TACs overrated ?


  • '10

    While I’m always for the addition of a new unit I’m wondering if the new Tac bombers are overrated/overpriced. Some questions have already been raised regarding how much they will be purchased at 11 ipc. In addition I think a 3 defense is somewhat high considering that B17s, 24s and Lancasters defend at 1. With the exception of the Mosquito the units represented by the sculpts were poor defensively. Some of the fighterbombers equipped w/ rockets and bombs were also stronger offensively than dive/torpedo bombers. Consider this, why does a sub attack at 2 while a torp bomber attacks at 3 in this game. I’m wondering if there was any consideration given to making the unit less powerful and inexpensive. A 2/2/4/8 unit may be good alternative with the 8 pricetag being the premium for mobility. When paired w/armor or fighters the attack value could be upped to 3.

    Any thoughts, comments?



  • i like it
    cause paired with fighter, the tac’s are to strong, especially with japan
    ik really like your proposal, so make them like early figs in NWO? or def 2?



  • getting a little too specific though aren’t we?  If that’s the case the chinese fighter should not be a 3/4 like the rest of the planes, as they were the p40s and nowhere near as good as a zero.


  • '10

    @MaherC:

    getting a little too specific though aren’t we?  If that’s the case the chinese fighter should not be a 3/4 like the rest of the planes, as they were the p40s and nowhere near as good as a zero.

    In that case the axis bombers shouldn’t be as powerful as the allied bombers as the allies had 4 engine bombers opposed to 2 engines for the axis. My reason for the post was not to nitpick but to point out a possible alternative to the premise that no one will buy tac bombers while still keeping the concept on a strategic rather than tactical level.



  • I think tacs would be much cooler with a specific role.  I suggested giving them a first strike ability similar to subs as that would fit the concept, at least in my mind, of a dive bomber.  No clue on stats or pricing in that case though.  As they are, in pacific at least, they join the cruiser and the armor as units I will never, ever, purchase unless I got an extra buck burning a hole in my pocket.



  • In a game of this scale the tacitcal bomber has a role, it projects an attack of 4 A LOT farther than a bomber can get in this game.

    Also, the tac bomber changes a crucial gameplay element, the carrer is now a “carrier”, not a floating “4” rolling death box

    in other games a bunch of carriers with straight fighters was a dreadfleet, that was hard to really go after when you knew you had to wade through like 4-6 "4"s


  • '10

    I wish this thread wasn’t moved to the house rules section so quickly as there have been no replies since it was. I wasn’t proposing it as a house rule but simply wondering if the playtesters gave any thought to making the tac bombers a less impressive/expensive unit so it would be more widely utilized in the game.



  • Why call it tactical bombers rather then figther bombers?



  • my games use them as ethier dive bombers or at sea torpedeo bombers. they are always allowed to pick their targets. by the way the larger bombers b-17, b-24s etc. have a poor defense value becouse they dont get off the ground in a ground attack and in SBRs they were sitting ducks for fighter attacks. basically an offensive weapon.



  • Why call it tactical bombers rather then figther bombers?
    Ya…well, the good spelling should be light bomber.

    my games use them as ethier dive bombers or at sea torpedeo bombers. they are always allowed to pick their targets. by the way the larger bombers b-17, b-24s etc. have a poor defense value becouse they dont get off the ground in a ground attack and in SBRs they were sitting ducks for fighter attacks. basically an offensive weapon.
    I agreed. I also use torpedo and dive bombers and use the same rules.
    Much better…



  • @crusaderiv:

    Why call it tactical bombers rather then figther bombers?
    Ya…well, the good spelling should be light bomber.

    my games use them as ethier dive bombers or at sea torpedeo bombers. they are always allowed to pick their targets. by the way the larger bombers b-17, b-24s etc. have a poor defense value becouse they dont get off the ground in a ground attack and in SBRs they were sitting ducks for fighter attacks. basically an offensive weapon.
    I agreed. I also use torpedo and dive bombers and use the same rules.
    Much better…

    Picking their target makes them way more formidable weapon



  • Picking their target makes them way more formidable weapon.

    You’re right. Airplanes are the powerful piece in A&A games. (like the queen in a chess game)



  • @crusaderiv:

    Picking their target makes them way more formidable weapon.

    You’re right. Airplanes are the powerful piece in A&A games. (like the queen in a chess game)

    That is a very true. Queen in a chess game. Great point!



  • Do the same thing with cruisers.



  • subs can do that already on first shot attack. might make cruisers too strong, but its intriguing. next game im going to try any roll of 1 gives choice of casuality.



  • Fighter and Sub are stronger than a cruiser.


  • '10

    @Game:

    Why call it tactical bombers rather then figther bombers?

    This is an interesting comment. The A&A sculpts are true tactical bombers (Dauntless, Stuka, Sturmovic,ect.) but the rules represent fighter bombers like the P-47 or the Fw190G. They attack and defend at three with a bonus if paired with a fighter on attack. The true tac bomber should be in the same area as the stratigic bomber like a one or two on defense. I will post my tac bomber house rule later as I have a A&AG game scheduled shortly.



  • @MaherC:

    getting a little too specific though aren’t we?  If that’s the case the chinese fighter should not be a 3/4 like the rest of the planes, as they were the p40s and nowhere near as good as a zero.

    I, for one, would love to see a theatre-level or battle-level game that gave different powers’ units different fighting values to represent their (widely) varying levels of effectiveness.

    I think that certain nations should have a tougher time producing certain kinds of units than others. Charging different costs for identical units, or charging the same cost for units with different fighting values, or some combination of the two, would constitute a viable way of representing this.

    For example, apparently the Italian fighter of the day was the best Axis plane in the air, but it was made by craftsmen, and not suitable for mass-production at factories. This would justify high stats and high costs: perhaps a 4/4 for 15 IPCs or some such, to represent both its superiority in terms of performance and the extravagant expenses incurred in creating such a machine.

    Anyway, you could make similar rationales for the units of all the combatants, if your knowledge of WW2 history was broad enough. It would make for an interesting exercise, and would give playing a certain power much more in the way of historical ‘flavour’.



  • @Battling:

    A 2/2/4/8 unit may be good alternative with the 8 pricetag being the premium for mobility. When paired w/armor or fighters the attack value could be upped to 3.

    Any thoughts, comments?

    Your new tac bombers could obsolete destroyers, as they would be strictly better than destroyers–if it weren’t for the destroyers’ sub detection and convoy disruption abilities.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 9
  • 2
  • 45
  • 8
  • 8
  • 5
  • 14
  • 71
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

31
Online

14.2k
Users

34.6k
Topics

1.4m
Posts