San Francisco (ruleset for 1942.2 and Global)


  • 2019 2015 '14

    Code Name:
    SAN FRANCISCO

    Axis and Allies House Rules
    for 1942 second edition and Global second edition.

    Strategic Bombers are now exclusively for raids against facilities, with no hitpoints and no role in regular combat. “Defenseless,” for SBR only. A0/D0/M6 Cost 5 ipcs SBR damage @1d6. Escort/Intercept recommended for 1942.2.

    Transports and Cruisers now have a standard movement rate of 3.

    Air Bases now grant a +2 movement bonus for aircraft (Global).


    Barney was good enough to put together some gamefiles for testing in tripleA…

    1942.2
    https://www.sendspace.com/file/nbwh28

    Global
    https://www.sendspace.com/file/iuwxok

    The above changes, taken together, offer a pretty dramatic adjustment in how the game models economic warfare through strategic bombing, while at the same time reworking the core air vs naval balance, and fleet movement. This HR is not a balance corrective per se, instead its aim is to provide a new basic play pattern in A&A. One which makes bombing raids a more viable and attractive strategy for the cost, and which accelerates the play pace on the water by granting M3 to transports and cruisers.

    This HR was developed from ideas floated in the Global Redesign thread stickied in this section, so you can check out more info and development concepts there if you’re interested in how it came about, or want to see what comes next after this. Thanks to everyone who’s chipped in and bounced ideas around with us. The code name is in reference to the San Francisco VC, which is hopefully somewhat more significant to the war in the Pacific now, and may finally come into contention in some matches under the M3 rules.

    Here’s a very quick summary from the game notes:

    San Francisco Rules uses +2M from ABs for all planes. Transports and Cruisers have M3 +1 w/NB. Bombers can perform SBR attacks only. They no longer receive +2 to an SBR attack. They now cost 5.

    Credits: San Francisco Rules are derived from the Global Redesign thread originated by Black Elk in the link below. Thanks to Baron Munchausen for his number crunching and ideas, LHoffman,CWO Marc and all others for their input. Thanks to crazy_german for xml help, pyt o torp for Sub/DD interactions and all the people who make TripleA happen. Modded for TripleA by b

    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.0

    Of particular interest right now, how the new stratB unit affects the income/production spread over successive rounds, and how the M3 naval units play on these maps more generally. We’re curious for example, how these changes will alter the openers and the mid-game under Center Crush, Sea Lion, KJF conditions etc. Any play by forums games would be especially helpful. Also whether you think such a system has potential for other mods or variants.

    To play in TripleA extract the zip, and move the contents to your downloaded maps folder and you should be good to go. There should be a folder called “San Francisco Rule v5” for 1942.2 and “San Francisco Rules” for Global, each with a sub folder called “map” that has all the content to run the game. If it doesn’t launch make sure you have tripleA 1.9 installed and double check that the zip didn’t create a folder within a folder of the same name when unzipped (for example San Francisco Rules/San Francisco Rules/map), since that happened to me the first time before I figured out what was going on haha.

    This thread is for general feedback. So if you get a chance to try it out, please let us know what you think!
    Bombs away!!!
    😄



  • Thank you Black Elk for making your Strategic Bomber rule clear and simple here, the idea was presented to me a couple times in the past which I found hard to understand. I am intrigued by the idea of bombers only doing SBRs at a cost of 5 each… I will post more later after I digest it.


  • 2017 2016 2015

    In case you’re not familiar with adding maps to triplea:

    You’ll need to open the zip from the DL and put that folder in your downloaded maps folder, which is inside your triplea folder. It may be a little confusing because there are zips in your DL maps folder that come from in game DLs.

    Also, if you put just the zip in, the map name will show up but when you start the game, it will say map missing.


  • 2017 2016

    @barney:

    In case you’re not familiar with adding maps to triplea:

    You’ll need to open the zip from the DL and put that folder in your downloaded maps folder, which is inside your triplea folder. It may be a little confusing because there are zips in your DL maps folder that come from in game DLs.

    Also, if you put just the zip in, the map name will show up but when you start the game, it will say map missing.

    The v5 zip has the original v5 game in it as well, so you can replace or delete your other one.

    I feel totally incompetent!!!  :x :x :x
    I unzip the files and put it in maps files.
    Start triple A version 1.809 but don’t see any San Francisco amongst available games!!!.
    Sorry, I need help.


  • 2017 2016 2015

    Upgrade to 1.9 and try it. Hold of on 42. I put all 3 in 1 with out the original. Best to keep them seprate I think. I’ll pm you


  • 2017 2016

    Preliminary report 1942.2SF. First round completed, UK2.
    Missing StB A4 makes for less UK warships destruction opening festival.
    In Philadelphia Experiment 1942.2, I would like to see TcB A3-4 D3 M4 C10 as a purchase option.

    Modify balance toward Allies. (Maybe it is centered balance knowing how OOB is Axis biased).
    Both Japan and Germany were used as combat unit OOB to put good swing in battle.
    Mostly Naval: UK SZ and Hawaiian SZ (Light Pearl Harbor attack).
    Japan was not interested. It had a bigger fish to fry in Borneo SZ: UK’s combined fleet (UK’s mistake too much a dead zone, but since it is a playtest IDCare.)
    It gives pretty interesting dance with US.

    But since beginning, I buy StB and bomb ICs everywhere within range, UK vs Italy’s IC, Germany vs Caucasus IC.
    It is funny to see 2 russian Fgs defending against 2 StBs.
    But Yak done nothing. Luftwaffe completely bombed away Stalingrad: 8 IPCs damage!

    Bomber are really acting like bombers.

    USA with Cruiser and TP M3 can enter sooner in game.
    More interesting experience for USA1.
    US fleet amphibious assault Wake Island (three SZ away from Borneo  SZ).

    I built an IC in Sinkiang to see.
    For the first time, I built a US Cruiser and TP on first turn to reach ASAP UK’s fleet in Norway SZ.

    After a few rounds, I made a few Allies mistakes and Germany and Japan wins.
    Cruiser and TP M3 provides very interesting movement and tactical.

    I can say it is mostly USA and Japan which benefits.
    Japan can move to Alaska, then come back loading in Japan and unload in Soviet Far East.
    Then, reload in Japan and unload in Alaska.

    I can say that StB is more useful first to Germany and UK. Then USA, finally Japan.

    Doesn’t seems broken til now. The addition help Allies but not enough to switch balance totally toward Allies, IMO.
    It is still promising to balance things out.
    I saw over my game UK interceptor being shot down, Germany was max out once, Russia lose one Fg against one German escort. One AAA shotdown USA over Italy.

    IMO, if UK and USA invest in StBs, Germans Fgs will be required on ICs.
    Like WWII.


  • 2017 2016

    I wonder if Triple A engine let me choose between escort or bomber casualty.
    This window open and close so fast…
    I wonder if it is a good choice to risk Fg intercept 1:1 vs escort.
    Fg defense D4 is better than A3.

    I can just see that an escort loose an occasion to help in more longer combat with more at stake, like naval combat around UK.
    In 1942.2, there is no scramble, so UK Fg on IC cannot be useful, and at least got a chance to do something in defense.
    Clearly more an incentive to launch 1 interceptor against 3 bombers if they are toothless A0.
    No big deal for bomber since its the dmg roll which is good.

    A small historical distortion to resolve a bigger one (now there is SBR every turn, and intercept as much as possible).


  • 2017 2016

    I’m still unable to load SFR for G40.
    It is asking to download map, and say there is no available.


  • 2017 2016

    Additional notes on play-testing 1942.2 SFR.

    SBR is plenty because you have nothing else to do with StBs.
    The low cost of 5 makes an incentive for sparing purchase money to buy 1 each turn.
    Feels not too dramatic to lose one over IC’s AAA.
    Germany can still wage both Fgs and StBs on London.
    Still requires to keep Fgs in Northwestern, Norway or France.
    Cannot launch toward UK Fgs built in Berlin. So, have to wait 2 rounds before deploying new escorting Fgs.

    Meanwhile, clearly take time to do so for Allies, minimum on R3 if Norway captured UK2, US drop Fgs in Norway and use them as escort US3. UK must wait UK3 to start placing Fg there.
    The other option is Carrier, probably better on long term basis.

    But, both UK and Germany can built interceptors usable for the next round.

    The StB zero attack is a necessary feature it seems.
    Because it is not easy for Germany to keep more than 1 Fg unit in Germany.
    These Fgs are needed for combat and increase defense of other TTy.
    Any attacking value for StBs would easily result in a no intercept optimized play.
    It is also pretty much difficult to maxed out Berlin’s IC.

    I wonder if it was too much efficacy rate for bomber. In 1942.2, a lot of ICs have a low damage cap.
    In each case, this is like risking bomber for less and this decrease their positive odds of making damage.
    For now, 5 IPCs remains the sweet spot and D6 damage is clearly balanced by IC cap.

    On a SFExperiment map, I would find interesting to add an IC in Northwestern Europe.
    That way, both Allies can launch escorting Fgs from UK, while Germany usually have an interest in keeping Fgs on this TTy.
    That would provide a much more historical play pattern. And maybe, a much more interesting TTy to conquer if Allies can built units there.


  • 2017 2016

    I made another full game.
    I put a US IC in Sinkiang.
    I can only put 1 Fg in it, before Japan launch a massive attack and win.

    On SBR, Triple A will make escort option available only if there is enemy Fg on IC, otherwise engine make it a regular combat.

    Actually, it is easy to win with Japan and Germany.
    Maybe US IC and a wrong use of UK’s TPs on first round is quite important.
    Axis may makes a few mistakes, but Allies doesn’t have this luxury.

    M3 TP and Cruiser seems OK, but both IJN TPs are so dangerous on India.
    US fleet stay alive in both 2 tests and were disturbing IJN but too late to prevent attack on India J2!
    IJN never really need 3M TP.
    Cruiser suddenly becomes interesting for US to being defense near UK ASAP.
    Africa is less interesting on first and second round.
    Norway and Finland are more appealing to help Russia and cut 3 IPCs to Germany.

    So, this rules bring more interest and doesn’t swing too much balance.
    There is probably better strategy to increase these units advantage for Allies.
    Still to find.
    I believe it have promise.


  • 2017 2016

    Third try at SFR 1942.2.
    UK attack East Indies SZ.
    Keeping Sub makes for big success with 1 Sub and 1 Fg survival.
    Now with 3M TP It is allowed to move Australian TP to India 1 shot for 2 Inf reinforcement.
    Japan doesn’t have enough airpower to easily destroy India.
    I built hardcore Tank and Inf. Was able to escape Tank from Egypt.
    Every round India is within range of Japan TP, have to watch them.

    Also, I tried a full fledged KJF, EUSA was emptied. I didn’t see but a German TP in Gibraltar could reach Washington with only 1 AAA there. Since German TP invaded Brazil before I saw Washington, I let it go.

    But it is a real change in pace and projection of power to get used to. Need time.
    Allies were giving an harder time on Axis this time, but still unconclusive.
    Still Allies on razor edge, no room for mistakes.
    It becomes interesting to see how SFExp can provide more into Naval Battle.
    Will this give help to Allies, to finally tip balance toward them?


  • 2017

    @Baron:

    IMO, if UK and USA invest in StBs, Germans Fgs will be required on ICs.
    Like WWII.

    1. To get more people to accept this HR, would it make sense to lower tac. bombers’ costs to 10 while keeping fighter’s
    cost at 10 to help counter balance? In many cases, a fighter is more valuable than a tac. bomber because defense can’t be projected, only offense.

    2. Fighters/Escorts BOTH roll @2, all bombers roll @1 during the dogfight…would this add to and support this HR? I think so.

    I really like the idea of strategic bombers being primarily used for strategic bombing! To get more people to accept this HR, would it make sense to lower tac. bomber costs to 10 to help counter balance? Escorts and Interceptor dogfights would become more a part of the game. Also, I personally would like to incorporate the triplea balanced mod rule of BOTH escorts/interceptors rolling @2 in the air battle while all Bombers roll @1. I like distinguishing the combat capabilities between fighters and bombers.

    I like the HR idea for airbases permitting all aircraft an increase of 2 movements. I could see German players now deciding to purchase an expensive airfield(s) more often. Myself, I would want to put one on Slovakia/Hungary (my opinion the best spot for covering western Europe and pushing Russia back).

    3. Anyone out there agree with this lowering the ever increasing bid?

    MITIGATE THE BID: I’d really be interested in trying out this strategic bomber rule for another reason. The bid is still growing significantly. Losing the bomber attack power (and range of 6 no matter where it’s placed) might hurt Germany’s initial Luffwaffe power and be costly for Germany in a G40 game; especially on G1. Germany could still smash the UK fleets, but it could now be very much more expensive. The bid would still be required for balance, but maybe it would now only be 10 IPCs, and the UK player would be encouraged to spend the bid on a fighter placed on Scotland to threaten a scramble. That in turn might result in 1 fleet not even getting attacked. This doesn’t bother me. One fleet (either SZ 110, or SZ 111) surviving unscathed might be enough to significantly lower the ever increasing bid that the allies are getting down to just 10 IPCs! Anyone out there agree with this?

    I don’t know whether or not I would accept the HR additional movement change increase for cruisers/transports. To me it sounds like it’s not as important since most transports are launched from naval bases anyways in Global 40. Might be a way to make the cruiser a more attractive purchase.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 Customizer '13

    @Baron:

    Additional notes on play-testing 1942.2 SFR.

    SBR is plenty because you have nothing else to do with StBs.
    The low cost of 5 makes an incentive for sparing purchase money to buy 1 each turn.
    Feels not too dramatic to lose one over IC’s AAA.
    Germany can still wage both Fgs and StBs on London.
    Still requires to keep Fgs in Northwestern, Norway or France.
    Cannot launch toward UK Fgs built in Berlin. So, have to wait 2 rounds before deploying new escorting Fgs.

    Meanwhile, clearly take time to do so for Allies, minimum on R3 if Norway captured UK2, US drop Fgs in Norway and use them as escort US3. UK must wait UK3 to start placing Fg there.
    The other option is Carrier, probably better on long term basis.

    But, both UK and Germany can built interceptors usable for the next round.

    The StB zero attack is a necessary feature it seems.
    Because it is not easy for Germany to keep more than 1 Fg unit in Germany.
    These Fgs are needed for combat and increase defense of other TTy.
    Any attacking value for StBs would easily result in a no intercept optimized play.
    It is also pretty much difficult to maxed out Berlin’s IC.

    I wonder if it was too much efficacy rate for bomber. In 1942.2, a lot of ICs have a low damage cap.
    In each case, this is like risking bomber for less and this decrease their positive odds of making damage.
    For now, 5 IPCs remains the sweet spot and D6 damage is clearly balanced by IC cap.

    On a SFExperiment map, I would find interesting to add an IC in Northwestern Europe.
    That way, both Allies can launch escorting Fgs from UK, while Germany usually have an interest in keeping Fgs on this TTy.
    That would provide a much more historical play pattern. And maybe, a much more interesting TTy to conquer if Allies can built units there.

    This is pretty much what is happening in my 40 game.

    Germany is not SBR Moscow ?
    It’s hard also for the allies to get max damage on major IC ( Berlin ).
    Better for US to get H. Bombers if they can’t get interceptors there.
    Yes in my game there is a US carrier off coast of Norway and like Baron said the escorts from there or Norway. Maybe we get more troops there faster earlier in game ?

    Stg. bombers workin good on minor IC but in my game may have to raise max damage to 6 instead of territory value.

    Still need more testing in my game to see if Germany Italy have vantage early in game.


  • 2017

    Baron and SS, thanks for play testing many types of HRs. I wish I had a large enough group who played so much to the point that no one would be scared to “waste” time on a House Rules experiment.


  • 2017 2016

    @Ichabod:

    Baron and SS, thanks for play testing many types of HRs. I wish I had a large enough group who played so much to the point that no one would be scared to “waste” time on a House Rules experiment.

    I was playing 1942.2 against myself, no chance to loose.  😄
    SS is more lucky, you should take a look at his awesome map and table.
    You can download TripleA version above, Barney made an intensive work to make it with these special rules.
    He has all my gratitude to make daydreams a more tangible reality.


  • 2019 2015 '14

    @Ichabod

    Yes, the bomber change was originally an independent idea. At first I was just thinking to use it for 1942.2, because that game has a similar dark skies and large bid issue (and it seemed that there, defenseless stratBs would really help balance the round 1 combats, like at pearl.)

    The AB+2 was basically a way to make the concept work in G40, with less grumbling about the lack of a mobile combat air unit, owing to the larger distances involved in Global.

    M3 transports/cruisers was likewise an independent idea, for accelerating the American entry, and making the Atlantic and Pacific crossings less daunting (potentially for either side.) This ruleset brought the two basic ideas together in tandem. But they can work separately as well. I believe Barney has a gamefile with only the Bomber and AB changes if you want to try that instead.

    For the Philadelphia Experiment compliment to this HR we want more changes to the unit roster, I believe lowering Tacs to 10 was at the top of the list. I think there are compelling reasons to make such a change, because right now the unit is not a particularly attractive purchase.


  • 2017 2016

    @Ichabod:

    @Baron:

    IMO, if UK and USA invest in StBs, Germans Fgs will be required on ICs.
    Like WWII.

    1. To get more people to accept this HR, would it make sense to lower tac. bombers’ costs to 10 while keeping fighter’s
    cost at 10 to help counter balance? In many cases, a fighter is more valuable than a tac. bomber because defense can’t be projected, only offense.

    2. Fighters/Escorts BOTH roll @2, all bombers roll @1 during the dogfight…would this add to and support this HR? I think so.

    I really like the idea of strategic bombers being primarily used for strategic bombing! To get more people to accept this HR, would it make sense to lower tac. bomber costs to 10 to help counter balance? Escorts and Interceptor dogfights would become more a part of the game. Also, I personally would like to incorporate the triplea balanced mod rule of BOTH escorts/interceptors rolling @2 in the air battle while all Bombers roll @1. I like distinguishing the combat capabilities between fighters and bombers.

    In which game would you like to introduce BalMode SBR into?

    Actually the zero attack StB increase to a maximum escort and interceptor presence.
    Even 5 or 6 StBs A0 are not dangerous at all, so it becomes a no brainer to intercept  with Fg @1.
    If they were StB A1 you would mostly be certain to loose 1 Fg D2 and if unlucky more.
    If you only have 1 or 2 Fgs, you may not risk them, because you need them for regular combat.
    On the other side, 3 Fgs D2 are a big deterrent for Bombing, you loose one costly bomber.
    If you don’t have much, one or two, it is a lost cause.
    With D1 intercept, there is hope that bomber pass this airshield.
    Fg A1 escort can be easily engaged because you can use StBs as cheaper fodder. So, you know you can later use your Fg in regular combat, more important mission. You don’t need to ponder between a small gain with high risk now and much gain later with average risk.
    It recreates the usual combat situation in which Fighter are beyond a wall of cheaper units.
    IMO it is far far better than BalMode if you want a real feel of WWII SBR.
    No interception threshold, always beneficial to intercept bombers.
    But a pretty interesting break even point near .667 StB per Fg, so  2 StBs can face 3 Fgs and you keep damage average balance near zero, so you can inflict as much damage you can receive.
    Not bad when you know you have nothing else to do with such StBs.
    And in 1942.2 economy, it is a luxury to keep so many Fgs out of position, in Berlin for example.
    But it works for UK because there is a few German warships to take care of in first turns.
    It helps shift slighty less toward Axis.


  • 2017 2016

    And about TcBs, Iwould add to all Black Elk said, 10 IPCs is so much a better well rounded number when you make purchase.
    🙂 🙂 🙂


  • 2017 2016

    @SS:

    This is pretty much what is happening in my 40 game.

    Germany is not SBR Moscow ?
    It’s hard also for the allies to get max damage on major IC ( Berlin ).
    Better for US to get H. Bombers if they can’t get interceptors there.
    Yes in my game there is a US carrier off coast of Norway and like Baron said the escorts from there or Norway. Maybe we get more troops there faster earlier in game ?

    Stg. bombers workin good on minor IC but in my game may have to raise max damage to 6 instead of territory value.

    Still need more testing in my game to see if Germany Italy have vantage early in game.

    I forgot to push StBs on Moscow, I would use these tactic next time.
    Actually, Russia built 1 StB so to bomb Karelia. Germany paid twice 4 IPCs to built units there, maxed out.
    UK and USA at that time were too busy. Staline take the matter in owns hands. 🙂

    I can say 5 IPCs is low cost and can live with 4 IPCs maxed out and sometimes no repair at all.
    I made that choice for Stalingrad once.
    Such small ICs, with an higher priced bomber becomes less interesting.
    I like 5 IPCs. For now, I don’t see them as an absolute weapon either. No total bomber spam.

    On early SBRs, I will watch more closely but actually it seems good because both UK and US get Fg in Britain.
    It takes a few round to launch at Russia, maybe it is a weak unbalanced point.
    Russia needs more Allies Fg early, before Germany SBR Moscow.  UK have to dispatch Fg there while being SBR. IDK.

    Need more early testing.



  • @Baron:

    It’s hard also for the allies to get max damage on major IC ( Berlin ).

    Does the +2 damage bonus not apply with this new unit?


  • 2019 2015 '14

    Yes for global we thought that the +2 damage would be too overpowered. So the 5 ipc defenseless stratBs roll at 1d6 there (the same way they do in 1942.2)

    One issue I anticipate with the bomber change in isolation, is that it is comparatively simple/low cost for Germany and Japan to bomb the hell out of Russia. This is somewhat offset by the fact that those same Axis bombers can’t then be used in combat afterwards, and the fact Allies can bomb Axis in kind (especially Germany) with similarly cheap units, but I don’t know if the offset is really equal.

    So much of this game still comes down to Russia just being too weak to stand on its own.
    (I think in G40 UK Pacific has kind of similar issues. They’re like the mini Russia of the Pacific map. Always getting screwed by bombers, never with quite enough units to mount a proper defense, let alone offense. Pulling friendly units away from other uses like a magnet or a black hole haha)

    At various points we have proposed different ways to shore up the Soviet position. These have been wide ranging. Everything from extra Russian units by default, to economic bonuses, to a NAP with Japan. Most recently my idea to close the Soviet Border with China in 1942.2. Those are more direct approaches.

    Indirect approaches would be things like an A0 turn in 1942.2, or the M3 transport, as a way to give the US more options to open a second front, or send units to aid the Russians at the center.

    For global similar ideas would be ways to directly strengthen the Indian position, again with objectives or more units or a different way of handling their economy. Perhaps a Chinese zero turn as an indirect method.

    It’s hard to say which balance solution is best. But I think the defenseless bomber works as an independent concept. It just probably requires something else on top, if the goal is a game that is truly balanced by sides.

    Ps. And of course, the defenseless bomber alone can’t solve the issue with Victory Conditions. I think that problem requires a separate solution, at least in Global. 1942.2 might work for the 8/9 VC spread, but the OOB global rules are kind of a joke, as we’ve discussed many times. Looking at the recommended victory conditions in G40, particularly for Allies, you can’t help but face palm hehe
    😄


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 Customizer '13

    @Black_Elk:

    Yes for global we thought that the +2 damage would be too overpowered. So the 5 ipc defenseless stratBs roll at 1d6 there (the same way they do in 1942.2)

    One issue I anticipate with the bomber change in isolation, is that it is comparatively simple/low cost for Germany and Japan to bomb the hell out of Russia. This is somewhat offset by the fact that those same Axis bombers can’t then be used in combat afterwards, and the fact Allies can bomb Axis in kind (especially Germany) with similarly cheap units, but I don’t know if the offset is really equal.

    So much of this game still comes down to Russia just being too weak to stand on its own.
    (I think in G40 UK Pacific has kind of similar issues. They’re like the mini Russia of the Pacific map. Always getting screwed by bombers, never with quite enough units to mount a proper defense, let alone offense. Pulling friendly units away from other uses like a magnet or a black hole haha)

    At various points we have proposed different ways to shore up the Soviet position. These have been wide ranging. Everything from extra Russian units by default, to economic bonuses, to a NAP with Japan. Most recently my idea to close the Soviet Border with China in 1942.2

    Those are more direct approaches. Indirect approaches would be things like an A0 turn, or the M3 transport, as a way to give the US more options to open a second front, or send units to aid the Russians at the center.

    For global similar ideas would be ways to strengthen the Indian position. Again with objectives or more units or a different way of handling their economy.

    It’s hard to say which balance solution is best. But I think the defenseless bomber works as an independent concept. It just probably requires something else on top, if the goal is a game that is truly balanced by sides.

    Yes quite agree. If there is no offset with Russia setup and I know this is not the goal but maybe change Germany Stg. bomber buy to C8, but like you said with the 3M tr US UK can get to Norway with planes and send escorts.
    @Young:

    @Baron:

    It’s hard also for the allies to get max damage on major IC ( Berlin ).

    Does the +2 damage bonus not apply with this new unit?

    But in my game YG I do have Baron’s H. Bomber at A2 (Attack 1 naval or ground unit) D0 M7-8 C8 @2 dogfight SBR 1D6 +2 . This should help US early if they want to bomb Berlin from London before they can get a hold close to Europe.
    Is Germany going to buy H. Bomber early ? Possible but not for long if Allies start bombing Berlin and West Germany if there’s a IC there.

    I know my 40 game is a little bit different but as far as the SBR’s in game I’m getting the same results from other player’s. My concern is does it favor Germany early enough to offset Russia’s purchases to the point of Russia always falling ?

    Now that we know US UK has to get to Norway to use escorts to make it and US buying H. Bombers to get that +2 and allies Figs to Moscow for interceptors but that is in my game. But it seems to look like the same thing is happening in the G40 and 1942 games. I have to play test it more to see and guys in Triple A.


  • 2017

    @Baron:

    @Ichabod:

    @Baron:

    IMO, if UK and USA invest in StBs, Germans Fgs will be required on ICs.
    Like WWII.

    1. To get more people to accept this HR, would it make sense to lower tac. bombers’ costs to 10 while keeping fighter’s
    cost at 10 to help counter balance? In many cases, a fighter is more valuable than a tac. bomber because defense can’t be projected, only offense.

    2. Fighters/Escorts BOTH roll @2, all bombers roll @1 during the dogfight…would this add to and support this HR? I think so.

    I really like the idea of strategic bombers being primarily used for strategic bombing! To get more people to accept this HR, would it make sense to lower tac. bomber costs to 10 to help counter balance? Escorts and Interceptor dogfights would become more a part of the game. Also, I personally would like to incorporate the triplea balanced mod rule of BOTH escorts/interceptors rolling @2 in the air battle while all Bombers roll @1. I like distinguishing the combat capabilities between fighters and bombers.

    In which game would you like to introduce BalMode SBR into?

    In this house rule as proposed by Black_Elk for Global 1940.

    If people take the bombers as hits over more expensive fighters, than so be it. It’s part of the risk to bomb with a cheaper C5 s.bomber. In regards to your realism argument of recreating the dogfights/bomber scenarios of the actual war, well, bombers went down more often than fighters. Bombers were more likely to be shot down than fighters by the bomber’s guns; so taking cheaper bombers as hits inadvertently creates a similar casualty scenario. I think the gamism of bombers costing 5, and fighters/escorts rolling @2, still results in similar types of casualties.

    In my meta game, as the German player, I see myself having to buy a ton of fighters to be escorts for bombing Moscow as the allies can add upwards of 6-9 fighters stationed in Moscow just in time to stall the game. Eventually pressure might require the UK to fly some south to help India, but I end up needing lots of fighters regardless. And I don’t mind both interceptors/escorts rolling @2 during the dogfight because the allies need those fighters more for rolling @4 to protect Moscow when it’s time for the big battle. Â


  • 2017 2016

    Just a small note, SS game works with D12 digits  instead of D6.
    So you have to cut in half combat values to get usual numbers.
    Basic bomber C5 gets A1 (D12) damage D6 in SBR but no attack in reg combat.
    Because it faces Fg A4 D4 (D12 too) C6-7, a more powerful interceptor, than what is suggested in this OP thread.
    (D6 digit, now)
    In SFR Escort and intercept is as OOB: Fg A1 D1  C10, and reg cbt A3 D4 but M4-6, due to AB+2M
    Bomber cost 5 are A0 D0 in all situations, damage D6.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 Customizer '13

    OOOPs, Sorry forgot to mention that. Thanks Baron.

    Also I’m not a big fan of Allies Fighters defending Russia !!! Correct me if I’m wrong but they really weren’t doing that in the war. But if I’m wrong let me know. CWO will. lol


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 4
  • 48
  • 5
  • 6
  • 298
  • 5
  • 3
  • 2
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

44
Online

13.7k
Users

34.1k
Topics

1.3m
Posts