The 2 best are either Italy or Russia
Italy because they are the smallest and don’t have to deal with a lot of logistics
The Russkies because you can follow 1 simple strategy ( go all out on the fascists) and still do fairly well
So here’s my question.
I was wondering cuz i find the 2 optional rules very interesting espicially the Dardanelles closes
Whats are your thoughts?
Additional Optional Rules
The following are additional optional rules that can be used in your games if all players agree.
Dardanelles Closed to Sea Movement
In order to maintain its neutrality, Turkey closed the narrow straights linking the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, permitting no naval passage by any belligerent nation on either side. No sea units may move into or out of sea zone 16, however air units may move through this sea zone freely.
Fighter Escorts and Interceptors
Fighters can participate in strategic bombing raids. Attacking fighters may escort and protect the bombers, and they can originate from any territory, range permitting. Any or all defending fighters based in a territory that is strategically bombed can participate in the defense of the industrial complex. The number of fighters that will defend is decided after the attacker’s Combat Movement phase is completed and before the Combat phase begins.
After antiaircraft fire is resolved against the attacking air units, if there are any defending fighters an air battle occurs between the attacking and defending air units. This combat is resolved in the same way as a normal combat, with a few exceptions. The fighters have an attack value of 1 and a defense value of 2, and the bombers have no attack value. In addition, the combat lasts for only one round. After the battle, any surviving bombers proceed to carry out the raid as normal.
Fighters participating as either an escort or a defender cannot participate in other battles during that turn. Defending interceptors must return to their original territory. If that territory is captured, the fighters may move one space to land in a friendly territory or on a friendly aircraft carrier. This movement occurs after all of the attacker’s combats have been resolved and before the attackers Noncombat Move phase begins. If no such landing space is available, the fighters are lost.
We use them both. If you play with “heavy bombers”, I think interceptors it’s a must. However, we have changed the combat order for interception somewhat to match history and make it a little bit less devastating. (During the war, the Germans intercepted allied air raids with their fighters. When coming into range of the AA-guns they pulled away. So did the fighter-escort.):
1. Interceptors* and escort fire at “1”. One turn only. Bombers cannot fire*. Remove casualties.
2. AA fires at the remaining bombers (not on the fighter-escort). Remove casualties.
3. If any bomber is left, conduct strategic bombing.
Well… here are all our small changes: http://hem.bredband.net/triathlon/HouseRulesAA50.pdf Speaking of heavy bombers: I strongly recommend House Rule 5 (Larry Harris tournament rule): “You roll two dice each on attack or defence and use the better result of the two dice. On a strategic bombing raid, roll two dice, take the better result, and add “1” to that result to determine the damage done by that Heavy Bomber.”
The new SBR interceptor rules, if players choose to include this, it puts an and end to SBR during the game. If someone think SBR attacks hurts to much with bombers @12, then they can choose to play the game with this optional rule. In reality it means no SBR attacks will be conducted.
This is because of the range for escort fighters vs fighters already in place on a TT with an IC, plus the attack/defend values. Imo it would be easier to make an optional rule to remove SBR attacks during a game, but the inclusion of this optional rule is a way of “sophistication” and to complicate the game even further. Not that the interceptor rules are hard to understand, my problems is the submarine rules…. :roll: but the result of including the interceptors is practically the same as removing SBR altogether.
I have not honestly played with the new optional rules for a myriad of reasons too long to discuss here. In short, I don’t think they are necessary to maintain game balance and play and might actually interfere with game balance and play.
If you wanted to run with interceptors, I would recommend you look at the interceptor rules in AARe and AA50e (they’re the same.)
In a nutshell:
Long Range Aircraft technology gives you the option to send fighters as escorts with your bombers. Each escorting fighter negates each defending jet fighter, an extra escorting fighter gives your bomber a 50% chance to avoid AA Gun fire (1, 2, 3 means you roll again and see if you can hit the bomber on a 1 meaning your bomber is turned back, otherwise, it conducts SBR as normal.)
Jet Fighters technology gives you the option of stationing fighters in the territory your Industrial Complex is located in. Each Jet Fire gets to shoot at enemy bombers hitting on a 1 (if they are conducting SBR only!). So if you had 5 Jets you would roll 6 dice and a 1 would shoot down the bomber.
This is a way to protect against SBR missions AND not completely negate them from the game like it seems the WOTC optional rules do.
Assuming you are playing with the optional rule for NO’s (which most people do), the general consensus is that the Axis have the advantage.
I have found that by closing off the Dardenelles (which helps the Allies) brings the game back to a close balance point (possibly marginally to the Allies).
The interceptors/escorts rule actually only kills SBRs for the Allies, since Germany and Italy can easily station fighters in their ICs and most of Japans ICs are rarely under serious threat of SBR (Japan can afford repairs anyway).
However, fighters defending the ICs aren’t sitting on the Eastern front or defending France, so there is an opportunity cost as well which other posters have neglected to mention.
The Axis can still quite easily bomb Russia’s ICs, since Russia will usually only buy one fighter (maybe 2) and there are 3 ICs to defend. Assuming you are playing with NO’s, landing UK/USA ftrs on Russian soil will cost you $5 which is worse that the average cost of a single SBR.
Yea, fighters at the ICs are not in forward territories, but if the allies were into mass scale SBR campaigns anyway, you probably don’t need the fighters in France/East Poland anyway, since you’ll have the infantry and armor available to defend against the reduced invasion threat.
Also, if going that route, Germany should probably blow the IPC on bombers instead of fighters (when they want more air that is) for the increased range. It’s only an extra 2 IPC.
Yes to interceptors, only makes sense.
no to closing Dardenelles, because the without changing neutrals rules it’s too one sided. at least the allies can station interceptors at their ICs.
maybe we should close the baltic too…
Actually, I have a set of house rules I am planning to test that has the Med closed if you don’t own Gibraltar and Algeria and you cannot pass through the English Channel unless you own France and England (you can enter it and then leave it next round, you just cannot go straight through.)
It’s part of a larger set of rules. I’m prettying it up right now, making the graphics nice, incorporating things, etc. I’ll post them if I ever get them done, seems I don’t have time to do much of anything I want to do lately, just things I have to do.
I really don’t think the interceptors are that big of an issue. If you are playing without technologies, then the AA gun alone is a good deterrent to SBR runs (over 6 rounds you should lose a bomber and you should have done 21 IPC in damage, only a 9 IPC gain. If you used the bomber to assist in a ground battle each round, then you’d expect to kill 4 infantry for a damage total of 12 IPC in lost enemy units without losing the bomber, a gain of 12 IPC. Superior to the 9 IPC gain from SBR campaigns with that bomber.)
If you are playing with technology, Improved Factories and Radar are enough to destroy the benefit of SBR campaigns. (You lose a bomber every 3 rounds and only do 10.5 IPC in damage (possibly 21 IPC if you have H. Bombers))
Radar = 1 Bomber lost every 3 Rounds. Cost: 12 IPC
Bomber = 3.5 IPC damage each round, 3 rounds. Benefit: 10.5 IPC
Net: -1.5 IPC, not a good tactic usually.
Improved Factories = 1 Bomber lost every 6 Rounds. Cost: 12 IPC
Bomber = 3.5 IPC damage each round, 6 rounds. Benefit: 21 IPC
Net: 9 IPC - 21/2 (reduced repair cost) = -1.5 IPC, not a good tactic usually
Improved Factories + Radar = 1 Bomber lost every 3 Rounds. Cost: 12 IPC
Bomber = 3.5 IPC damage each round, 3 rounds. Benefit: 10.5 IPC
Net: 12 IPC (Cost) - 10.5/2 (Benefit reduced by Factory tech) = -6.75 IPC, can’t say that’s ever going to be a good tactic.
This is why I don’t think bombers are really broken in Anniversary, not if technologies are played with. At least, statistically they are not broken, given the randomness of the dice, you might experience a game where you see bombers performing overly well, but theoretically, you should see games where they under perform just as much.
i’ve always found that the truth about statistics can be found in,
“95% of all statistics are made up on the spot.”
Stats don’t mean much of anything, just a pretty bit of perfume into the air to attempt to cover up the massive digestive gases release that occurred.
the hit from bombers can be felt by the axis not in that they lose 3.5 ipcs per round or something, but from the fact (in germany/italy’s case) that they can lose it twice in the same round, plus loose money on rebuilding their production, plus put out less fighting units while being surrounded by 3 enemies who are constantly pressing them. the added fact that 2 of these enemies can for sometime attack this without putting their own ground units into harms way only helps them further Any diminished capacity to meet these threats will be felt quickly by the Axis.
an air-only option is not a good plan for the allies, but the integration of the air-war into the overall strategy is a solid component to victory.
realistically the sizes of the straits and geography would have to help determine the ability to close a strait.
sizes at closest points:
–dardanelles–1.6 km wide
–gibraltar-- 22km from gibraltar to africa, although only 12.8 from spain. good reason to get spain into the war.
–english channel–49.8 km
–danish straits–several-oresound at 4km, great belt at 16km, & little belt at 800 meters wide.
–suez canal–60 meters
i would say it more likely to close dardanelles and danish straits than gibraltar or english channel. if spain were involved, it would be easier to close the med.
When contemplating strategies over thousands and thousands of games, it’s usually best to use statistics.
The average bomber will do 3.5 IPC in damage on each SBR run.
The average bomber will be shot down every six rounds (12 IPC for the bomber divided by 6 Rounds is 2 IPC a round.)
This means you should expect a 1.5 IPC return per round. Or (5 * 3.5 IPC) - 12 IPC (5 Rounds of not getting shot down, times the average amount of damage done minus the cost of the bomber.) You should do 5.5 IPC more damage to the enemy than you sustain.
It’s the same as figuring out if you should attack your opponent now, or later. You run the numbers and find out the statistics.
Now, if your opponent gets Radar, those numbers shift dramatically.
Bombers will be shot down every 3 rounds on average and still do 3.5 IPC each round not shot down. So you should expect to lose 5 IPC per bomber running straight SBR campaigns.
Now yes, it is true you can diffuse your costs over multiple nations. Nation A and Nation B can both have bombers running, but that does not change the numbers.
It’s pretty simple really, no need to get into a big argument over it.
If you think SBR is a good game mechanic, don’t include the escorts rule in your games.
If you think it’s either too powerful, or bad for the game (or both), then you can reduce it’s effectiveness by playing with the escorts rule.
you’ve summed it up well, really a testing thing, some may not find a problem, some may, and that’s probably why Larry listed more as an optional rule than even suggested or expected.
looking at the after action reports, the first 50 games list in -41 were 28-17 to the Axis (5 draws), and the last 50 were at 8-5 to the axis(2draws). from just the numbers the optional rule of closing the Dardanelles may be good to help balance, but that could lead to the need of the interceptors to help rebalance what could be a big swing back to the allies from the dardanelles closing.
Just because Frood doesn’t have a specific function to calculate SBR damage does not mean you cannot use it to determine the results.
Or you can use basic math.
Bomber can do: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 damage to a complex. The average of those numbers is 1+2+3+4+5+6 all divided by 6 or 3.5 so you should expect to average out to 3.5 damage if you compute lots and lots of SBR runs.
An AA Gun hits on a 1 out of 6 possible results. That means every 6 rounds you should expect the AA Gun to have hit a bomber after you compute lots and lots of SBR runs. Cost of the Bomber is 12 IPC so 12 IPC lost every six rounds is 2 IPC a round.
An AA Gun with Radar hits on a 1 or 2 out of 6 possible results. That means every 3 rounds you should expect the AA Gun to have hit a bomber after you compute lots and lots of SBR runs. Cost of the Bomber is 12 IPC so 12 IPC lost every 3 rounds is 4 IPC a round.
It’s pretty to see, even with the most elementary math, that SBR runs are already barely cost effective and once a technology is gained, becomes cost ineffective even if you couldn’t figure out how to run Frood to do SBR calculations.
I think that the Dardanelles closed only make sens at all….i mean…if spain is neutral and we cant pass through it…Nobody should pass Turkey in this point…its the same rule but it wasnt apply for some reason. Its realistic, not a single ship pass through this in the entire War. It force Italy to focus on africa.
Welcome to Loch Thread, population this :roll: