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
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.
The bombers not getting to role @1 during a dogfight argument went over my head. Totally not for that. Â
Some interesting numbers were given in the redesign thread. They might help people to see some of what Baron was talking about.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1624850#msg1624850
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1625109#msg1625109
Both of those links above will give you the numbers for the exact dogfighting situation you have been proposing in the last few pages, at various costs for the stratB.
That second link above also explains why “taken as last casualty” would not be seen as a particularly great option under the @2 values escort/intercept that you guys are talking about. But also shows how this system without such a order of loss restriction is still superior to OOB for escort/intercept.
For interceptions, even a defending Fg @2 C10, double cost of StB !!!, is not an interesting option.
But this is actually the same OOB.
The difference is if there is escort Fgs, IMO it create a different dynamic because if a casualty must be taken, the attacker must choose between a 5 IPCs StB unit or a 10 IPCs Fg unit.
So, I believe most defender’s Fg hit will be allocated to StB instead of costlier escort Fgs.
That is a more accurate historical depiction of such air raid.So, players will get similar odds in SBR, a slighlty different dogfight dynamic, no more regular combat but more StBs for their money compared to OOB
(5 vs 12 IPCs).
I think that one gives a good argument showing how the @1 vs @2 bomber is comparable to OOB at a cost of 5, but with more dogfighting interest than OOB.
This link below, is where we started exploring a more radical @0 possibility.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1625413#msg1625413
Just to give a sense of the progression. If it helps to make clear how we ended up where we did hehe.
:-D
The bombers not getting to role @1 during a dogfight argument went over my head. Totally not for that.
@Young:
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.
@YG and Ichabod,
Just for the hypothesis.
Would you accept to lower the cost and combat values of Fg and TcB instead? (Assuming now three planes Carrier?)
The scale down works like this, 1 pt for 1 IPC:
Fighter C10 A3 D4
Fighter C9 A3 D3
Fighter C8 A2 D3 or A3 D2
Fighter C7 A2 D2
Would you play along these configurations?
Fighter A2 D2 M4-5-6 C7, A2 or A1 in SBR -1A if M6
TcBs A3 D2 M4-5-6 C8, A1 in SBR bombing AB or NB at D6 damage or D6-1 if M6
StBs A0 D0 M6-7-8 C5, A1 in SBR bombing IC or AB or NB at D6 damage+1 or D6 if M8
Showed in other way:
Strategic Bomber:
Cost - 5 IPCs
A@0 - D@0
Movement - 6 points (7 from a base)
A@1 - D@0 (during dog fights)
Each get a D6 +1 damage bonus to facilities
May only conduct Strategic Bombing raids
May sacrifice +1 damage bonus to extend range by 1 (max 8 from a base)
Fighter:
Cost - 7 IPCs
A@2 - D@2
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 - 8 IPCs
A@3 - D@2
Movement - 4 points (5 from a base)
A@1 - D@0 (during dog fights)
No damage bonus, D6
Long range TBR may take -1 on bombing to extend range by 1 (max 6 from a base)
Bombers have no guns in your rule no matter what you do to fighter and tacs… like I said earlier, why not make it an optional air transport if it’s gonna be totally defenseless anyways?
Bomber / Transport Cost - 9 IPCs
A@0 - D@0
Movement - 6 points (7 from a base)
May conduct Strategic Bombing raids or paratrooper missions
Each get a D6 +1 damage bonus to facilities during SBRs
Each may drop up to 2 infantry into a battle during combat movement
@Young:
Bombers have no guns in your rule no matter what you do to fighter and tacs… like I said earlier, why not make it an optional air transport if it’s gonna be totally defenseless anyways?
Bomber / Transport Cost - 9 IPCs
A@0 - D@0
Movement - 6 points (7 from a base)
May conduct Strategic Bombing raids or paratrooper missions
Each get a D6 +1 damage bonus to facilities during SBRs
Each may drop up to 2 infantry into a battle during combat movement
Not exactly.
I followed all your parameters, including StB A1 in dogfight.
Do you ever play with paratrooper and air transport?
Each time I tried them, it seems to radically change the game.
So, now, even if I have these sculpts, I don’t use them.
If was playing on a regular basis on tabletop, then I would risk air transport.
But I enjoy it so much when I get to play that I don’t want to break the game with these unknown effect unit.
So for tripleA players, Barney just suggested an idea for implementing the SF ruleset in a way I really like.
The idea is to make the bomber change standard, but include two tech advances, one for AB+2 and one for M3.
This will allow players to easily option those rules “on” if desired, by using a simple edit in Edit Mode. But it keeps them separated off, so it’s clear that they are optional ideas. This allows us to include all the ideas in one place, for flexible playtesting. The standard gamefile will only highlight the bomber idea solo by default, but if a player desired to explore other options such as additional range for aircraft or the crazy M3 concept, then they have an easy way to do so, without requiring a new download or separate gamefiles.
It might even be possible to make A0 a tech option as well. Not sure there, but basically the idea is to hack them into the game using the tech menu, since you can edit technologies very easily in TripleA on the fly. It’s a bit like having them as checkboxes in the main game tab menu. That way if a player wanted to try one or both of those ideas in conjunction with the 1 role bomber they can still do so, but there is a clear divide between the default HR and the optional add ons.
If people find this method agreeable, then its possible to use the tech system as a way to have several possible HRs that can be optioned “on/off” with relative ease. For players who don’t use the OOB techs anyway, this would be no major loss. Instead what they would gain is a simple way to use some optional rules, rules that can be introduced in an incremental way if desired. Allowing players to pick and choose the options that best suit their playstyle or particular HR interests.
There are many OOB techs that are either broken, or not particularly interesting. If we wanted to go for broke that gives us 12 slots for optional rules in TripleA. In 1942.2 v5 there is no tech by default, so here we’d have pretty much carte blanche freedom.
I feel like this is kind of what’s missing from the OOB game. A series of official or at least semi-official standard options, where players can easily choose from the same basic grab bag, to customize their play experience based on the individual preferences of the play group. Here they would just “auto-tech” the desired HR, as a simple workaround for implementation on the fly.
Sound cool?
So basically, it takes a simple concept of the C5 bomber as the default jumping off point, and then gives you a series of complimentary HR tweaks that might be fun to try with such a bomber. Just as an idea of what sort of things we might be able to include… The names of the techs themselves could of course change to describe what we want to introduce.
Heavy Bomber = C5 Bomber Advance @A0 vs A1/D1 to @A1 vs A2/D2, with damage improvements?
Super subs = New Sub/Destroyer dynamic?
Shipyards = New Naval Cost Structure
Long Range Aircraft = AB+2? (for Global) or maybe Factory +2 to range (for 1942.2, with the AB folded into the factory unit)
War Bonds = War Bonds? hehe I don’t know I always loved this as an general concept myself, but maybe it could be tweaked or improved under C5 bomber conditions.
That’s just 5 HR slots right there, you could still put something for the remaining 7 entries…
Improved Artillery Support
Rockets Advance
Airborne_Forces
Increased Factory Production
Improved_Mech_Inf
AA Radar
These would of course all be “off” by default, and you wouldn’t use the R&D roll to turn them on (though I suppose technically you could if you wanted lol), rather the idea is to “Auto-Tech” the desired rule to all players from the Edit Mode menu, if you want to use it. Basically using the tech system would just be an expedient, since it gives us a very simple way to make toggles in TripleA, with an easy to view list, were you can edit each option “on/off” individually. Some HRs would work likely work better than others under such a scheme, but it still gives a cool way to incorporate some ideas into TripleA so that they’re just “ready to go”, without requiring new downloads/gamefiles for every concept one might wish to explore. Here the organizing idea or foundation for all the other optional HRs, would be the main default tweak or the core change, which showcases the C5 bomber under otherwise OOB conditions (in a no tech game.)
Ok I’m going to draft an idea for how we could use this tech method to truly make an all purpose tripleA HR gamefile in the redesign thread. I think this is the golden ticket for creating a common HR package for use in TripleA.
Ok I’m going to draft an idea for how we could use this tech method to truly make an all purpose tripleA HR gamefile in the redesign thread. I think this is the golden ticket for creating a common HR package for use in TripleA.
Cool.
I like the name “common HR package”.
Sounds promising.
Yup! This is a fantastic idea. Very excited about a “common House Rule” mod for tripleA with checkboxes to turn individual rules on and off. That will be a huge help for playtesting.
My only suggestion is to make the cost-5 defenseless strategic bomber also be one of the checkboxes available, instead of being baked in to the map! I like that rule, but if we’re going to experiment, there’s no reason why we shouldn’t be able to try different combinations.
There will be an upgun option with StB A1 TcB A1 and Fg A2 D2.
:-)
Yeah agreed. Everything should be optional. The default game should be OOB with everything else turned on via toggle.
Some check boxes require a few extra steps to activate, like with triggers. Seems to be the case with some existing units already on the board (like bases and whatnot), though I think Barney is working on a simpler implementation. But basically the idea is that you can just download a save with presets, for anything that’s more complex.
I playtested 3 round with M3 TP and CA.
I modified set-up to replace half Fg with TcB C10.
And added 4 UK ICs in Canada, South Africa, East and West Australia.
Help increase attack factor.
India was lost third round, but was possible to produce two Destroyers along Madagascar to protect Indian TPs.
M3 TP makes for immediate attack coming from Japan.
Game is KGF, not finished but Germany was able to save Baltic fleet.
Too much U-boat to kill, so Cruiser survived until united with Med BB.
Probably a bad choice because I attacked Subs with planes and 1 UK DD instead of Cruiser first round.
Germany use 3 Subs against UK BB to not loose too much air power.
Missing A4 StB against UK have an impact in this battle.
To continue…
Germany bought Carrier first turn, it increase Fg mobility and power projection when near Gibraltar.
Can reach either Russia, Africa, UK, even North America.
However, Europe is pretty depleted and only able to built Art & Inf mostly to fight Russia in a corner.
Slowly loosing Tank to get back Bielorussia, Ukraine.
Med TP is needed to pour Inf into Africa waiting to use Med Carrier to protect TP near Caucasus.
India needs to evac toward Persia round 3.
But, with ICs in Africa, and Australia, UK is still in game.
@Baron:
I playtested 3 round with M3 TP and CA.
I modified set-up to replace half Fg with TcB C10.
And added 4 UK ICs in Canada, South Africa, East and West Australia.
Help increase attack factor.
India was lost third round, but was possible to produce two Destroyers along Madagascar to protect Indian TPs.M3 TP makes for immediate attack coming from Japan.
Game is KGF, not finished but Germany was able to save Baltic fleet.
Too much U-boat to kill, so Cruiser survived until united with Med BB.Probably a bad choice because I attacked Subs with planes and 1 UK DD instead of Cruiser first round.
Germany use 3 Subs against UK BB to not loose too much air power.
Missing A4 StB against UK have an impact in this battle.
To continue…Germany bought Carrier first turn, it increase Fg mobility and power projection when near Gibraltar.
Can reach either Russia, Africa, UK, even North America.
However, Europe is pretty depleted and only able to built Art & Inf mostly to fight Russia in a corner.
Slowly loosing Tank to get back Bielorussia, Ukraine.
Med TP is needed to pour Inf into Africa waiting to use Med Carrier to protect TP near Caucasus.India needs to evac toward Persia round 3.
But, with ICs in Africa, and Australia, UK is still in game.
I played up to round 5.
With M3 US Cruiser and TP, I saved Australia from IJN which invaded Western Aus.
Even if India is lost from J3, all African IC allows to defend all South Africans TTy.
Both India and Aussie TP allows to move armies around Arabic Peninsula.
Maybe I don’t play Germany well because each round I fight for Africa with Inf+Art.
Too stretched on Eastern front.
Brazil is German but I lost my combined fleet because USA have many (4-5) DDs around 1 full CV and CA.
M3 allows US to land 6 units into Finland, Germany have to get ride of them before attacking Russia.
Japan have to built another IC to really pour units into Asia against Russia.
Russia was able to get ride of first japan assault, because USA landed into Finland.
A lot of Bombing and StBs shooted down.
I also put in set-up a German IC in NWEurope.
Pretty interesting target and easier to built unit into Atlantic Wall.
UK invaded it but USA was obliterated in Finland, have to reload home.
Playing with special Subs, Germany can use Subs because they can submerge after first round.
I really like to play as I was on boardgame, much more realistic.
I wonder if Larry never put ICs everywhere because of game length.
M3 allows for more actions every two rounds.
Gives a more Global like actions game.
Fighting over Borneo, Australia, Cairo and NWE.
Italian TP survive with no escort in Med because there is no StB A4 M6.
Plane range is much more realistic.
India retreat UK3 seems working to use all ground units to fight later.
After 5 rounds, it is still even, Moscow is too far for Germany now while USA and UK are knocking on NWE and France. Luftwaffe is only 3 planes now.
Japan must be the one which pressure Moscow now.
G must now play defensive.
IDK for balance but the game is much more interesting actually, considering 1942.2 lower economy.
More A1 D1 C5 blockers, always wondering if TcB or Fg need to be purchase none is OP but contextual decision. Germany is able to fight in ATO.
Even Russia build a third Fg to cover against Axis bombing.
And succeeded in shooting down 1 G and 1 J bomber.
But Caucasus is totally maxed out. Stalingrad is contested by Germany, then Japan.
No one pay to repair.
If Sinkiang and Szechuan were considered impassable toward West it clearly slow down game and Axis. It seems more accurate but for now, I didn’t try it.
Interesting to hear some experiences with M3!
:-D
I think making Western China impassable would work well for 1942.2, no movement between starting Soviet and starting Chinese territories (Sinkiang and Szech closed in the West, but still allows movement through Burma or Manchuria.) If desired you could include a token Red force in Sinkiang, since it’s currently empty. The Territories in this region are highly compressed, so the tile called Sinkiang could be understood to encompass Shensi, where we represent the CCP with a pair of Soviet Infantry, or something along those lines.
Not sure how well it would work in Global. The need is less pressing there, since Chinese units cannot leave China in G40 the way American units can in 1942.2, but it still might be an option.
Interesting to hear some experiences with M3!
:-DI think making Western China impassable would work well for 1942.2, no movement between starting Soviet and starting Chinese territories (Sinkiang and Szech closed in the West, but still allows movement through Burma or Manchuria.) If desired you could include a token Red force in Sinkiang, since it’s currently empty. The Territories in this region are highly compressed, so the tile called Sinkiang could be understood to encompass Shensi, where we represent the CCP with a pair of Soviet Infantry, or something along those lines.
Not sure how well it would work in Global. The need is less pressing there, since Chinese units cannot leave China in G40 the way American units can in 1942.2, but it still might be an option.
This impassible Western China then should either received a few more units, as you suggested, or an american IC,
Or both, it may better simulate the high number of Chinese population which take arms.
Japan has to deal with or it becomes uncontained.
It seems that in mid-game M3 really help USA and somehow UK.
Once Luftwaffe is out, you can use 2 groups *three TPs from EUSA to NWE or France.
Germany cannot hold that long.
And early game, it allows more direct combat involvement.
No need to foresee two turns ahead, it takes less patience to play US that way.
South African IC at set-up was very important to block German expansion south of Sahara.
And it preserved UK economy from falling radically. Keeping it in play against Axis.
Of course, South Africa’s units clearly benefit from M3.
It preserved India and Australia TPs, and it increases Inf, Art mobility in Arabic Peninsula.
Coming faster in Egypt or Persia or Syria.
So, it seems M3 first is better for IJN then USA and UK get the better hand out of it.
Still Cruiser is purchase to protect TP. When speed matter, Cruiser are in high need.
However, BB is slow but still 2 hits make for a good core fleet when attacking smaller fleet (3 or 4 combat units).
I really like all these redesign units. More balanced between themselves.
It worth the fun to explore this 1942.2 game.
And with additional UK ICs make for a more historically-themed 1942.2.
C5 A0 D0 StB are just at a right cost to not being rebuffed if an IC is only half damaged, making only 3 pts and losing any points left if roll is above 3, not a detterent.
Also, loosing a few of them is part of the risk and not a tragic TUV swing, as it was OOB.
A lot of Russian’s IC were bombed and is part of strategy against Russia.
Caucasus IC was maxed out and a wasted land for 3 turns now.
It feels like Stalingrad.
I have no critic on M3 and C5 till now, make for a better A&A experience but I’m just wondering if it is balanced.
After 6 rounds, IJN is massively invading Asia but Russia get relieved because of Western front opening.
I probably played badly Germany, I will restart around G3 or G4 to see where it can go.
@Baron:
It seems that in mid-game M3 really help USA and somehow UK.
Once Luftwaffe is out, you can use 2 groups *three TPs from EUSA to NWE or France.
Germany cannot hold that long.And early game, it allows more direct combat involvement.
No need to foresee two turns ahead, it takes less patience to play US that way.South African IC at set-up was very important to block German expansion south of Sahara.
And it preserved UK economy from falling radically. Keeping it in play against Axis.Of course, South Africa’s units clearly benefit from M3.
It preserved India and Australia TPs, and it increases Inf, Art mobility in Arabic Peninsula.
Coming faster in Egypt or Persia or Syria.So, it seems M3 first is better for IJN then USA and UK get the better hand out of it.
Still Cruiser is purchase to protect TP. When speed matter, Cruiser are in high need.
However, BB is slow but still 2 hits make for a good core fleet when attacking smaller fleet (3 or 4 combat units).
I really like all these redesign units. More balanced between themselves.
It worth the fun to explore this 1942.2 game.
And with additional UK ICs make for a more historically-themed 1942.2.
C5 A0 D0 StB are just at a right cost to not being rebuffed if an IC is only half damaged, making only 3 pts and losing any points left if roll is above 3, not a detterent.
Also, loosing a few of them is part of the risk and not a tragic TUV swing, as it was OOB.
A lot of Russian’s IC were bombed and is part of strategy against Russia.
Caucasus IC was maxed out and a wasted land for 3 turns now.
It feels like Stalingrad.
I have no critic on M3 and C5 till now, make for a better A&A experience but I’m just wondering if it is balanced.After 6 rounds, IJN is massively invading Asia but Russia get relieved because of Western front opening.
I probably played badly Germany, I will restart around G3 or G4 to see where it can go.
I was rushing too fast against Russia with both Germany and Japan.
I restarted by G3. I kept my Med Carrier and Fgs+TcBs.
I tried to take French Equatorial Africa with 2 Infs with Cruiser and TP M3.
USA launched 1 Cruiser and 2 Fgs to get ride of them.
3 TPs landed in FEA and crush G Infs.
Cruiser and TPs make a good combo, and Carrier can provide more air firepower when it is too far for the rest of the fleet.
South African IC is still pretty useful to repel Germany. Pouring 2 units per round is a must.
This time, IJN has sunk 2DDs+2TPs in Red Sea by Egypt. An IJN Cruiser and DDs made the kill.
Now, UK use more Tanks to rush unit from South to North Africa.
By round 6, there is still a fight for Australia and a cat and mouse game between US original PTO fleet and IJN 2 BBs+Carrier.
Australia was used to reinforced USA fleet with 2 DDs.
These 2 ICs are quite poor in production, pouring 1 unit per turn each, but it gives an idea about how Australian resources were limited.
I used US Cruiser and 2 TPs to land into Soviet Far East, releasing a bit of pressure in Northern Crush.
IJN has to split fleet, sending Cruiser and Fg+TcB up north to sink this US fleet.
Next turn, I used another Cruiser and 2 TPs to reinforced Eastern Australia and US fleet.
Japan occupying Western Australia, both ground and Naval combat will occur during this round.
Luftwaffe is incredibly efficient on escorting or intercepting mission.
US lose 1 StB and 1 Fg to them in russian Sky.
Also, Japan and G bombers are quite effective, and lucky on damage at Moscow.
But, G bomber was blown G5 over Moscow.
They maxed out in R5, Russia only built 2 units R6.
However, being overwhelmed from every side, Russia manage a daring strafing run against 2 Infs, 1 art and 4 Tank: only 1 Tank survived and all Russians retreated back home, with a TUV swing of 19 IPCs.
This might relief Russia for next round, waiting Allies to knock on Western Front.
Germany is quite overstretched again, 19 damage to repair on R6 (NWE, Berlin and Caucasus)
With 36 IPCs left, 12 Infantry is not enough to fill all IC production capacity.
G don’t have enough money to purchase Tank or Fighter.
There is so many TTys to occupy around Russia, I hope any Art, Tank and planes left will be enough to crush Moscow.
Bombers are quite a useful tool. IDK if it can be abusive actually.
Both Russia and Germany are suffering from it.
This bombing command may need to purchase more units to see if it is broken.
This game, only UK and Japan purchase 1 bomber.
In a less conventional game, it is a strategy to try next time.
I’m still pretty amazed by the new WWII in-depth experience all SF rules provides.
I don’t miss at all regular bombers, and with TcBs introduction it provides the A4 we want. And I saw a German U-boat, fleeing in SZ1 out of reach of air attack coming from UK, it was a first time.
It feels like U-boat found the North Atlantic gap. :-)
I also use again DDs A1 D1 C5 blocker in PTO, once by US and another time by IJN.
Being cheap and weak, they do something which was almost never seen in such mid-range economy game.
It needs some experience to watch for M3 units but now, I’m getting use to it.
Easier to prepare against surprise amphib from Japan or WUSA.
Baron, your play testing results are like mine were for Russia, Germany and UK. Germany and UK bombing each other seemed OK but a bit more from Germany.
But Russia gets bombed and it may be to abusive. Granted you need to get more allies pieces to Moscow but for me thats a cop out.
It does change some strategies. Seemed also more bombers were bought and took away some other normal buys. IMO
Baron, side note. We went back to the pretty much normal piece values in game. Fig C9 Tac 10 Stg B 11 H. Bom 12. You seem to be getting more results now of your values and the C5 Stg. B. If we go back to other values will post results.
Thank You for all your advice and other stuff to try.
