I am happy to say that the rules are nearly done, in the final stages of completion, and I will begin play testing shortly before posting the final copy.
San Francisco (ruleset for 1942.2 and Global)
-
YG and Ichabod I think your apprehension about fully zeroing the bomber, so that escort/intercept can function properly at the strategic level, is probably coming from experiences with OOB strat bomber at 12 ipcs. I think the desire to increase its damage from 1d6 to 1d6+2 is likely also coming from that experience.
For clarification, the OOB 12 IPC cost I’m used to does not seem a factor to me in regards to the escort/intercept @2 and bomber @1 I’m arguing for. I see no reason why to change the dogfight ability.
If you’re arguing costs, well, here’s my counter-argument. At 12 IPCs, bombing Moscow is beneficial but close to being too much of a high cost. But if the bombers were C5, yes, it makes bombing less risky and more reward (bomb damage), but there’s a trade-off. That trade-off is now you can’t use that bomber for anything but bombing. I see this as making it fair. The stg. bomber is a feared Axis weapon because of its range (and somewhat feared in the Pacific by a savvy US player). There are whole threads dedicated to the “Dark Skies” strategy ect. SZ 91 isn’t safe if an Axis player has a ton of bombers and wants to end the surface fleet there.
-
In the OOB game you may have experienced what SBR typically looks like. The attacker uses overwhelming numbers of stratBs, to deter defender intercept altogether.
I disagree. I usually don’t want to risk more than 2 bombers from being hit by the AAA guns.
-
First you have to convince me what it is you are trying to achieve, in gameplay terms, by giving the bomber @1 in the dogfight.
A higher attrition rate of combat aircraft relative to that of the bombers? Are the suggested values only because they are familiar from the bomber in OOB or popular mod dogfights? Because familiarity alone is not a strong enough argument in my view. The roll should reflect the attrition rate and cost benefit (on bomber vs intercepter casualties.)
I want the bomber to have an @1 to give the attacker more power to persuade against intercepting. It makes sense as it being part of the dogfight. I think a C5 is a sweet spot (because it’s only permitted for bombing), but if the cost had to be raised to no higher than C7, I’d accept that.
Would requiring fighters to be take as a hit first help with your concern?
I think familiarity is important here and shouldn’t be discounted. Part of any agreements made are often somewhat based on experience, not just ratios and numbers. And besides, whatever HR is accepted, the various ratios/numbers will work in favor for the other side.
Maybe the defenders at Moscow don’t intercept much and vice versa in W. Germany. I don’t know, but I often find myself in situations where there are 10+ defending fighters in Moscow and they outnumber what I’m willing to bring and risk. If they could defend @2, it’s not like Germany could afford to purchase an overwhelming number of cheaper C5 bombers to roll @1 to where the attacker’s (bombers) losses were much more cheaper. Everything is relative. The more bombers purchased for just the role of bombing, the less tac. bombers, fighters, and other ground units a country would have. Playing Germany, I’d still need to purchase fighters for escorts.
We have buy a transports…they’re cheaper than other warships, but that doesn’t mean we don’t want to protect them and don’t want to have to keep replacing them if possible. I think if I bought up to a total of 4-6 stg.bombers, I’d want to never have to replace them and would be better off replenishing my air with more fighters (in order to try to gain air superiority with a goal of convincing the other guy to not intercept).
-
What concerns me is this idea that what you really want is an effective way to deter enemy interception. Whereas what we were trying to do is encourage it haha. In simple terms, I think the ideal is a situation where bomber purchases alone, would not be enough to deter the defender from attempting an intercept.
:-DStrategic bombers must be used last as casualties during a dog fight (problem solved).
Strategic bombers taken as last casualty, will undermine escort/intercept in my view, because the whole point of intercepting in the first place with these cheap bombers is to force the attacker into making tough casualty choices. What is being suggesting here would seem to make the cost of the fighter unit more influential to the SBR cost/benefit under escort conditions, than the cost of the actual bombers.
What I don’t want is a situation, where the risk/attrition rate to escort is automatically so high relative to the bomber, that the attacker chooses not to escort in the first place (even if they can reach). Because then what happens, is you start seeing naked bombers as the best option. This is frequently what happens OOB. Even there interceptor often stays home, because its not worth risking expensive combat aircraft against the bomber wave. And that is with bombers at C12, to say nothing of what would happen when those units are suddenly worth half as much, but still shooting with the same capabilities @1 in the dogfight. Interceptors would have even less incentive to do their job. Sure the bomber is cheap, but if it doesn’t do anything to encourage the whole escort/intercept dynamic, then its own attrition rate falls, more cheap bombers flood the board, and it starts just crushing as an OP unit.
I don’t know if this will make sense. Its not exactly the easiest thing to describe abstractly, but very easy to see when I model it in the game. Perhaps Barney can hunt down the xml that shows just the bomber in isolation for others to look at. Baron did show many test examples. Maybe he has a solution for @1, if its really that hard to give up. But I think the changes you’re suggesting are more significant than it might seem at first glance.
I appreciate the desire to give a nod to the bomber machine gunners, but I guess I just don’t see that need as so pressing that we risk giving up several things that otherwise work pretty well with the unit at the broader strategic level, just to get one thing that scratches the historical representation itch at a fairly narrow tactical level.
IDK though, its not as though the dogfight is the most critical part of the concept for me, I just think it would be nice to get a decent fix there which encourages more of the Escort/Intercept dynamic at the same time we are fixing the StratBomber/SBR.
The incentive for intercept needs to be high, because its patently ridiculous to imagine a power choosing not to intercept incoming bombers over their homeland if they had the capability to do so. The incentive for intercept leads the incentive for escort, because without the former there is basically no need for the later. It would again be pretty bizarre, for a power to choose not to escort when they have the capability. So you need a system that really encourages this somehow. My fear is that by making the bomber so strong here (relative to the other units), that we lose the dogfight altogether, with everyone calculating that it’s simply not worth the cost in expensive combat aircraft to protect/kill the inexpensive SBR only aircraft. That is my primary concern, and why I am hesitant to embrace that change.
I’m not trying to stifle the conversation into a zero sum situation for dogfighting hehe, just trying to state as clearly as possible our motivation for making it A0 in the first place. But the floor here is open for sure. I want to see this basic idea put into practice, because I think its a pretty cool unit concept and also fun for game balance. I’m totally willing to see this dogfighting stuff all argued on the merits, and then make a consensus decision, so it can move forward. But it would be nice to have actual gameplay feedback, which is why I suggest tripleA gamefiles.
-
From the attacker’s point of view, of course I wouldn’t want the defender to intercept. I’m not trying to devise a way to end an air battle nor do I think my position does that. I don’t see the defender’s combined allied 10+ fighters NOT intercepting to defend Moscow’s factory. If Moscow’s factory is shut down from producing units, then the Axis have won not only air superiority, but will win on ground production. I see increased bombing runs also increasing the frequency of interception by the defender.
If I’m bombing under my stated position, I’m going to send as many escorts as possible. If I don’t send lots of escorts with my bombers, they will be sitting ducks; especially if the interceptor rolls @2. That higher die roll makes a big difference in actually getting hits. Now if the interceptor rolled @1, then were talking a different story where there would be no need to send escorts if the bombers were C5. Perhaps that is where the contention lies?
Bombing is an important part of the game to me and perhaps I’m less risk adverse and not as cautious as I should be when I play. I’m really not a very good player at this game…I probably just talk here too much. IMHO the C5 (but no longer used for anything but bombing) is enough to offset the better bombing benefits and to keep the air battle dynamics as expressed in recent posts.
I digress now. We’ll have to agree to disagree. I’ve said more than I probably should have Fun discussion!
-
What I don’t want is a situation, where the risk/attrition rate to escort is automatically so high relative to the bomber, that the attacker chooses not to escort in the first place (even if they can reach).
Agreed.
-
Ok I started a thread just for the Bomber idea, so its easier to reference. We can hash out in detail and maybe come to an agreement, so the rule has a chance to pick up some altitude.
:-)I guess I can keep this thread for Air Base discussions.
Something tells me no one wants to touch M3 with a 10 foot pole, but in case anyone does, they can examine it here too I guess haha.
But meantime, Bombs away again!
:-D -
I don’t agree with a system where a strategic bomber conducting a strategic bombing raid can never ever shoot down another plane (I’ve watched Memphis Belle too many times). The oob has it right IMO by giving a bomber an attack @1 during dog fights, even if they got it wrong by giving fighters and escorts the same value. Let’s fix what oob got wrong and not what it got right.
-
The bombers not getting to role @1 during a dogfight argument went over my head. Totally not for that. Â
-
Some interesting numbers were given in the redesign thread. They might help people to see some of what Baron was talking about.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1624850#msg1624850
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1625109#msg1625109
Both of those links above will give you the numbers for the exact dogfighting situation you have been proposing in the last few pages, at various costs for the stratB.
That second link above also explains why “taken as last casualty” would not be seen as a particularly great option under the @2 values escort/intercept that you guys are talking about. But also shows how this system without such a order of loss restriction is still superior to OOB for escort/intercept.
For interceptions, even a defending Fg @2 C10, double cost of StB !!!, is not an interesting option.
But this is actually the same OOB.
The difference is if there is escort Fgs, IMO it create a different dynamic because if a casualty must be taken, the attacker must choose between a 5 IPCs StB unit or a 10 IPCs Fg unit.
So, I believe most defender’s Fg hit will be allocated to StB instead of costlier escort Fgs.
That is a more accurate historical depiction of such air raid.So, players will get similar odds in SBR, a slighlty different dogfight dynamic, no more regular combat but more StBs for their money compared to OOB
(5 vs 12 IPCs).I think that one gives a good argument showing how the @1 vs @2 bomber is comparable to OOB at a cost of 5, but with more dogfighting interest than OOB.
This link below, is where we started exploring a more radical @0 possibility.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1625413#msg1625413
Just to give a sense of the progression. If it helps to make clear how we ended up where we did hehe.
:-D -
The bombers not getting to role @1 during a dogfight argument went over my head. Totally not for that.
@Young:
Just recall that this bomber doesn’t cost 12 anymore.
I understand the joy of having a unit fill the 5 IPC slot… but I would rather see the cost of this unit go up slightly than make it defenseless in a dog fight.
@YG and Ichabod,
Just for the hypothesis.
Would you accept to lower the cost and combat values of Fg and TcB instead? (Assuming now three planes Carrier?)
The scale down works like this, 1 pt for 1 IPC:
Fighter C10 A3 D4
Fighter C9 A3 D3
Fighter C8 A2 D3 or A3 D2
Fighter C7 A2 D2Would you play along these configurations?
Fighter A2 D2 M4-5-6 C7, A2 or A1 in SBR -1A if M6
TcBs A3 D2 M4-5-6 C8, A1 in SBR bombing AB or NB at D6 damage or D6-1 if M6
StBs A0 D0 M6-7-8 C5, A1 in SBR bombing IC or AB or NB at D6 damage+1 or D6 if M8Showed in other way:
Strategic Bomber:
Cost - 5 IPCs
A@0 - D@0
Movement - 6 points (7 from a base)
A@1 - D@0 (during dog fights)
Each get a D6 +1 damage bonus to facilities
May only conduct Strategic Bombing raids
May sacrifice +1 damage bonus to extend range by 1 (max 8 from a base)Fighter:
Cost - 7 IPCs
A@2 - D@2
Movement - 4 points (5 from a base)
A@2 - D@2 (during dog fights)
Escort may A@-1 to extend range by 1 (max 6 from a base)Tactical bomber:
Cost - 8 IPCs
A@3 - D@2
Movement - 4 points (5 from a base)
A@1 - D@0 (during dog fights)
No damage bonus, D6
Long range TBR may take -1 on bombing to extend range by 1 (max 6 from a base) -
Bombers have no guns in your rule no matter what you do to fighter and tacs… like I said earlier, why not make it an optional air transport if it’s gonna be totally defenseless anyways?
Bomber / Transport Cost - 9 IPCs
A@0 - D@0
Movement - 6 points (7 from a base)
May conduct Strategic Bombing raids or paratrooper missions
Each get a D6 +1 damage bonus to facilities during SBRs
Each may drop up to 2 infantry into a battle during combat movement -
@Young:
Bombers have no guns in your rule no matter what you do to fighter and tacs… like I said earlier, why not make it an optional air transport if it’s gonna be totally defenseless anyways?
Bomber / Transport Cost - 9 IPCs
A@0 - D@0
Movement - 6 points (7 from a base)
May conduct Strategic Bombing raids or paratrooper missions
Each get a D6 +1 damage bonus to facilities during SBRs
Each may drop up to 2 infantry into a battle during combat movementNot exactly.
I followed all your parameters, including StB A1 in dogfight.Do you ever play with paratrooper and air transport?
Each time I tried them, it seems to radically change the game.
So, now, even if I have these sculpts, I don’t use them.
If was playing on a regular basis on tabletop, then I would risk air transport.
But I enjoy it so much when I get to play that I don’t want to break the game with these unknown effect unit. -
So for tripleA players, Barney just suggested an idea for implementing the SF ruleset in a way I really like.
The idea is to make the bomber change standard, but include two tech advances, one for AB+2 and one for M3.
This will allow players to easily option those rules “on” if desired, by using a simple edit in Edit Mode. But it keeps them separated off, so it’s clear that they are optional ideas. This allows us to include all the ideas in one place, for flexible playtesting. The standard gamefile will only highlight the bomber idea solo by default, but if a player desired to explore other options such as additional range for aircraft or the crazy M3 concept, then they have an easy way to do so, without requiring a new download or separate gamefiles.
It might even be possible to make A0 a tech option as well. Not sure there, but basically the idea is to hack them into the game using the tech menu, since you can edit technologies very easily in TripleA on the fly. It’s a bit like having them as checkboxes in the main game tab menu. That way if a player wanted to try one or both of those ideas in conjunction with the 1 role bomber they can still do so, but there is a clear divide between the default HR and the optional add ons.
If people find this method agreeable, then its possible to use the tech system as a way to have several possible HRs that can be optioned “on/off” with relative ease. For players who don’t use the OOB techs anyway, this would be no major loss. Instead what they would gain is a simple way to use some optional rules, rules that can be introduced in an incremental way if desired. Allowing players to pick and choose the options that best suit their playstyle or particular HR interests.
There are many OOB techs that are either broken, or not particularly interesting. If we wanted to go for broke that gives us 12 slots for optional rules in TripleA. In 1942.2 v5 there is no tech by default, so here we’d have pretty much carte blanche freedom.
I feel like this is kind of what’s missing from the OOB game. A series of official or at least semi-official standard options, where players can easily choose from the same basic grab bag, to customize their play experience based on the individual preferences of the play group. Here they would just “auto-tech” the desired HR, as a simple workaround for implementation on the fly.
Sound cool?
So basically, it takes a simple concept of the C5 bomber as the default jumping off point, and then gives you a series of complimentary HR tweaks that might be fun to try with such a bomber. Just as an idea of what sort of things we might be able to include… The names of the techs themselves could of course change to describe what we want to introduce.
Heavy Bomber = C5 Bomber Advance @A0 vs A1/D1 to @A1 vs A2/D2, with damage improvements?
Super subs = New Sub/Destroyer dynamic?
Shipyards = New Naval Cost Structure
Long Range Aircraft = AB+2? (for Global) or maybe Factory +2 to range (for 1942.2, with the AB folded into the factory unit)
War Bonds = War Bonds? hehe I don’t know I always loved this as an general concept myself, but maybe it could be tweaked or improved under C5 bomber conditions.That’s just 5 HR slots right there, you could still put something for the remaining 7 entries…
Improved Artillery Support
Rockets Advance
Airborne_Forces
Increased Factory Production
Improved_Mech_Inf
AA RadarThese would of course all be “off” by default, and you wouldn’t use the R&D roll to turn them on (though I suppose technically you could if you wanted lol), rather the idea is to “Auto-Tech” the desired rule to all players from the Edit Mode menu, if you want to use it. Basically using the tech system would just be an expedient, since it gives us a very simple way to make toggles in TripleA, with an easy to view list, were you can edit each option “on/off” individually. Some HRs would work likely work better than others under such a scheme, but it still gives a cool way to incorporate some ideas into TripleA so that they’re just “ready to go”, without requiring new downloads/gamefiles for every concept one might wish to explore. Here the organizing idea or foundation for all the other optional HRs, would be the main default tweak or the core change, which showcases the C5 bomber under otherwise OOB conditions (in a no tech game.)
-
Ok I’m going to draft an idea for how we could use this tech method to truly make an all purpose tripleA HR gamefile in the redesign thread. I think this is the golden ticket for creating a common HR package for use in TripleA.
-
Ok I’m going to draft an idea for how we could use this tech method to truly make an all purpose tripleA HR gamefile in the redesign thread. I think this is the golden ticket for creating a common HR package for use in TripleA.
Cool.
I like the name “common HR package”.
Sounds promising. -
Yup! This is a fantastic idea. Very excited about a “common House Rule” mod for tripleA with checkboxes to turn individual rules on and off. That will be a huge help for playtesting.
My only suggestion is to make the cost-5 defenseless strategic bomber also be one of the checkboxes available, instead of being baked in to the map! I like that rule, but if we’re going to experiment, there’s no reason why we shouldn’t be able to try different combinations.
-
There will be an upgun option with StB A1 TcB A1 and Fg A2 D2.
:-) -
Yeah agreed. Everything should be optional. The default game should be OOB with everything else turned on via toggle.
Some check boxes require a few extra steps to activate, like with triggers. Seems to be the case with some existing units already on the board (like bases and whatnot), though I think Barney is working on a simpler implementation. But basically the idea is that you can just download a save with presets, for anything that’s more complex.
-
I playtested 3 round with M3 TP and CA.
I modified set-up to replace half Fg with TcB C10.
And added 4 UK ICs in Canada, South Africa, East and West Australia.
Help increase attack factor.
India was lost third round, but was possible to produce two Destroyers along Madagascar to protect Indian TPs.M3 TP makes for immediate attack coming from Japan.
Game is KGF, not finished but Germany was able to save Baltic fleet.
Too much U-boat to kill, so Cruiser survived until united with Med BB.Probably a bad choice because I attacked Subs with planes and 1 UK DD instead of Cruiser first round.
Germany use 3 Subs against UK BB to not loose too much air power.
Missing A4 StB against UK have an impact in this battle.
To continue…Germany bought Carrier first turn, it increase Fg mobility and power projection when near Gibraltar.
Can reach either Russia, Africa, UK, even North America.
However, Europe is pretty depleted and only able to built Art & Inf mostly to fight Russia in a corner.
Slowly loosing Tank to get back Bielorussia, Ukraine.
Med TP is needed to pour Inf into Africa waiting to use Med Carrier to protect TP near Caucasus.India needs to evac toward Persia round 3.
But, with ICs in Africa, and Australia, UK is still in game.
Suggested Topics
