimes even without fighter support.

Your system is logical, but I fear it is becoming a little too complicated. It is understandable, but there are multiple steps and if-thens to check up on during the battle. I think if it were simplified down to: _- Fighter rolls of 1 and 2 assigned to aircraft first, then AA

• Tac rolls of 1 assigned to (pick a land unit) first, then anything else_

you would have a more straightforward and easily navigable system. Just my 2 cents though.

I concede. You prove your point.
Interesting historical evidences provided.

So, I would rather go with something like this:

TACTICAL BOMBER A4 D3 M4 Cost 12 in the near OOB scale cost (must be the same price as StBs)
Tactical Bomber viewed as a “Dive Bomber” and a “Tank Buster”:
All “1” rolls are allocated to planes first, if any available, then you can pick any kind of ground units.
_All “2” rolls can be allocated to any kind of ground units available.*

SBR/TcBR Attack @1 First Strike,
Allowed to do escort mission for Strategic Bomber without doing Tactical Bombing Raid on Air Base or Naval Base,
Bombers (StBs or TcBs) are the first targets destroyed by interceptors.
Cannot do interception mission on defense,
TcBR damage: 1D6.

Can hit submarines without Anti-Sub Vessel.

---

*** That way, on “2” roll, it will be up to the TacBs owner to select either a costly Tank or a cheaper AAA (because, it can directly fire at TcBs) if he prefers so. More tactical decisions in players’ hands, I like that.

For the “1” roll still hiting planes directly, here is my explanation:
I can not let TcBs undefended against Fighters direct defense or attack.
Simply figure that you have 3 TcBs on offense against 3 Fgs on defense.
If the battle is going on for a few combat rounds because there is many ground units involved on both sides, the attacker will loose all his TcBs after 3 rounds (3 Fgs hitting on a 1 or 2 each combat round= avg 1 hit/round).

The ability to hit enemy’s aircraft on “1”, is first to outweight the Fighter advantage against bombers.
Otherwise, any 1 Fg will be a deterrent to attack with bombers, even in large numbers, if there is no escorting Fgs to be picked up as fodder.

For TcBs, a “1” roll can be rationalize as there is some air-to-air dogfight and some air-to-ground attack against airfields and AAA defense.
For StBs, a “1” roll on attack can be rationalize as air-to-air of Strategic bombers flight defense with machine guns, the same way as in SBR.

Is it better now?

To add another different POV on TcB, I would boost it to make it an Anti-Sub Weapon:
@Baron:

@Young:

1. Air units and submarines can’t hit one another… ever.

Here is one of my post with links to historical depictions of the Aircrafts and Anti-Subwarfare relations.
Exploring this subject lead me to the other direction than OOB on planes against Subs.

About your HR, I can add that I was influenced by your DD vs Sub pairing when I develop some game mechanics on Convoy Raiding for 1942.2 first, then G40 with the help of Black_Elk.

@Baron:

Once this said, I think TacB is the newest (except for AAA guns) unit introduced and can have a better place and much more historical feel in relation to SBR escort and intercept (air vs air combat) rules, and vs regular combat: ground and naval.
(As for now, I’m just thinking that TacBs should have a combat value against Subs (not Fighters), even without DDs, they represent Dive and Torpedos bombers after all.)

I was curious to look what was the historical background and basis of this assumption about TacB against Fg vs Subs.
I was surprised that my intuitive thinking have some truth behind:
I just discovered that the Fighter F4F Wildcat was part of Antisubmarine Warfare and was able to sink 21 Submarines U-boats but never by itself. All of them were credited to another aircraft also.

Service in the Atlantic Ocean

Best known for their contributions in the Pacific, the Wildcats and Martlets also gave reputable service in the Atlantic. This usually took the form of operating from an escort carrier attached to a convoy or a hunter-killer group. These Wildcats were responsible for intercepting German bombers and, in conjunction with other types, finding and attacking U-boats. The six-gun armaments of the F4F-4, Martlet II, and Martlet IV were particularly effective in suppressing the anti-aircraft guns of the U-boats so that larger, slower bombers could more safely attack with depth bombs or homing torpedoes. The threat of strafing by a Wildcat would often persuade a U-boat to submerge, reducing the chance of catching a convoy. Additionally, the Wildcats could summon bombers and surface escorts to engage U-boats. Known to be rugged and forgiving, the Wildcat’s performance limitations were not a significant handicap in the Atlantic, where there were no enemy fighters to contend with.

U-boats lost to Wildcat/Martlet aircraft

(When fighting U-boat Wildcat normally shielded her larger sister the Avenger while the latter dropped depth charges or acoustic torpedoes. Both planes were given credit in such cases.)

http://uboat.net/allies/aircraft/wildcat.htm

On the contrary, TBF Avenger were clearly part of Submarine killing:

Service in the Atlantic Ocean

In the Atlantic, the Avenger was the obvious choice for use aboard British and American escort carriers in screening convoys and hunting down U-boats. Avengers would sight surfaced U-boats, and swoop down on them in a glide bombing approach, releasing multiple 250-pound, 325-pound, or (most often) 500-pound depth bombs. If the U-boat put up accurate flak, the Avenger pilot might choose to circle out of range wait for other aircraft to assist. Grumman Wildcat fighters, with either four or six heavy machine guns, were often effective at subduing the U-boat’s flak battery so that the Avengers could more safely make their attacks. Later the Avenger’s arsenal included rockets for use on surfaced U-boats and, after mid-1943, a super-secret anti-submarine homing torpedo known as the Mark 24 Fido (also called Zombie). Various versions of the Avenger were fitted with radar for finding submarines or surface ships, with sonobuoys to track submerged submarines, and with flares and searchlights for illuminating potential targets at night. Avengers were known to carry combinations of these devices, such as two 500-pound depth bombs, one Fido, radar, flares, and sonobuoys.

American escort carrier air groups sank, or assisted in sinking, 35 submarines in the Atlantic. Most, perhaps all, of these kills must have been made by Avengers. To this total must be added the achievements of British Avengers. Additionally, Avengers flew anti-submarine patrols from land bases, and laid mines.

http://uboat.net/allies/aircraft/avenger.htm

This means to me that, from an historical POV, against submarine unit, a TacB unit should be better over the Fg unit.
So I think there is room to improve the historical representation of TcB and Fg units in A&A G40.

---

Maybe TacBomber unit should have (along with StBs) a specific capacity against Submarine unit.
Or
While giving Fgs an Anti-aircraft capacity, at the same time, making them unable to destroy Submarine unit.
This could better reenact somehow the historical difference amongst these 2 G40 sculpts and sharpen the role of this new TcB unit, given each a more clearer identity, even with a strategical game level such as A&A G40.

---

As a side note, here someone talking from first hand:

Here is a canadian !!!  :evil: CVL HMCS Magnificent (a Majestic-class CVL-21) Launch in nov. 1944 but only commissionned 1948.
25 knots, 12 000 nmiles, 37 planes on board.
Around 4min. 40s. the captain of this Light Carrier unit says:
He had 2 types of planes on board:
anti-submarines aircrafts ASW (Avengers) and
fighters aircrafts against planes to protect the carrier.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zvnz06-MRc**

Here is a pretty good explanation  about what type of aircraft can do or not do:
@CWO:

@Baron:

But, I’m sure that you have yet made your idea about the main categories, no?
Or, on the other side, what shouldn’t have a plane to be in the Fg category instead of the TcB, according to you?

I’m going to go out on a bit of a limb here by proposing my own generic definition of the three aircraft types mentioned in the A&A rules.  It’s a personal definition, so there’s nothing gospel about it, but I hope it will provide you with a useful basis for thinking about these three very broad aircraft types.  And I’ll immediately add these qualifiers: 1) the A&A StBm, TacBm and Ftr categories are in many ways artificial categories created for game purposes; and 2) in the real world of WWII, some aircraft could be seen as fitting a very narrow type but others were very versatile multi-mission aircraft – especially when their model variants are taken into account – which could serve effectively in many roles.

So, with those qualifiers out of the way, here’s how I see those categories.

A fighter is an aircraft whose primary mission is to shoot down other aircraft in air-to-air combat (bombers, other fighters, ground-attack planes, reconnaissance planes, or whatever).  Aircraft well suited to this primary mission are typically fast and maneuverable; fighters with an exceptionally high rate of climb are sometimes described as interceptors.  In WWII, their primary armament for air-to-air combat usually consisted of machine guns and/or small automatic cannons (typically 20mm).  In very, very general terms (since exceptions exist), they tended to be smaller than bombers – though this was sometimes very relative depending on the specific aircraft types being compared.  Fighters tend to be shorter-ranged than bombers: they carry less fuel (to avoid having the excess weight impair their maneuverability), and in active combat they consume fuel at a very high rate because they’re using their engine(s) at full power.  Drop tanks compensate for this fuel problem to some degree.  Fighters can attack ground targets (strafing being one such form of attack), but a fighter which is optimzed for air-to-air combat is not ideal in the ground-attack role, since the sighting mechanisms, the weapons and the aerodynamic characteristics required for the two roles are different. (Basically, air-to-air combat requires high maneuverability at high speeds, while ground-attack missions require high stability and steadiness at low speeds.  A high-performance air-superiority fighter flown at the combat engagement speed of a ground-attack aircraft might very well stall and crash.)

In A&A terms, the way I’d distinguish a tactical bomber from a strategic bomber would be to say that a tactical bomber has the primary mission of attacking highly specific (and often moving) targets on the ground or in the water, while a strategic bomber has the primary mission of attacking more geographically diffuse (and usually static) targets on the ground (but almost never in the water). To put it another way: tactical bombers function a bit like tank guns (which fire a single shell in a straight line at a specific target at short range), while strategic bombers function a bit like howitzers (which fire a barrage of shells in a high, indirect curve towards a general target area at long range).

To highlight this distinction, I’m going to switch at this point from the term “tactical bomber” (which I feel is too problematic) to “strike aircraft” (also known as “attack aircraft” or “surface-attack aircraft”).  Such planes fall into many subtypes, such as tank-buster planes, dive bombers, fighter-bombers, torpedo bombers, light bombers, and the fuzzy category of multi-mission strike planes.  Their common characteristic is that their mission involves attacking very specific (and often fairly small) individual targets (such as a tank, a train or a ship) with a high degree of precision, usually from a very low altitude.  In WWII, strike aircraft carried such ordnance as bombs (small to medium sized) and/or rockets, and some were equiped with heavy automatic cannons (around 35mm).  Their weapon load was almost always very limited in quantity.  They had good aerodynamic performance at low altitude (where the air is denser that at high altitude) and at low speeds (which was necessary to allow them to aim accurately at their targets, especially when these were very small).  Strike aircraft often provided direct, on-the-spot support to friendly forces, and thus often operated close to the front lines. They had some ability to defend themselves against other aircraft, but were not optimized for that role and hence were typically at a disadvantage when engaging fighters (since fighters are optimized to shoot down other planes, in the same way that an agile attack submarine is better at killing other subs than an unwieldy ballistic missile submarine, even though both types are armed with torpedoes).

Strategic bombers, as I’ve already said, had the primary mission in WWII of attacking more geographically diffuse (and usually static) targets on the ground.  In WWII (pre-smart bomb days), this usually meant attacking areas rather than specific individual targets: one example would be cities, but other examples from June 1944 would be the coastal defenses on the Normandy coast and the areas of the French bocage countryside where German troops were dug in.  WWII strategic bombers tended to be big, long-range, relatively slow aircraft.  They tended to carry a large payload of bombs (explosive or incendiary), which they tend to drop from a high altitude (though not always).  They tended to conduct raids deep behind enemy lines.  Their accuracy in WWII was pretty bad by the laser-guided standards of 2014; even in daylight, with the aid of the Norden bombsight, the Americans didn’t have an easy time taking out specific targets even when they were as large as factory complexes (for example the Schweinfurt ball bearing plant).  Their performance against moving surface ships tended to be poor (the B-17s which attacked the Japanese fleet at Midway scored no hits as I recall), though there were exceptions (such as the ASV/Leigh Light ASW planes I mentioned previously).  Even against big, static naval targets – such as the Tirpitz at Trondheim – they were lucky to hit targets which were that specific.  Their organic defensive capabilities varied depending on the specific type (the American B-17 and B-29 were well-armed by bomber standards), but this protection was marginal at best against full-fledged enemy fighters flown by good pilots.  The best protection for a bomber was an escort fighter, especially a long-range one which could stay at the bomber’s side for the whole mission.

I like the idea of giving tac bmrs target abilities. I recall Larry even saying that they tested the tac bmr with some kind of targeting ability when developing G40 but didn’t go into detail (table scraps).

I think that the tac should be able to target higher end units on land or at at sea in normal battles to some limited level. Ftrs should also be able to run escort for them killing off enemy frts trying to intercept, or work as interceptors against incoming tacs/sbmr in defense.

I’m not crazy about an extra dog fight type step in normal battles. I would be more inclined to look at any time an attacking or def tac rolls a “1” it chooses target on land or sea (air chosen last).

Similarly when a ftr rolls a “1” in attack or def that hit is applied to air units first (enemy still chooses).

I would probably make the tac a 3/3 unit (same attack as def), and take away the combines arms pairing. I would probably also leave the cost the same for both units (ftr-10, tac-11) because both ftrs and tacs would be getting an upgrade. Don’t think you would make either cheaper because they will be taking out more expensive stuff. Don’t want to go higher because there will be more attrition to air units as well.

I read in the other posts that if ftrs are allowed to take out enemy planes then there would be too much attrition to tacs and S bmrs. That might be true, but air superiority should account for something, and it would force you to have ftrs on hand. I also think that there should be a defender retreat option especially for air.

Now the strat bmr, yea I’m tired of it being a flying one hit battleship at sea.

It should be geared more to SBR and carpet bombing. I’m not in the camp of giving it no attack value at sea because it has been a long time standard in AA.

Probably lower its attack value to 2, def 1, move 6, cost 12. Give it one dice at sea, two dice in land battles (carpet bombing). Leave SBR OOB (two dice). To make it worth the cost allow it drop para trooper in combat, or transport one inf in NCM.
With attack at 2 it won’t dominate the sea

Interesting idea to give two dice to roll in land combat.
That way, you can keep similar odds with OOB while reducing to 1 dice roll against naval target but still keeping the same to hit number.
Strategic bomber unit may keeps odds near 4/6 (24/36) to hit (4/36, hit twice, 16/36 hit once = 20/36 to hit which is 4/36 lower odds against a single roll @4) with two rolls @ 2/6 on land and 1 roll @2 at sea.
On SBR, 2 rolls for damage is an increase from 5.5 to 7.0, but playing with A2 D2 escort-interceptor vs A1 bomber makes it balanced.

Lots of great ideas on this subject already and as it pertains to an air units revision overall.

To the question, yes, I do occasionally buy Tacs when my current situation warrants it. Fighters are still more useful overall in the standard game though, IMO. But with a Tac Attacking on 4 with fighters OR tanks present is a huge plus. I would propose to revise that ability per the comments of some below.

@Narvik:

In case you ask me, I think too many combined arms possibilities makes the game too complex, so maybe just go for infantry and artillery, since the cooperation between aircrafts and land units in 1940 were more random.

Agreed. Too much is not good. Combined arms should be offered only when logical or to incentivize purchase or give certain units a unique aspect (assuming you want to add a couple of unit types not in the OOB game). The Tac-Tank boost is not rooted in very much tactical logic but rather in the tagline of a blitzkrieg propaganda poster.

@Narvik:

I think Tacs should attack on 4 and defend on 3, since they could add surprise to the attack.

Disagree. Simply giving Tacs a 4 Attack (without even requiring pairing with a Tank or Fighter) immediately makes Strategic Bombers irrelevant. Why buy a Str Bomber at higher cost with lower defense when you can get a Tac cheaper and harder hitting? Yes Str Bomber has greater range, but the defense tradeoff is worth more IMO.

If you mean Tacs attack @ 4 only in first round (e.g. surprise like subs), that is much more reasonable.

@Narvik:

In this game Tanks works wrong too, they should be like the Tanks in the A&A 1914 edition, Tanks should absorb two hits, because massing of tanks work like a shock wave that run over the enemy, or scatter them, before they can defend themselves.

Giving tanks a 2 hit absorption at 6 IPCs is way too much. IMO there is no single land or air unit that should have 2 hits to destroy. Tanks would be the closest thing, but you would have to increase their cost to compensate. Still… if you did that you would de-incentivize their purchase because Powers with less money wouldn’t spend that much for them. Making them 2 hits and adding to cost, even if not doubling the cost to 12, further dilutes the Tank’s power-to-cost ratio; it just makes them less useful. Additionally, the Tank unit in A&A is perhaps the most diverse single unit type represented. A single 6 IPC cost tank sculpt represents an equivalent force for the Germans as it does for the Japanese. Germany produced some of the biggest and best tanks of the war. Japan produced some of the smallest and least effective. Yet when you buy a tank in A&A, everyone buys a unit of the same capability. To that point, there were many more light and medium tanks seen in the war than KV-1s and Tigers.

@Narvik:

Fighters should do dogfight and struggle for air supremacy, and not do the job of the Bombers. They could strafe land units, but at a 1 or 2 as hits, not the 3 or 4. Add an air to air sequence before the general combat, like A&A 1914 got. Fighters cost like 6 or 8 IPC but roll attack on 1 and defend on 2, both against other aircrafts and against land units. There are no way a WWII Fighter had stronger firepower against land units than a Tank.

I do like this and it plays into completely revising the air unit structure.

@WILD:

I like the idea of giving tac bmrs target abilities. I recall Larry even saying that they tested the tac bmr with some kind of targeting ability when developing G40 but didn’t go into detail (table scraps).

I think that the tac should be able to target higher end units on land or at at sea in normal battles to some limited level. Ftrs should also be able to run escort for them killing off enemy frts trying to intercept, or work as interceptors against incoming tacs/sbmr in defense.

I’m not crazy about an extra dog fight type step in normal battles. I would be more inclined to look at any time an attacking or def tac rolls a “1” it chooses target on land or sea (air chosen last).

Similarly when a ftr rolls a “1” in attack or def that hit is applied to air units first (enemy still chooses).

I would probably make the tac a 3/3 unit (same attack as def), and take away the combines arms pairing. I would probably also leave the cost the same for both units (ftr-10, tac-11) because both ftrs and tacs would be getting an upgrade. Don’t think you would make either cheaper because they will be taking out more expensive stuff. Don’t want to go higher because there will be more attrition to air units as well.

I read in the other posts that if ftrs are allowed to take out enemy planes then there would be too much attrition to tacs and S bmrs. That might be true, but air superiority should account for something, and it would force you to have ftrs on hand. I also think that there should be a defender retreat option especially for air.

Now the strat bmr, yea I’m tired of it being a flying one hit battleship at sea.

It should be geared more to SBR and carpet bombing. I’m not in the camp of giving it no attack value at sea because it has been a long time standard in AA.

Probably lower its attack value to 2, def 1, move 6, cost 12. Give it one dice at sea, two dice in land battles (carpet bombing). Leave SBR OOB (two dice). To make it worth the cost allow it drop para trooper in combat, or transport one inf in NCM.
With attack at 2 it won’t dominate the sea

WILD BILL got it about all right here. Can’t say I disagree with anything.

Targeting ability is a must in developing a useful Tac. I am not crazy about another step in combat (e.g. dogfight phase) either. Just assign or stratify hits based on rolled numbers.

@LHoffman:

@Narvik:

Fighters should do dogfight and struggle for air supremacy, and not do the job of the Bombers. They could strafe land units, but at a 1 or 2 as hits, not the 3 or 4. Add an air to air sequence before the general combat, like A&A 1914 got. Fighters cost like 6 or 8 IPC but roll attack on 1 and defend on 2, both against other aircrafts and against land units. There are no way a WWII Fighter had stronger firepower against land units than a Tank.

I do like this and it plays into completely revising the air unit structure.

For Fighter, it can be simply done by using “1” or “2” roll as direct hit on enemy’s plane.
That way, all "3"s and "3 or 4"s, on defense, gonna be allocated on ground units.

If there is no enemy’s plane you can decide that “1” “2” roll have no effect.

@LHoffman:

Giving tanks a 2 hit absorption at 6 IPCs is way too much.

Agree, so lets borrow some rules from other wargames.

The first round of combat is a Surprise Attack, if units with surprise ability is present.

So you attack with 5 Subs, and they got a surprise sneak first shot attack, or preemptive roll as you say. Unless an enemy Destroyer is present. This makes sense to all of us, even to the historical correct ones. I would say that Subs should only do sneak attacks in the first round of combat, since after they are detected it were very easy to defend against them, it was only the Subs first shot that was difficult to protect against. But for game playability the Designer gave first shot to Subs in every round of combat, even if that is historically wrong.

Lets take this to land combat. If you got Combined Arms with Tanks and Tacs, then you can claim Blitzkrieg Surprise attack for the first round of combat. Every Tank absorb one extra hit, like in the A&A 1914 Rules, and every Tac roll 4 or less for hit. This model the shock wave that made Tanks break through the enemy line, and Tacs are the long range flying artillery that softened up the enemy before the Tanks come rolling. All this is historical correct. But like Destroyers negate the Subs surprise attacks, lets say that defending, or intercepting fighters as is more correct, can negate the Surprise attack of Tanks and Tacs ? That will make sense too.

But most important of all, intercepting fighters or not, the Surprise Attack is always the first round of combat only. If there is a second round of combat, the Tanks will not absorb any more hits, and the Tacs will hit on 3 or less, because the surprise is gone, and for the next rounds they slugg it out man to man.

@Narvik:

@LHoffman:

Giving tanks a 2 hit absorption at 6 IPCs is way too much.

Agree, so lets borrow some rules from other wargames.

The first round of combat is a Surprise Attack, if units with surprise ability is present.
So you attack with 5 Subs, and they got a surprise sneak first shot attack, or preemptive roll as you say. Unless an enemy Destroyer is present. This makes sense to all of us, even to the historical correct ones. I would say that Subs should only do sneak attacks in the first round of combat, since after they are detected it were very easy to defend against them, it was only the Subs first shot that was difficult to protect against. But for game playability the Designer gave first shot to Subs in every round of combat, even if that is historically wrong.

Lets take this to land combat. If you got Combined Arms with Tanks and Tacs, then you can claim Blitzkrieg Surprise attack for the first round of combat. Every Tank absorb one extra hit, like in the A&A 1914 Rules, and every Tac roll 4 or less for hit. This model the shock wave that made Tanks break through the enemy line, and Tacs are the long range flying artillery that softened up the enemy before the Tanks come rolling. All this is historical correct. But like Destroyers negate the Subs surprise attacks, lets say that defending, or intercepting fighters as is more correct, can negate the Surprise attack of Tanks and Tacs ? That will make sense too.

But most important of all, intercepting fighters or not, the Surprise Attack is always the first round of combat only. If there is a second round of combat, the Tanks will not absorb any more hits, and the Tacs will hit on 3 or less, because the surprise is gone, and for the next rounds they slugg it out man to man.

Narvik,
you seems to describe a tactical naval situation into a strategic level game.
Each turn is around 4 to 6 months of wartime evolution.
With Subwarfare, it is not possible to battle continuously each day.
There is a lot of lurking and waiting before a battle occurs.
Each combat round of naval combat can depicts a single assault, that way it is correct that Submarine have a surprise strike opportunity when no DD can protect other warships.

However, on land combat, your idea of a first combat round surprise strike seems to apply and depict the first few days of an invasion, after time, the surprise effect of shock and awe is no longer a factor in battle. IMO, giving the surprise strike to TcB when paired to Tank if no enemy’s Fighter is present seems very interesting to depict Blitzkrieg.
On Attack @4, it makes more sense to give it to TcB than StB.
The price of both can rise to same 12 IPCs.
StB can get
Attack 3
Defense 2
Move 6,
for 11 points while
TcB gets
Attack 4
Defense 3
Move 4
for 11 points too.
That way it stay balanced.

Here is where I got this idea above:
@Baron:

@aequitas:

I would not play around with the cost and the abillity of the Bmbrs.
I would rather consider a change of Naval surface ships abilities like:

Cruiser’s and BB’s have the ability of AA guns for one round.
After that regular combat.

What do you think?

I play with 1 preemptive AA shots per Cruiser and Battleship.
It is not enough IMO.

I like this new idea from Wittmann of a basic A2 boost to A4 if paired 1:1 with 1 Fg or 1 TcB.
Better reflect some limitations of Bomber, specially against Naval.

In my mind this gives:
StB A2-4 D1 M6-7 cost 12, pairing 1:1 with Fg or TcB gives +2 Attack.
TcB A4 D3 M4-5 cost 11, no need for combined arms.

---

I forgot, but I also suggested these straighter ones, no combined arms:
STRATEGIC BOMBER
12 IPCs A3 D2 M6 +1M with AB
SBR Damage 1D6+2

TACTICAL BOMBER
11 IPCs A4 D3 M4 +1M with AB
TBR damage 1D6

@Baron:

@theROCmonster:

That’s understandable. If they changed bombers to 2 attack than the way defense rules work on Strategic bombing runs would be fine. Have Strategic bombers be used for bombing more than threat projection. They still can have threat projection because of their range, but they wouldn’t be the god unit they are now.

In that case, I would live with a more strategic target oriented bomber:

Tactical Bomber
Attack 4
Defense 3
Move 4 +1 with AB
Cost 12
TBR dmg: 1D6
Attack 1

Strategic Bomber:
Attack 2
Defense 2
Move 6 +1 with AB
Cost 12
SBR dmg : 2D6
Attack 1

Fighter
Attack 3
Defense 4
Move 4 +1 with AB
Cost 10
SBR:
Attack 2
Defense 2

Such Strategic bomber should combined arms with Fighter to give an increase range to re-enact long range escorting mission. Just suppose that pairing with StBs is like adding drop tanks to Fighter to get an increased range for such mission. When starting from Air Base, this can simulate special long range aircraft such as P-51 Mustang.

Strategic Bomber:
Attack 2 or 3, if paired 1:1 with Fg
Defense 2
Move 6 +1 with AB
Cost 12
SBR dmg : 1D6 +2
Attack 1
**StB gives to a matching Fg starting from the same TTy +1M bonus when attacking the same TTy, in NCM Fighter can reach  another TTy than escorted StB.

Strategic bomber gets +1A bonus from a matching Fighter.**

Fighter
Attack 3
Defense 4
Move 4-6, +1 with Air Base and +1M paired 1:1 with Strat Bomber
Fighter gives to a matching StB +1A bonus.
Cost 10
SBR:
Attack 2
Defense 2

This last idea coming from this post:

@Baron:

Thinking about a way to make StBs and Fgs complementary units, here is a special combined arms:
StB gives to a matching Fg starting from the same TTy +1M bonus during SBR phase only.
Fg gives to a matching StB +1A bonus.
That way, Fg starting from AB would do long range escorting mission.

And tactical bomber can have high attack value and a special Blitzkrieg attack with Tank:

Tactical Bomber
Attack 4 * first strike, paired 1:1 with Tank
Defense 3
Move 4 +1 with AB
Cost 12
TBR dmg: 1D6
Attack 1
*Blitzkrieg : if paired 1:1 with Tank, gets a single first strike attack on first combat round.