San Francisco (ruleset for 1942.2 and Global)

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '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
    :-D


  • @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.

  • '17

    @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

  • '17 '16

    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.


  • 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


  • @SS:

    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

    I’m not aware of any American-manned or British-manned fighter squadrons operating inside the USSR during WWII (in contrast with the American-manned Flying Tiger squadron that operated inside China).  It’s possible that the US or the UK may have supplied the USSR with actual fighter planes, but offhand I doubt that they did so to any great extent.  A few US long-range bombers on missions against China did end up landing in the USSR during the war, and I think that the planes were seized by the Russians because Russia had a neutrality pact with Japan for most of the war.  (That’s how the B-29 got reverse-engineered and copied by the Russians as the Tupolev Tu-4 bomber.)

  • '17

    @SS:

    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

    They weren’t. I don’t recall reading or hearing about any allied units operating in Russia period. Hence the NO which partly discusses no allied units in Russia. However, it’s a gamism in G40 which a good allies player must fly fighters to Moscow in order to prevent it from falling practically no matter what. Once again, I don’t mind the interceptors/escorts rolling @2 because it’s a test of wills at that point to intercept.

    I do like Black_Elk’s house rule idea of bombers only strat bombing, and the C5.


  • I know all about the figs to Russia to save them in all games. Some 39 games I have you can’t.

    I do have his house rule in game D12 using Baron’s mods with Figs A4 D4 M4-5 C7
    Escorts and Interceptors A4 D4 and Stg. Bomber @1 dogfight.

    The Figs haven’t shot down as many Stg. Bombers as you would think. I have posted in the Global War thread my last 5 turns in a game for SBR’s.

  • '17 '16 '15

    Adding income for Russia via NO’s and/or giving their valueless TTys all a buck, is necessary imo. Tying no allied units allowed for some/all of the NOs to take effect helps keep Allied units out of Russia.

    Russia gets a extra 4 bucks a turn if all her TTys produce. Germany can get Vyborg and Bessarabia (or Italy) easy enough when they attack, but tying the NOs to a Axis attacks gives them a little bit more of a decision on when to attack. Even a few extra bucks can help Russia early.

    Germany can still bull rush and kill Russia, although it’s a lot harder, unless allies help. Idk how likely it would’ve been for allied air units to show up in the real war if Russia was close to falling late "42 or "43, but since this is a “what if” kinda game anyway, I don’t mind the option.

    Just don’t like it being the only, or so much better than the others, option.

  • '17

    @barney:

    Adding income for Russia via NO’s and/or giving their valueless TTys all a buck, is necessary imo. Tying no allied units allowed for some/all of the NOs to take effect helps keep Allied units out of Russia.

    True…that’s why it’s often the case that on UK5 the fighters land on Moscow from E. Persia.

  • Sponsor

    Not to derail from the original idea which I think is good… I like the lone role for strategic Bombers at 5 IPCs, but I can’t say I’m a fan of increasing the extended range on air bases.

    Here’s my opinion…

    All aircraft range with or without an airbase stays the same as oob.
    Strategic Bombers cost 5 IPCs each and get a +2 damage bonus
    Escorts and interceptors dog fight @2 or less all Bombers dog fight @1
    Strategic bombers my extend their max range by 1, but they lose their +2 damage bonus
    Escorts may extend their max range by 1, but they now dog fight @1 instead of @2 or less

    *extended range for dropping damage bonus and dog fight values may be done with or without an air base.

    …this to me would accurately represent the idea of fuel reserves being depleted for further range, bombers would need lighter pay loads, and escorts would have to break off earlier.

  • '17 '16

    @Young:

    Not to derail from the original idea which I think is good… I like the lone role for strategic Bombers at 5 IPCs, but I can’t say I’m a fan of increasing the extended range on air bases.

    Here’s my opinion…

    All aircraft range with or without an airbase stays the same as oob.
    Strategic Bombers cost 5 IPCs each and get a +2 damage bonus
    Escorts and interceptors dog fight @2 or less all Bombers dog fight @1
    Strategic bombers my extend their max range by 1, but they lose their +2 damage bonus
    Escorts may extend their max range by 1, but they now dog fight @1 instead of @2 or less

    *extended range for dropping damage bonus and dog fight values may be done with or without an air base.

    …this to me would accurately represent the idea of fuel reserves being depleted for further range, bombers would need lighter pay loads, and escorts would have to break off earlier.

    Already on houserule tweak on an houserule.  :-D
    If someone try it, I suggest to only add+1 dmg bonus. (+2 is too OP for C5 unit)
    That way, you exchange +1 on dmg or attack for +1M range.

    Fg A2 D2 vs StB A1 in SBR only is something to try eventually, but it has many undesired secondary effects.
    SS play-test have cheaper StB C5, TcB C8 and Fg C7. And it takes two StBs to get A1 on Fg D2.
    Looking at is report on Global War variants gives a glimpse of what can  happen.
    It is easy to risk these units in dogfight.
    However at 10, when you have more important regular mission, you don’t like these risks.
    I would say it produces more easily interceptors stay grounded than scrambling toward bombers.

    However, I suggest people to try it against yourself with Triple A.
    1942.2 is a good start to get to the change.

    Also, this idea work fairly on Tabletop game but much more difficult to modify in Triple A.

    However, it would be the most accurate according to history.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    That’s a cool idea YG, to give the range a trade off.

    Just curious as to why you dislike the AB+2?

    I’ve always found the odd number for movement bonus pretty frustrating myself, since it constantly forces the player to land in different places in order to maximize their range. I feel like it makes every fighter movement from an AB into this weird Doolittle Raid, where you take off one place and have to land in another, or else you lose out on the +1. I think the OOB rules make airbases on islands, especially in the Pacific, not particularly useful or worth purchasing for the movement bonus, and I only ever buy them for the scramble.

    Frankly I think they should have been +2 from the start, because it gives all islands (or isolated territories) with an AB, a standard range for fighters of 3 out and 3 back. Much easier to count, and much more effective for both combat and escort.

    Under the OOB rules, you can’t escort a bombing raid vs Tokyo even if you have an AB with fighters at Iwo Jima or Okinawa. This seems ridiculous to me.

    On the Europe side, under the OOB rules, you can’t escort out of UK to anywhere of value. Both France and Western Germany are 1 move out of range, to say nothing of E. Germany. This means you can’t escort bombing raids at all vs Axis ICs until after the Allies have made a landing, which is way too long to have any real effect on the German economy.

    It just feels gamey to me OOB, and doesn’t allow for the kind of bombing raids and escorts that the Allies conducted historically. The AB+2 fixes this for most areas on the map, and combined with the defensless bomber, makes escort/intercept a real factor in the grand strategy, something which seems sorely lacking with the OOB airbase/rules.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Ps. Just a quick follow up. I think YG’s idea is totally doable in face to face play, and I really like how it tries to incorporate a trade off between damage and range, which is something we haven’t seen really in A&A.

    Part of the reason I outlined the rule the way I did, was because I also play on tripleA and there we have certain limitations to what is possible under the current engine. I see this as having both an upside and a downside, because while it means certain things simply aren’t possible in tripleA, it also has a way of focusing me to find practical solutions that can work with the engine in its current state.

    Just as an example, so far as I know, it’s not possible to give units separate movement values on the fly. The AB grants a fixed bonus to movement, that applies the same way for all aircraft. Similarly I don’t think it’s possible in tripleA to adjust the damage a bomber can deliver, based on X or Y conditions. Basically in tripleA the bomber either has +2 to damage at all times, or no bonus, so I went with the later as being less distorting and more consistent with 1942.2. Kind of a cop out I know, since many FtF players probably won’t really care what is possible or not in some digital clone of the game heheh. But still, I thought the chances of gathering quick feedback would be increased if I had a ruleset that was easy to port in tripleA. So that was kind of the angle we took here.
    :-D

  • '17 '16

    @Young:

    Not to derail from the original idea which I think is good… I like the lone role for strategic Bombers at 5 IPCs, but I can’t say I’m a fan of increasing the extended range on air bases.

    Here’s my opinion…

    All aircraft range with or without an airbase stays the same as oob.
    Strategic Bombers cost 5 IPCs each and get a +2 damage bonus
    Escorts and interceptors dog fight @2 or less all Bombers dog fight @1
    Strategic bombers my extend their max range by 1, but they lose their +2 damage bonus
    Escorts may extend their max range by 1, but they now dog fight @1 instead of @2 or less

    *extended range for dropping damage bonus and dog fight values may be done with or without an air base.

    this to me would accurately represent the idea of fuel reserves being depleted for further range, bombers would need lighter pay loads, and escorts would have to break off earlier.

    I’m still a bit surprised that you prefer D6+2 over D6 because in your HRG40 Cliffside Bunker, you reduced bomber damage if not coming from AB. Giving D6 from anywhere but D6+2 from AB.

    Also, your StB cost 12 while in SFR it is less than half, C5.
    It is like allowing real Revised Edition Tech Heavy bomber for same money.
    Now for 5 OOB StB you get 5D6+10, avg 27.5 pts while SFR gives you 12 StBs and 12 D6 damage, avg 42 pts.
    It seems you already get a lot of bang for your bucks, isn’t?

    I pretty like this idea for a more historical oriented game like SS doing.
    However, C5 is to low to be balanced, need to be around C7$ or C8$.

    AB gives a basic +1M, and you choose one if these option:
    BOMBERS A1 D0 C7 M6-8, dmg D6 : Get +1 Damage from AB or +1 additional Move point.
    Fighters A2 D2 C10 M4-6: starting from AB, may take -1A for +1 additional Move point.

  • '17

    I only recently became a fan of the A2/D2 fighter dogfight after recently trying it out. I like making fighters hit better than bombers…it makes escorting or intercepting more exciting…and from an axis perspective, I like shooting fighters down because they’re my main scourge!!! In some respects, fighters are more powerful than strategic bombers…If someone is concerned about the cost of losing their 10 IPC fighters, than they better not intercept, because my bombers are coming with an escort of Focke-Wulf 190 fighters!

    Just because a fighter costs 10, and a bomber costs 5 (in this HR), doesn’t mean I’ll always take the cheaper bomber as a hit. I want to bomb Moscow so they can’t produce as much ground units. It might suck for the UK player losing fighters, but, I’d be losing fighters too, (which I still need to roll @3 for the main Moscow battle).

    In reverse, I expect the US player to take advantage of this rule change.

    YG introduced an interesting twist. His justification makes sense.

    I guess a way to interpret this would be if a unit reaches it’s target and has a movement range of 2 or more left, then it should keep it’s higher dice roll because it’s not extended flight. So, if a fighter escorts to Moscow and has to land in Bryansk (1 movement range left), than in theory, it had “less fuel” to remain in the vicinity of the bombing target. Same thing for the strategic bombers. Tac bomber no change of course. But say if the fighter could make it back to Ukraine, than it had sufficient fuel to remain in the air war (justifying the higher @2).

    I hope Black_Elk doesn’t mind his original House Rule post slightly changing. After awhile, this is all just fun to discuss this stuff anyways, and of course the “HR” idea will change as everyone has their own opinion.

    Obviously there hasn’t been much discussion on the transport/cruiser HR idea. My preference is not this HR idea as I like the way G40 game mechanism works right now in having to be “in position,” on naval bases ect.

  • '17 '16

    @Ichabod:

    I only recently became a fan of the A2/D2 fighter dogfight after recently trying it out. I like making fighters hit better than bombers…it makes escorting or intercepting more exciting…and from an axis perspective, I like shooting fighters down because they’re my main scourge!!! In some respects, fighters are more powerful than strategic bombers…If someone is concerned about the cost of losing their 10 IPC fighters, than they better not intercept, because my bombers are coming with an escort of Focke-Wulf 190 fighters!

    Just because a fighter costs 10, and a bomber costs 5 (in this HR), doesn’t mean I’ll always take the cheaper bomber as a hit. I want to bomb Moscow so they can’t produce as much ground units. It might suck for the UK player losing fighters, but, I’d be losing fighters too, (which I still need to roll @3 for the main Moscow battle).

    Obviously there hasn’t been much discussion on the transport/cruiser HR idea. My preference is not this HR idea as I like the way G40 game mechanism works right now in having to be “in position,” on naval bases ect.

    That is precisely what this A0 bomber solved as an unhistorical issue.
    In BalMode or OOB SBR, a few StBs and 1 Fg can make futile any interception with 1 or 2 Fgs.
    Clever and competitive players will prefer to let the IC’s AAA do the job instead of engaging in “an against the odds” duel.
    If you only get 1 interceptor, against 3 StBs A1 and 1 Fg A2 (not so unusual), it is 25% odds of survival. For 33% to hit a Fg.
    So it doesn’t change anything for your IC, all 3 StBs are going to bomb anyway.

    With 3 StB A0 C5 and 1 Fg A1 against 1 Fg D1. It becomes a 83% one-on-one odds of survival, like an AAA roll.
    And if interceptor hit, attacker have an harder choice which benefits defender both case.
    1- Loosing a 5 IPCs bomber and (no D6 bombing damage over IC) or
    2- loosing a 10 IPCs Fg to allow bomber to get to ICs, still not knowing outcomes of IC’s AAA roll.

    Increasing bomber numbers have no impact on Fg intercepting, only Fg escort numbers.
    Unlike OOB SBR, which gives the impression that a flock of bombers are going chasing Fgs on their way to bombing target.
    Fg interceptor were engage in a squadron against a bomber squadron, not all bombers squadrons were coming to help the poor squadron under enemy’s fire. Bombers stay their course to the target.
    However, Fg escorts were watching every opportunity to dogfight interceptors.
    So it makes more sense to let all Fg units roll against each other enemy formation.

    Of course, giving a minimal combat point seems better to describe one on one StB A1 vs Fg D2 combat.
    With low number of units, it has no big impact. But with G40 scale, there is much more units involved.
    So, SFR sacrifice a tactical depiction to get a better strategic picture about what were doing Bombers and Fgs in the Air War of WWII. And from my few actual play-test, it pretty much gives what was expected.

    As a side note, I very much like SS D12 digit A1 D0 StB C5 against Fg A4 D4 C7.
    This ratio of 1 to 4 allows a lot more room on how many bombers you can bring in before it becomes too scary for a lonely Fg to intercept. It takes 6 StBs to be around 50% survival for a single interceptor.

    But, with D6 system, the choice imply sacrifice.
    And it comes with less change from OOB SBR combat:
    StB drop to zero, Fg and TcB remains A1 and intercept D1.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    The way I see it, there’s no such thing as derailing in this section. Anytime we get a lively discussion I think it’s a good thing. And who would I be to complain about extra HR conversations, I mean just look how I hijacked taamvans thread about balance in 1942.2. It was like an airliner in the 70s, no mercy lol.
    :-D

    One positive is that, now that I’ve floated the basic ruleset, it’s fairly easy to break it apart into the 3 constituent elements.

    SFR bombers
    SFR Air Bases
    SFR M3 naval

    If people don’t dig one but like the others, it’s easy enough to drop the one you don’t dig. Fairly easy to axe out of the Xml too in tripleA terms. Or similarly if you wanted to try any one of them in a different ruleset or mod, pretty simple to pull out the one that’s most interesting and leave the others behind.

    I think G40 can be pretty unwieldy, and so I wouldn’t put any of these down as a silver bullet. But they might be worth exploring, especially in conjunction with other ideas, which is always the beauty of HRS. The real trick is finding some kind of critical mass for any HR change, so it can be common enough to serve as a viable alternative to OOB over time. Not sure if we’re there yet, but maybe one of these ideas makes the grade.

    Still wish we had a 3rd edition to look forward to. But for now, gotta work with what we’re given I guess. So I’ve come to expect a lot of returns to the drawing board.
    :-D

  • '17 '16

    And we are already in Forum’s hell anyway.
    So nothing to be afraid to get this thread going into house rule junk yard.
    :evil: :evil: :evil:
    So no censorship is allowed here, some derailing are often very productive, or at least give up a lot of pressure to say something right now on the spot…
    :evil: :evil: :evil:
    I forbid to forbid…

  • '17 '16

    @Ichabod:

    Obviously there hasn’t been much discussion on the transport/cruiser HR idea. My preference is not this HR idea as I like the way G40 game mechanism works right now in having to be “in position,” on naval bases ect.

    IDK which one will be the first to try to ride this SFR G40 beast.
    From an external POV, I don’t think M3-4 CA and TP ruined G40 PTO “in position” threat against other enemy’s fleet.
    The main combat units with more punch per IPCs only travel M2-3.
    Some TPs+CAs may go sideways but without other cover.
    At best, they can play bait to lure main fleet out of position, IDK.

Suggested Topics

  • 9
  • 9
  • 5
  • 13
  • 13
  • 3
  • 11
  • 9
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

26

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts