Strategic Bombing Raid (SBR): an alternate mechanic for 1942.2 and G40


  • 2017 '16

    "If it was the flak that caused the damage and forced bomber crews to jink their aircraft, thus making accurate bombing difficult, it was the venomously efficient night fighters that were the real killers." Flight-Lieutenant Alfred Price.

    http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/the-bombing-campaign-of-world-war-two/german-night-fighters/

    Based on the issues described below about the unrealistic depiction of A&A Strategic Bombing and Interception rules (too high unpredictable results, and all or nothing bombing damage on target), I would suggest a different way of playing the Industrial Complex AA Gun interactions against Strategic Bombers.
    This can also works for Tactical/Strategic Bombers against AA Gun from Air Base or Naval Base.

    @Baron:

    @simon33:

    I don’t even think it’s a that much a function of the D6. Think of how upsetting it would be if you were using a 20 sided dice rolling at a one and it hit!?

    I’d wonder if low luck for SBR AA would be better? Triple A can handle that. You have to ask the question then why not LL for normal AA.

    You made a good point IMO.
    Lower is the odds of making a hit, the higher AAA shot can be called “unpredictable” and can create hilarious or disastrous outcomes, depending of POV of defender or attacker.

    @ShadowHAwk:

    **The game is unrealistic with regards to strategic bombing.
    And yes with a D6 that is just really not something to be changed at all.

    Interception would take down a few bombers and the rest would just attack your facilities.
    In the game if you win the interception nothing happens no damage at all, if AA hits again no damage at all. Normaly you only shoot down a % of the bombers.
    Also attacking bomber formations would be able to defend themself and where known especialy later in the war to shoot down plenty of fighters so bomber defence @1 represents that.**

    The intercept @1 and the AA @1 just represent that fact, also the bombers rolling for damage iso just doing a fixed number represents that.
    It will never be realistic whatever houserule you devise and how balanced you say your houserule is.
    Its a game not a simulation if you really want to change the game to more realism move to D12 system or even D20 and overhaul the whole combat system then at least you can have more variance that isnt jumping up that much.

    Currently your return on investment that you can expect with a bomber is around 3 ipcs in total if you do strat bombing a lot, that bomber attacking in a land battle will hit and inf as well.
    And that is only if you attack a factory that needs to be used, If you bomb india for 6 damage they might completely ignore it and produce 4 units you did 0 damage but risked 12 ipcs worth of production.

    These points make a lot of sense.
    An all or nothing strategic bombing raid seems unhistorical.
    If flak and intercept hit, there is no damage while no hit makes for an highly damaged IC.
    The real things was in between. Extremes were exceptional event in WWII while mitigated raids were common, as far as I know.
    You make me think about an alternate way of doing SBR, without changing basic OOB StB A1 Fg A1 D1 combat values. I will post something in House rule later. Thanks.

    As I said above, air combat values remain the same:
    Strategic Bomber :
    Attack 1
    Defense 0
    Damage: 1D6+2

    Fighter:
    Attack 1
    Defense 1

    Tactical Bomber:
    Attack 1
    Defense 0
    Damage: 1D6

    Industrial Complex or Base:
    AAA Defense: reduce 1D6 damage per attack roll done on IC or Base, down to a minimum of zero damage.

    Here is how it works:
    If there is no Interceptor on IC or Base, each Strategic Bomber, one at a time, roll one D6 add 2, determining possible damage on IC or Base.
    One at a time, roll one D6 and subtract the result from previous damage roll.
    Any damage point is scored on the IC or Base.

    For example:
    2 StBs roll 3 and 5, for StB1: 5 and StB2: 7 possible damage.
    IC’s roll are 6 and 2.
    So, taking rolls in order: 5 minus 6 = -1 for zero damage from StB1 and 7 minus 2 = 5 damage from StB2
    IC receive 5 total damage.

    That way, a Bomber cannot be lost over IC or Base but the Bomber unit (depicting many squadrons) can somehow be “damaged” by AA gun to the point of doing no damage on target.
    We suppose this Bomber unit (bomber squadrons) is replenished and repaired afterward, once returned to a friendly territory in NCM phase.

    The only way to destroy StBs or TcBs is with intercepting Fighters.

    In the above example, let’s suppose 1 Fg was launched against two Strategic Bombers.
    Both StBs attack @1 and Fg defend @1. Casualties are removed. Same as usual OOB escort and intercept dogfight.
    Bombers proceed against IC and Base.

    The main interest of this method is that Bombers can only be destroyed by other combat unit while attacking bomber is less damaging to Complexs or Bases but no more destroyed by them. Lesser risks means lesser rewards, but it keeps the same average odds of making damage as OOB SBR (with higher risks and higher rewards). So, trying it will not be unbalancing in itself.

    Also, it is an incentive to commit Bombers to SBR/TBR mission (which are much lesser objective compared to regular combat targets implying multiple rounds between combat units). Because, if no regular combat available, attacker can assign to such lesser target with no fear of loosing these costly units for more important combat missions yet to come; and, if interception occurs, at least bombers share risks of loosing combat units with is opponent.

    The worse results if no interception will be a no damage at all, but still bombers were not use as ground support unit in other battle. This, in itself, is already a benefit for the defender.

    The overall average odds remain near OOB G40 SBR odds.
    But there is far less extreme results and swing.
    Average damage from StBs vs IC’s AA Gun is D6+2 minus D6 (82/36)= 2.278 damage points per StB.
    While OOB G40 SBR average is 4.583- 2 = 2.583 IPCs/ StB run on IC only.

    Damage on interceptor / damage on StB / D6+2 Damage on IC or Base = average damage per SBR

    1 StB vs 1 Fg gives +1.667 (1/610) - 2 (1/612) + 2.278 (82/36) = +1.945 IPCs  on average. [OOB G40: +1.819 IPC damage/SBR]

    1 StB vs 2 Fgs gives +1.667 (1/610) - 3.667 (11/3612) + 2.278 (82/36) = +0.278 IPCs on average.  [OOB G40: - 0.206 IPC damage/SBR]

    2 StBs vs 1 Fg gives +3.056 (11/3610) - 2 (1/612) + 4.556 (2*82/36) = +5.612 IPCs on average. [OOB G40: + 5.793 IPCs damage/SBR]

    Break even ratio approximate: .500 StB/Fg

    Approximate Interception Threshold: 5/4 = from 1.25 StB/Fg and below
    1 StB vs 1 Fg: 1.9453 = +5.835
    2 StBs vs 1 Fg: +5.612
    1 = +5.612
    5 StBs vs 4 Fgs =+11.447
    5 StBs vs no interception 5*2.278 = +11.390 IPCs  (Diff.:+ 0.057)

    Damage on interceptor / damage on TcB / D6 Damage on Base = average damage per TBR

    1 TcB vs 1 Fg gives +1.667 (1/610) - 1.833 (1/611) + 0.972 (35/36) = +0.806 IPCs  on average.

    1 TcB vs 2 Fgs gives +1.667 (1/610) - 3.361 (11/3611) + 0.972 (35/36) = -0.722 IPCs on average.

    2 TcBs vs 1 Fg gives +3.056 (11/3610) - 1.833 (1/611) + 1.944 (2*35/36) = + 3.167 IPCs on average.

    Break even ratio:
    1 TcB vs 1 Fg: +0.806
    1 TcB vs 2 Fgs: -0.722
    2 TcBs vs 3 Fgs = + 0.084
    Break even ratio: 2TcBs/3 Fgs = 0.667 TcB/Fg

    1 TcB vs 1 Fg: +0.8068= +6.448
    2 TcBs vs 1 Fg: +3.167
    1= +3.167
    10 TcBs vs 9 Fgs = +9.615
    1 TcB vs no Fg = +0.972*10= + 9.720  (Sum: -0.105)

    Approximate Interception Threshold: 10 TcBs/9 Fgs = from 1.111 TcB/Fg and below

    G40.2 SBR OOB
    Bomber A1
    Damage: 1D6+2
    Cost 12

    Fighter A1 D1
    Cost 10

    1 StB A1 doing SBR against 1 Fg D1
    D6+2: + 5.486 - 3.667 = +1.819 IPC damage/SBR

    StB A1 doing SBR against 2 Fgs D1
    D6+2: +4.85 - 5.056 = -0.206 IPCs damage/SBR

    *9= -1.854, 9 vs 18
    Net: (+1.819 - 1.854= ) -0.035
    For 1 StB vs 1 Fg

    • 9 StBs vs 18 Fgs
      Break even point: 10 StBs A1 C12 D6+2 vs 19 Fgs D1 C10
      Break even ratio: 10/19= 0.526 StB/Fg
      0.526*12=
      6.32 IPCs/10 IPCs = 0.632 offense/defense cost ratio

      Approximative Interception Threshold: from 1.55 StB/Fg and less
      31 StBs vs 20 Fgs =+80.094
      31 StBs vs no interception 31*2.583 = + 80.073
      So odds of damage are slightly lower with no interception (80.073-80.094= -0.021) but near zero differential.

    1942.2 Triple A SBR
    or Young Grasshopper G40.2 HR for StB not starting from Air Base

    Bomber A1
    Damage: 1D6
    Cost 12

    Fighter A1 D1
    Cost 10

    1 StB A1 D6 vs 1 Fg D1
    1 vs 1: +3.69 - 3.667 = +0.023 IPC damage/SBR
    *132= +3.036, 132 vs 132
    StB A1 D6 against 2 Fgs D1
    1 vs 2 : +2.025 - 5.056 = -3.031 IPCs damage/SBR
    Net: -0.005
    For 132 StBs vs 132 Fgs

    • 1 StBs vs 2 Fgs
      Break even point: 133 StBs A1 C12 D6 vs 134 Fgs D1 C10
      133/134= 0.9925 StB/Fg break even ratio
      11.91 IPCs/10 IPCs = 1.191 offense/defense ratio

    Approximative Interception Threshold: from 1.5 StBs/Fg and less
    3 StBs vs 2 Fgs: +2.760
    2 StBs vs 1 Fg : +8.403 - 5.666 = +2.737 IPCs
    1 StB vs 1 Fg : +3.69 - 3.667 = +0.023 IPC damage/SBR
    +2.917 - 2 = +0.917 IPC damage/SBR*3=
    +8.751 - 6 = +2.751 IPC damage/SBR for 3 StBs and no interception
    So odds of damage are slightly higher with interception (2.751 -2.760= -0.009) but very near zero differential.


    Regular Kid’s Balance Mode
    G40.2 SBR HR
    Bomber A1
    Damage: 1D6+2
    Cost 12

    Fighter A2 D2
    Cost 10

    2 StBs A1 against 1 Fgs D2
    1D6+2: +10.639 - 7.334 = + 3.304 IPCs damage/SBR
    *12=+39.648, 24 vs 12
    1 StB A1 vs 1 Fg D2
    1D6+2: + 4.723 - 5.333 = - 0.61 IPC dam/SBR
    *65= -39.650, 65 vs 65
    Net: -0.002
    For 24 StBs vs 12 Fgs

    • 65 StBs vs 65 Fgs
      Break even point: 89 StBs A1 C12 D6+2 vs 77 Fgs D2 C10
      1.156 StB/Fg break even ratio
      13.87 IPCs/10 IPCs = 1.39 offense/defense IPC ratio

    G1940 OOB SBR table:
    1 StB doing SBR without interceptor
    Sum: +4.583 - 2 = +2.583 IPCs damage/SBR run

    1 StB A1 against 1 Fg D1
    Sum: + 5.486 - 3.667 = + 1.819 IPC damage/SBR run

    1 StB A1 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D1
    Sum: + 4.85 - 5.056 = - 0.206 IPCs damage/SBR run

    1 StB & 1 Fg A1 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D1
    Sum: +7.775 - 5.33 = + 2.445 IPCs damage/SBR run

    2 StBs A1 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D1
    Sum: +10.973 - 7.334 = + 3.639 IPCs damage/SBR run

    1 StB & 1 Fg A1 doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fg D1
    Sum: + 7.639 - 3.667 = + 3.972 IPCs damage/SBR run

    2 StBs A1 doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fg D1
    Sum: +11.459 - 5.666 = + 5.793 IPCs damage/SBR run


    A more interesting variant can be with these combat values (which can use a game board version of Balanced Mode air combat values for Fighter A2 D2), because there is a wider optimized Fighter Interception Gap between Break even point (.700 StB/Fg) and Interception Threshold (3 StBs/Fg). This means that attacker can throw near 2 StBs against 3 Fgs to make more damage than receiving, and up to 9 StBs against the same 3 Fgs and it is still beneficial for the defender to intercept instead of letting StBs directly bomb IC .

    Strategic Bomber :
    Attack 1
    Defense 0
    Damage: 2D6

    Fighter:
    Attack 1 (or 2 ?)
    Defense 2

    Tactical Bomber:
    Attack 1
    Defense 0
    Damage: 1D6+2

    Industrial Complex or Base:
    AAA Defense: reduce 1D6 damage per attack done on IC or Base, down to a minimum of zero damage.

    Average damage from StBs vs IC’s AA Gun is simply 2D6 minus D6 = 1D6 or avg 3.5 damage points per StB.

    Damage on interceptor / damage on StB / 2D6 Damage on IC or Base = average damage per SBR

    1 StB A1 vs 1 Fg D2 gives +1.667 (1/610) - 4 (2/612) + 3.5 = + 1.167 IPCs  on average.

    1 StB A1 vs 2 Fgs D2 gives +1.667 (1/610) - 6.667 (20/3612) + 3.5 = -1.5 IPCs on average.

    2 StBs A1 vs 1 Fg D2 gives +3.056 (11/3610) - 4 (2/612) + 7 = + 6.056 IPCs on average.

    3 StBs A1 vs 1 Fg D2 gives +4.213 (91/21610) - 4 (2/612) + 10.5 = + 10.713 IPCs on average.

    Break even ratio:23/33= .697 StB/Fg
    1 StB vs 1 Fg: 1.167*13 = + 15.171
    1 StB vs 2 Fg: -1.5 *10= - 15.00
    23 StBs vs 33 Fgs =+0.171

    Approximate Interception Threshold: 3/1 = from 3 StBs/Fg and below
    3 StBs A1 vs 1 Fg D2: +10.713
    3 StBs vs no interception 3*3.5 = + 10.50
    +.213 damage if intercept.

    Damage on interceptor / damage on TcB / D6+2 Damage on Base = average damage per TBR

    1 TcB vs 1 Fg gives +1.667 (1/610) - 3.667 (2/611) + 2.278 (82/36) = +0.278 IPCs  on average.

    1 TcB vs 2 Fgs gives +1.667 (1/610) - 6.111 (20/3611) + 2.278 (82/36) = -2.166 IPCs on average.

    2 TcBs vs 1 Fg gives +3.056 (11/3610) - 3.667 (2/611) + 4.556 (2*82/36) = + 3.945 IPCs on average.

    3 TcBs A1 vs 1 Fg D2 gives +4.213 (91/21610) - 3.667 (2/611) + 6.833 (3*82/36) = + 7.379 IPCs on average.

    Break even ratio:
    1 TcB vs 1 Fg: +0.2788= +2.224
    1 TcB vs 2 Fgs: -2.166
    1= -2.166
    9 TcBs vs 10 Fgs = + 0.058
    Break even ratio: 9 TcBs/10 Fgs = 0.9 TcB/Fg

    1 TcB vs 1 Fg: +0.2781= +0.278
    3 TcBs vs 1 Fg: +7.379
    4= +29.516
    13 TcBs vs 5 Fgs = +29.794
    13 TcBs vs no Fg = +2.278*13= + 29.614  (Sum: +0.18)

    Approximate Interception Threshold: 13 TcBs/5 Fgs = from 2.6 TcBs/Fg and below

    An alternate but simpler way to determine damage done on IC or Base:

    I can still simplify the damage and defense rolls procedure with such StB 2D6 and TcB 1D6+2 damage.
    For each target, roll every dice attacking it and make the sum (adding +2 bonus number per each dice), then roll all defending flak dice make the sum and subtract from damage total.
    No need to consider each roll individually, only according to each individual target: IC, Air Base and/or Naval Base.
    When many bombers attack a single target, each defense roll can be combined.
    This can describe an intense flak cover over the target area in a certain kind of way, that overacheaving AA fire can overlap more succesful bombers in a way to hinder them.

    Example, 3 damage rolls 2D6 on same IC : 6, 9, 2, 4, 8, 6 sum:  30
    3 defense rolls : 5, 6, 2 sum is 13, net damage: 17 on IC,
    With the first way I suggested: 15-5 = 10, 6-6 = 0, 14 - 2 = 12 sum: 22 on IC  5 points differential.
    The second method is less damaging but simpler to apply.


  • 2019 '15 '14

    This is interesting. I suspect part of the reason why I rarely see escort/intercepts in my games, is that it’s fairly simple to just lean on the built in aafire to get the job done with no risk to expensive fighters. But if the roll simply lowered the damage threshold rather than destroying the bomber itself, then there is greater incentive to actually send a fighter for a chance at some bomber attrition. I guess some might say that no flak for downing bombers during the raid gives these units a pass, but I think it might be nice to have a bit more “back-and-forth” and rolling by both sides with less fear of a complete blow out. My guess is that you’d see more bombings in a given round, but with less total damage delivered, or TUV lost on the swing. I still have a hard time committing to intercept, since usually I need the fighter more than I need the production at that point in the game haha. This does seem like a more entertaining SBR variaton, than others I’ve seen. Would like to see it in action.
    Nice work man


  • 2017 '16

    @Black_Elk:

    This is interesting. I suspect part of the reason why I rarely see escort/intercepts in my games, is that it’s fairly simple to just lean on the built in aafire to get the job done with no risk to expensive fighters. But if the roll simply lowered the damage threshold rather than destroying the bomber itself, then there is greater incentive to actually send a fighter for a chance at some bomber attrition. I guess some might say that no flak for downing bombers during the raid gives these units a pass, but I think it might be nice to have a bit more “back-and-forth” and rolling by both sides with less fear of a complete blow out. My guess is that you’d see more bombings in a given round, but with less total damage delivered, or TUV lost on the swing. I still have a hard time committing to intercept, since usually I need the fighter more than I need the production at that point in the game haha. This does seem like a more entertaining SBR variatIon, than others I’ve seen. Would like to see it in action.
    Nice work man

    Good points, as always, Black Elk.
    There is many grieves on SBR as it is:

    • Bombing damage don’t necessary need to be repaired, so damage is not equivalent to IPCs lost

    • Bombing damage can overwhelmed maximum damage cap, resulting in a few lost points for the attacker, mostly minor IC, AB and NB, with 6 max damage points

    • Launching escorting Fgs with bombers doesn’t comply defender to intercept, even with good odds on his side, thus resulting in a lost opportunity to use attacking Fighter in a more meaningful ways

    • ICs left undefended often give much better results on their own than launching intercepting Fighters.

    • Improbable odds in dogfighting still generating unpredictable and unexpected TUVs incredible change.

    • Not so much a good depiction of historical air combat: defending Fighter @1 being too weak against bomber and escort @1, to risk interception

    • There is no real incentive for dogfight

    • There is many more useful options for bombers, SBR is amongst the last, when nothing more important can be achieved

    The last values shown above, I’m still undecided if Fg should be A1 D2 (as being more able to depict historical bonus of home defense over invading air forces, thinking 1941 Battle of England) or A2 D2 (as better balanced?) IDK.

    I believe that requiring defending unit to be at risk to destroy attacking bombers is an incentive to intercept.
    This can better reenact the historical Allies tactic to use bombing raids as decoy so the Luftwaffe launched interceptors against bombers while escorting Fgs were leading an attrition war to get air supremacy over Europe.
    Also, allowing bomber units to survive flak only defense over IC or Bases is an incentive for attacker to make SBR, and to consider them as an interesting secondary targets when no combat units can be reached for a regular battle, so to use bombers at their full potential as ground support for more than a single round.

    I can still simplify the damage and defense rolls procedure with such StB 2D6 and TcB 1D6+2 damage.
    For each target, roll every dice attacking it and make the sum (adding +2 bonus number per each dice), then roll all defending flak dice make the sum and subtract from damage total.
    No need to consider each roll individually, only according to each individual target: IC, Air Base and/or Naval Base.
    When many bombers attack a single target, each defense roll can be combined.
    This can describe an intense flak cover over the target area in a certain kind of way, that overacheaving AA fire can overlap more succesful bombers in a way to hinder them.
    Example, 3 damage rolls 2D6 on same IC : 6, 8, 1, 1, 8, 6 sum:  30
    3 defense rolls : 5, 6, 2 sum is 13, net damage: 17 on IC,
    With the first way I suggested: 14-5 = 9, 2-6 = -4 apply 0, 14 - 2 = 12 sum: 21 on IC
    4 points differential.
    The second method is less damaging but simpler to apply.


  • 2017 '16 '15

    That is interesting Baron. I would have fighters hit at 2 though. It’s too easy for bombers and escorts to overwhelm interceptors imo. If you sent 2 bombers and 2 fighters and I had 3 fighters, I probably wouldn’t intercept. If they hit on 2 though, I’d be much more likely to.

    Another thing to consider is if you did get a hit, you’d probably take it on a fighter. So bombers would rarely be attritted. After a while it wouldn’t matter that they were doing less damage.

    I suppose you could roll again for each hit. 1-2 is a bomber, 3-6 is a fighter. Adds another layer of complexity though. Also you could have 4 bombers and 2 fighters or vice versa. So it wouldn’t necessarily take into account the makeup of forces. With the likely low number of hits, it shouldn’t matter too much though. At least it would increase the risk to the bombers.

    Anyway sounds as if it’s worth a try. Let us know how it goes if you try it out.

    : )


  • 2017 '16

    @barney:

    That is interesting Baron. **I would have fighters hit at 2 though. It’s too easy for bombers and escorts to overwhelm interceptors imo. If you sent 2 bombers and 2 fighters and I had 3 fighters, I probably wouldn’t intercept. If they hit on 2 though, I’d be much more likely to.

    Another thing to consider is if you did get a hit, you’d probably take it on a fighter. So bombers would rarely be attritted. After a while it wouldn’t matter that they were doing less damage.**
    I suppose you could roll again for each hit. 1-2 is a bomber, 3-6 is a fighter. Adds another layer of complexity though. Also you could have 4 bombers and 2 fighters or vice versa. So it wouldn’t necessarily take into account the makeup of forces. With the likely low number of hits, it shouldn’t matter too much though. At least it would increase the risk to the bombers.

    Anyway sounds as if it’s worth a try. Let us know how it goes if you try it out.

    : )

    That is probably the reason why
    Fighter should be in air combat with these values:
    Attack 1
    Defense 2
    Move 4-5
    Cost 10
    Because any escorting Fg will cover bomber and be taken as casualty before StB, to maximize next damage on IC. And you must consider attacker always chose how many units and which types are bring on the assault, this advantage need to be countered with higher combat values on defense, like other component such as Inf A1 vs D2.



  • Well bombers and fighters attacking and defending on a 1 makes a lot of sense from a history point of view.

    Bombers fly in tight formation and these are hard to attack with fighters without subjecting yourself to defensive fire, there is a reason the for the name “flying fortress”.

    Sure fighters and especialy defending fighters had some advantage but not as massive as rolling @2 would make it.
    It comes down to the system we use for rolling with a D6 you just have to little options for granularity.
    I would not mind if it would be D12 where Attacker rolled on 1-2 (1 in 6 chance ) and defender on 1-2-3 (1 in 4 chance ) though that is already pretty heavy difference.
    But going with a D6 1out of 6 vs 1 out of 3 hit is just isnt realistic.

    In the battle for brittain it wasnt that the losses in fighters where that far out of proportion ( the bombers where not heavy bombers so not up to the challenge ) but the fact that shot down pilots could take the taxi back to the airport from the UK side where germany lost their pilots into POW camps.
    In the end experienced pilots are more important then the fighters.

    But i like the idea of having AA reduce the damage done to the Factory. It also adds incentive to use more then 3 bombers to attack a facility and makes attacking less of a gamble and more strategic.

    Because any escorting Fg will cover bomber and be taken as casualty before StB, to maximize next damage on IC. And you must consider attacker always chose how many units and which types are bring on the assault, this advantage need to be countered with higher combat values on defense, like other component such as Inf A1 vs D2.

    The attacking/defending values are not there to help the defender the whole system is there to help the attacker, which makes sense as having the initiative and attacking has advantages.
    The sole reason why inf attacks on 1 but defends on 2 is that being in a trench and defending is a lot safer then running upto said trench (under machinegun fire ) and attacking the people inside.

    How would you explain bombers ( defend on 1 attack on 4,  subs defend on 1 attack in 2 and most units that have equal attack and defence values )


  • 2017 '16

    Here is an old opening post in which I advocate for Fg unit with a lower attack than defense values.
    There is a list of inspirationnal way to depict these values.
    My own actual Fg is A2 D2 M4 C6 much like 1914 Fg A2 D2 M2 C6.

    @Baron:

    In a Strategic Bombing Raid, before all the incoming StB submit to AA fire @1, there is the possibility to get intercepted.

    The escorting rules in a Strategic Bombing Raid give all the attacking planes a same value:

    Each Strategic Bomber attack with a preemptive first strike @1,
    and same for
    Each Escorting Fighter attack with a preemptive first strike @1,

    while the defending interceptors have a better defensive roll but a regular one:

    Intercepting Fighter defend with a regular @2.

    Compared to the Global 1940, SBR rules in which all planes (StB, TcB, Fg) roll once a regular @1.

    I find too much uniformity between all aircrafts compared to historical accuracy.

    Compared to the other Interception rules, I prefer by far the 1942.2, which I found more historically based and I rationalize this rule that way:

    The preemptive first strike for raiders can really be seen as a surprise situation.

    Sometimes, defenders are caught off-guard on the airfield but once the interceptors are in the air, they get the advantage:

    • they are flying over a known homeland territory,

    • pilots have spent less time in the air, are more focused and less tired,

    • planes have plenty of fuel and are less restricted on combat maneuver than attacking escorts fighters,

    • and defenders can stay longer in the area to patrol against slower or lost attacking planes,

    all this can be exemplify by the UK’s pilots experience known via the air Battle of Britain in 1940-41.

    Why were the Germans defeated ?

    1. The Germans fought too far away from their bases so that refuelling and rearming were impossible. The German fighters had a very limited time which they could spend over Britain before their fuel got too low.

    2. British fighters could land, refuel and rearm and be in the air again very quickly.

    3. The change of targets was crucial. It is now believed that Fighter Command was perhaps only 24 hours away from defeat when the attack on the cities occurred. The breathing space this gave Fighter Command was crucial.

    4. The Hurricane and Spitfire (above) were exceptional planes - capable of taking on the might of the Luftwaffe.

    http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/battleofbritain.htm

    In game terms and statistics, defending fighter (D@2) are also better than StB (A@1 First Strike) which is not the case in G40 SBR and interception rules, where all is the same.

    But…
    Giving a better effectiveness to defender with @2 may have a price.

    That even giving to both, Fgs and StBs, first strike @1 to counter-weight the better effectiveness of defender is not sufficient.

    In SBR in general, the defender have the choice to intercept or not. And will forfeit it if he saw an overwhelming attacking fleet.

    On the other part, many times, the simple presence of 1 or 2 Fgs on IC is enough to rebuke the SBR strategy.

    Indeed, the SBR in G42.2 is far more dangerous (than G40) for each StB than 1/6 odds of being destroyed as was a regular classic IC AA gun.

    So instead of promoting it, interceptor defending @2 increase the risk, on 1:1 basis, to 2/6 + 1/6= around 44% (12+4=16/36) minus around 4% (preemptive strike reduction) near 40% of being destroyed.

    Who take the risk of a SBR strategy in 1942.2? and let’s an opportunity to shot any StBomber and even fighter on a SBR when a fighter is in IC territory ?

    I think a good SBR need balance (first) then historical accuracy (second).

    Do you usually play SBR with the 1942.2 intercepting rules?

    Do you prefer G40 over 1942.2 intercepting rules?

    Have you the impression that interception rules have a cold shower effect on SBR?


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13

    So Baron in my game you know as well that I’m using your reduced values on pieces and using D12 system.

    So the AA gun still gets a shot at escort planes or do the escorts and interceptors just do air combat for the 1 round or both ?

    Also in game we have Factory AA guns shotting at Bombers only. I could put in game now with your new Factory AA guns reducing damage on factories.

    I can see less SBR’s in game if IC damage is reduced by AA gun but if AA IC gun doesn’t shoot down bombers then I see the benefit of raids now.

    SB- SBR 1 D6 +2
    HSB- SBR 1 D6 +3

    We are only on turn 3 in game so any change here won’t matter because we haven’t had any air to air combat yet or SBR’s.
    Will play more of game this Sat. Will have more updates for you.


  • 2017 '16

    So the AA gun still gets a shot at escort planes or do the escorts and interceptors just do air combat for the 1 round or both ?

    There is no AA gun shots on escort and bombers during this SBR phase. Only a single plane vs plane combat round. Then bombers proceed into next phase, and must assign surviving bomber units to specific targets. All these steps are per OOB rules. The change occurs with ICs and Bases AA guns which are unable to hit bombers, no casualty, only reducing damage.

    I can see less SBR’s in game if IC damage is reduced by AA gun but if AA IC gun doesn’t shoot down bombers then I see the benefit of raids now.

    Exactly.

    SB- SBR 1 D6 +2
    HSB- SBR 1 D6 +3

    For heavy bombers, comparing 2D6 with D6+3, there is less variability with D6+3 (0 to 11 vs 0 to 8 damage points) but same possibilities to not making damage on IC with D6+3.
    On a single dice roll+3, there is only a six occurrences for zero damage effect: 1 vs 4, 1 vs 5, 1 vs 6, 2 vs 5, 2 vs 6, 3 vs 6. 6/36 = 16.67%
    This would make for 30/36 (83,33%) odds of doing at least 1 damage on target.

    With 2 D6 damage, there is 35 (5+8+9+8+5) occurrences: 2 (1+1) vs 2-3-4-5-6, 3 (1+2, 2+1) vs 3-4-5-6, 4 (1+3, 2+2, 3+1) vs 4-5-6, 5 (1+4, 2+3, 3+2, 4+1) vs 5-6, 6 (1+5,2+4,3+3,4+2,5+1) vs 6
    35/216 (666)=  16,2% of no damage or a 83,8% of doing at least 1 damage point, odds quite similar to above values with D6+3.

    Also in game we have Factory AA guns shotting at Bombers only. I could put in game now with your new Factory AA guns reducing damage on factories.

    We are only on turn 3 in game so any change here won’t matter because we haven’t had any air to air combat yet or SBR’s.
    Will play more of game this Sat. Will have more updates for you.

    That would be great to get a feedback on that change!!!   🙂


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13

    In your changes I do believe we have HSB at that 1D6 +3. So you want me to just make it 2 D6 damage and IC AA rolled for reduced damage.


  • 2017 '16

    @SS:

    In your changes I do believe we have HSB at that 1D6 +3. So you want me to just make it 2 D6 damage and IC AA rolled for reduced damage.

    You can keep D6+3, or rise it to 2 D6. But IC rolls only reduced damage.

    2D6 is simpler from a game POV, sum all damage roll dice (2x dice), then subtract the sum of all defense dice (1x dice)  and you get net total damage (X dice).

    With D6+3, you need to add number of dice*3 to the roll.

    If you have both St bomber D6+2 and Heavy bomber 2D6, then you can also compare both procedures. (Play-test POV)


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13

    I understand all your values.

    The SB attacking IC’s will work better on Minor factories and better to use HSB to do any major damage on Major factories using the 2 D6 rolls instead of 1 D6 +2 roll unless your SB’s roll like 5’s or 6’s which you may still try to use.

    If there’s a major factory on a territory worth 8+8=16 ( my game Capitals are worth double and can build up to 16 pieces ) and there’s like 11 damage to IC then only can build 5 pieces but can build 1 more piece for 1cp damage repair.


  • 2017 '16

    I understand. Your IC works like 1942.2 OOB.


  • 2017 '16

    @ShadowHAwk:

    The attacking/defending values are not there to help the defender the whole system is there to help the attacker, which makes sense as having the initiative and attacking has advantages.
    The sole reason
    why inf attacks on 1 but defends on 2 is that being in a trench and defending is a lot safer then running upto said trench (under machinegun fire ) and attacking the people inside.

    How would you explain bombers ( defend on 1 attack on 4,  subs defend on 1 attack in 2 and most units that have equal attack and defence values )

    I’m not quite sure on this assumption. Infantry is the cannon fodder, basic and pivotal unit of all ground combats, and conquering TTys is the main objective of A&A.

    Other units have offense/defense better ratio than .5, IDK if they should be compared on the same level.


  • 2017 '16

    @ShadowHAwk:

    Well bombers and fighters attacking and defending on a 1 makes a lot of sense from a history point of view.

    Bombers fly in tight formation and these are hard to attack with fighters without subjecting yourself to defensive fire, there is a reason the for the name “flying fortress”.

    Sure fighters and especially defending fighters had some advantage but not as massive as rolling @2 would make it.
    It comes down to the system we use for rolling with a D6 you just have to little options for granularity.
    I would not mind if it would be D12 where Attacker rolled on 1-2 (1 in 6 chance ) and defender on 1-2-3 (1 in 4 chance ) though that is already pretty heavy difference.
    But going with a D6 1out of 6 vs 1 out of 3 hit is just isnt realistic.

    But I like the idea of having AA reduce the damage done to the Factory. It also adds incentive to use more then 3 bombers to attack a facility and makes attacking less of a gamble and more strategic.

    Only reducing damage with IC’s AA gun (and no more shooting down capacity) solves in part the too high defense values of Fg D2 + Flak D1 = near 50%, or if Fg D1 + Flak D1 = near 33% odds of casualties.

    Probably Bomber Command’s worst night came in March 1944. Harris had targeted Nuremburg - Harris personally selected targets. The attack was risky simply because of the distance the crews would have to fly - 1,500 miles over an eight hour time span. Nuremburg, because of its association with the Nazi Party, was also heavily defended. A March night could usually guarantee some form of cloud cover for the crews. On this night there was a full moon and very little cover. Nearly 800 bombers were used for the raid. However, for whatever reason, the Luftwaffe had guessed that Nuremburg was to be the target for that night. Within one hour, 59 bombers were shot down by Messerschmitt 109’s and Focke-Wolfe fighters. During the flight towards their target, the bomber crews also experienced a very rare occurrence. Bombers did not usually create a vapour trail below 25,000 feet. For this raid, planes flew below 25,000 feet and some were as low as 16,000 feet. For whatever meteorological reason, the planes gave off vapour trails - clearly indicating to the German fighter pilots where they were. In all, the total loss to Bomber Command on this one mission was 64 Lancaster’s and 31 Halifax’s lost 670 men.

    Though comparisons can be spurious and potentially misleading, Fighter Command lost 515 pilots of all nationalities in the whole four months of the Battle of Britain (though this represented 17% of all pilots). The casualty rate for the attack on Nuremburg, which survived relatively unscathed from this raid as many bombs missed their target, was 12% of crews - 4% was considered to be an acceptable loss rate. Despite such losses, Harris, along with the Americans, continued with his policy of attacking German cities. This climaxed with the attack on Dresden in February 1945.

    http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/the-bombing-campaign-of-world-war-two/bomber-command-1944/

    The highest rate of loss for a Night Raid mission gives for interceptors and flak combined: 800/95 = 0.11875, near 12%
    This is 5% under the 1/6 usual dice number.

    On day-light missions, here is a few numbers worth noting: 60/211= 0.2844, near 29% rate of loss on the worst mission.
    Compared to a Fg unit Defense @2, this is just slightly under 33% casualty rate of StBs. And this become lower if attacking StBs are escorted, or if there is less interceptors than StBs in a given SBR. On “Big Week”, the rate of loss for escorted Bombers was 7%. Applying a 1:1 ratio of StBs vs interceptors, + escorting Fgs, odds of casualties can be dropped to @2/2 which is 1/6 or 17%, assuming 1 Bomber is taken down with each escorting Fg. As always, this game rate can drop if mostly all Fgs escort take the hit instead of bombers. Making it not that far a stretched compared to the 7% historical number (in which Luftwaffe were already lacking resources).

    On August 17th 1943, B17’s attacked the ball-bearing factory at Schweinfurt. This was a very important target as 52% of all of Germany’s ball-bearings were produced there. It was also a massively defended factory. 211 B17’s took part in the raid - 60 planes were lost, a loss rate of just under 30%. In 1943, it was estimated that 1/3rd of all B17 crews would not survive the war and the huge losses sustained in daylight raids nearly caused an end to such raids.  However, a study done by the 8th Air Force in 1943, also showed that over 50% of plane losses were as a result of B17’s leaving the protection of their formation. In 1944, a revised pattern of flying was introduced. B17’s had traditionally flown in wedges of 18. Now they were to fly in a pack of 36. There would be three flights of 12 B17’s tightly packed together, one on top of the other. This gave the flight of 36 huge firepower especially as the new Model G had been given more fire power including more machine guns at the front of the plane to fight off frontal assaults. The Model G now carried thirteen .50 calibre machine guns giving each plane a massively increased firing capacity. However, flying so tightly also led to collisions.

    By 1944, the B17’s also had fighter protection in the shape of the awesome Mustang fighter. The Mustangs carried extra fuel tanks and could accompany the B17’s deep into Germany. With their increased fire power and their new bodyguards, the B17 could now concentrate on two primary targets - what was left of the Luftwaffe’s factories and Berlin itself.

    In February 1944, the B17’s went all out to destroy the factories that kept the Luftwaffe flying. In February ‘Big Week’ took place. In all, 3,500 B17s were involved in bombing raids on factories in Germany. 244 planes were lost (about 7% of the planes taking part) in just a week but the back of the factories producing for the Luftwaffe had been fatally broken. While the Luftwaffe had planes, many were forced to stay on the ground as they had no parts to keep them airborne.

    http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/the-bombing-campaign-of-world-war-two/b17-flying-fortress/

    So from an historical POV, Fighter Defense @2 can be a fitting number. And this also showed that Balanced Mode Fgs D2 combined with AA flak D1, 44.4% hit (on a 1:1 basis), are much too high rate to be historical SBR values. But, we agree that from a game POV, Fighter A2 D2 are much better balanced for air combat.

    But on average, it is nearer 1/6 than 2/6 casualty rate.
    Excluding Flak casualties, Night raid have a bombers casualty rate of more than 5%.
    I guess we can assume that attacker may have at least 2:1 ratio against interceptors. Hence, for 2 bombers vs 1 Fg D2 split in half the bomber casualty rate to 1/6 and even 8% if it is a 3 StBs for 1 Fg ratio. And this last one can be pretty near historical numbers.

    By July 1943, German night fighters had a success rate of 5%. While impressive in the sense that this was a very new way of fighting, it also meant that very many RAF bombers got through.

    http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/the-bombing-campaign-of-world-war-two/german-night-fighters/


  • 2017 '16

    "If it was the flak that caused the damage and forced bomber crews to jink their aircraft, thus making accurate bombing difficult, it was the venomously efficient night fighters that were the real killers." Flight-Lieutenant Alfred Price.

    http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/the-bombing-campaign-of-world-war-two/german-night-fighters/

    I found this quote. It clearly describe the change made in this SBR houserule: Fighter interceptors makes the shooting down while IC’s and Bases’ AA guns only affects accuracy of bombers.


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16

    I’m not sure why the title of this thread is Strategic Bombing for G40 and 1942.2 – so far I haven’t seen anything here about 1942.2. In 1942.2, there are no tactical bombers or minor factories, and the interceptor rules are very rarely used.

    That said, I am interested in figuring out an alternate set of strategic bombing rules for 1942.2, because I’m not especially satisfied with them – the fact that all the factories automatically come with their own built-in anti-air defenses means that (a) it is extremely difficult to turn a profit on strategic bombing, and it also means that (b) if an attacker does manage to build up a successful strategic bombing campaign, there’s nothing at all that the defender can do about it. If Germany and Japan team up to bomb Moscow, or if the UK and USA team up to bomb Tokyo, the victim is just at the mercy of the dice – other than hoping to roll a “1”, there’s nothing the bombing victim can do to resist. The OOB 1942.2 interceptor rules aren’t useful because, as Black Elk pointed out, Germany is usually quite happy to trade German bombers for Russian fighters!

    My personal view of the history of strategic bombing is that strategic bombing was only successful when the attacker was able to provide enough of a fighter escort to match any defending aircraft, i.e., when the attacker had air superiority or at least air parity. When bombers had to worry about being attacked by enemy fighters while they were on a bombing mission, few if any of the bombs would hit their targets. It’s true that a single fighter wouldn’t have much luck attacking an entire squadron of ‘flying fortresses,’ but a squadron of 1942-era fighters could easily shoot down a squadron of unescorted 1942-era bombers, a squadron of 1943-era fighters could easily shoot down a squadron of unescorted 1943-era bombers, and so on.

    I think statistics about the casualty rate for any given mission is interesting as a matter of history, but not a good guide for how to shape the mechanics of a house rule – in 1942.2, a given game turn could represent anywhere from one month to six months, and the same bomber squadron might go on dozens of raiding missions in that time frame, so even if the casualty rate for one mission was only 7%, the cumulative casualty rate for all the missions that happened over three months might be 50%, or even well over 100%, with literally all of the bombers in the squadron being shot down and replaced by newly manufactured bombers and newly trained pilots at some point during the season.

    My suggestion for a mechanic for 1942.2 is to allow interceptions by defending fighters, which would score a hit on rolls of 3 or less, and to allow escorting fighters to score a hit on rolls of 2 or less and attacking bombers to score a hit on rolls of 1 or less. I would say that surviving bombers then all roll 1d6+2 damage each, and that 1942.2 factories have no built in anti-aircraft mechanism, but that each AAA gun in the territory can roll 1d6 vs. each of up to 3 attacking bombers, and that these rolls reduce the total bombing damage, as Baron Munchhausen suggested.

    For example, suppose Germany attacks Moscow with 4 strategic bombers and 2 escorting fighters, and Moscow is defended by 3 Russian fighters and 1 AAA gun. The Russians roll 3 dice that hit a German plane on rolls of 3 or less (9 pips total), and the Germans roll 4 dice that hit a Russian plane on rolls of 1 or less, plus 2 dice that hit a Russian plane on rolls of 2 or less (8 pips total). The Russians have a slight advantage in the air combat, which is fitting, because they have more fighters. Assume both sides score one hit; the Germans will lose 1 fighter and the Russians will lose 1 fighter.

    Then, the Germans will make 4 rolls, each roll at 1d6+2, to determine their maximum potential damage. If they roll [2, 4, 5, 5] then they would have maximum potential damage of 4 + 6 + 7 + 7 = 24 damage. Finally, the Russians make 3 rolls for their AAA gun to try to reduce that damage with flak. If the Russians roll [1, 3, 6] then the damage is reduced by 1 + 3 + 6 = 10. So the total damage would be 24 - 10 = 14 damage. Moscow can generate 8 units/turn when healthy, so it can absorb up to a maximum of 16 damage, so if the factory was healthy at the start of the turn, now it takes 14 damage, and will cost $14 to repair to full strength next turn.

    This example represents a ‘balanced’ bombing raid where all sides prepared appropriately. If Germany had not brought the escorting fighters, it probably would have lost a bomber without shooting down any Russian fighters, so it might have dealt less damage (e.g., $10) than the value of the bomber it lost ($12). This gives Germany an incentive to stack fighters within 2 spaces of Moscow, which requires (a) holding those territories and (b) diverting those territories from the Battle of the Atlantic. This is strategically interesting. Likewise, if Germany had only brought 2 bombers into the attack, then it could not have overwhelmed Russia’s AAA gun – it would be rolling 2d6 + 4 in damage against 2d6 in damage reduction, and so the expected damage would be very small and hardly worth the risk of interception. This gives Germany an incentive to make a massive bombing raid against one territory, instead of just bombing haphazardly whenever Germany has an idle bomber. This is also strategically interesting.

    Conversely, if Russia had not had the AAA gun in place, it would not have been able to use flak to reduce its damage, and it would have taken the full $16 in bombing damage instead of only $14. This gives Russia an incentive to either hold AAA guns near its factories instead of reflexively advancing the AAAs into West Russia and Ukraine, or to build additional AAA guns, which is strategically interesting. Similarly, if Russia had only had one fighter defending Moscow, then an interception attempt would not have been profitable for Russia, since it would have only had 3 pips of interception defense against 9 pips of German airplanes – which makes sense, given Germany’s air superiority. This gives Russia an incentive to keep fighters near its factories, instead of always deploying fighters as far forward as possible. This is also strategically interesting.


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13

    I would still have the AA guns get a shot at the bombers. From other game play, I’ve seen games end on just bombing raids. Not a big fan of that. 
    What if 3 bombers attack and roll 3 6 s +6 = 24 and AA gets 3 = 21 damage and these high rolls happen 3 4 turns Russia can’t recover. With no AA shots at planes Germany just keeps bombing away. Russia can’t afford to lose fighters in air combat . This way it makes Germany have to spend more money if they want to SBR.

    This still has to be play tested. One way or the other some values may have to change .


  • 2017 '16

    There is many points in your post Argothair.

    I will start with first aspect: 1942.2
    I wrote this title because the same mechanic can apply to both G40.2 and 1942.2, of course no TcB or bases.
    I’m a bit surprised by examples you suggest. It feels like Germany and Russia have a lot of money to spend on Air Force and AAA while, in my little experience, they are craving for ground units and barely hope to keep up the same set-up air fleet. Usually, it becomes hard to replace costlier unit. 5 IPCs AAA unit is also an expensive, too specialized and unoptimized to worth buying more, except in very rare circumstances. So, it feels like you are talking in the economical context of Global 1940 about having plenty of Fighters, Bombers and AAAs to spare from real combat (more than one round) ground support missions.

    Because of the low budget in 1942.2, I rather prefer to keep IC’s AA gun special while letting AAA being part of the air combat, but somewhat in a different manner. To be determined, I’m thinking of a simple roll @1, and AAA unit being chosen last, once all interceptors have been shot down, if any.

    1942.2 SBR escort and intercept is an optional rule. And as I understand the game progress, you rarely have more than one or two Fighters to keep on Germany’s IC. UK and Russia can concentrate a lot of planes on London or Moscow but Germany needs to muster all Fgs A3 to lower loss and increase fast victory to not loose too many grounds units from multiple retaliation rounds. This often demands to land Fgs away from Berlin’s IC. Hence, you get some opportunities to raid Germany’s IC (Berlin 20 pts, Italy 6 pts, and Karelia 4 pts included) with no Fg defending.

    In addition, who would want to risk Bombers A1 and Fg A2 against Fg D3 while in regular combat you get multiple rounds with StB A4 and Fg A3 against Fg D4.
    As I remember, many people says they do SBR and escort when there is nothing better to do. Intuitively, I don’t think it is an incentive for SBR to rise air combat values. I throw some table on this Defense @3, as I remember it provides a very high break even point (actually: near 1.17 StB/Fg, assuming 2D6 damage), to make more damage than receiving. I believe people will not risk SBR if there is even a single interceptor on IC, considering how it can be easy to max out Italy (6 points), India (6 points), Karelia (4 points) or Caucasus IC (8 points).  On the defensive side, Fighter Interception Threshold will be high too (FIT actually is 5 StBs/Fgs, assuming 2D6 damage), so you get an incentive to intercept. I just believe there will be no SBR or a large number of attackers to overwhelmed defense and make interception a suicide mission. It is my understanding of reading many comments on SBR, and how the numbers talked to me.

    Maybe, I don’t see it the way you get this.
    I will be more than happy to hear you on this.


  • 2017 '16

    @SS:

    I would still have the AA guns get a shot at the bombers. From other game play, I’ve seen games end on just bombing raids. Not a big fan of that.  
    What if 3 bombers attack and roll 3 6 s +6 = 24 and AA gets 3 = 21 damage and these high rolls happen 3 4 turns Russia can’t recover. With no AA shots at planes Germany just keeps bombing away. Russia can’t afford to lose fighters in air combat . This way it makes Germany have to spend more money if they want to SBR.

    This still has to be play tested. One way or the other some values may have to change .

    In 1942.2, IC is maxed out at 16 points, while G40 it is 20.
    I’m not sure you can make a case based on an extremely rare occurrence…
    I believe that many strategies imply to land a lot of allied Fgs on Moscow.
    That would be part of the deal, you want to get ride of Axis Bombers? Launch Fgs.
    I believe Fg Defending @2 makes for a more balanced way to solve partially your issue, against StB A1, Fighter have a clear bonus.

    The whole idea of this thread is to make all combat casualties the result of a fight between combat units.
    Changing IC’s AA gun mechanic to lowering odds of damage.

    Maybe this can open some room to higher combat values in dogfight to prevent your issue, and to include AAA unit in air combat?
    Argothair may bring a different POV on how to play with his suggested air combat values in a Global40 context.

    I can only see similar balanced air combat values, don’t know if this can be incentive to do SBR at all, with Fg A2 D3 like:

    Strategic Bomber
    Attack 1
    Defense 0
    Damage 2D6
    Cost 12

    Tactical Bomber
    Attack 1
    Defense 1
    Damage 1D6+2
    Cost 11

    Fighter
    Attack 2
    Defense 3
    Cost 10

    Anti-Aircraft Artillery
    Attack 0
    Defense 1
    Cost 5

    Industrial Complex or Base:
    AAA Defense: reduce 1D6 damage per attack roll done on IC or Base, down to a minimum of zero damage.

    Damage on interceptor / damage on StB / 2 D6 Damage on IC or Base = average damage per SBR

    1 StB A1 vs 1 Fg D3 gives +1.667 (1/610) - 6 (3/612) + 3.5 = -0.833 IPCs  on average. [OOB G40: +1.819 IPC damage/SBR]

    1 StB A1 vs 2 Fgs D3 gives +1.667 (1/610) - 9 (27/3612) + 3.5 = -3.833 IPCs on average.  [OOB G40: - 0.206 IPC damage/SBR]

    2 StBs A1 vs 1 Fg D3 gives +3.056 (11/3610) - 6 (3/612) + 7 (2*3.5) = +4.056 IPCs on average. [OOB G40: + 5.793 IPCs damage/SBR]

    3 StBs A1 vs 1 Fg D3 gives +4.213 (91/21610) - 6 (3/612) + 10.5 = + 8.713 IPCs on average.

    4 StBs A1 vs 1 Fg D3 gives +5.177 (671/129610) - 6 (3/612) + 14 = + 13.177 IPCs on average.

    5 StBs A1 vs 1 Fg D3 gives +5.981 (4651/777610) - 6 (3/612) + 17.5 = + 17.481 IPCs on average.

    Break even ratio approximate: 7/6= 1.167 StB/Fg
    1 StB A1 vs 1 Fg D3: -0.833*5 = - 4.165
    2 StBs A1 vs 1 Fg D3: +4.056 *1= + 4.056
    7 StBs vs 6 Fgs =-.109

    Interception Threshold: 5/1 = from 5 StB/Fg and below
    5 StBs vs 1 Fg: +17.481  
    5 StBs vs no interception 5*3.5 = +17.5 IPCs  (Diff.: -.019)

    My suggestion for a mechanic for 1942.2 is to allow interceptions by defending fighters, which would score a hit on rolls of 3 or less, and to allow escorting fighters to score a hit on rolls of 2 or less and attacking bombers to score a hit on rolls of 1 or less. I would say that surviving bombers then all roll 1d6+2 damage each, and that 1942.2 factories have no built in anti-aircraft mechanism, but that each AAA gun in the territory can roll 1d6 vs. each of up to 3 attacking bombers, and that these rolls reduce the total bombing damage, as Baron Munchhausen suggested.

    I apply the values up above, it is much weaker SBR than any other even if given 2D6 damage.
    StB D6+2 would be weaker.

    Maybe those values can work if played with a lot of Fighter units to spare on escort missions.
    Otherwise, StBs only SBR are not so good against any Fg interceptors. Needs a ratio of 2 to 1 to make damage near 2 IPCs/StBs.

    For example, suppose Germany attacks Moscow with 4 strategic bombers (A1) and 1 escorting fighter (A2).
    Moscow is defended by 2 Russian fighters (D3).
    Russians roll 2 dice that hit a German plane on rolls of 3 or less (6 pips total),
    Germans roll 4 dice that hit a Russian plane on rolls of 1 or less, plus 1 dice that hit a Russian plane on rolls of 2 or less (6 pips total).
    Russians have no advantage in the air combat, but invest only 2 Fgs for 20 IPCs compared to Germany 58 IPCs.
    Assume both sides score one hit; the Germans will lose 1 fighter and the Russians will lose 1 fighter.

    4 Strategic bombers (damage 2D6) will do 4*3.5= 14 IPCs on average.
    Russia suffer 24 IPCs. Germany loose 10 IPCs. +14 IPCs

    On a second SBR, it becomes:
    4 StBs A1 vs 1 Fg D3 gives +5.177 (671/129610) - 6 (3/612) + 14 = + 13.177 IPCs on average.


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13

    I agree with you on odds are on a rare occurrence. Wasn’t trying to imply any major changes. I agree with your plane battles on SBR runs.

    I’m just saying both ways may need to be tested.


  • 2017 '16

    @SS:

    I would still have the AA guns get a shot at the bombers. From other game play, I’ve seen games end on just bombing raids. Not a big fan of that.  
    What if 3 bombers attack and roll 3 6 s +6 = 24 and AA gets 3 = 21 damage and these high rolls happen 3 4 turns Russia can’t recover. With no AA shots at planes Germany just keeps bombing away. Russia can’t afford to lose fighters in air combat. This way it makes Germany have to spend more money if they want to SBR.

    This still has to be play tested. One way or the other some values may have to change .

    @SS:

    I agree with you on odds are on a rare occurrence. Wasn’t trying to imply any major changes. I agree with your plane battles on SBR runs.

    I’m just saying both ways may need to be tested.

    The more I think about what you said, the more I’m convinced AAA unit with no preemptive strike must be part of the solutions while keeping damage values as OOB:

    Lower economy Powers need something to fight in air combat.

    "If it was the flak that caused the damage and forced bomber crews to jink their aircraft, thus making accurate bombing difficult, it was the venomously efficient night fighters that were the real killers." Flight-Lieutenant Alfred Price.

    http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/the-bombing-campaign-of-world-war-two/german-night-fighters/

    Adding AAA unit, TcB defense @1 (as a kind of NightFighter) and a Fighter with an higher defense @2, I hope this can be enough an incentive to intercept an SBR, with these air combat values:

    Strategic Bomber
    Attack 1
    Defense 0
    Damage 1D6+2
    Cost 12

    Tactical Bomber
    Attack 1
    Defense 1
    Damage 1D6
    Cost 11

    Fighter
    Attack 2
    Defense 2
    Cost 10

    Anti-Aircraft Artillery
    Attack 0
    Defense 1, against up to three planes whichever the lower
    Cost 5
    Chosen as last casualty

    Industrial Complex or Base:
    AAA Defense: reduce 1D6 damage per attack roll done on IC or Base, down to a minimum of zero damage.

    Is this a better, balanced and more attractive SBR system?

    Damage on interceptor / damage on StB / D6+2 Damage on IC or Base = average damage per SBR

    1 StB vs 1 Fg D2 gives +1.667 (1/610) - 4 (2/612) + 2.278 (82/36) = -0.055 IPCs  on average. [OOB G40: +1.819 IPC damage/SBR]

    1 StB vs 2 Fgs D2 gives +1.667 (1/610) - 6.667 (20/3612) + 2.278 (82/36) = -2.722 IPCs on average.  [OOB G40: - 0.206 IPC damage/SBR]

    2 StBs vs 1 Fg D2 gives +3.056 (11/3610) - 4 (2/612) + 4.556 (2*82/36) = +3.612 IPCs on average. [OOB G40: + 5.793 IPCs damage/SBR]

    3 StBs A1 vs 1 Fg D2 gives +4.213 (91/21610) - 4 (2/612) + 6.833 (3*82/36) = + 7.046 IPCs on average.

    Approximate break even ratio : 1/1 = 1 StB/Fg

    Approximate Interception Threshold: 20/7 = slightly under 2.86 StBs/Fg and below
    2 StB vs 1 Fg D2: +3.6121
    3 StBs vs 1 Fg D2: +7.046
    6= +42.276
    20 StBs vs 7 Fgs = +45.888
    20 StBs vs no interception 20*2.278 = +45.56 IPCs  (Diff.:+0.328)


  • 2017 '16 '15

    Hey Baron
    Maybe you could require two AA hits to kill a bomber ? First hit would mean bomber does no damage but survives ?  Or some variation thereof ? Mix that in with what your doing ?

    Like where you’re going with this


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13

    Who’s this reply towards ?


  • 2017 '16

    @barney:

    Hey Baron
    Maybe you could require two AA hits to kill a bomber ? First hit would mean bomber does no damage but survives ?  Or some variation thereof ? Mix that in with what your doing ?

    Like where you’re going with this

    Thanks to bring it in.

    A long time ago, in an A&A Galaxy Far Far Away…
    I suggested two hit points StBs.
    Actually, it seemed a more complex mechanic due to interactions with 1 hit TcB and Fg and how StB can be use in regular combat.

    Someone else also suggested that any StB hit by IC’s AA gun can be considered repelled with no damage, on both side.

    For now, I would explore the opening ideas and these consequences.


Log in to reply
 

20th Anniversary Give Away

In January 2000 this site came to life and now we're celebrating our 20th Anniversary with a prize giveaway of 30+ prizes. See this link for the list of prizes and winners.
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys
T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 20
  • 29
  • 2
  • 4
  • 4
  • 4
  • 10
  • 2
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

60
Online

14.8k
Users

35.5k
Topics

1.4m
Posts