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

@Baron
yea I’m sure it’s been mentioned before : )On a related matter and something we talked about before, been using aaguns A0 D1 M1 (combat and capture) C4 2 AA shots. Seems to work pretty good. I just think of it as buying an artillery. Gets a 1 at the plane and then gets a 1 at anybody else.
Can be used to good effect. Especially smaller counterattack armies with high survivability rate. Makes just blowing blockers up with air and infantry more dangerous. Being able to capture and ride in the first wave of an amphib attack is noticeable as well.
Also adds to the “combined arms” makeup of armies. Started going with bigger artillery/inf counterattacks. Which then means you want an AA to help protect it. So I’m seeing more of them.
Anyway, didn’t mean to get sidetracked : )

@Baron
yea I’m sure it’s been mentioned before : )On a related matter and something we talked about before, been using aaguns A0 D1 M1 (combat and capture) C4 2 AA shots. Seems to work pretty good. I just think of it as buying an artillery. Gets a 1 at the plane and then gets a 1 at anybody else.
Can be used to good effect. Especially smaller counterattack armies with high survivability rate. Makes just blowing blockers up with air and infantry more dangerous. Being able to capture and ride in the first wave of an amphib attack is noticeable as well.
Also adds to the “combined arms” makeup of armies. Started going with bigger artillery/inf counterattacks. Which then means you want an AA to help protect it. So I’m seeing more of them.Anyway, didn’t mean to get sidetracked : )
Seems more versatile for the price, as you said, similar to Artillery.
This kind of
AAA A0 D1 M1 C4, gets up to two @1 preemptive against plane, which ever the lesser
can easily fit in the above roster instead of OOB 5 IPCs.
It would still roll up to twice @1 against bombers and fighters in the air combat but no first strike.
In fact, a lesser cost with a reduced firepower fit better IMO.

Does the 4 IPC aa gun get to roll 2 dice @ 1 against aircraft when the aa gun is attacking? Just curious; that unit sounds intriguing. I would love to see a cheap but costeffective unit for small nations that can’t really afford to buy planes.

Does the 4 IPC aa gun get to roll 2 dice @ 1 against aircraft when the aa gun is attacking? Just curious; that unit sounds intriguing. I would love to see a cheap but costeffective unit for small nations that can’t really afford to buy planes.
Here is how I see it, it have no attack value and cannot be use as fodder on offence. Sorry.
It is just a less crippled AAA than OOB.
Never intended to use on offense like a 1914 Fg chasing enemy’s plane.AntiAircraft Artillery
Attack 0
Defense 1*
Move 1
Cost 4
*1 single @1 preemptive strike, against up to two planes, whichever the lower,
Chosen as last casualty on offense or in airtoair combat, *no preemptive strike
Can defend @1 each regular combat.

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 antiaircraft 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.
Argothair,
I don’t believe your values would work to promote more interactions in 1942.2 setting.
But these similar suggested air combat values below can, at least, worth a try in higher economy of Global 1940 context.With a stronger combat values for TcBs A2 D1 !!!, so attacker and defender may bring it into battle, I can see a more balanced and interesting air combat values, this can be incentive to do SBR or TcBR, against intercepting Fg A2 D3:
Strategic Bomber
Attack 1
Defense 0
Damage 2D6
Cost 12Tactical Bomber
Attack 2
Defense 1
Damage 1D6+2
Cost 11Fighter
Attack 2
Defense 3
Cost 10AntiAircraft Artillery
Attack 0
Defense 1, against up to three planes (max 1 roll per plane)
Cost 5Industrial Complex or Base:
AAA Defense: reduce 1D6 damage per attack roll done on IC or Base, down to a minimum of zero damage.Because IC’s AA gun cannot destroy bombers, this open up a space for an higher damage capacity such as @3 for defending interceptors.
What maths reveals is you can bring as much as 5 StBs against a single Fighter and still giving even odds of damage to intercept or letting them pass over ICs or Bases.
And this give a huge and interesting Fighter Interception Gap of 1.2 to 5 StBs/Fg
Approximate break even ratio: 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 = 0.109Interception 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)Assuming such 5 StBs vs 1 Fg SBR on Major IC, on average it will not maxed out 20 IPCs IC damage capacity. Interesting.

It’s interesting to see mathematically where the IPC value would even out for a bombing raid with and without interception, but usually the “bombee”, that is, the bombing victim, strongly prefers to avoid trades that are near a 1:1 ratio.
For example, if Germany and Japan are ganging up on Russia in 1942.2, you can expect the Axis to attack with a force worth roughly 200 IPCs against a Russian + Allied defensive stack worth roughly 150 IPCs. A 4:3 ratio doesn’t make for a crushing attack, because infantry defend more effectively than they attack, so at first the Russians are relatively safe. But if you give the Axis an opportunity to trade 125 IPCs of Axis pieces for 125 IPCs of Allied pieces, now the ratio is 75 IPCs of offense to 25 IPCs of defense – a 3:1 offensive advantage, which will easily crush the remaining Russian defense. So every time the Russians trade planes with the Germans at even odds, or even at 3:2 odds in the Russians’ favor, the Russians’ position gets worse from a strategic perspective. The Russians will often prefer to suffer the extra industrial damage rather than trade planes at closetoeven odds.
For me the most interesting question is not “what ratio of bombers to fighters will yield zero net profit for the attacker?” but “what ratio of bombers to fighters will actually prompt the defender to use fighters for interception, and what ratio will actually prompt the attacker to avoid bombing?”
Also, I’m not sure why you think the 1942.2 economy is too small to support air combat. When I play 1942.2, I often have 4 Russian fighters, plus another 4 Allied fighters defending eastern Europe. The German air force often grows as large as 8 fighters and 2 bombers, and the Japanese can easily afford to build 4 or 5 bombers in addition to their 6 starting fighters. Maybe I’m missing something, but that sounds consistent with the ratios (e.g. 1:1, 2:1, 5:1, 7:6) that you’re discussing in your post.

It’s interesting to see mathematically where the IPC value would even out for a bombing raid with and without interception, but usually the “bombee”, that is, the bombing victim, strongly prefers to avoid trades that are near a 1:1 ratio.
For example, if Germany and Japan are ganging up on Russia in 1942.2, you can expect the Axis to attack with a force worth roughly 200 IPCs against a Russian + Allied defensive stack worth roughly 150 IPCs. A 4:3 ratio doesn’t make for a crushing attack, because infantry defend more effectively than they attack, so at first the Russians are relatively safe. But if you give the Axis an opportunity to trade 125 IPCs of Axis pieces for 125 IPCs of Allied pieces, now the ratio is 75 IPCs of offense to 25 IPCs of defense – a 3:1 offensive advantage, which will easily crush the remaining Russian defense. So every time the Russians trade planes with the Germans at even odds, or even at 3:2 odds in the Russians’ favor, the Russians’ position gets worse from a strategic perspective. The Russians will often prefer to suffer the extra industrial damage rather than trade planes at closetoeven odds.
For me the most interesting question is not “what ratio of bombers to fighters will yield zero net profit for the attacker?” but “what ratio of bombers to fighters will actually prompt the defender to use fighters for interception, and what ratio will actually prompt the attacker to avoid bombing?”
Also, I’m not sure why you think the 1942.2 economy is too small to support air combat. When I play 1942.2, I often have 4 Russian fighters, plus another 4 Allied fighters defending eastern Europe. The German air force often grows as large as 8 fighters and 2 bombers, and the Japanese can easily afford to build 4 or 5 bombers in addition to their 6 starting fighters. Maybe I’m missing something, but that sounds consistent with the ratios (e.g. 1:1, 2:1, 5:1, 7:6) that you’re discussing in your post.
Your comment contents many interesting points.
It’s interesting to see mathematically where the IPC value would even out for a bombing raid with and without interception, but usually the “bombee”, that is, the bombing victim, strongly prefers to avoid trades that are near a 1:1 ratio.
I’m not sure here we follow the same basis of understanding on ratios.
A 1:1 ratio, assuming your numbers (Fg A2 D3 and StB A1 but damage 2D6, see quote below), shows that it is a loosing proposition for attacker (0.883 IPC/StB raider).
Maybe I wrongly assumed that any attacker would trigger an SBR only if he gets positive odds, hence the break even ratio seems the attacker bottom line.
Going below seemed to me like playing on dumb luck.
On 1:1 basis, it means for the attacker a grossly 1 IPC TUV swing.But, 1 StB: 1 Fg ratio is not exactly a 1 IPC :1 IPC ratio because it implies a StB C12 against a Fg C10 (1.2 :1 ratio, in fact).
So a 1.2 break even ratio means 14.4 (1.212) attacker IPCs against 10 (110) defender IPCs = 1.44 :1 IPC ratio.
To translate into 1:1 IPC ratio, that can be translate into 10 StBs vs 12 Fgs or 0.833 StB/Fg ratio.
Such combat ratio would meant: 14.33 for 10 StBs or 1.433 IPC per StBHow I get this result:
1 StB A1 vs 2 Fgs D3 gives +1.667 (1/610)  9 (27/3612) + 3.5 = 3.833 IPCs2= 7.667
1 StB A1 vs 1 Fg D3 gives +1.667 (1/610)  6 (3/612) + 3.5 = 0.833 IPCs8=  6.667
10 StBs vs 12 Fgs = 14.33 IPCsIn Axis Germany against Allies Russian example, according to these combat values and fighting 1 IPC vs 1 IPC, Germany bombing Russia can lost near 1.5 IPCs per StB unit bombing.
Germany would lost 144 IPCs while Russia 100 IPCs.
Assuming “Axis to attack with a force worth roughly 200 IPCs against a Russian + Allied defensive stack worth roughly 150 IPCs”.
This would put Germany near 66 IPCs against a 50 IPCs Russia. In your example, it would not be a winning proposition.
Said otherwise, Germany needs to invest 144 IPCs to destroy 100 Russian IPCs (or have an income greater than 77 IPCs per turn against 50 IPCs).For me the most interesting question is not “what ratio of bombers to fighters will yield zero net profit for the attacker?” but “what ratio of bombers to fighters will actually prompt the defender to use fighters for interception, and what ratio will actually prompt the attacker to avoid bombing?”
I wrote this:
And this give a huge and interesting Fighter Interception Gap (FIG) of 1.2 to 5 StBs/Fg
This is the “ratio of bombers to fighters” which “actually prompt the defender to use fighters for interception”.
Anything below 5 StBs against 1 Fg makes for lesser odds of receiving damage if Fighter(s) intercept.
This includes “what ratio will actually prompt the attacker to avoid bombing”: anything below 1.2 StB/Fg is a loosing proposition.That’s why I called it FIG because this Gap consider both attacker (break even point) and defender (Fighter Interception Threshold) interest.
Below (1.2), the ratio doesn’t worth the risk of bombing and, above (5), there is too many attackers to commit interceptors, there is less damage taken on IC if Fgs stay on the ground.If attacker want to taunt the defender to risk interceptions, it cannot overwhelmed it with too many StBs. The Fighter Interception Threshold or FIT (5 StBs/Fg) provides the guideline to follow. So, for instance, a German attacker can throw 3 StBs A1 for each Russian Fgs D3 knowing it gives positive damage results and if there is no interception, odds of damage on ICs will be greater.
The only trouble about 1942.2 is that IC are easily maxed out (16 for Moscow, 8 for Caucasus, 4 for Leningrad) and there is no Bases to take additional damage.
So, in our last example, if 6 StBs attack 2 Fgs, Moscow IC will be maxed out anyway: (3.56) 21 IPCs with no interception or (28.713) 17.426 IPCs with interception.
3 StBs A1 vs 1 Fg D3 gives +4.213 (91/21610)  6 (3/612) + 10.5 = + 8.713 IPCs on average.
So with enough planes involved in 1942.2, maxing out damage on IC and no interception seems ironically the optimal behaviour, simply because a lot of attacker’s damage points are wasted above the maximum damage allowed on IC. This is my prediction.However, I said huge and interesting FIGap because with a 5 to 1 ratio, combat values for Fg D3 provides a rare opportunity to make interception an optimized choice even with such a high number of attackers. Such high Threshold is uncommon amongst other SBR possible mechanics.
That’s why I think G40 is more suited to your high air combat values than 1942.2
Once this said, I would be very interested to ear any report about someone playtesting your air combat values.
I like them because of the scaled values imply for each unit: 1, 2, 3.
Proportionate to intuitive historical depiction: Bomber weakest in the air, escort Fighter better and intercepting Fighter stronger.
And it makes room to integrate TcB A2 D1 between StB A1 and Fg A2 D3, as far as I understand TcB air combat capacity.Also, I’m not sure why you think the 1942.2 economy is too small to support air combat. When I play 1942.2, I often have 4 Russian fighters, plus another 4 Allied fighters defending eastern Europe. The German air force often grows as large as 8 fighters and 2 bombers, and the Japanese can easily afford to build 4 or 5 bombers in addition to their 6 starting fighters. Maybe I’m missing something, but that sounds consistent with the ratios (e.g. 1:1, 2:1, 5:1, 7:6) that you’re discussing in your post.
My experience of play on 1942.2 is maybe to bias by time restriction. No player is really trying to turtle and doing as little as possible in early rounds. This imply many battles and losses. Probably why I don’t see much of these planes. For instance, my experience is that Japan is craving to built enough Infantry (and Tank) to fully load its TPs each turn to rush for the center. Getting more than 2 StBs for Japan seems an exploit in our fast pace, less cautious, game.
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 (23.5) = +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 (3/6*12) + 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 =.109Interception 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)For example, if Germany and Japan are ganging up on Russia in 1942.2, you can expect the Axis to attack with a force worth roughly 200 IPCs against a Russian + Allied defensive stack worth roughly 150 IPCs. A 4:3 ratio doesn’t make for a crushing attack, because infantry defend more effectively than they attack, so at first the Russians are relatively safe. But if you give the Axis an opportunity to trade 125 IPCs of Axis pieces for 125 IPCs of Allied pieces, now the ratio is 75 IPCs of offense to 25 IPCs of defense – a 3:1 offensive advantage, which will easily crush the remaining Russian defense. So every time the Russians trade planes with the Germans at even odds, or even at 3:2 odds in the Russians’ favor, the Russians’ position gets worse from a strategic perspective. The Russians will often prefer to suffer the extra industrial damage rather than trade planes at closetoeven odds.
I want to explore a bit more what can happen assuming something like 3 StBs:2 Fgs ratio or 1.5 StBs/Fg for a 18 IPCs/10 IPCs ratio.
Let’s suppose Germany has a 180 IPCs 15 StBs air force and 20 IPCs (2 Fgs as back up) while Russia has 10 Fighters ready to intercept.Assuming no IC damage cap.
So 15 StBs are attacking 10 Fgs.
1 StB A1 vs 1 Fg D3: 0.833 IPCs 5 = 4.165
+8.333 (5/610)  30 (15/612) + 17.5 = 4.165
2 StBs A1 vs 1 Fg D3:+4.056 IPCs5 = +20.28
+15.28 (55/3610)  30 (15/612) + 35 (10*3.5)= +20.28
15 StBs vs 10 Fgs D3: +16.115 IPCs
+23.613  60 + 52.5 =
2.4 Fgs lost (24) + 52.5 on IC.  5 StBs lost (60)
Change in TUV:
Russia loose 76 IPCs while Germany loose 60 IPCs.On the next assault, Russia have 7.6 Fg remaining and Germany 10 StBs remaining.
If assuming Cap on IC, there will be only 16 damage on IC for a total lost of 40 IPCs, for a Russian TUV change +20.Next assault, 10 StBs vs 7.6 Fgs would be 1.32 StB/Fg ratio.
If we keep same loss ratio as above: 30% StBs vs 24% Fgs
it becomes 3 StBs vs 1.8 Fg.
Sum: 7 StBs vs 5.8 Fg, a new ratio: 1.21 StB/Fg ratioAs we start with a good ratio of 1.5 and still going down to 1.3 and 1.2 the rate of loss on German attacking compared to defending Russian will not improve.
From this little prospective scenario, I doubt a German player would first do SBR against such opposition at 1.5 StB/Fg ratio for 16 points of damage to maxed out IC?
15 StBs A1 (15 pts) were cut in pieces by 10 Fg D3 (30 pts).
Maybe a better ratio like 10 StBs A1 (10 pts) against 5 Fgs D3 (15 pts) would work.
Ultimately, it comes to damage cap on IC. Need to be maximized but not way maxed out.
At a certain point, bringing a lot of StBs add nothing more.
Only Fgs escorts taking casualty and killing interceptors with an improve rate of A2 vs D3 than A1 vs D3, would be a better tactics.For example, 5 StBs and 8 Fgs (5+18 = 23 pts) 140 IPCs against 10 Fgs D3 (30 pts) 100 IPCs
Do you believe a Russian player would intercept at 1.3 StB+Fg/Fg ratio?
No doing that generate 16 damage points on IC for sure, but think about the strategic impact on Germany of not using 8 Fighters for ground support.
So launching bombers only is more like suicide missions with little reward (16 IPCs on IC) while bringing escorting Fg becomes a waste of combat resources.
Such fleet in regular combat would bring 20 (54)+ 24 (83)= 44 attack points against 40 defense points instead of 23 vs 30 pts.
A much more interesting perspective for a German players.More I write on it, more I’m being doubtful about these high air combat values, especially but not exclusively about 1942.2…

I’m still trying to make your air combat values workable within acceptable odds and parameters and also not a deterrent to dogfight, here a slight change on cost which impact other values for the better.
With a stronger combat values for TcBs A2 D1 & bombers C10!!!, so attacker and defender may bring it into battle, I can see a bit more balanced and interesting air combat values, this can be incentive to do SBR or TcBR, against intercepting Fg A2 D3:Strategic Bomber
Attack 1
Defense 0
Damage 2D6
Move 67
Cost 10Tactical Bomber
Attack 2
Defense 1
Damage 1D6+2
Move 45
Cost 10Fighter
Attack 2
Defense 3
Move 45
Cost 10AntiAircraft Artillery
Attack 0
Defense 1, against up to three planes (max 1 roll per plane)
Move 1 NCM
Cost 5Industrial Complex or Base:
AAA Defense: reduce 1D6 damage per attack roll done on IC or Base, down to a minimum of zero damage.Because IC’s AA gun cannot destroy bombers, this open up a space for an higher damage capacity such as @3 for defending interceptors.
What maths reveals is you can bring as much as 4 StBs against a single Fighter and still giving even odds of damage to intercept or letting them pass over ICs or Bases.
And this give a wide and interesting Fighter Interception Gap of 0.95 to 4 StBs/Fg
Approximate break even ratio: 15/16= .9365 StB/Fg
1 StB A1 vs 1 Fg D3: +0.167*14= + 2.338
1 StBs A1 vs 2 Fg D3: 2.333 *1= 2.333
15 StBs vs 16 Fgs = +0.005Approximate Interception Threshold: 4/1 = from 4 StB/Fg and below
4 StBs vs 1 Fg: +14.177
4 StBs vs no interception 4*3.5 = +14.0 IPCs (Diff.: +.177)Assuming such 4 StBs vs 1 Fg SBR on Major IC, on average it will not maxed out 20 IPCs IC damage capacity. Interesting.
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)  5 (3/610) + 3.5 = +0.167 IPCs. [OOB G40: +1.819 IPC damage/SBR]
1 StB A1 vs 2 Fgs D3 gives +1.667 (1/610)  7.5 (27/3610) + 3.5 = 2.333 IPCs. [OOB G40:  0.206 IPC damage/SBR]
2 StBs A1 vs 1 Fg D3 gives +3.056 (11/3610)  5 (3/610) + 7 (23.5) = +5.056 IPCs. [OOB G40: + 5.793 IPCs damage/SBR]
3 StBs A1 vs 1 Fg D3 gives +4.213 (91/21610)  5 (3/610) + 10.5 = + 9.713 IPCs
4 StBs A1 vs 1 Fg D3 gives +5.177 (671/129610)  5 (3/610) + 14 = + 14.177 IPCs
5 StBs A1 vs 1 Fg D3 gives +5.981 (4651/777610)  5 (3/6*10) + 17.5 = + 18.481 IPCsAnother additional combat values to improve StBs A1 against Fgs D3 odds of damage without changing the 1:1 break even you already have, is to make StB attack roll works like an AAA @1 against up to 3 Fgs, (1 attack roll max per Fighter interceptor). This may describe the higher defensive capacity of StBs squadron flying in thight formation. In addition, it keeps odds of damage in the lower specter. That way, attacker may try its bombing run at 1 vs 3 ratio without being a totally dumb strategy, even if it is almost suicide mission (87.5% of being shot down).
Strategic Bomber
Attack 1, against up to three Fighters (1 roll @1 max per interceptor)
Defense 0
Damage 2D6
Move 67
Cost 10Damage on interceptor / damage on StB / 2 D6 Damage on IC or Base = average damage per SBR
1 StB A1, up to 3, vs 1 Fg D3 gives +1.667 (1/6 *10)  5 (3/6 10) + 3.5 = +0.167 IPC [OOB G40: +1.819 IPC damage/SBR]
1 StB A1, up to 3, vs 2 Fgs D3 gives +3.333 (21/6 *10)  7.5 (27/36 10) + 3.5 = 0.667 IPC [OOB G40:  0.206 IPC damage/SBR]
1 StB A1, up to 3, vs 3 Fgs D3 gives + 5 (31/6 *10)  8.75 (189/216 *10) + 3.5 = 0.25 IPCs.2 StBs A1, up to 3, vs *1 Fg D3 gives + 1.667 (1/6 10)  5 (3/6 10) + 7 (23.5) = +3.667 IPCs. [OOB G40: + 5.793 IPCs damage/SBR]
2 StBs A1, up to 3, vs 2 Fgs D3 gives + 3.333 (21/6 10)  10 (23/6 10) + 7 = +0.333 IPC [OOB G40: + 3.638 IPC damage/SBR]
2 StBs A1, up to 3, vs 3 Fgs D3 gives + 5 (31/6 10)  12.5 (5 + 7.5) + 7 (23.5) = 0.5 IPC
2 StBs A1, up to 3, vs 4 Fgs D3 gives + 6.667 (41/6 10)  15 (227/36 10) + 7 (23.5) = 1.333 IPCs [OOB G40:  0.412 IPC damage/SBR]
2 StBs A1, up to 3, vs 5 Fgs D3 gives + 8.333 (51/6 10)  16.25 (7.5 + 8.75) + 7 (23.5) = 0.917 IPCs
2 StBs A1, up to 3, vs 6 Fgs D3 gives + 10 (61/6 10)  17.5 (2 8.75) + 7 (2*3.5) = 0.5 IPCs.3 StBs A1, up to 3, vs *1 Fg D3 gives + 1.667 (1/6 10)  5 (3/610) + 10.5 (33.5) = +7.167 IPCs.
4 StBs A1, up to 3, vs *1 Fg D3 gives + 1.667 (1/6 10)  5 (3/610) + 14 (43.5) = +10.667 IPCs.
Approximate Interception Threshold: none = from X StB/Fg and below
4 StBs vs 1 Fg: +10.667
4 StBs vs no interception 4*3.5 = +14.0 IPCs (Diff.: +3.333)
Since StB fire like AAA, a single interceptor can only received 1 attack @1. So, it is always beneficial to try to intercept with Fg D3. On average, StB can do 1.667 while Fighter does 5. A + 3.333 IPCs on defender side.And this give the best incentive because Fighter Interception Gap is 0.95 to X StBs/Fg
But numbers show it is a bit too much for a Flying fortress to act like AAA, this can be reduced to @1 against up to 2 Fgs.
It balances odds in a more scaled ways, so throwing 3 interceptors against 1 StB will remain an unproductive suicide, this was not the case with 3 rolls @1, which gives better odds of making damage (0.25) than against two Fgs (0.667). Clearly an aberration.Strategic Bomber
Attack 1, against up to two Fighters (1 roll @1 max per interceptor)
Defense 0
Damage 2D6
Move 67
Cost 10Damage on interceptor / damage on StB / 2 D6 Damage on IC or Base = average damage per SBR
1 StB A1, up to 2, vs 1 Fg D3 gives +1.667 (1/6 *10)  5 (3/6 10) + 3.5 = +0.167 IPC [OOB G40: +1.819 IPC damage/SBR]
1 StB A1, up to 2, vs 2 Fgs D3 gives +3.333 (21/6 *10)  7.5 (27/36 10) + 3.5 = 0.667 IPC [OOB G40:  0.206 IPC damage/SBR]
1 StB A1, up to 2, vs 3 Fgs D3 gives + 3.333 (21/6 *10)  8.75 (189/216 *10) + 3.5 = 1.917 IPCs2 StBs A1, up to 2, vs *1 Fg D3 gives + 1.667 (1/6 10)  5 (3/6 10) + 7 (23.5) = +3.667 IPCs. [OOB G40: + 5.793 IPCs damage/SBR]
2 StBs A1, up to 2, vs 2 Fgs D3 gives + 3.333 (21/6 10)  10 (23/6 10) + 7 = +0.333 IPC [OOB G40: + 3.638 IPC damage/SBR]
2 StBs A1, up to 2, vs 3 Fgs D3 gives + 5 (31/6 10)  12.5 (5 + 7.5) + 7 (23.5) = 0.5 IPC
2 StBs A1, up to 2, vs 4 Fgs D3 gives + 6.667 (41/6 10)  15 (227/36 10) + 7 (23.5) = 1.333 IPCs [OOB G40:  0.412 IPC damage/SBR]
2 StBs A1, up to 2, vs 5 Fgs D3 gives + 6.667 (41/6 10)  16.25 (7.5 + 8.75) + 7 (23.5) = 2.583 IPCs
2 StBs A1, up to 2, vs 6 Fgs D3 gives + 6.667 (41/6 10)  17.5 (2 8.75) + 7 (2*3.5) = 3.833 IPCs.Maybe this StB with AAA against up to 3 planes features can be balanced by keeping the OOB cost at 12 IPCs (Naturally simpler than lowering to 10 IPCs). IDK.
Here is the number to help make my mind.Strategic Bomber
Attack 1, against up to three Fighters (1 roll @1 max per interceptor)
Defense 0
Damage 2D6
Move 67
Cost 12Damage on interceptor / damage on StB / 2 D6 Damage on IC or Base = average damage per SBR
1 StB A1, up to 3, vs 1 Fg D3 gives +1.667 (1/6 *10)  6 (3/6 12) + 3.5 = 0.833 IPC [OOB G40: +1.819 IPC damage/SBR]
1 StB A1, up to 3, vs 2 Fgs D3 gives +3.333 (21/6 *10)  9 (27/36 12) + 3.5 = 2.167 IPC [OOB G40:  0.206 IPC damage/SBR]
1 StB A1, up to 3, vs 3 Fgs D3 gives + 5 (31/6 *10)  13.5 (189/216 *12) + 3.5 = 5 IPCs2 StBs A1, up to 3, vs *1 Fg D3 gives + 1.667 (1/6 10)  6 (3/6 12) + 7 (23.5) = +2.667 IPCs. [OOB G40: + 5.793 IPCs damage/SBR]
2 StBs A1, up to 3, vs 2 Fgs D3 gives + 3.333 (21/6 10)  12 (23/6 12) + 7 = 1.667 IPC [OOB G40: + 3.638 IPC damage/SBR]
2 StBs A1, up to 3, vs 3 Fgs D3 gives + 5 (31/6 10)  15 (6 + 9) + 7 (23.5) = 3 IPCs
2 StBs A1, up to 3, vs 4 Fgs D3 gives + 6.667 (41/6 10)  18 (227/36 12) + 7 (23.5) = 4.333 IPCs [OOB G40:  0.412 IPC damage/SBR]
2 StBs A1, up to 3, vs 5 Fgs D3 gives + 8.333 (51/6 10)  22.5 (9 + 13.5) + 7 (23.5) = 7.167 IPCs
2 StBs A1, up to 3, vs 6 Fgs D3 gives + 10 (61/6 10)  27 (2 13.5) + 7 (2*3.5) = 10 IPCs3 StBs A1, up to 3, vs *1 Fg D3 gives + 1.667 (1/6 10)  6 (3/6 12) + 10.5 (33.5) = +6.167 IPCs
3 StBs A1, up to 3, vs *2 Fgs D3 gives + 3.333 (2*1/6 10)  12 (23/6 12) + 10.5 (33.5) = +1.833 IPCs
3 StBs A1, up to 3, vs 3 Fgs D3 gives + 5 (31/6 10)  18 (33/6 12) + 10.5 (33.5) = 2.5 IPCs4 StBs A1, up to 3, vs *1 Fg D3 gives + 1.667 (1/6 10)  6 (3/6 12) + 14 (43.5) = +9.667 IPCs
4 StBs A1, up to 3, vs 2 Fgs D3 gives + 3.333 (2*1/6 10)  12 (23/6 12) + 14 (43.5) = +5.333 IPCs
4 StBs A1, up to 3, vs **3 Fgs D3 gives + 5 (31/6 10)  18 (3*3/6 12) + 14 (43.5) = +1 IPC

@ Argothair
This last research on alternate SBR for appropriate odds with Fg A2 D3 made me conclude that the best numbers implied 10 IPCs Strategic Bomber.
This leads me to adapt it within a complete airtoair combat roster to counterweight this reduced cost and balanced regular combat (ex.: AAA at 3 IPCs).Here is a complete and interesting (IMO) roster change for airtoair combat in regular combat, based on your air combat values but at lower cost:
Regular combat / air combat
Strategic Bomber
Attack 4 / 1, against up to two planes (max 1 roll per plane)
Defense 1 / 0
Damage 2D6
Move 67
Cost 10Tactical Bomber
Attack 3 pick any ground unit of your choice / 2
Defense 2 pick any ground unit of your choice / 1
Damage 1D6+2
Move 45
Cost 8Fighter
Attack 2 target plane first, then AAA (owner’s choice) / 2
Defense 3 target plane first, then AAA (owner’s choice) / 3
Move 45
Cost 8AntiAircraft Artillery
Attack 0
Defense 1, against up to two planes (max 1 roll per plane) each combat round (no preemptive strike)
Chosen as last casualty in airtoair combat, no preemptive strike
Move 1 NCM
Cost 3Industrial Complex or Base:
AAA Defense: reduce 1D6 damage per attack roll done on IC or Base, down to a minimum of zero damage.
Cost: 15 (minor) 30 (major)For each target, roll every dice attacking it and make the sum (adding +2 bonus number per each dice from TcB), 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 overachieving AA fire can overlap more successful bombers in a way to hinder them.G40 Aircraft Carrier
Attack 0
Defense 3
Hits 2
Move 23
Cost 16
Carry 2 planes, none if damaged1942.2 Aircraft Carrier
Attack 1
Defense 2
Hit 1
Move 2
Cost 14
Carry 3 FightersVariant:
G40 3 planes Aircraft Carrier
Attack 0
Defense 2
Hits 2
Move 23
Cost 16
Carry 3 planes, 1 if damaged

Thanks, but I’m still confused. Is this new roster supposed to be applicable to 1942.2? Do you want 1942.2 players to go out and buy extra miniatures to use as tactical bombers? I see you made separate unit stats for G40 vs. 1942.2 carriers, but you only have one set of unit stats for all the other unit types. I don’t really understand how you recommend using your new unit stats in a 1942.2 game.
In a G40 game, I think most your changes would be fine, and I really like the idea of a tactical bomber choosing its favorite ground unit as an enemy casualty (feels like a dive bomber!), but I don’t really understand why the strategic bomber would get 2 rolls @1 in airtoair combat – that gives it practically the same air combat power as an escorting fighter, which feels inaccurate and uninteresting to me. Why bother to build or send escorting fighters (which don’t deal industrial damage) if the bombers themselves fight just as well?

Thanks, but I’m still confused. Is this new roster supposed to be applicable to 1942.2? Do you want 1942.2 players to go out and buy extra miniatures to use as tactical bombers? I see you made separate unit stats for G40 vs. 1942.2 carriers, but you only have one set of unit stats for all the other unit types. I don’t really understand how you recommend using your new unit stats in a 1942.2 game.
In a G40 game, I think most your changes would be fine, and I really like the idea of a tactical bomber choosing its favorite ground unit as an enemy casualty (feels like a dive bomber!), but I don’t really understand why the strategic bomber would get 2 rolls @1 in airtoair combat – that gives it practically the same air combat power as an escorting fighter, which feels inaccurate and uninteresting to me. Why bother to build or send escorting fighters (which don’t deal industrial damage) if the bombers themselves fight just as well?
Thanks for your questions and comments.
Indeed, there is no Tactical bomber in 1942.2 game.
So, you just use the above units and let aside the Tactical Bomber.
A 1942.2 Carrier A1 D2 C14 carrying 3 Fighters A2 D3 C8 (I intentionally wrote “Fighters” in the description, not planes to carry on) would be like:
Cv3 A7 D11 C38, 4 hits while the OOB 1942.2 full Carrier with 2 Fg A3 D4 C10 is Cv2 A7 D10 C34, 3 hits.
A 2 planes Carrier was too weak with 2 Fgs A2 D3 C8 (A5 D8 C30)
Against 3 StBs A4 D1 C10, this little 3 hits Carrier would have been chunk into little pieces.
A12 C30 vs D8 C30 : A. survives: 68% D. survives: 19.9% No one survives: 12.1%
A12 C36 vs OOB CV2 D10 C34 : A. survives: 52.7% D. survives: 29.5% No one survives: 17.8%While 4 StBs A16 C40 vs Cv3 A7 D11 C38: A. survives: 71.3% D. survives: 20.5% No one survives: 8.1%
A slightly better odds of survival for defender (20.5 vs 19.9%) even with 4 StBs +2 IPCs advantage.
However, a deeper comparison shows that lowering StBs also impact cost balance with warships. It is also an issue.
Trying to keep Fighter values A2 D3 C8 in all kind of combat is the ideal situation but a balanced SBR with this value requires StB to be put at 10 IPCs.
In addition, increasing attrition amongst plane can be somewhat countered with a 2 IPCs lower cost.There is some ways to overcome this low cost of StB compared to warships.
The simpler should be to give an AAA roll @1 up to 2 planes to Cruiser and Battleship, before the regular combat, at least.
Another way, is to lower the cost of warships something like: SS5DD6TP6CA9CV12BB15 or advanced shipyard cost SS5TP6DD7CA9CV12BB17.Another one could be to lower StB to A3 D1 C10 in regular combat.
Fg can also add a +1 attack bonus to StB if paired 1:1.
So FgA2 and StB A3+1 reach an attack 6 for 18 IPCs (while OOB is attack 7 for 22 IPCs)It is quite difficult to balance attack/defense for plane in regular combat with only Fg and StB available in 1942.2.
Fg A2 D3 is mirrored by TcB A3 D2 in G40, so both have their roles.
Increasing the airtoair attack of Strategic bomber to be like AA @1 vs 2 Fgs is very different than giving StB A2, like Fighter.
From defender POV, a massive air strike of 10 StBs for example is not more dangerous to 1 single interceptor, than it is for 4, 5 or 10.
Each interceptor only get 1 roll @1 against it.
Just imagine 10 StBs A1 against a single Fg D3. It will never intercept, this is suicidal. In the former case, remains only a 16.7% of being shot down.
So this is not accurate, attacking StBs doesn’t fight as well than attacking Fighter.From attacker POV, 1 AA kind of attack against 2 allows to send StBs against superior numbers of Fighters without being plainly dumb.
1 StB vs 2 Fgs ratio gives acceptable odds of damage, which are not too far from zero (an acceptable rate of loss for Axis, as you pointed out):1 StB A1, as AAA up to 2, vs 2 Fgs D3 gives +2.667 (2*1/6 *8 )  7.5 (27/36 10) + 3.5 = 1.333 IPC
or
2 StBs vs 3 Fgs:
2 StBs A1, up to 2, vs 3 Fgs D3 gives + 4 (31/6 8 )  12.5 (5 + 7.5) + 7 (23.5) = 1.5 IPCOtherwise (StB A1), scores are so low that it becomes a no show. For instance,
1 StB vs 2 Fgs:
1 StB A1 vs 2 Fgs D3 gives +1.333 (1/68 )  7.5 (27/3610) + 3.5 = 2.667 IPCs2 StBs A1 vs 3 Fgs D3:
1 StB A1 vs 1 Fg D3 gives +1.333 (1/68 )  5 (3/610) + 3.5 = 0.167 IPC [OOB G40: +1.819 IPC damage/SBR]
1 StB A1 vs 2 Fgs D3 gives +1.667 (1/68 )  7.5 (27/3610) + 3.5 = 2.333 IPCs [OOB G40:  0.206 IPC damage/SBR]
2 StBs A1 vs 3 Fgs D3 gives +2.667 (21/68 )  12.5 + 7 = 2.833 IPCs [OOB G40: +1.613 IPC damage/SBR]So this is made to be a true incentive to do SBR even against a high defense @3.
If you want to figure what does mean such StB with AA@1 against 2 Fgs, imagine that interceptors are chasing Bombers, not the other way around.
So, if 10 StBs are raiding against 1 Fg, this interceptor will chase 1 StB squadron (sculpt), while the other StBs will fly on targets. So, on flight, it becomes a 1 StB against 1 Fg. In the other case, 10 StBs rolling 10 A1 would be like all chasing after this lonely interceptor squadron.Example, 2 StBs and 2 escorts (36 IPCs) fights 4 interceptors (32 IPCs), it gives acceptable attack rolls: 4@1 and 2@2 (8 points) against 4@3 (12 points)
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.
In the case above, 4 StBs A1, 2 Fgs A2 against 3 Fg D3 = A8 vs D9
With StBs as AA vs up to 2, it means only 3 A1+ 2A2 vs 3 D3 = A7 vs D9
The attacker have 1 point less so defender can be more willing to intercept knowing that on avg Russia can take down 2 Fgs but 4 StBs will bombs IC for 3.5 IPCs each, up to 14. Almost maxing out IC, one way or the other.
In your scenario, there is no good reason for Russia to intercept risking 6 rolls against interceptors.
Better to let Germany to waste two Fgs doing nothing.With StB as AA, it is 5 rolls and better odds of making more damage than receiving compared to your first scenario.
So, to the countrary, such feature may increase interception and make StBs less fearful in themselves. Let’s say 6 StBs vs 3 Fgs, A6 vs D9 (your scenario) instead you get A3 vs D9.
After 2 StBs, any additional StBs is no more dangerous against interceptors, but still make much more damage on IC.That’s why, in my mind, it makes 3 hits with one stone.
A better depiction of air combat between bombers and interceptors, more average odds (either positive or negative) which give a wider range of doing SBR and a less dangerous swarm of StBs: increasing opportunity to intercept.I hope, I’m clear enough so you see how it becomes more feasible to use your combat values.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36285.msg1434003#msg1434003
@Argothair:As the Baron points out, modeling air superiority contests in a relatively simple wargame like A&A is quite a challenge! I think there are actually several different phenomena that go by the name of ‘air superiority’ that a good house rule would pay attention to. One is that if your air force is totally unopposed, your ground units will have advantages in terms of recon, surprise, flexibility, etc. because your planes can survey the lay of the land and strike quickly at the point of maximum impact. Another is that airplanes tend to kill each other first, before killing ground units. A third factor is that when fighters intercept bombers, the bombers tend to be less effective – it’s not just that the bombers get killed accomplishing their missions; it’s also that the bombers fly at higher altitudes, fly at faster speeds, and fly on more evasive flight paths to try to minimize their risk of getting shot down. Even when the bombers survive, they do less damage if they’re being harassed by fighters.
Here’s my take on a set of rules that could capture all of those dynamics:

After all attacks are declared, the defender may scramble up to 3 fighters from anywhere on the board, plus up to 2 more fighters from each airbase. Scrambled fighters can move to an adjacent territory or sea zone to participate in a battle there, and then (if they survive) automatically return from whence they came. The same fighter cannot participate in more than one battle per turn.

Attacking and defending fighters roll their dice separately from other units. When fighters score a hit, that hit must be assigned to a plane if possible. The victim can choose which plane is killed. Even though fighter casualties are assigned separately, they are resolved at the same instant as other casualties. For example, suppose a German force of 4 inf, 1 tnk, 1 fighter, and 2 bombers attacks a French garrison of 3 inf, 1 art, 2 fighters. The Germans score a hit with their fighter, and 3 hits with their remaining forces. The French score one hit with their fighter, and 2 hits with their remaining forces. The Germans would have to lose 1 plane and 2 units of their choice – they would probably choose to lose 2 inf, 1 ftr, leaving them with 2 inf, 1 tnk, and 2 bombers. The French would have to lose 1 plane and 3 units of their choice – they would probably choose to lose 3 inf, 1 ftr, leaving them with 1 art, 1 ftr.

If at any point you have at least one plane in a territory, and your opponent has no planes or AAA guns left alive in that territory, then your infantry and mech. infantry in that territory get +1 to their dice rolls. This is cumulative with the artillery bonus. For example, if you have 2 inf, 1 mech. inf, 3 art, and 2 bombers attacking in a territory, and your opponent is defending with only 3 inf, 1 tnk, then your infantry would score hits on rolls of “3” or less – 1 for their basic offense, +1 for the artillery, +1 for the air superiority. Defending infantry can also benefit from air superiority if the defender has air superiority. For example, if your force of 4 inf, 1 fighter, 1 bomber is being attacked by 3 inf, 3 tnk, then your infantry will hit on rolls of “3” or less – 2 for their basic defense, +1 for the air superiority.

Before each combat starts, match each fighter in the combat with one enemy bomber. At the end of the first round of combat, remove that bomber from combat. It no longer rolls dice to try to score hits, and it can no longer be taken as a casualty. This represents bomber pilots’ efforts to avoid interceptors by flying high, flying fast, and then going home. The bomber can be returned to a friendly territory as normal during the noncombat move. If, in any given territory, you have more bombers than your enemy has fighters, your ‘excess’ bombers participate in the entire combat as normal.

To help adjust for the increased mobility of fighters and for their ability to preferentially target (expensive) planes, the combat value of a fighter is reduced to a “2” on offense and a “3” on defense.


This mechanics can also be applied to ABs as Carolina is suggesting:
Air and Naval base damage
@Carolina:Great topic  hilights how A&A is a little too basic. ie. not all hits should be equal  really, when would AAA blow every plane out of the sky?
I would propose to change the AAA rule for bases and industry that AAA does not kill but affects the accuracy of the attacker. Defending installation rules a 1d6 and this is subtracted from the attacker’s roll.
1d61 for fighters and tacB
1d62 for bombers
Roll an AAA dice for each attacking aircraft.