San Francisco (ruleset for 1942.2 and Global)

[baron Münchhausen]

@Young:

I don’t agree with a “defenceless” bomber… bombers had turrets and gunners to help protect themselves, so the A@1 for bombers and A@2 D@2 for escorts and interceptors is the most historically accurate IMO.

If bombers MUST be defenceless, and toothless… than why not just give them a duel role as paratrooper transports seeing as the only refit between turns would be a difference in cargo?

But you accept to play with defenseless TP, right?
These military TP got AA machineguns too.

C5 worth it because they bomb more than any bomber ever.
What you lost in dogfight you double your profit in bombing damage.
A small tactical misrepresentation for a far more accurate depiction at strategic level.
StB are willing to be sacrificed in SBR because cheap and effective.
Fg can commit into dogfight because they can stop bombing damage.
You can risk escorting Fighter because a hit destroy an enemy Fg and you can take a 5$ StB for fodder instead of loosing a 10$ reg combat unit.

That’s it.
You can make a single dice roll for all StBs attacking to depict bomber’s machine gun. 1D6 not more.

Otherwise you break the magic, plain and simple. You should make a few try in Triple A against yourself, even a few rounds of 1942.2 will make you see the wonder. A small sacrifice for a lot in return.

And most of A&A fans agree to strange combat behavior like Fgs protected behind a wall of Infantry units retreating once this stack is depleted with no risk for their high cost unit. Tactically not a good depiction but strategically it shows how much it was a slaughter on the ground compared to air combat.
Gives a rough ratio of 50 for 1 casualty rate. IDK the real ratio, if anyone have an idea…

The only other way to maximized tactics dogfight with A1 StB and optimized SBR is rising StB cost and lowering Fg and TcB cost.
But higher cost StB imply SBR is not the same commitment for attacker (vs regular combat needs).
Higher attack factor for StB is more deterrent for interceptors.
Unpredictable intercept or not is blurring decision process if to bring escorts is good or a waste of reg combat units.
More time in decision making process.

All this is cristal clear with A0 C5 bombers. That’s the joy.

[CWO Marc]

I have a question about this concept of increasing strategic bomber range by trading it off against reduced damage.  I havent’t read this thread in close enough detail to be sure I’m grasping the concept correctly, so here’s my question: is the trade-off a reduction in the amount of damage that a bomber can take fron enemy attack (meaning its defensive power) or in the amount of damage that a bomber can inflict on its targets by dropping its bombs (meaning its offensive power)?  The reason I’m asking is that the second scenario is perfectly credible, while the first one is not.  WWII bombers did indeed sometimes extend their normal range by reducing their bombload in order to carry extra fuel.  (The 1943 Howard Hawks movie Air Force, for example, show a B-17 crew landing in the Philippines after a multi-hop flight from the U.S., extracting an auxiliary fuel tank from its bomb bay and replacing it with bombs.)  As far as I know, however, bomber range was not increased on combat missions by removing defensive armaments.  For one thing, doing so would have been inadequate: the weight of a bomber’s defensive armament was tiny compared to the weight of its bombload.  Moreover, doing so would have been hazardous: US and British bombers in the first half of the war already had the problem of inadequate escorting fighter range on normal-range missions, and thus had to depend on themselves for defense; on extended-range missions, the problem would have been even more severe, so reducing defensive firepower while increasing mission range would have been a very bad combination.  Also keep in mind that, at least in US practice, bombers didn’t just defend themselves; they also defended each other by flying in carefully planned three-dimensional formations so that the planes could maximize the amount of defensive firepower that they could pump into the space around (and inside) the bomber formation.

[baron Münchhausen]

@CWO:

I have a question about this concept of increasing strategic bomber range by trading it off against reduced damage.  I havent’t read this thread in close enough detail to be sure I’m grasping the concept correctly, so here’s my question: is the trade-off a reduction in the amount of damage that a bomber can take fron enemy attack (meaning its defensive power) or in the amount of damage that a bomber can inflict on its targets by dropping its bombs (meaning its offensive power)?  The reason I’m asking is that the second scenario is perfectly credible, while the first one is not.  WWII bombers did indeed sometimes extend their normal range by reducing their bombload in order to carry extra fuel.  (The 1943 Howard Hawks movie Air Force, for example, show a B-17 crew landing in the Philippines after a multi-hop flight from the U.S., extracting an auxiliary fuel tank from its bomb bay and replacing it with bombs.)  As far as I know, however, bomber range was not increased on combat missions by removing defensive armaments.  For one thing, doing so would have been inadequate: the weight of a bomber’s defensive armament was tiny compared to the weight of its bombload.  Moreover, doing so would have been hazardous: US and British bombers in the first half of the war already had the problem of inadequate escorting fighter range on normal-range missions, and thus had to depend on themselves for defense; on extended-range missions, the problem would have been even more severe, so reducing defensive firepower while increasing mission range would have been a very bad combination.  Also keep in mind that, at least in US practice, bombers didn’t just defend themselves; they also defended each other by flying in carefully planned three-dimensional formations so that the planes could maximize the amount of defensive firepower that they could pump into the space around (and inside) the bomber formation.

Marc,
on bombing range, am I correct to believe that US bombers were able to reach Berlin?
Bombers and Escorts were able to fly over what is described as West Germany on Global Map?

P-38 Lightning seems to have far greater range than some other Allies Fgs.

They were talking about reducing Fgs escorts firepower for range in previous posts.

[Young Grasshopper]

@CWO Marc

In the oob rules, strategic bombers each received a +2 to their roll when damaging facilities. I was discussing applying the same damage bonus to the 1 role 5 IPC bomber, however, instead of messing with the range given air units departing from an airbase… a bomber that needed an extra movement point to get to its target would surrender that damage bonus.

[CWO Marc]

@Young:

In the oob rules, strategic bombers each received a +2 to their roll when damaging facilities. I was discussing applying the same damage bonus to the 1 role 5 IPC bomber, however, instead of messing with the range given air units departing from an airbase… a bomber that needed an extra movement point to get to its target would surrender that damage bonus.

Ah, okay – thanks for this information.

[Ichabod]

@Young:

Just to jump in here… I don’t understand why there’s a desire to change the range of air units or to change the role of bases. I absolutely love the 1 role bomber idea, and the more I think about it… the more I feel it’s one of the best ideas that has come from this forum. However, the range argument is kinda weighing it down.

Strategic Bomber
Cost = 5 IPCs
Movement = 6
A@1 (dog fight only) / D@0
May only conduct strategic bombing raids
+1 damage bonus if bomber departs from an Airbase
+1 damage bonus if bomber doesn’t face an interceptor

Agreed. Keep Air Base role and movement ranges OOB standard. Can we please all agree on that at least?

It doesn’t bother me if playing my favorite country in G40 (Germany), that I would no longer have an @4 attack plane (stg. bomber) which could potentially travel 7 spaces. I would buy more tac. bombers.

Thanks Black_Elk for starting this thread! I request a completely NEW THREAD specifically just for the bombing House Rule debate listing the 2 or 3 different memes up for a vote.

I’m still advocating for the idea of fighters A2/D2 (dogfight only)…I think it fair to add the evolved idea that if an escort only has 1 movement space left, it dogfights @1. I’ve learned to mark all plane movements with a dice next to it representing the number of space movements left. Not hard to differentiate the escort battle dice rolls to me.

YG pointed out to me earlier that I don’t know which air casualties I’d actually take unless really playing. I like to think I’d pick at least 1 fighter since bomb damage might change the attack/defense power balance quicker.

Bombers (C5) Movement = 6
A@1 (dog fight only) / D@0
May only conduct strategic bombing raids
+1 damage bonus if bomber departs from an Airbase
+1 damage bonus if bomber doesn’t face an interceptor

ADD: Fighters (C10), A2/D2 in Dogfight (A1 if only 1 movement space remains)

[Black_Elk]

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.

The C5 bomber we outlined functions rather differently than the OOB bomber on SBR over time, which may only become clear once you see it in action for a few rounds. Basically the attrition rate is higher and the average damage rate lower (@1d6) because it’s cost is so cheap. This is also why it is defenseless, with escort recommended.

If you try to retain the @1 in dogfighting as you’re trying to, it dramatically alters the intercept calculus.

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. With the attrition rate for interceptors too high relative to that of the bombers, to even make the option worth considering in the first place. Defender then relies on AAA fire and the high cost of bombers (or its clear usefulness OOB in combat over SBR) pretty much exclusively as the only viable deterent against raids. In 1942.2 the effect is that OOB players simply ignore the optional escort/intercept rules altogether.

If you alter the rule in this way before trying our proposal, you’ll never really see the beauty of going defenseless. I agree the term is not catchy, but it draws on the analogy with the transport unit  (commonly referred to in this way.) I prefer barney’s term “SBR Only” to describe the unit, but defenseless is a actually good shorthand because it eliminates any confusion. I didn’t catch that @1 line yesterday. Gave me the slip haha

To me the only way that @1 works well, requires more cost adjustments, which might work in a roster overhaul, but would be more complicated. Basically we’d have to give up the 5 spot too, which seems a shame, since the system proposed seemed to work really well at that number, in producing desireable averages.

I know sometimes it’s easy to look at the numbers Baron tosses out and just kind of skim over the top. Massive walls of percentages, or sample set ratios are not the most entertaining reading I can attest haha. But he did post a gang of them, especially in the redesign thread, which make a pretty strong case for the @0 across the board.

I think it really does come down to what he said above… basically you give up some tactical representation in the dogfight (which would be a rarer occurance to begin with anyway, and in my view pretty low interest gameplay-wise over all), for a better strategic representation and more regular occurrence of Bombing raids, something which I think is of very high gameplay interest overall.

In a nutshell, if you want more incentive for bombing and escort/intercept at the same time, where the defender isn’t hemorrhaging combat aircraft in the interceptor role (or ignoring intercept all together) I think this is the ideal way to go. It just has a slick cost/benefit threshold, that recommends C5, so we’d finally have a cool unit in that roster spot again, and an interesting way to spend the remainder of 2 ipcs at purchase.

[Young Grasshopper]

@Ichabod:

Bombers (C5) Movement = 6
A@1 (dog fight only) / D@0
May only conduct strategic bombing raids
+1 damage bonus if bomber departs from an Airbase
+1 damage bonus if bomber doesn’t face an interceptor

ADD: Fighters (C10), A2/D2 in Dogfight (A1 if only 1 movement space remains)

In light of this… I just have to echo my earlier idea using BEs 1 role bomber and some earlier suggestions from others:

Strategic Bomber: Cost - 5 IPCs
Movement - 6 points  (7 from a base)
A@1 - D@0 (during dog fights)
Each get a +1 damage bonus to facilities
May only conduct Strategic Bombing raids
May sacrifice damage bonus to extend range by 1 (max 8 from a base)

Fighter: Cost - 10 IPCs
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 - 9 IPCs
Movement - 4 points (5 from a base)
A@1 - D@0 (during dog fights)
No damage bonus
No extension of movement

[Black_Elk]

I’m happy to see a new thread carved out, and ideas put it to a vote. The rule stated above is fine by me, with the exception of what you are trying to do with dogfighting, because I think it kneecaps one of the main aims of the rule.

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.)

Just recall that this bomber doesn’t cost 12 anymore.
Interceptors are now twice as expensive as a single bomber.

[Young Grasshopper]

@Black_Elk:

Interceptors are now twice as expensive as a single bomber.

Strategic bombers must be used last as casualties during a dog fight (problem solved).

[Young Grasshopper]

@Black_Elk:

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.

Not letting a bomber defend itself in a dog fight is the same argument as a cruiser getting AA capabilities but not a battleship… I can’t agree with either.

[Young Grasshopper]

@Black_Elk:

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.

[Ichabod]

@Black_Elk:

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.

[Ichabod]

@Black_Elk:

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.

[Ichabod]

@Black_Elk:

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).

[Black_Elk]

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.
:-D

Strategic 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.

[Ichabod]

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!

[Ichabod]

@Black_Elk:

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.

[Black_Elk]

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

[Young Grasshopper]

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.