New Strategic Bomber (for SBR exclusively)

[Black_Elk]

Aha so basically using a combined arms-like method, but with two of the same unit, then hacking this only into the dogfight?

Is it possible? If so that would be ideal.

Ps. If the combined arms is not possible, then I would explore the opening shot at a higher hit value idea, as the next best thing. Though I think in that case, you have to allow that the “group shot” for the whole wing might sometimes be just a lone bomber. Not sure what the ideal numbers there might be.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Black_Elk:

Aha so basically using a combined arms-like method, but with two of the same unit, then hacking this only into the dogfight?

Is it possible? If so that would be ideal.

It is the idea.
It seems to better gives the feel of “a bigger flock the bigger the danger for Fgs intercepting”, than a single roll @1 for whole group.

The issue I have about StB A1 vs D2 Fg is more about the TUV swing which makes for more damage on both sides, even if the break even ratio is similar to A0 vs D1.

[barney]

Unfortunately I don’t see an acceptable solution. You’d have to go to the D12, which I imagine people won’t like because of the numbers changing on all the units.

Or make two different bmbrs, one who can air battle and one that can’t. That is both sloppy and messy. Also I don’t think you can pick your AA casualties anymore. Someone else might know a way but…Idk.

[baron Münchhausen]

@barney:

Unfortunately I don’t see an acceptable solution. You’d have to go to the D12, which I imagine people won’t like because of the numbers changing on all the units.

Or make two different bmbrs, one who can air battle and one that can’t. That is both sloppy and messy. Also I don’t think you can pick your AA casualties anymore. Someone else might know a way but…Idk.

And is there a way to give A@1 for the whole bombers group, at least with Triple A engine?

[barney]

Not that I can see.

[barney]

@Baron
Is there anyway you can incorporate a 2 hit bmbr ? 10 bucks takes two hits to kill. Idk, any extra hits would then get applied.

E.g. you only send 1 bmbr against 3 intercpts, they get two hits you only lose five bucks. Lose 10 the other way. Plus you lose the C5, which is a major part of the appeal.

Probably not worth exploring.

Could buy a A0 C5 and upgrade to a 2hit A1 for 5 bucks. Idk about that either

If it took 1 hit goes back to A0. C5 to repair

[baron Münchhausen]

@Baron:

@Black_Elk:

Aha so basically using a combined arms-like method, but with two of the same unit, then hacking this only into the dogfight?

Is it possible? If so that would be ideal.

It is the idea.
It seems to better gives the feel of “a bigger flock the bigger the danger for Fgs intercepting”, than a single roll @1 for whole group.

The issue I have about StB A1 vs D2 Fg is more about the TUV swing which makes for more damage on both sides, even if the break even ratio is similar to A0 vs D1.

I wanted to see how much TUV swing it means in lost bomber to interceptors.
Example:
4 StBs C5  4A1 vs 4 Fgs C10 D2 gives these:

39.8% 1 StB lost:- 2.00 IPCs
29.5% 2 StBs lost: -2.95 IPCs
10.0% 3 StBs lost: -1.5 IPCs
1.3% 4 StBs lost: -0.26 IPCs
Sum: - 6.71 IPCs = 1.342 StBs C5 lost

38.3% 1 Fg lost: +3.83 IPCs
11.5% 2 Fgs lost: +2.30 IPCs
1.5% 3 Fgs lost: +0.45 IPCs
Sum: +6.58 IPCs = 0.658 Fgs C10 lost

TUV swing: - 6.71 +6.58 = -0.13 IPCs

4 StBs C5  1*A1 vs 4 Fgs C10 D1 gives these:

39.7% 1 StB lost:- 1.99 IPCs
11.7% 2 StB lost: -1.17 IPCs
1.41% 3 StBs lost: -0.21 IPCs
Sum: - 3.37 IPCs = 0.674 StBs C5 lost

16.7% 1 Fg lost: +1.67 IPCs = 0.167 Fg C10 lost

TUV swing: -3.37+1.67= - 1.70 IPCs

4 StBs C5  1*A1 vs 4 Fgs C10 D1 gives these:
39.7% 1 StB lost:- 1.99 IPCs
11.7% 2 StB lost: -1.17 IPCs
1.41% 3 StBs lost: -0.21 IPCs
Sum: - 3.37 IPCs = 0.674 StBs C5 lost
TUV swing: -3.37 IPCs

This means that 4 A1 vs 4 Fg D2, not considering AAA and bombing, is almost an even confrontation (TUV -0.13 IPC).
So a 1:1 interception, is not that interesting as defender.
Meaning 0.026 StB C5 lost.

The other case 4 StBs 1A1 vs 4 Fg D1 gives more interesting results for intercepting (TUV -1.70 IPCs), always considering dogfight phase only.
Meaning 0.340 StB C5 lost.

Finally, the most interesting which imply no Fighter loss and results for higher intercept TUV -3.37 IPCs.
Which means like 0.674 StB C5 lost.

So the issue is clearly about making StB far more too dangerous so interception is not a good deal at all.

If anyone trying A1 vs D2, I believe there will be a lot of no confrontations.
SBR will be too much killer for intercepting Fg for low results.
If Allies cannot bring Escort, they will wait until gaining a critical number (just above 1:1 or simply on FIT 3:2) then defending player will see no good reason to risk them. It’s going to be two giants glaring at each other.
I can hardly get a different conclusion…

From a Triple A POV, the only good and fully giving interesting and intended result is A0 C5 vs Fg A1 D1 C10.

Of course, it is a different SBR game with what SS is play-testing on his Global War Map: StB C5 A1 vs Fg C7 A2 D2.
Instead of TUV -0.13, you will get far more positive results for the interceptors.
Simply because there is less IPCs loss per Fg:

4 StBs C5  4A1 vs 4 Fg C7 D2 gives these:

39.8% 1 StB lost:- 2.00 IPCs
29.5% 2 StBs lost: -2.95 IPCs
10.0% 3 StBs lost: -1.5 IPCs
1.3% 4 StBs lost: -0.26 IPCs
Sum: - 6.71 IPCs = 1.342 StBs C5 lost

38.3% 1 Fg lost: +2.68 IPCs
11.5% 2 Fgs lost: +1.61 IPCs
1.5% 3 Fgs lost: +0.32 IPCs
Sum: +4.61 IPCs = 0.658 Fgs C7 lost

TUV swing: - 6.71 +4.61 = -2.10 IPCs
Meaning 0.420 StB C5 lost.

And this TUV-2.10 IPCs is exactly between A0 (-3.37 IPCs) and 1A1 per bombers group (-1.70 IPCs).

Which is where all people gets what they want.
Except, it requires to lower regular combat power and cost of Fg and TcB.
That way, all will be balanced within itself.

---

Here is a comparative summary of these 4 scenarii above:

A) 4 StBs C5 4A1 vs 4 Fgs C10 D2
TUV swing: -6.71 +6.58 = -0.13 IPCs Meaning 0.026 StB C5 lost.

B) 4 StBs C5  1*A1 vs 4 Fgs C10 D1
TUV swing: -3.37+1.67= - 1.70 IPCs Meaning 0.340 StB C5 lost.

C) 4 StBs C5  A0 vs 4 Fgs C10 D1
TUV swing: -3.37 +0 = -3.37 IPCs   Meaning 0.674 StB C5 lost.

D) 4 StBs C5 4A1 vs 4 Fgs C7 D2
TUV swing: - 6.71 +4.61 = -2.10 IPCs  Meaning 0.420 StB C5 lost.

A last note, between scenario A and C, even if A (A1 bomber) is almost zero TUV swing but avg damage on both attacker and defender are the highest of all 4 cases: near 6.6 IPCs. On the contrary, case C (A0 bomber) gives the highest TUV swing but damage are only 3.37 IPCs.

[Black_Elk]

In my view lowering the cost of other aircraft will be a non starter for most players, too much of a cascading effect down the entire roster. It may work in a complete overhaul (such as we were discussing for that other Philadelphia experiment project) but not optimal for a stand alone rule focused just on the bomber.

Because Escort/Intercept is integrally linked to SBR, I think players will accept alterations to the dogfighting values in isolation, but that is different than asking them to accept changes in the cost and regular combat abilities of fighters and tacs.

I prefer rule where only the cost of the bomber is altered. I will say I think the 5 ipc spot is pretty key to the idea getting up off the ground. If the new bomber unit is in competition with other popular units at 6, 7, 8 or more ipcs, I think it becomes much less attractive as a purchase option. The real beauty of the 5 spot, is that it allows players to spend a 2 IPC remainder (over infantry) for a single unit that is actually useful. Once you enter the range of 2 combat units vs 1 unit that has no combat role, there are generally better ways to spend the money. This begins at 6 ipcs, 2 infantry, (which is already in competion with subs and tanks at purchase). So I would really suggest we try to preserve the 5 spot for the bomber. It is the ideal slot in the roster.

@Baron:

@Baron:

If anyone trying A1 vs D2, I believe there will be a lot of no confrontations.
SBR will be too much killer for intercepting Fg for low results.
If Allies cannot bring Escort, they will wait until gaining a critical number (just above 1:1 or simply on FIT 3:2) then defending player will see no good reason to risk them. It’s going to be two giants glaring at each other.
I can hardly get a different conclusion…

From a Triple A POV, the only good and fully giving interesting and intended result is A0 C5 vs Fg A1 D1 C10.

Of course, it is a different SBR game with what SS is play-testing on his Global War Map: StB C5 A1 vs Fg C7 A2 D2.
Instead of TUV -0.13, you will get far more positive results for the interceptors.
Simply because there is less IPCs loss per Fg:

4 StBs C5  4A1 vs 4 Fg C7 D2 gives these:

39.8% 1 StB lost:- 2.00 IPCs
29.5% 2 StBs lost: -2.95 IPCs
10.0% 3 StBs lost: -1.5 IPCs
1.3% 4 StBs lost: -0.26 IPCs
Sum: - 6.71 IPCs = 1.342 StBs C5 lost

38.3% 1 Fg lost: +2.68 IPCs
11.5% 2 Fgs lost: +1.61 IPCs
1.5% 3 Fgs lost: +0.32 IPCs
Sum: +4.61 IPCs = 0.658 Fgs C7 lost

TUV swing: - 6.71 +4.61 = -2.10 IPCs
Meaning 0.420 StB C5 lost.

And this TUV-2.10 IPCs is exactly between A0 (-3.37 IPCs) and 1A1 per bombers group (-1.70 IPCs).

Which is where all people gets what they want.
Except, it requires to lower regular combat power and cost of Fg and TcB.
That way, all will be balanced within itself.

---

Here is a comparative summary of these 4 scenarii above:

A) 4 StBs C5 4A1 vs 4 Fgs C10 D2
TUV swing: -6.71 +6.58 = -0.13 IPCs Meaning 0.026 StB C5 lost.

B) 4 StBs C5  1*A1 vs 4 Fgs C10 D1
TUV swing: -3.37+1.67= - 1.70 IPCs Meaning 0.340 StB C5 lost.

C) 4 StBs C5  A0 vs 4 Fgs C10 D1
TUV swing: -3.37 +0 = -3.37 IPCs   Meaning 0.674 StB C5 lost.

d) 4 StBs C5 4A1 vs 4 Fgs C7 D2
TUV swing: - 6.71 +4.61 = -2.10 IPCs  Meaning 0.420 StB C5 lost.

A last note, between scenario A and C, even if A (A1 bomber) is almost zero TUV swing but avg damage on both attacker and defender are the highest of all 4 cases: near 6.6 IPCs. On the contrary, case C (A0 bomber) gives the highest TUV swing but damage are only 3.37 IPCs.

[Black_Elk]

@barney:

Also I don’t think you can pick your AA casualties anymore. Someone else might know a way but…Idk.

Just to confirm, is this an issue with the current draft gamefile? Or just the result of trying to make these adjustments suggested more recently?

[barney]

I was mistaken. Before you could pick tacs as AA casualties when your bmbrs were hitting factories. Now you can’t. It confused me for a moment.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Black_Elk:

In my view lowering the cost of other aircraft will be a non starter for most players, too much of a cascading effect down the entire roster. It may work in a complete overhaul (such as we were discussing for that other Philadelphia experiment project) but not optimal for a stand alone rule focused just on the bomber.

Because Escort/Intercept is integrally linked to SBR, I think players will accept alterations to the dogfighting values in isolation, but that is different than asking them to accept changes in the cost and regular combat abilities of fighters and tacs.

I prefer rule where only the cost of the bomber is altered. I will say I think the 5 ipc spot is pretty key to the idea getting up off the ground. If the new bomber unit is in competition with other popular units at 6, 7, 8 or more ipcs, I think it becomes much less attractive as a purchase option. The real beauty of the 5 spot, is that it allows players to spend a 2 IPC remainder (over infantry) for a single unit that is actually useful. Once you enter the range of 2 combat units vs 1 unit that has no combat role, there are generally better ways to spend the money. This begins at 6 ipcs, 2 infantry, (which is already in competion with subs and tanks at purchase). So I would really suggest we try to preserve the 5 spot for the bomber. It is the ideal slot in the roster.

You bring a good case for StB 5 IPCs spot for a non-combat unit, SBR only.
Also, that some unit like an 8 IPCs DDs (5$+ Inf C3) is competing for grabbing these 5 unused IPCs too.
I didn’t think about the StB C5, Fg C7, TcB C8 as somehow competing for the IPCs.
Probably something to look and ask to SS about how this cost structure is limiting or not StB purchase.

I never intended to really promote it, I simply goes just a bit further to see where this 7 IPCs Fighter is.
I’ve got these numbers under my nose.  :-)
What is still interesting for an overhaul project is that it can be tried somehow on Triple A.
There is no obstacle.

I know we are pretty convinced on the A0 StBs, even if an StB A1 vs Fg A2 D2 would better when looking at this combat values.
Keeping the 5 IPCs spot, make that A0 not the perfect SBR but, at least, pretty much better.

However, do you think we should still give a chance to StB A1 vs Fg A2 D2?
Here, I’m willing to take the bet.
Ichabod and YG will not be the only two persons which will prefer these values.
Do you think we need to make these two Triple A programs like SFR A0 and SFR A1?

That way, it allows to try both and compare.
So, if someone like Ichabod is convinced it will be better to explained to other how far SFR A0 is so good.
On the other side, if Ichabod still find SFR A1 more interesting, maybe we have to test it deeper.
Maybe the competitive aspect is more attractive in game than a real cost effective calculation. IDK.

Also, the people willing to try something like Balanced Mode in League are already used to these values (A1 vs Fg A2 D2).
Maybe it becomes easier for them to accept the change if they can tests both?

Numbers and words are not as convincing than real play-tests, and also it is funnier to play than read.  :-D

[Black_Elk]

I think it is definitely worth exploring both, yes.

I would concede and drop A0 in dogfighting if that’s what is required in the end for a concensus rule. So long as it costs 5 ipcs, and the alternative dogfighting values don’t totally shut down intercept, I would be totally willing to accept StB@ A1 vs FG@ A2/D2.

I honestly don’t know how many players will pay close enough attention to the FIT, or calculate the cost/benefit ratios to even realize why we are preferring A0 haha. It just needs to be close enough that it’s not obviously broken going too extreme in either direction.

I’m really most interested in the general concept of the 1 role bomber at C5, over the OOB dual role bomber at C12 for what it does at the broadest strategic level for economic warfare and naval balance. Improved escort/intercept is like the icing on the cake. But I don’t just want to eat the icing by itself here. If that makes sense
:-D

[baron Münchhausen]

@Black_Elk:

I think it is definitely worth exploring both, yes.

I would concede and drop A0 in dogfighting if that’s what is required in the end for a concensus rule. So long as it costs 5 ipcs, and the alternative dogfighting values don’t totally shut down intercept, I would be totally willing to accept StB@ A1 vs FG@ A2/D2.

I honestly don’t know how many players will pay close enough attention to the FIT, or calculate the cost/benefit ratios to even realize why we are preferring A0 haha. It just needs to be close enough that it’s not obviously broken going too extreme in either direction.

I’m really most interested in the general concept of the 1 role bomber at C5, over the OOB dual role bomber at C12 for what it does at the broadest strategic level for economic warfare and naval balance. Improved escort/intercept is like the icing on the cake. But I don’t just want to eat the icing by itself here. If that makes sense
:-D

This 5 IPCs StBs solved a few inconsistencies.

• Add an interesting 5 IPCs unit in the roster cost structure which was still missing (since Tank rise to 6 IPCs)

• Increase the SBR interactions and makes escort and intercept a more viable tactics

• No more OP Projection of Air Power (Dark Sky Strategy). No planes were able to provide such air support on so wide number of TTys.

• No more StBs Attack@4 vs Fighter D@4. How can you describe what it is suppose to depict in WW2?

• No more accurate bombing of Naval Fleet in middle of Ocean (PTO or ATO) with StB A4.
  The only rare example of such events in WWII were more famous misses, like B-17 against Nagumo’s Carrier in Battle of Midway.
  And numerous air raids on German Bismarck’s sister ship Tirpiz at seaport in Norway!

• An increase purchase of TcBs as the sole unit able to reach A4 when air covered by Fighter.
  (Mostly accurate, when you think about Midway US Torpedoe bombers, for example.)

• Air Bases become more important to get long range bonus with TcB and Fg, which was not necessary with M6 StB.

If there is other you have in mind, tell me I will add into this list.

[Black_Elk]

I’d be really curious to see what effect this bomber change in isolation has on the balance by sides, in Global and in 1942.2.

One thing I don’t really expect it to do is change the center crush as optimal Axis gameplay. But at least it would seem to give the Allies more to work with in countering that crush.

In 1942.2 the Americans clearly benefit at Pearl when the Japanese bomber is removed from its regular combat role. This alone makes the Allied situation more interesting on that board for the standard opener. I have seen that play pretty well scripted by now, so it will be fun to see what taking that option out of the Japanese play book does for the Pacific on the smaller scale map. The standard use for the German bomber is rather less scripted, but typically comes down to one of 3 basic attacks, either against UK ships, Russian ground, or possibly an Egypt gambit (if Allies do nothing with the canal.) Now presumably, it just takes a shot on SBR either London or Caucasus. Similarly the British bomber is generally used to kill German ships in the standard opener, whereas now it also likely takes a crack at SBR. How this changes the TUV swing out of the first round compared to OOB should be pretty interesting to see, but basically it amounts to fewer units destroyed in the opener.

In Global the effect is somewhat more immediate since you have 2 German stratBs removed from regular combat. The ripple effect here could be pretty significant, and Japan follows hot on their heels, with 2 bombers of their own being removed from regular combat. Would this alone change the appeal of J1DoW? Again pretty interesting. Surely by the time you get to UK/Italy, the game’s opening round should have a rather different flavor than the standard play book OOB. Again at its most basic, fewer units destroyed in round one.

That’s just the opener though, the midgame is where it gets interesting, especially from a play pace perspective. If, as designed, the bomber leads to more consistent bombing each round, then presumably this will tighten up the unit spam over time. More money spent on repair, means fewer units entering play overall (particularly for the nations most susceptible to long term bombing.) Some have argued that this may accelerate game resolution. Less money, less units, less rolling etc. I’m not entirely convinced there, since even a game like the A&A 1941 starter board v6 can drag haha, but in principle, this sort of thing is supposed to ultimately speed up the game. What remains to be seen is whether we get a blow out, since that’s not really optimal. But one can hope that the Allies/America will be able to do more to curtail the German economy. Japan is rather more difficult to reach, but a cheaper bomber at 5 should encourage more raids against facilities, so even there, we might see Allies pushing the needle a bit.

I think it would be worth trying as a stand alone tweak. Put it in the experiment section of the maps depot in TripleA, if that’s possible, and let players just toy around with it. The rest can stay as OOB for Global and 1942.2, and we’ll see where it puts the game on balance by sides with nothing else going on.

That would be a cool experiment I think, controlling for just the one element, to see what happens.

I think we just call it SBR only “cost 5 bomber” or “strategic bomber cost 5”, or something like that, so the file name is as descriptive as possible…

1942 v5 SBR only Strategic Bomber cost 5

Global 1940 SBR only Strategic Bomber cost 5

So you can tell at a glance, when downloading maps, exactly what is on offer. Sure the name isn’t exactly catchy, but at least it’s pretty clear haha.

For a stated table top rule, I’m fine if we want to go with the C5 bomber @ A1 vs @ A2/D2 as the standard, but I would like to at least mention the possibility of dogfighting values @ A0 vs @A1/D1 as a footnote or alternate option, or something like that, because it is a pretty different dynamic and others might find it interesting. It’s not the most obvious leap to make either, for an escort/intercept option, and pretty different than OOB, or the @1 situation. It would be nice to at least have it on record as something that is workable under C5 conditions, should the player wish to explore a rather different abstract modelling of escort/intercept.

[Black_Elk]

So for names…

1 role, SBR only, Cost 5?
Seems pretty descriptive
:-D

Thus far I like Baron’s suggestion of “Enigma” or Enigma Code, for a general name of the process.
Players can set up their own code, within the framework provided, and crack the game using whatever house rules their group finds most intriguing.

I think many of the ideas suggested so far are compatible with each other, or could function as one offs.

Essentially what we’re trying to do is set up a bigger house for our house rules. The more people who use similar rules based on standards, the better chance people have of finding like minded opponents for a given mod. The idea being that some rules become more commonplace, as the bid has been.

We have a number of balancing mechanisms available, to accomodate any round 1 distortions that might occur on a given map under a given ruleset. So I’m less concerned with overall balance at the moment, and more interested in expanding the gameplay options.

I like the idea of different “settings”

Right now I’m towing with the San Francisco ruleset.

We have also seen a few other ruleset mods that it would be cool to accomodate, features used in the Balance Mod like the marine (or special forces concept), or Halifax/Cliffside rules that have used different production profiles of various kinds.

I like the edit mode a lot. It’s what makes tripleA superior to the other digital versions that came out in the past. Most things one could want to change in terms of set ups are easily accomplished. One thing you can’t really do on the fly is change features of the map itself (like territory value or connections) but there are workarounds for that stuff as well, either player enforced (edited) or just by player agreement (movement restrictions.)
I can see a lot of options though. In a way it’s similar to the table top, where most people won’t want to draw on, or otherwise permenantly mess with the gameboard itself. So kind of similar restrictions in what’s on offer there. But this tech mod concept feels like a winner for getting some of this stuff in tripleA, so it can more closely emulate the table top experience.

[Black_Elk]

So just to let people know what we’re cooking up…

We have the 1 role bomber at A0 in the dogfight (with escort/intercept A1/D1), and this can be upgraded via the auto-tech “UpGun” which gives the bomber A1 in the dogfight (with intercept raised D2). So everyone can be happy.

We have an Airbase that grants +2 movement only when conducting SBR or Escort, otherwise it is the standard +1. (This might need to be player enforced for now, but we’ll work on it.)

A bunch of other stuff will be included in the package as well, so hopefully some of these HR ideas we’ve been kicking around lately will get a chance to see more action in tripleA pickup games. More after the weekend. Thanks to Barney for rocking it non stop!

Take it easy all, catch you next round.
:-D

[Ichabod]

Black_Elk,

I like that you included both options for the 1 role bomber. I would be interested to try both dice levels for the air battle (A0 / A1/D1) and (A1 / A2/D2).

When do you think this HR idea will be available for play on tripleA? Please make it for the Global setup. Should I contact you when/if I find a bug or problem with the HR?

If only I had a group who played table top so much that they’d be willing to try out several different House Rules. What really happens is that people say, oh yeah, “let’s try out this or that house rule.” However, what actually happens when we get together 3 weeks later for the scheduled game, is that they’re too “scared” to “waste” time trying out a house rule. We end up bidding for the allies under OOB rules.

I’m really interested in trying this out.

Good Job!

Ichabod

[A Former User]

The discussion seems to be centered around risk.  Risk to the bomber against damage inflicted.

I would propose the risk should be low to losing the aircraft, but the damage inflicted would be less.  B17 raids were, on average, only 20% effective during the war.  So the dice roll for defense should not be just a hit against the bombers but a subtraction against the roll by the attacker.  Maybe use 1d6-1 for tacB AAA, and 1d6-2 for strB. 
That modified number is then subtracted from the damage done by the bomber.  strB do not get the +2 modifier. 
If modDef roll is 4 or 5, then the bomber is lost.  This would change odds of shooting done a strB to 1:18 and tacB to 5:36.  The build cost should probably just stay same as OOB rules.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Ichabod:

Black_Elk,

I like that you included both options for the 1 role bomber. I would be interested to try both dice levels for the air battle (A0 / A1/D1) and (A1 / A2/D2).

When do you think this HR idea will be available for play on tripleA? Please make it for the Global setup. Should I contact you when/if I find a bug or problem with the HR?

If only I had a group who played table top so much that they’d be willing to try out several different House Rules. What really happens is that people say, oh yeah, “let’s try out this or that house rule.” However, what actually happens when we get together 3 weeks later for the scheduled game, is that they’re too “scared” to “waste” time trying out a house rule. We end up bidding for the allies under OOB rules.

I’m really interested in trying this out.

Good Job!

Ichabod

Barney is working hard on it, night and days. (Literally!)  :roll:
He is on G40 actually. Later, he will insert options into V5 1942.2
You will probably enjoy all the options you will get from this Triple A Redesign project.
I’m happy you feel enthusiastic about it.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Carolina:

The discussion seems to be centered around risk.  Risk to the bomber against damage inflicted.

I would propose the risk should be low to losing the aircraft, but the damage inflicted would be less.  B17 raids were, on average, only 20% effective during the war.  So the dice roll for defense should not be just a hit against the bombers but a subtraction against the roll by the attacker.  Maybe use 1d6-1 for tacB AAA, and 1d6-2 for strB. 
**That modified number is then subtracted from the damage done by the bomber. ** strB do not get the +2 modifier. 
If modDef roll is 4 or 5, then the bomber is lost.  This would change odds of shooting done a strB to 1:18 and tacB to 5:36.  The build cost should probably just stay same as OOB rules.

Actually, Triple A engine does not allow for such a change like AAguns reducing damage to StB roll.
The actual play-tested is StB A0 C5 vs Fg D1. Bombing : D6 damage.
But, on the principle you are very right. Damage should be reduced.
And odds of shooting down as low as possible.
Hence, with Triple A we preferred A0 vs Fg D1, then IC’s AAgun @1 is the lowest casualty rate we can get if a 1:1 interception occurs.
Meaning, 25/36 (5/6*5/6) odds of survival for StBs: 69.44% for an StB to survive both rolls.
To rise this rate around 83% (17% of being shot down), you need 2 StBs or 3 StBs per 1 Fg.
And giving attack factor to StB increase so much the interceptor casualty rate, that A0 was chosen.
That way, only escorting Fg A1 can attack in SBR dogfight.

Lowering to 5 IPCs StBs A0 D0 makes for a single purpose StB which is more willingly sacrifice.
Otherwise, we return to OOB paradigm: which makes StBs better than any unit in power and threat projection.

Do you know where you get this number of 20% of accuracy on target?
I only found casualty rate from 12% to a high 30%, if I recall correctly.