Event Cards - Weather, Tech, Tactical, etc.

A&A 1940 Global

I would use these rules:

(1) if the defender sees a key battle coming and can predict that they’ll want an unusual order of loss, they can leave a note, send an e-mail, etc., informing the attacker of their preferred order of loss, and the attacker will then follow that order.

(2) if there is no note, the attacker will provisionally use a standard order of loss.

(3) after seeing the results of the battle, the defender can pay 2 IPCs to the bank per casualty that they want to switch. You didn’t want to lose your bomber after all? Fine, pay 2 IPCs, and you can have your bomber back in exchange for one of your infantry. This should be expensive enough to deter casual abuse but still cheap enough that if you would really be upset about the order of loss, you can fix it without too much drama. Don’t think it’s fair that you should have to pay to set up your order of loss exactly the way you want it? Well, then, you should have foreseen the battle and given orders in advance. Don’t feel like thinking that hard every turn? Well, then, you can always just cough up 2 IPCs. It’s a way of speeding up the game while making sure that nothing unacceptably bad will happen because of order of loss issues.

No, the first one is not Italian. It is a Romanian I.A.R. over the Ploesti oil fields.

The second is a Hawker Typhoon.

The third is definitely Italian per the roundel, which can just be made out on the starboard wing.

@toblerone77:

I’m just going to say something here. Excluding your math Baron. The whole point of this rule was to open up a way for SBR against ICs with a loose historical basis. The loose historical depiction of night bombing was to give the attacker a less risky SBR but the penalty was less risk=less reward.

Given the basic concept, I think it is viable. I liked the idea of night fighters but thought it best to drop them. That’s my POV. An SBR that drops interceptors/escort could simulate this simply.

I encourage everyone to post as they like. Personally I like the idea of simply eliminating escorts and interceptors for night raids and reducing AA fire 1@D12. Damage totals are halved. That’s just what I like.

Everyone else, carry on.

Hi Toblerone77,
I don’t know if you play 1942 second edition, but within the optional rule for SBR escort and interception it becomes viable to have such thing as StB playing a role as Night-fighter, because the odds are clearly different from G40 during the regular SBR with escort: all Fgs and StB A1 first strike, while Fg D2.

All you have to do to implement a 1942.2 Night bombing & Night Fighter HR is this when playing with escort and interception optional rule:

Day SBR damage on IC becomes 1D6+2/StB, instead of just D6.

During 1942.2 Night SBR, the damage becomes D6-1/StB (or D6+2 halved rounding down, if you prefer).

In addition, all attacking StBs and defending StB Night-fighters roll a regular A/D@1, same as G40 SBR escort and interception rule.

The AAA fire @1 in both cases, Day or Night SBRs.

These 2 things will make all the basics 1:1, StB vs Fg/StB Night Fg, balance.

Day SBR:
StB vs AAA, damage + 4.583 - casualty 2.0 = +2.583 IPC damage/StB
StB vs Fg+AAA,  damage + 4.977 - casualty 4.777 = + 0.2 IPC damage/StB

Night SBR:
StB vs AAA, damage +2.083 - casualty 2.0 = +.083 IPC damage/StB
StB vs StB NF+AAA, damage +3.736 - casualty 3.667 = + 0.069 IPCs damage/StB run

So, Night SBR is better when there is more than 1 Fg defending an IC, and it is still an even match for both sides (near 0 IPC) to throw 1 StB against a StB NightF.

But, if there is only 1 Fg on the IC, the Day SBR is still positively better (.2 vs .069).

In addition, there is less StB and money in 1942.2 compared to G40, so there is lesser chance that StBs presence will forbids any Night SBR.

To summarize the viable SBR tactics with this 1942.2 HR:

No Fgs on IC, go for Day-SBR 2 or more Fgs on IC, go for Night-SBR unless there is more than 1 Night-Fg for 1 StB raider. Keeping a 1 Fg + (1 StB :1 Fg) advantage for Day bombing is better. Or staying within the 1 StB and 1 Fg vs 2 Fgs is the lower limit, it is still viable around 0.00 IPC/StB run.
So, going 1:1 vs Day or Night is almost the same risks involved, but with less damage & casualty in Night SBR.

What do you think of this?

Now, Night Bombing can be viable in both games.

Here is the calculation basis for this 1942.2 Night bombing with Night Fgs House Rule:

OOB 1942.2: 1 StB doing SBR without interceptor
5/6 StB survived * 3.5 IPCs = 2.9 IPCs
1/6 StB killed *12 IPCs = -2 IPCs
Sum: 2.9 - 2 = +.9 IPC damage/StB

OOB 1942.2 SBR with D6 damage:
1 StB A1 first strike against 1 intercepting Fg D2

StB roll (D6)/Fg roll / AAA roll

161= 6/216 1 StB killed by AAA vs 1 Fg killed: 2.78%
165= 30/216 no casualty vs 1 Fg killed: 13.89%

526= 60/216 StB killed by Fg: 27.78%
541= 20/216 StB killed by AAA: 9.25%
545= 100/216 both survived: 46.3%

Results with :
60.19% * ((1+6) IPCs)/2= +3.5 IPCs) = 2.107 IPCs
16.67% killing Fg *+10 IPC = + 1.667 IPC
39.81% StB killed *-12 IPCs = - 4.777 IPCs

Sum: 3.774 - 4.777 = - 1.0 IPC damage/StB

1942.2 HR damage D6+2 : 1 StB doing SBR without interceptor
5/6 StB survived * 5.5 IPCs = 4.583 IPCs
1/6 StB killed *12 IPCs = -2 IPCs
Sum: 4.583 - 2.0 = +2.583 IPC damage/StB

1942.2 SBR HR with D6+2 damage:
1 StB A1 first strike against 1 intercepting Fg D2

StB roll (D6)/Fg roll / AAA roll

161= 6/216 1 StB killed by AAA vs 1 Fg killed: 2.78%
165= 30/216 no casualty vs 1 Fg killed: 13.89%

526= 60/216 StB killed by Fg: 27.78%
541= 20/216 StB killed by AAA: 9.25%
545= 100/216 both survived: 46.3%

Results with :
60.19% * ((1+2) + (6+2) IPCs)/2= +5.5 IPCs) = 3.31 IPCs
16.67% killing Fg *+10 IPC = + 1.667 IPC
39.81% StB killed *-12 IPCs = - 4.777 IPCs
Sum: 4.977 - 4.777 = + 0.2 IPC damage/StB

HR for 1942 with StB as Nightfighter interceptor all A1/D1 as in G40 interception rule, damage at D6-1:

1 StB A1 vs 1 StB D1 doing interception

StB roll /Fg roll / AAA roll

116= 6/216 1 StB killed by StB NF vs 1 StB NF killed: 2.78%
151= 5/216 1 StB killed by AAA vs 1 StB NF killed: 2.31%
155= 25/216 no casualty vs 1 StB NF killed: 11.57%

516= 30/216 StB killed by StB NF: 13.89%
551= 25/216 StB killed by AAA: 11.57%
555= 125/216 both survived: 57.87%

Results:
69.44% * ((0+5) IPCs)/2= + 2.5 IPCs) = 1.736 IPCs
16.67% killing StBNFg *+12 IPCs = + 2.00 IPC
30.55% StB killed *-12 IPCs = - 3.667 IPCs

Sum: 3.736 - 3.667 = + 0.069 IPCs damage/StB run

1942.2 HR damage D6-1: 1 StB doing SBR without interceptor
5/6 StB survived * 2.5 IPCs = 2.083 IPCs
1/6 StB killed *12 IPCs = -2 IPCs
Sum: +2.083 - 2 = +.083 IPC damage/StB

1942.2, damage D6+2: 1 StB & 1 Fg A1 first strike doing Day-SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D2

StB+Fg rolls/interceptors Fgs roll/ AAA roll = odds   casualties

1/3636/361/6   = 36/7776      1 StB killed by AAA vs 2 Fgs : .5%
1/3636/365/6 = 180/7776      no casualty vs 2 Fgs : 2.3%

10/3612/361/6 = 120/7776    1 Fg and 1 StB killed by AAA vs 1 Fg : 1.5%
10/3612/365/6 = 600/7776    1 Fg  vs 1 Fg : 7.7%
10/3624/361/6=  240/7776    1 StB killed by AAA vs 1 Fg : 3.1%
10/3624/365/6 = 1200/7776   no casualty vs 1 Fg : 15.4%

25/364/366/6   = 600/7776    1 Fg and 1 StB killed by Fg vs no casualty : 7.7%
25/3616/361/6 = 400/7776    1 Fg and 1 StB killed by AAA vs no casualty : 5.2%
25/3616/365/6 = 2000/7776  1 Fg vs no casualty : 25.7%
25/3616/361/6 = 400/7776    1 StB killed by AAA vs no casualty : 5.2%
25/3616/365/6 = 2000/7776   no casualty at all : 25.7%

Results:
Bombard on IC: 76.8% * ((1+2)+(6+2) IPCs)/2= +5.5 IPCs) = 4.224 IPCs
Killing 2 Fgs: 2.8%+20 IPCs =   + 0.56 IPC
Killing 1 Fg: 27.7% +10 IPCs =  + 2.77 IPCs
Fg killed: 33.4%-10 IPCs =        - 3.34 IPCs
StB killed: 8.8%-12 IPCs =       - 1.056 IPCs
StB & Fg killed: 14.4%*-22 IPCs = - 3.168 IPCs

Sum: 7.554 - 7.564 = - 0.01 IPCs damage/StB

just because USA has more capacity, doesn’t mean it can produce units cheaper.
Quote
Reduction in cost per unit resulting from increased production, realized through operational efficiencies.

THAT is what ‘economies of scale’ mean.  Operational efficiencies can be view in terms of {technological} improvements in manufacturing procedures.  Procedures do not necessarily require robots.  Better Rivets (materials) or better training (labor) or better materials delivery systems (just in time) are all realized without robots.

These efficiencies come at a higher economic cost. They are not born out of low income economies. Just look at how many small economies can produce battleships at a lower cost than a larger economy. They don’t exist if you compare quality. If you can show me an example thats fine. The largest economies can do this mush more effectively than a smaller economy, so “economies of scale” also has the meaning that the greater investment of money will necessarily lead to a greater efficiency of effort.

“refers to the cost advantages that a business obtains due to expansion. There are factors that cause a producer’s average cost per unit to fall as the scale of output is increased.”

I look at this as the more income you got for investment, the greater the potential for economies of scale. So to me these are built in factories assumed by the larger, burgeoning economies in the game.

“…since some economies of scale may require a larger market than is possible within a particular country — for example, it would not be efficient for Liechtenstein to have its own car maker, if they would only sell to their local market.”

Another indication. Italy in the game would be less capable of this compared to USA or Germany.

Perhaps rather than a tech for every 20 IPC lead the combined axis or allies have over the other side receives a -1 cost benefit for naval. that would model “economies of scale” a bit better IMO rather than paying some dude in a white lab coat 5 IPC to “invent” a cash poor nations way of getting cheaper battleships, when another nation much larger is somehow paying a 20% markup for the same battleship but has 3 times to economy to do it.

We have to agree to disagree.

@Fishmoto37:

@finnman:

What I ment was on the map you posted you had different colours of units. I was wondering they represented.

OK, I think I just woke up. You must have been referring to my photo of the ongoing A&AG1940 game when you mentioned colors. If so I think that I had some white AA guns that have not been painted yet, some ICs that I painted in Italian and Russian colors, some light blue infantry for true neutrals, some green infantry for allied friendly neutrals, some blue TBFs for the U.S. tac bombers and one unpainted metal sturmovic for the Soviet tac bomber. I placed the neutral infantry in the original game setup so that if they were attacked it would save time placing units later. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Ah it’s ok I’m looking forward too the Mediterranean game.

5. Atomic Bomb  rolleyes Really? The atomic bomb was only used once the US had practically won the war. It might have been drawn out, but they would have won. This is already represented by VCs. Once you capture enough VCs, you win. This would happen before and atomic bomb was developed.
In regards to game play, it seems lame. The cost seems to be too much merely to prevent one turn of production. I honestly think the whole idea should be scrapped.

The war would have gone on till 1946. The two bombs dropped changed that. japan figured it could get a negotiated peace if it soiled the beaches of Japan with American blood. The bombs changed that completely. It was also dropped to get political advantage over the Soviets who wanted spoils in Asia and to deny them the same. The bomb was the most important invention of the war and it above all other techs must be represented. Obviously, it would be had to obtain and require alot of research to have. The idea is also to have one tech that changes the game and makes it end. Some games require such an outcome because players sometimes never surrender and Atomic weaponry will finish the stalemate.

And that is exactly what it did.

In some games you can play and not obtain an outcome, while with this technology you are assured that the game will finish up soon. In most games that last of normal duration it wont be developed and thats the charm of it.

YAWN!

I guess no one here has tried it …

Not enough info here to interest anyone in checking it out …

YAWN!

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!