Surprisingly enough the attacker is (as always) the player who is taking their turn.
I personall believe that playing with NO’s tilts the balance slightly towards the Axis, but by including the “closed Bosphoros” rule, the game returns to a very balanced position.
I believe that bombers at $12 will make SBR too powerful and eventual “league” games may well adopt the escort/interceptor rules
Still early days yet though.
I love bombers and I still feel like its a 15 IPC loss when one of them drops. Its weird the cost only being 12 now.
Bombers were probably too expensive at $15 because they were rarely built. At $12 they are a bargain and many players build several.
They are usually better than a fighter now. Both units are improved in “value” relative to land units if you allow tech, due to the research token / twin chart system.
I think with escorts/interceptors bombers will still be good value, since there are so many more territories in AA50, the extra range and offensive punch is still great value at only $2 more than a fighter, but they will no longer be “broken”.
I haven’t played AA50 with the interceptor rule yet, but I like it. Using it in Guadalcanal gives it more realism but how it works in the big one, we’ll see. I don’t think that either side can dump everything into SBR too early without unleashing the other side from a front, but having that happen in previous incarnations got to be a drag.
Maybe give the bombers an attack in the dogfight phase of 1, (that’s what it is in AAG) and at least for the american bombers, they could shoot back.
What I don’t get with this new rule is the dogfighting attack/defense values. Why in the world do the defending fighters get a defense roll of “2”, but the attacking fighters only get an attack roll of “1”. The fighters should roll at the same values either botth roll at 1’s or bothh roll at 2’s and have the bombers roll 1’s to hit the defending fighters.
Historically fighters that were tied to close escort missions protecting bombers performed poorly when compared with “free roaming” fighters. Fighters are much faster than bombers, so even throttled back a little they would have to perform all sorts of zig zaggy kind of patterns throughout the formation so as to not overshoot the bombers too much etc.
As the war went on tactics changed and the attackers would send out fighter “sweeps” ahead of the bombers trying to draw the interceptors out into a more “even” fight. The defenders learned to try to avoid getting into these dogfights as they lost much of their advantage.
Other tactics such as “top cover” where fighters would escort from a few thousand feet above the bombers so they could swoop down with extra speed/energy when they were called to engage.
My idea for the Escort Fighters:
How combat is conducted
1.
Attacker takes any causalities
Both escorts and interceptors hit at a ‘2’
3.
All surviving interceptors get one chance to fire at the bombers at a ‘2’
Bombers defend at a ‘1’
4.
5.
This rule is a bit more complex than the officially listed one, but it doesn’t nerf SBR as much. It gives the defender an advantage, but only a slight one. Also, it feels more historical. ie, interceptors have to penetrate the escort screen, then attack the bombers, which themselves aren’t defenseless.
An alternative to this rule is that the defender must choose between AA shots OR sending up interceptors. He cannot do both.
I’m pretty sure fighters faired better than 2 for 1 against unescorted bombers (not that AA50 isn’t ahistorical in many ways however)
The tactics and their evolution used by both parties involved in strategic bombing are very interesting but they do not belong in a game with a strategic scope.
A SBR attack in A&A represents a strategic bombing campaign, spanning several months aimed at the industries and civilians ( or air forces) of the other party. AA- fire and eventually defensive fighters represent the counter measures. Both sides have to invest a part of their their war effort and may invest in technology.
Strategic air campaigns of the war: Battle of Britain, bombings of Germany, bombings of Japan. Al those took a substantial part of the war effort ( ex: The AA guns of the Kammhuber linie could not be used on the eastern front as anti tank guns)
A strategic bombing campaign is rather wel covered within the rules and optional rules.
Greetings
El Stef
What I don’t get with this new rule is the dogfighting attack/defense values. Why in the world do the defending fighters get a defense roll of “2”, but the attacking fighters only get an attack roll of “1”. The fighters should roll at the same values either botth roll at 1’s or bothh roll at 2’s and have the bombers roll 1’s to hit the defending fighters.
When playing with tech attacking fighters are supposed to attack with “2” with Jet Fighter technology.
See
Since Jet Fighters increases fighters’ attack values to equal their defense values in normal combat, I’d say it would do the same in SBRs, allowing attacking fighters to roll on a 2. However, Larry will need to confirm that.
But this is still not confirmed by Larry as I think. Or is it?
I’m pretty sure fighters faired better than 2 for 1 against unescorted bombers (not that AA50 isn’t ahistorical in many ways however)
I’m pretty sure that AA guns hit at less than a ‘1’ in reality.
The main reason is for play balance. ;)
@P@nther:
Since Jet Fighters increases fighters’ attack values to equal their defense values in normal combat, I’d say it would do the same in SBRs, allowing attacking fighters to roll on a 2. However, Larry will need to confirm that.
But this is still not confirmed by Larry as I think. Or is it?
Yes, it’s just been confirmed. It will be in the next version of the FAQ (soon, I hope).
@P@nther:
Since Jet Fighters increases fighters’ attack values to equal their defense values in normal combat, I’d say it would do the same in SBRs, allowing attacking fighters to roll on a 2. However, Larry will need to confirm that.
But this is still not confirmed by Larry as I think. Or is it?
Yes, it’s just been confirmed. It will be in the next version of the FAQ (soon, I hope).
Great, thank you :-)
