Those who play Global 36/39 vs AAG40



  • In AAG40 Bombers are way overpowered. In Global 36 this was rectified. In your games How do you alter SBR?
    In Global 36 Bombers get SBR and Carpet bombing by rolling various dice configurations for rolls of 3 or less max. This is good but what I do not like is Bombers not having to roll for finding the target.
    Why also are AA guns not actually battle units fighting every round? Also in many games 1 SBR attack has totally nullified a major factory with the 20 point damage. This is unrealistic as well. Max damage should be 10 for a major factory that produces 10 units…thoughts?



  • 1 Bomber can only do 8 total damage to a major factory ( so no 1 bomber can totaly cripple it )

    It is logicaly that you do more damage then the factory can produce, you also need to rebuild the factory before it can actualy produce something.
    And currelty Strat bombing is just about worth it if you calculate average losses.

    Think a bit bigger scale, it isnt 1 factory it is the total production of a country so a few big industrial complexes those are not hard to find, if your off half a mile you still hit.
    1 bomber isnt 1 plane it is more like a division.

    For AA hitting only once, well they are also hitting planes directly so they go against the A&A rules there.
    Though i would like it if they would just always use 3 dice so attacking with just 1 plane against it would be verry painfull. But that would make it harder on the allies as germany has a good amount of AA with their russia invasion army and japan can overwhelm the few AA guns in the area anyway


  • 2018 2017

    the strategic bombing is a compromise between being not too complex, being a worthy amount of damage considering the risk to your bombers, and also having a fair chance of stopping the raid.  Even though there are some objections, the balance seems well struck.

    In our last game 108, I was forced to defend Japan after Iwo was taken.  I attacked the US fleet and won, keeping 7 fighters.  From that point on, it was a duel between 7-12 us bombers and the same number of Japanese fighters, he paralyzed me by bombing Tokyo and all my other inland complexes.  I couldn’t rebuild my fleet obviously, it was a very effective KJF.

    So, I’m interested in the Global war rules for sure but the cost and curve are a bit intimidating.



  • @taamvan:

    the strategic bombing is a compromise between being not too complex, being a worthy amount of damage considering the risk to your bombers, and also having a fair chance of stopping the raid.  Even though there are some objections, the balance seems well struck.

    Yes, it looks like the rules have become like this because of game balance. In the real world only 10 per cent of the Bombers got shot down, but with a 6 sided dice the casualties will get real high. To let each AA gun roll 3 dice in every round of combat would turn Bombing raids into suicide missions. Bombers would never be purchased any more, and people would make house rules that look similar to the current OOB rules.

    But one way that could work, if you really want each AA gun to roll 3 dice in every round of combat, no matter how many planes that attack, is to claim that when the AA gun roll a 1, then one enemy plane has to retreat and abort the mission. It now takes two 1s to kill a plane. This is in general combat of course, SBR against facilities is fine as is. So, the defender got 2 AA guns and you attack with 7 planes. I think resolving combat would be faster if the owner choose his casualties, and not the targeting we see now when you roll for Fighters, then roll for Tacs, and then roll again for the Bombers. Its only 1 IPC in difference between the 3 types so targeting would be unnecessary. So, the defender got 2 AA guns that roll 6 dice in the first round of combat, against 7 attacking planes. They roll three 1s. That is one kill and one abortion. I dont think AA guns should roll preemptive if they can roll in every round of combat, so the plane that is killed move to the casualties zone on the battle board and the plane that abort retreat to a friendly territory. Just a thought



  • If AA Guns become a battle unit then they would get 1 roll per turn…that would rectify that and a Radar Tech would then come in handy.
    In one game I got heavy bomber with the US, Japan brought 3 Carriers, 3 BB’s and an assorted surface ships to Invade the Canadian pacific north west territory. I had 4 fighters, 4 Tac bombers and 6 bombers. That was that to the Japanese fleet. I still had 2 surviving bombers. My Heavy bombers at 4 had like a 90% hit rate. Even though I won deep down I was thinking this is unrealistic as Bombers would be attacking at high altitude. Game reasons I was a happy camper



  • @Narvik:

    @taamvan:

    the strategic bombing is a compromise between being not too complex, being a worthy amount of damage considering the risk to your bombers, and also having a fair chance of stopping the raid.�  Even though there are some objections, the balance seems well struck.

    Yes, it looks like the rules have become like this because of game balance. In the real world only 10 per cent of the Bombers got shot down, but with a 6 sided dice the casualties will get real high. To let each AA gun roll 3 dice in every round of combat would turn Bombing raids into suicide missions. Bombers would never be purchased any more, and people would make house rules that look similar to the current OOB rules.

    But one way that could work, if you really want each AA gun to roll 3 dice in every round of combat, no matter how many planes that attack, is to claim that when the AA gun roll a 1, then one enemy plane has to retreat and abort the mission. It now takes two 1s to kill a plane. This is in general combat of course, SBR against facilities is fine as is. So, the defender got 2 AA guns and you attack with 7 planes. I think resolving combat would be faster if the owner choose his casualties, and not the targeting we see now when you roll for Fighters, then roll for Tacs, and then roll again for the Bombers. Its only 1 IPC in difference between the 3 types so targeting would be unnecessary. So, the defender got 2 AA guns that roll 6 dice in the first round of combat, against 7 attacking planes. They roll three 1s. That is one kill and one abortion. I dont think AA guns should roll preemptive if they can roll in every round of combat, so the plane that is killed move to the casualties zone on the battle board and the plane that abort retreat to a friendly territory. Just a thought

    There are 2 different questions and 2 different anwers they are not linked.

    Strat bombing as it is now is pretty much OK, the 13% losses vs the 10% losses does not account for the situation. Germany lost way more bombers during their campaign on average then the US. But those losses are also  not the same over the campain, at the start the losses where a lot higher but after the infrastructure and AA defenses where nearly destroyed the losses where less.

    About the current AA unit, it can only shoot at a maximum of 3 planes and only once for each plane, and only at the start of the combat.
    So the unit is kinda weak for its price @5ipcs.
    Changing it so it shoots 1 shot every round of combat would make it a bit to powerfull.
    So maby give it 3 shots regardless of the amount of planes attacking it, so it is really a defence against small number of planes but a lot of planes will not be changed.
    Or if that is 2 powerfull make it that every AA can shoot at a plane to a maximum of 3 shots so having multiple AA guns actualy makes a difference.
    Currently the starting AA units are used more as additional HP and not to defend against air.


  • 2018 2017

    The argument that it is not realistic in AxA doesn’t make much sense.  If it were more realistic, it would be cumbersome and ineffective if for no other reason than the completely unrealistic number of interceptors that the defender can build (esp. since B29 could not practically intercepted or hit by AAA at all) compared to how difficult it is to bring along escorting fighters in most circumstances.

    Strategic Bombing by the USAAF/UK Bomber Command would probably not have been successful at all, had Goering/Hitler not been a pair complete idiots and wasted the entire potential of the force on disparate, random objectives and attrition.

    If the FW190/Me262 projects had been functionally deployed instead of wasting massive resources on ground based guns, rockets, and developing nearly 50 types of aircraft that were never even produced, pretty much all daylight bombing (or all bombing, with enemy radar equipped night fighters) would have not been worth the risk to the bombers or the reward in terms of production capability diminished.  If Germany had formulated any plan to secure a fuel supply, what they did produce would not have been grounded and ineffectual.

    A very obvious “sustainability” metric was developed early on that if the number of bombers lost on each mission exceeded the ability of that country to replace airplanes and aircrew, that such a strategic offense could not be sustained in even the medium term and would be logically indefensible and unsuccessful as a failure to concentrate forces at the point of maximum return.  Fewer and fewer bombers on each mission creates diminishing returns and the Germans were able to repair most of the damage done until the number of attacks and their frequency became overwhelming.

    In the end, a concerted Strategic Defense by interceptors may still not have made the difference, because of the overwhelming numbers of US bombers coming online.  However, it likely would have made the offense fairly wasteful and ineffective.  Just as German losses in Russia were the reason that Germany could not defend the Atlantic Wall, The German losses in the Battle of Britain and Russian Front (and their obsession with offense) meant that they had little chance of hindering the bomber campaign.    This demonstrates that is the failures of Germany, not the successes or brilliance of the allies’ strategy that led to the Bomber campaigns perceived successes.

    In sum, the bombers were simply too vulnerable and expensive to make the damage they did worth it, except against a feckless and unprepared adversary, which they found in Germany.

    And, within 10 years of the end of the war, guided missiles put the entire concept in jeopardy, even though exponentially improved performance and damage (done by nuclear bombs) could no longer justify the use of strategic bombing at all (by 1968 or so).  Perhaps if Germany had not wasted their resources on the V2 and the Fritz X and instead focused on creating the first viable airborne interception missile, the air war would have had a different outcome.

    Applied to the game, SBR/Air War cannot realistically be tweaked (by changing #s, costs, or rules) because the proposed tweaks I have read tend to make SBR not worth the risks, or leave it slightly overpowered (I say this because the damage done by 2-4 bombers is all that is needed to wreck a player and im typically facing more like 8-10 of them).

    The only tweak I would endorse is reducing the damage bonus from +2 to +1.



  • Well said.

    Though any enemy that is attacking a major factory with more then 4 bombers is getting a much lower return on investment.

    You can defend your factory with 5+ defending fighters and if he attacks with more bombers then that just let the AA take 1 or 2 down. If he attacks with 4 or less scramble and have good odds against the bombers.

    Strat bombing isnt overpowered,
    it also isnt that unrealistic compared to the real world situation ( compared to the rest of the game i would say the most realistic component )
    In this version it kinda works, it is a fair risk fair gain thing.

    Though personaly i dont like it as you can get unlucky or lucky ( once shot down 2 japan strat bombers in 1 go japan wasnt happy as this was their verry first strat bombing to do )


  • 2018 2017

    I had a run in our game last weekend;  11 bombers came off Iwo for Tokyo on US5 or so;  my 10 fighters hit 3, my AAA hit 2 more.  Even killing 5 a turn, he could replace his losses with ease.



  • @taamvan:

    I had a run in our game last weekend;  11 bombers came off Iwo for Tokyo on US5 or so;  my 10 fighters hit 3, my AAA hit 2 more.   Even killing 5 a turn, he could replace his losses with ease.

    If his 60 ipcs losses a round is worth less then your 20 ipc loss a round you already lost the war big time.
    The bombers are not the problem at that point it is the rest of the board position.


  • 2018 2017

    I lost the war when I played my J1 opener and didn’t leave a warding force to keep him from taking Iwo.    Killed his fleet, didn’t matter;  with him having 5 fighters and 8-10 bombers I was dead meat.



  • Why didnt you just take it back and destroy his fighter/bomber force.
    With 3 transports and your airforce and navy you will trade his airforce for inf.
    Round 1 the US cannot afford to trade on a 10 vs 3 basis with japan.


  • 2018 2017

    His entire navy was there.  He moved up on US1, I J1d.  I moved south, he moved to Iwo with everything.  On J2-J3, we stood off.  I had only 1 transport up north, and once he moves to Iwo and builds both bases, he has you locked.  If you leave less than 1/2 of your total attack power up there on J3, he has a somewhat equal force.

    I destroyed his fleet, and he destroyed mine, I got the better of the battle and had plenty of planes left over.  However, he also noncomed a huge stack of air to Iwo and now, without a fleet, I couldn’t rebuild one.  Being able to only scramble 3 of the surviving planes over my force (or 6, but the korea planes and faciliites can also be bombed by the US stack), I couldn’t put ships in the water and I couldn’t spread my planes out because I needed them to scramble out over the SBR and in small stacks, they would get picked off (by bombers).

    The J1 is a good opener but my opponent knew the counter;  if I sent more than 2 carrier groups and all of my transports south, without a naval base on kwangsi I can’t return home.  I had no money for such a base.  Its simply a flaw in the J1;  you get some rewards and kills but the downside is that ANZAC can get some bonuses and the US can counter your aggressive play with aggressive play.



  • I know some players use a house rule (balance mode) where ftrs roll 2 or less in the dog fight (both interceptors and escorts), and attacking tacs and bmrs still roll at 1 in the dog fight. I don’t know if this is helping the SBR situation that some have posted as I’m just getting my feet wet with ftrs rolling at 2 or less for both sides in SBR (seems like the attacker could still over power the defender with a lot of aircraft).

    There was a time when the dog fight was 2 steps (alpha+2). Escorts (attacking ftrs) roiled at 1, and any hits were applied to interceptors (def ftrs) and they were immediately removed from play (didn’t get to fire). Then all attacking bmrs (strat and tacs) rolled at 1, and surviving interceptors rolled at 2 or less in the dog fight. Hits were then applied to both sides, but interceptor hits had to be applied to bmrs first (either strats or tacs), then to escorts if there were no bmrs left. Alpha+3 had a similar thing in the beginning where all attacking planes rolled at 1, hits then applied to interceptors that were immediately removed, then surviving interceptors fired at 2 or less and hits applied (attackers choice for casualties between bmrs and escort ftrs). I think it was to easy to keep interceptors grounded though, because with many air units attacking, the interceptors very well may not get a shot off. Plus if they had escorts you probably wouldn’t get to kill any bmrs if your interceptors did fire (because hits would be applied to escorts not bmrs).

    This was to simulate escorts defending their bmrs, and interceptors going straight for the attacking bmrs. Maybe there could be a one round dog fight as in balance mode (all ftrs roll at 2 or less), but any interceptor hits go to the attacking bmrs first. That way the defender has a chance to reduce the damage done if he puts interceptors in the air. Could also keep all ftrs rolling at 2 or less in the dog fight, but interceptors that roll “1” hit bmrs.

    I have also been looking at reducing strats in normal battles (don’t like the flying one hit battleships). I have played around with bmrs attacking at 3 or less, but it still seemed a bit much. Now I’m doing bmrs attack at 2 or less, but get two dice when attacking ground units (carpet bombing). I have also allowed strats to drop para/special forces units (one per bmr), and still get one dice at 2 or less in a ground battle (strat and cargo subject to AA). This seems to be working, and I’m also thinking about bmrs being able to move one inf or special forces unit in NCM (as long neither was used in combat). Really just trying to lower strats in combat, but give them more choices to keep the cost the same.

    As for AA guns, I also think they should be able to fire more than just in the opening round. I don’t like how they get their shot off, then are taken as the first casualty because they have no further use in most cases. I’ve been playing with each AA fire 2 shots in the opening round (max to how many attacking air units), and continue to fire 1 shot every round after (again maxed to how many attacking air units). They can be taken as a casualty at any time (pretty much keep them if enemy has air units). Maybe allow them to fire w/o regard to how many attacking air units would be better. If you have 3 AA guns, you fire 6 shots in the opening round even if they only have a couple planes.


  • 2018 2017

    There was a discussion last year about this, and the consensus seemed to be that if you upped the scramblers to 2 to hit, that SBR became unviable.  The dynamic the way it works now is punishing to the defender (though the damage can be avoided/reduced by using certain tactics), but its also potentially costly to the attacker–and if you make the defense stronger, it isn’t really justifiable for the big standoffs (over West Germany/Japan/UK/Moscow typically)

    Jon’s Mod:

    Strat Bomber 13
    Cruiser 11
    SBR bonus dice reduced to +1
    Free French added to the game instead of bid.



  • Heavy Bombers in reality attacking a fleet would be doing high altitude carpet bombing where as tactical bombers would be doing precision attacks or torpedo runs with higher probability of creating damage. Hence why this mechanic of the game is grossly over flawed.



  • @taamvan:

    There was a discussion last year about this, and the consensus seemed to be that if you upped the scramblers to 2 to hit, that SBR became unviable.   The dynamic the way it works now is punishing to the defender (though the damage can be avoided/reduced by using certain tactics), but its also potentially costly to the attacker–and if you make the defense stronger, it isn’t really justifiable for the big standoffs (over West Germany/Japan/UK/Moscow typically)

    Jon’s Mod:

    Strat Bomber 13
    Cruiser 11
    SBR bonus dice reduced to +1
    Free French added to the game instead of bid.

    I agree that if interceptors fired at 2 SBR would suffer, but risking your fighters to def at 1 is pretty lame IMO. Plus bmrs and ftrs firing at the same value in the dog fight just seems wrong to me.

    I have heard the case for allowing interceptors to fire at 2 or less in the dog fight, but taming it a bit.

    Roll 1 kill a plane (still attackers choice)
    Roll 2 and a bmr has to abort (took damage and had to turn back)

    That way the interceptors can do a better job def w/o more risk to the attacking bmrs


  • 2018 2017

    That’s a good idea Wild Bill.  It is lame to risk the fighters, but since you also get another AAA at 1, it can create some risk/attrition for the enemy.

    Just busted in to our new copy of 42.2 and lo and behold, the scramblers defend at 2.



  • Yes they seem to change the idea about 1 and 2 for defender a lot these days.

    Unfortunately we are limited to the D6 system otherwise a system with D12 where bombers hit on 1 attacking fighters on 2 and defending fighters on 3 would be better.

    Although it does make sense that bombers defend pretty well against dogfights, the B12 wasnt called flying fortress for no good reason.
    Most bombers had a lot of machineguns and when flown in proper formations where hard to attack with fighter aircraft. And we are not talking 1 bomber in this game but at least a squadron.


  • 2019 2017 '16

    I tend to think the best solution to SBR is making interceptors and escorts roll at 2. Otherwise it’s too difficult to defend against SBR. Sure a large escort force nullifies the defence but it also ties up a lot of planes on SBR.

    This fix is also in Balanced Mod.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 13
  • 41
  • 2
  • 5
  • 5
  • 17
  • 30
  • 3
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

102
Online

14.4k
Users

34.9k
Topics

1.4m
Posts