I’ve been playing wrong this entire time???
Thanks for clarifying though. I’ll take that into my next physical game.
How do you think a game would change if the rule that an aircraft has to have a chance land was removed? What insane attacks can strategic bombers make? Would it break the game?
Please tell what you think!
Players would use suicide missions only when they pay off financially.
Since land units are cheaper than aircraft, suicide attacks would almost never be used against land units. Suicide attacks would never be used for strategic bombing because the damage caused is less than the value of the strategic bomber that would be lost. In other words, it would not “pay off”.
The only units which are more expensive than aircraft, are naval units. So, suicide attacks would be used exclusively against naval targets. In real life, air attacks were never made against naval units more than 2 spaces away (about 400 miles) because navies could not “see” naval units that were farther away, neither with radar nor with scout planes. Opposing naval forces could be scouted with submarines, but subs could not keep up with fast surface fleets and sending radio reports was dangerous because it could give away your location. Visually spotting fleets was dangerous for subs late in the war because it put the sub within sonar range of any destroyers.
In short, players never make insane attacks. They only make calculated attacks. Suicide attacks would not break the game, but they would make the game less historical.
I would rather see the game go in the opposite direction and say that strategic bombers cannot attack naval forces more than 2 spaces removed from any friendly units or territories. Bombers can move 6 spaces, usually 3 out and 3 back, but they can’t SEE naval forces at range 3 to make the attack.
Okay then, I only did suicide attacks when I forgot about the rules early on and had ridiculous scenarios (I was using the smaller 1941 game) like strategic bombers from Germany attacking Szechwan.
I guess when you actually calculate the benefits it doesn’t make any sense.
I agree with you suggestions, I’m a stickler for historical accuracy.
When I was younger we pretty much always played this way. Basically it meant more sneak attacks were possible (which makes the game more interesting), and large key battles tended to happen a round or so sooner, that’s if the attacker was prepared to send one round of builds to their death. The main negitive is that it probably makes the game a bit harder for Russia, So I think I’d tend to give russia some kind of bonus if playing this way.
Yeah, that’s the main effect in my view and it might be fun to have sometimes.
Triple A has a way to do this, almost incorrectly called “allow Kamikaze planes”.
Maybe giving the UK jet power at the start would be enough to balance it.
Why do you think the UK is unbalanced?
@superbattleshipyamato - when allowing suicide missions I think Russia needs additional help, so you could give Russia a bid or, just thinking outside the box, doing something like giving UK jet power could work too. That would make UK more self-reliant in India and they could land a few fighters in Russia to help in a big battle.