[Global 1940] Why Strat Bombers VS Tactical Bombers?

[PainState]

One thing about Axis and Allies that has always confused me is that Strategic Bombers where horrible in a tactical role. They should not have a attack value of 4 and instead have a 2 or 1. Their role is to blow up Industrial complexes and airfields/naval bases. At the start of the 1945 the USA 8th air force basically ran out of targets to blow up. They would sortie each day to just double down on their strat warfare plan and maybe kill off the rest of the german airforce who came at them.

I think Tactical Planes should be the focus of the 4 attack role when it comes to land combat. The main reason is that is balances out the game in the terms of combined arms combat and moves the meta from just produce Strat bombers and use them as Tac when it comes to land combat.

Just my thoughts on this subject.

Moderator’s Edit: Added tag [Global 1940] to title.

[Caesar-Seriona]

As I have said before, you would need to rework all of Axis and Allies in order to get it as close to historical as you can get it, Strategic Bombers defending at 1 seems dumb even to me. It should be zero unless you want to draw the imagination of it being sent into skies for defense which is a waste of usage of such a bomber.

[WILD BILL]

Many agree with you PainState, and use house rules to nerf the bmr. Just to point out though the older games only had bombers and it kind represented both Strat and Tactical in the old days. G40 introduced the Tac bmr, and I think the Strat should have been reworked but it wasn’t. Guess it would be a tough sell to people that have played for years with those high attack values. I think the cost of a bmr was 15 IPCs with the same A4/D1 that we still have today.

Some house rules (for strat bmrs) I have seen/used change the attack, SBR values and cost making it an A3/D1/SBR+1/cost 11, or A2/D1/SBR+0/cost10. I think that if you lower the cost you should also lower the SBR bonus accordingly.

I have also thought about making its attack value2, but it rolls 2 dice when attacking ground units (carpet bombing). I realize that bmrs attacking fleet sounds pretty out there but I don’t think it would be good for the game to take that away completely.

[simon33]

Bombers were used in the battle of Midway by the USA. Not sure what they were intended for though.

[General 6 Stars]

Pretty much agree with you Wild Bill. Most A&A games and G40 OOB  gamers will not go for the change. Youd have to raise the cost for Tac Bomber and lower the defense value 1 for the +1 a increase. With that increase of 1 with a fig tank thats a 83% chance of a hit. If you keep the Tac with a D3 then cost should be 14. The problem with d6 system is its harder to tweak A & D values with the costs. So your going to have to give or take. If you also don’t give the Tac Bomber the +1 increase on attack with a Fig or Tank and defense goes back to 3,  then you could have Tac bomber pick the target instead with the defender getting a return shot.

Tac Bomber  A4/5 D2 M4 C12  +1 on A with a Fig or Tank  A/D1 dog fight

Stg Bomber  A2 D1 M6 C9  1d6 SBR damage   D1 dog fight

Cost of 9 for Stg. Bomber may induce more SBRing ? Maybe. Play with it.  1d6,  1d6+1,  1d6+2. for damage.

How much is this going to affect Dark Skies ? Tacs will be out of range. Just ideas.

[PainState]

Well, to clarify my thoughts on this here is what I would do.

Tac remain the exact same and bump to a 4 Attack if combined with FTR or ARM

STR bombers would have their Attack value dropped to a 2.

Now, does this mess with some of the meta of the game, sure. Does it screw around with some time honored tactics and plans, sure.

But it balances out a game issue that should of been dealt with a long time ago when they decided to split the old bomber unit into a STR and TAC bomber.

[WILD BILL]

Shadow I agree that bombers were used to soften up enemy positions and were an important part of the ground game. Your analogy of a bomber being a flying artillery unit is spot on, but art only attacks at 2, where the bomber attacks at 4. Both units are barraging a sector trying to do as much damage as possible, but like you said there are a lot of misses. Of coarse for the cost of one bomber you could have 3 art units so that’s why I advocated to allow the bomber to roll 2 dice in the ground game (carpet bombing) if you reduce the attack to 2. That way you get the “long range” attack value equal to a couple art units. I think that is a good compromise, and still allows the bomber to be a versatile unit that isn’t over powered and abused (cost should probably come down to 10, and SBR go to +1).

Now we go to the naval game. To coin your analogy the way I look at the bomber in a navy battle is like a flying one hit battleship because of its attack value of 4. I think it should be more on par with a destroyer, especially when you factor in the range.

So if you reduce the S bomber attack value to 2, but allow it to roll 2 dice in the ground game I think you have redefined its role in battles closer to its actual abilities (not quite, but more in line). I agree and wouldn’t mess with the defense values because in the air it had some anti air capabilities, and 0 defense just seems silly to me. Lowering the cost to say 10 would probably be about right, and the lower cost would make loosing an S bmr in an SBR run a little more palatable, maybe make it +1 in SBR just to make it more attractive.

To SS, I like the role of the tac bmr, so probably wouldn’t mess with its values much. Now if you were giving it target ability that would be a different story. I have played where you keep the values the same, but the Tac gets some target ability when attacking. Roll your Tacs separate from other units, and any time you roll a 1 you can target when attacking. You would probably do something similar for ftrs when they roll 1 in attack/def that hit has to go to a plane (if available).

[General 6 Stars]

@WILD:

Shadow I agree that bombers were used to soften up enemy positions and were an important part of the ground game. Your analogy of a bomber being a flying artillery unit is spot on, but art only attacks at 2, where the bomber attacks at 4. Both units are barraging a sector trying to do as much damage as possible, but like you said there are a lot of misses. Of coarse for the cost of one bomber you could have 3 art units so that’s why I advocated to allow the bomber to roll 2 dice in the ground game (carpet bombing) if you reduce the attack to 2. That way you get the “long range” attack value equal to a couple art units. I think that is a good compromise, and still allows the bomber to be a versatile unit that isn’t over powered and abused (cost should probably come down to 10, and SBR go to +1).

Now we go to the naval game. To coin your analogy the way I look at the bomber in a navy battle is like a flying one hit battleship because of its attack value of 4. I think it should be more on par with a destroyer, especially when you factor in the range.

So if you reduce the S bomber attack value to 2, but allow it to roll 2 dice in the ground game I think you have redefined its role in battles closer to its actual abilities (not quite, but more in line). I agree and wouldn’t mess with the defense values because in the air it had some anti air capabilities, and 0 defense just seems silly to me. Lowering the cost to say 10 would probably be about right, and the lower cost would make loosing an S bmr in an SBR run a little more palatable, maybe make it +1 in SBR just to make it more attractive.

To SS, I like the role of the tac bmr, so probably wouldn’t mess with its values much. Now if you were giving it target ability that would be a different story. I have played where you keep the values the same, but the Tac gets some target ability when attacking. Roll your Tacs separate from other units, and any time you roll a 1 you can target when attacking. You would probably also do the same for ftrs, when they roll 1 in attack/def that hit has to go to a plane (if available).

Yes Bill already have that rule for Tac in my WW2 40 game. I was just referring to pains change he wanted. He seems to just want to change attack values.
I also agree on keep bombers A2 on naval and have them A3 against ground or roll 2 die at A2 against ground.

[WILD BILL]

Yep this game always seems to come down to who can roll the most deuces lol.

[Narvik]

This game is pretty abstract, so we need to use our imagine, a Strat. Bomber defending on 1 is not up in the air, its on the airfield, and the AA guns of the airfield are firing at the attacking planes. Simple and smooth. And remember that it took Lancaster Heavy Bombers to sink Tirpitz. Also, the heavy bombers dropped sea mines at the sea lanes, sinking ships indirectly, not diving with torpedoes like the Stukas.

That said, I wish the designer had used the opportunity when G40 come, to split the planes into specific classes. Like fighters do dogfights against other aircrafts, Tac. Bombers do close ground support and Strat Bombers do SBR or carpet bombing, at low value but with many dice against huge infantry stacks

[taamvan]

Montgomery is accused of using heavies (combat use of strategic bombers) to accomplish all his land offensives same USA cobra, goodwood, After D-day, the allies used their excess bomber capacity as ultra heavy artillery.

So its quite a good balance imo,  We play many games where strat kites get picked off on the ground, whereas the tac, which you start with plenty of and mostly eat casualties, hes more the steady and versatile thing.  With tanks, its ripping, and it still gets to bomb bases/ships so with all that in mind I think the differentiation is solid with each type of plane playing its role though close in cost.

[Arthur Bomber Harris]

Don’t get too lost by the lack of realism in this game.  It is a balance between simplicity, fun, and accuracy.  The third part has to be relegated to third place of importance in many decisions.  There are plenty of other choices if you want increased level of realism and strategy.  Some of these options require months or years to ever finish.  I like that G40 can be played in half a day if you are experienced.

https://boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/101111/top-10-strategic-wwii-games

Beware of WiF if you are going to that depth of realism.  Here was one of the comments on the message board:

**I had a friend who had the same problem. His wife filed for divorce and one of her claims was his games (and opponents) were more important to him.

He found out about a month before the final hearing that he was going to lose the house so he got a one month continuance just so we could complete the 5 player campaign game of WiF taking place in his spare bedroom.

This is the best wargame ever produced.**

[barney]

Some good ideas here. A few things I’ve done were to have bmbrs hit at 3 unless paired with a ftr. Makes taking solo blockers out more risky and unless used with carrier aircraft, not as powerful with the big range they have.

Also give tacs +1 when paired with inf the same way artillery does. Makes them a lot more popular in my test games.

None of the Prices change. The ftr still has the big hit on D and can boost the bmbr. Also still the cheapest for fodder. Tac boosting the inf is really nice for small counterattacks and is somewhat realistic as well.

So some minor changes but makes for a more balanced air buy as opposed to just going huge with bmbrs imo.