@Baron:
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.I agree that +2 might be too strong for 5 IPC unit… so the attacker would have the choice of dropping it’s defence value OR it’s damage bonus if it extends its range to 7?
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.The oob already sees interceptors grounded… so nothing new there. Interceptors in oob force extra planes into the SBR to keep them from other battles without much desire to fight.
However, it would be the most accurate according to history.
I would say so… penalties to bonuses for extending range? of course… range costs fuel, heavy loads cost fuel, and extended escort duty cost fuel whether you depart from an airbase or not.
That’s a cool idea YG, to give the range a trade off.
Just curious as to why you dislike the AB+2?
I think the +2 for airbases is a blanket solution so Bombers and Escorts can reach more facilities which I agree is needed, but it counter effects so much in the game that is not in the realm of SBRs. The bonus exchange for range deals with the extended movement required for bombing raids without effecting every air unit that departs from an airbase. Also, fuel requirements for range vs. payload vs. time in dog fight should be true whether participating air units depart from a base or not. Also, when allowing the range bonus for all air units participating in SBR without needing an airbase to provide the bonus, you will see more interesting raids from Islands and such like you mentioned.
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.
To be absolutely clear… the inspiration for my idea came from the concept of a 1 role bomber which was your idea. I couldn’t have had my idea without yours.
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.
Table top house rules are boundless and unlimited.
@Baron:
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.
That rule was in the spirit of trading damage bonus for ______. Now that we have a great model for a cheaper 1 role bomber, we can trade damage bonus for range. 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?Obviously, the introduction of a cheaper 1 role bomber puts all past discussions about SBRs on their head. 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$.I like the idea of a unit filling the 5 IPC slot… maybe your idea of the +1 damage bonus / trade for rage is better.
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.interesting
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!
I have come to agree with your perception, Strategic Bombers should hit in dog fights withy their turrets and side gunners, but fighters should be more feared in SBR situations whether intercepting or escorting.
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).Agreed… although being pressed to decide casualties in situations through playtesting is the only way to find out for sure.
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).
Perfect analogy.
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.Its still Black Elk’s idea in my opinion… we are just contributors helping to give it life.
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.
I can’t see giving a Fig +2 from an airbase. Thats just me. I\m gonna throw out this suggestion and you guys can tear it up. Seems there may be no happy medium here.
Stg. Bomber A1 D0 C7 M6 M7 from airbase M8 from airbase on SBR flight only @0 dogfight 1D6 +2. Goes straight to target and back . No fuel lose for dogfighting.
C6 = 1D6 +1. C5 1D6 ??
Figs just get M4 M5 airbase.
Well another interesting advantage of this rule that YG proposed, (even if I have no clue how to include it in tripleA) is that it could work in tabletop 1942.2 as well, where the Airbase unit and attendant movement bonus doesn’t exist.
I still see odd movement +1 as problematic in both games, because of what it does to landing spots. Though at least in G40, if the movement bonus for the range/damage trade off was universal, and could be combined with the standard AB+1, then you could get back to the even 6, or even 8 on movement.
Honestly the main downside I see, is just that it asks the players to do a lot more tracking of individual unit stats while engaging in SBR or Escort. You could have different bombers doing damage at separate values, or escort fighters with different attack values, in the same fight. So more floating numbers. I’m also not sure what changing the escort attack value like that on the fly, does for the attrition rate, with the bomber being defensless? Escort fighters @1 seemed to produce a really nice and simple to understand rate of return, and made intercept attractive too. But here you wouldn’t have a consistent ratio, since it could change at any point based on whether individual units are exploiting the range or the damage trade off. Basically there would be no way to plug it into a formula to determine the standard attrition rate for Bombers, or the average damage rate on a unit vs unit basis, so the cost/benefit analysis would have to be done for each raiding scenario indiviudally, as it’s occurring. Baron’s pretty good at crunching the numbers, but something tells me the math here might make his head explode hehe.
One other thing to consider, is that the AB+2 I outlined also gives combat aircraft (fighters and tacs doing regular combat or non combat moves) a bonus too, which was seen as a way to offset the loss of the strategic bomber in a regular combat role. If the extra movement bonus (for range) was restricted only to SBR or Escort, then we would no longer have any mobile combat air unit at move 6. The best you’d get there would be move 5 fighters/tacs from an Airbase, like OOB. I worry that players might balk at losing the combat stratB, without some improvement to the regular mobility of the remaining combat aircraft (fighters and tacBs) as a trade off, because the distances on the G40 map are so huge. So that was another factor I was considering with the AB+2 standard suggestion.
Again I would point to Iwo Jima as an example. At M4 or M5 (with an AB) fighters at Iwo cannot reach Japan and return. This seems pretty weird to me. OOB there would be no incentive to station any kind of fighter squadron command at Iwo, even though it existed historically. Similar issues present themselves all over the map at M5. The OOB Airbase just doesn’t do much for movement over the standard M4 in my view. Whereas an M6 fighter from an Airbase would be a real game changer. Makes air bases way more useful, and could be a viable gameplay alternative to the OOB combat StratB.
@Young:
That’s a cool idea YG, to give the range a trade off.
Just curious as to why you dislike the AB+2?
I think the +2 for airbases is a blanket solution so Bombers and Escorts can reach more facilities which I agree is needed, but it counter effects so much in the game that is not in the realm of SBRs. The bonus exchange for range deals with the extended movement required for bombing raids without effecting every air unit that departs from an airbase. Also, fuel requirements for range vs. payload vs. time in dog fight should be true whether participating air units depart from a base or not. Also, when allowing the range bonus for all air units participating in SBR without needing an airbase to provide the bonus, you will see more interesting raids from Islands and such like you mentioned.
@YG, SS and Ichabod,
I’m in no way able to judge accurately on this matter.
I have no real experience as you battle-harden G40 veterans.
I wonder how Fighter and TcB able to make 6 Move from AB impacts on balance.
Or, how it greatly impact your historical sense because it is too much for planes of this era.
Or simply is it because it allows much more long range Non-combat Movement so Allies become stronger?
I need help to see where it hurts this game to compel to back off this rule.
Black Elk showed quite precisely what are the upsize of such rule.
Please give me a few examples so I can see the downsize of it.
Actually, I wonder if the OOB M6+1 StB A4 projection of Power is behind your reaction.
Don’t forget, in SFR with AB +2M there is only A4 when both 1 TcB and 1 Fg joined together and it is at most like StB without AB bonus.
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.
One other thing to consider, is that the AB+2 I outlined also gives combat aircraft (fighters and tacs doing regular combat or non combat moves) a bonus too, which was seen as a way to offset the loss of the strategic bomber in a regular combat role. If the extra movement bonus (for range) was restricted only to SBR or Escort, then we would no longer have any mobile combat air unit at move 6. The best you’d get there would be move 5 fighters/tacs from an Airbase, like OOB. I worry that players might balk at losing the combat stratB, without some improvement to the regular mobility of the remaining combat aircraft (fighters and tacBs) as a trade off, because the distances on the G40 map are so huge. So that was another factor I was considering with the AB+2 standard suggestion.
Again I would point to Iwo Jima as an example. At M4 or M5 (with an AB) fighters at Iwo cannot reach Japan and return. This seems pretty weird to me. OOB there would be no incentive to station any kind of fighter squadron command at Iwo, even though it existed historically. Similar issues present themselves all over the map at M5. The OOB Airbase just doesn’t do much for movement over the standard M4 in my view. Whereas an M6 fighter from an Airbase would be a real game changer. Makes air bases way more useful, and could be a viable gameplay alternative to the OOB combat StratB.
Idk I’d call it a downside but one thing I noticed. Brits put an AB in Egypt they can shuttle to India. Also UKP 1, they can have air reach E Africa. Have to be careful though, because it takes two turns to get back w/o an AB.
Sorry, I’m not very purvey on other house rule aspects that have been discussed surrounding the SF suggestions, I’m only thinking about BEs 1 role bomber idea and the +2M from airbase idea.
Idk I’d call it a downside but one thing I noticed. Brits put an AB in Egypt they can shuttle to India. Also UKP 1, they can have air reach E Africa. Have to be careful though, because it takes two turns to get back w/o an AB.
You can reach West India with M5, anyway.
You can reach Karelia or Archangel from UK (M6). Otherwise, it was only possible from Scotland.
It allows a 1 turn flight from Eastern USA to England.
No need to buy a Carrier as a staging point of departure to reach UK.
It allows to reach and land (M6) from WUSA to Marshall and Gilbert Islands.
From Hawaii to Australia (M5) it doesn’t too much.
It allows to use Midway for long range unescorted SBR (M8) on Japan.
Well I think part of the issue is just that the Air Base unit itself is so gamey to begin with. It’s hard to make it too realistic, before the house of cards just collapses altogether under the weight of rational examination.
:-D
In reality an Airbase doesn’t really increase operational range, it’s just a necessity to launch and land aircraft effectively at all. Every fighter unit in any territory implies some kind of airbase. So the actual AB unit in A&A is something rather different. It doesn’t really have a ready analog you can point to, at least for the movement advantage. For the scramble I think the analogy is easier to imagine, but even there we are in pretty gamey territory.
I suppose I’m just being less conservative here with the AB+2 than others might wish. The way I see it, if I can get closer to the desired gameplay, with less rules overhead, then I prefer this to something that is only somewhat more realistic, but a lot more complicated to implement rules-wise.
I admit this is a general inclination on my part, to favor gameplay simplicity over strict realism. I tend to privilege the former, pretty much any time issues like these come up haha. Perhaps to a fault… but there is just so much of A&A that seems to fall apart under close scrutiny, that I tend to always take the wider view, “will such and such give us the desired play patterns?” If so, then I’m more willing to suspend my disbelief when it comes to the nitty gritty.
Is it realistic for fighters or tacBs to move 6 from an Airbase? To which I would reply, well, it’s at least as realistic as the OOB Strategic Bomber at M7 with a combat hit @ A4/D1, strafing a tank column on the ground, or dive bombing enemy destroyers at sea, or defending against an artillery assault at the gates of Moscow hehe. All things broadly accepted in this game under OOB conditions.
Not trying to make light of the desire for a more historically accurate representation, just that the foundation we’re building on takes quite a few liberties already in this regard.
Probably the simplest solution for those who don’t dig the AB change, is just to ignore that HR suggestion. The defenseless bomber doesn’t require it to work. Just means that you have 1 fewer combat air unit in the mix, and the two that remain can’t be used the way OOB strat bombers were in regular combat esp. for coastal defense vs fleets. That might not be such a bad thing, just requires players to adapt their strategies away from any heavy hitting M6 combat air unit.
Is it realistic for fighters or tacBs to move 6 from an Airbase? To which I would reply, well, it’s at least as realistic as the OOB Strategic Bomber at M7 with a combat hit @ A4/D1, strafing a tank column on the ground, or dive bombing enemy destroyers at sea, or defending against an artillery assault at the gates of Moscow hehe. All things broadly accepted in this game under OOB conditions.
Airbases (in the real world) don’t change how much fuel a plane carries, so strictly speaking an AB shouldn’t affect the range of any aircraft. I’d frame the question differently as two questions: is it realistic for a strategic bomber to move 6 from anywhere (AB or not) and is it realistic for a fighter to move 6 from anywhere (AB or not)? I’d say: yes for a strategic bomber but nor for a fighter. WWII fighters generally had short ranges: they were mostly small planes, which means a small fuel tank, and in active combat they burned up fuel very quickly. A few long-range fighters did develop during the war, via such innovations as auxiliary drop tanks and innovative airframe/powerplant combinations, but airbases had nothing to do with those innovations.
This is just to follow up on something I said a few days ago about the island/airbase relationship, which is that in the Pacific in WWII islands increased the value of strategic bombers and strategic bombers increased the value of islands. I didn’t mean to imply (if that’s how it was interpreted) that an airbase on an island increases the distance that a SB can fly from its point of takeoff; what I meant was that the island itself, as the point of takeoff, determines how close a SB is to its target. Therefore, an island that’s close to Japan (for example) makes possible a bombing run on Japan, whereas an island that’s far from Japan does not.
To be even more precise, a SBR against Japan from an island in the Pacific (to be tolerably modeled on reality) would need three things if we were indeed trying to reflect reality. (I’m not saying we should be trying to model reality; I’m just illustrating how the components worked together historcally in WWII). The requirements are:
A SB with a long range – the longer the better. The B-29 Superfortress was longed-legged enough to reach Japan and return (the 2-way trip requirement obviously being important, especially to the crew) on a single fuel load from the Marianas. The B-17 (the mainstay of the SB campaign in Europe) was not.
An island close enough to the target to be reachable by the long-range SBs on your side, but ideally far enough to be beyond the range of the enemy’s SBs – something which is achievable if (as was the case for the US vis a vis Japan) there’s a significant difference in aircraft technology. The Marianas were close enough for use by B-29s as a takeoff point for strikes against Japan. The Central Pacific islands further east were not.
An airbase to provide fuel, runways, repair facilities, bombs and so forth. A bare island by itself is useless if planes can’t land on it and be serviced…and a huge bomber like the B-29 required some pretty serious infrastructure to operate. (The emergency landing site that the US built on Iwo Jima wasn’t designed to be a mission launch point; it was simply a place where crippled B-29s could land and be patched up, as an alternative to crashing before they could reach the Marianas, so its facilities were less complex.)
Totally, granted.
But from a gameplay standpoint, does the map even work if you eliminate the movement bonus for the AB?
The tension I feel is between allowing an AB movement bonus that is clearly kind of silly, or removing it and breaking the game, with the fear that nobody would want to play under such conditions because it takes too long to get your aircraft where it needs to go in gameplay terms.
The way I’m looking at it, G40 without the AB movement bonus just lays bare some major issues with the core map design. The play pace in many regions might grind to a halt. The Pacific where most of the true islands are located is already a chore for fighter movement, even with the OOB airbase bases already in place. Moving a fighter from an island into a sz costs 1 move, so it only has 1 more move (into an adjacent zone) before its range is spent.
There is a similar issue with strategic bombers (whether defenseless or not). Under OOB rules, even with an AB, a strategic bomber cannot take off from Marianas, bomb Japan and return. I suppose technically it could take off from Marianas, bomb Japan, and land at Iwo which is exactly 7 moves (as mentioned in the fail safe emergency landing example CWOMarc described). But you have to ask yourself, will such a thing ever happen in game? I mean it already requires the purchase of an expensive AB at Marianas, with no hope of an escort, even if you do manage to take Iwo and put an Airbase there too.
Sans AB movement, the only workaround I can think of is something like the Island Movement bonus we talked about way back when. Tried to summarize it more recently in the HR master list…
Island Movement Bonus:
for 1942.2Rule: If an island is completely contained by a single sea zone, and under friendly control, then aircraft movement into or out of that sea zone from the island is not counted towards the total.
In other words, the owner treats the island like a stationary or permanent aircraft carrier inside the sea zone, for the purposes of movement. On defense however (if attacked by the enemy), the island aircraft is still considered to be parked “on the island,” so not hovering in the sea zone at all times, only when moving on the player’s own turn.
This works for true islands, but does nothing for other key territories like Japan or UK, W. Germany or Moscow, W. US, E. US, Italy, India, Australia etc. I don’t know maybe those territories don’t need a movement bonus, since they already have other income and production advantages?
Landlocked territories with a starting AB like France or Moscow would lose out big time, without a movement bonus, since those ABs have no sea zone to scramble into. They’d be meaningless except as a target for SBR.
Compromise solution might be OOB AB+1 and the Island Movement Bonus idea together. This would give fighters at island ABs the desired range.
Perhaps the island rule should be revised, only granting the bonus at take off (not landing) only +1 to the total. So they get an effective range of 5 from the island, and this can be raised to 6 with an AB. But it only works if you are departing from the island at the start of your movement turn.
This would make a territory like say Iwo or Iceland or Sicily more attractive, without messing up the situation in other parts of the map, like the skies over continental Europe.
Any thoughts?
ps. again with the Marianas example. Under this island movement rule, even without an AB, a player departing Marianas could reach Japan with a stratB, bomb it, and return to Marianas, in exactly 7 moves.
This would make a territory like say Iwo or Iceland or Sicily more attractive, without messing up the situation in other parts of the map, like the skies over continental Europe.
Any thoughts?
Here’s a thought about a general concept that might be useful, both for this bomber thing and for (potentially) other aspects of the game. The idea would be that different movement rules might apply to the Pacific and Europe sides of the map (at least as far as movement over water is concerned) because the two maps distort the geography of the real world to very different degrees. The Pacific map massively compresses the size of the Pacific Ocean, and on top of that leaves out a large section of the southeast Pacific. So in principle, a ship or a plane moving a distance of x SZs on the Pacific map is actually covering a much greater distance than a ship or plane moving an equal number of SZs on the Europe side, even though the number of SZs is identical. The Movement figures given for units in the rulebook don’t account for that difference; they’re identical for the whole map. I’m not sure what can be done with this concept in terms of specific numbers, but it might (for example) justify different movement bonuses on the two sides of the map.
@Marc,
Do you know if, in Pacific, there was some air combat and/or attack on ABs from Fgs and TcBs starting from airfield of other islands?
IDK enough about Rabaul and Guadalcanal campaign.
I believe there was an old TV Series about F4U-Corsair and a “Papy Boyington”.
I cannot remember precisely.
@Baron:
@Marc,
Do you know if, in Pacific, there was some air combat and/or attack on ABs from Fgs and TcBs starting from airfield of other islands?
IDK enough about Rabaul and Guadalcanal campaign.
I believe there was an old TV Series about F4U-Corsair and a “Papy Boyington”.
I cannot remember precisely.
I’m not sure I understand the question. There were airfields and airbases (of various sizes) in many, many places in the Central Pacific and in the Southwest Pacific and in Southeast Asia during WWII, controlled by either Japan or Allied powers, and all sorts of missions against all sorts of targets from flown from them. That’s the whole point of having airpower.
@Baron:
@Marc,
Do you know if, in Pacific, there was some air combat and/or attack on ABs from Fgs and TcBs starting from airfield of other islands?
IDK enough about Rabaul and Guadalcanal campaign.
I believe there was an old TV Series about F4U-Corsair and a “Papy Boyington”.
I cannot remember precisely.
You mean BA BA Blacksheep show ?
It’s seems sound in principle, but in practice I would have no idea how to implement different movement rates for the Atlantic and Pacific sides of the map. I can imagine problems arising at the intersections, when a unit moves from one side of the border to the other. What to do with aircraft when such happens… round the movement rate round up or down mid flight? I suppose its possible, but likely out of the question for tripleA, so there’s that too. Also, such a scheme would seem to recommend either a movement penalty for the Pacific, or a movement bonus for the Atlantic, whereas the game-play seems to recommend the opposite approach, so it’s kind of a bind. Part of me likes the idea of a rule that can give some purpose to the Atlantic islands too.
In G40, for true islands…
On the Atlantic side we have: West Indies, Greenland, Iceland, Sicily, Sardinia, Malta, Crete, Cypress and Madagascar. At least some of these might prove more interesting with an island movement bonus.
One the Pacific side, there are 20+ islands that fit the bill. Some of these are so far away from the action its hard to imagine them ever coming into play, but others would clearly benefit from the island movement bonus.
In 1942.2 there a fewer true islands, but still enough to have an impact.
It tripleA for 1942.2 the Island Movement Bonus could be accomplished by giving all such islands an invisible Air Base (with no scramble, unless you wanted to make that a standard feature of islands too). In TripleA global, you might be able to do the same, and have the invisible AB stack with the regular AB for a cumulative movement bonus.
