To encourage bombing raids, each bomber that survives enemy AA guns and interceptor fighters receive 5 automatic damage points to enemy factories (without rolling). What do you think?.
And this is instead of rolling? not in addition to it?
I very much like this. Stratigic bombing should be the most predictible kind of combat in the game but instead it is the most random.
when a bomber rolls one what does that even represent, a whole wing of bombers missed their targets? its not like enemy industry is hard to find, you take a picture of it then you bomb it. stratigic bombing is not like regular combat where terrian and weather and leadership and other factors out the players control come into account, it is a very straight forward kind of warfare that should be very predictible.
at least thats what i think
Instead of rolling dice, each surviving bomber bombs for 5 automatic damage points. Instead of placing alot of damage markers under a factory, 1 marker would represent 5 damage points inflicted by a successfull bombing. When a power chooses to pay for repairs, they must pay a minimum of 5 IPC’s to remove at least 1 damage marker.
that sounds good, 5 might be a little high though, maybe you should make it 4.
I thought about making it less but I wanted to encourage players to send thier bombers into AA guns and enemy fighters especially if their escort fighters can’t reach the target (escort & interceptor rule). Its always a fine balance with all these factors and it could mean the difference between going and not going. 5 damage points is the push players need to go and you never want them to think that the old rule of rolling a dice per bomber would be better for them. The goal is to make it worth bombing every round no matter what the risk is, just like the war.
Thanks for the comments.
I’d actually make the following adjustment:
AA Gun Fires; if it misses, the bomber rolls an attack to see if the bombardier hit the target; if the bomber hits then a roll is made to determine the damage done.
This way, there is a chance bombers can MISS. You know, that did happen! I never liked the fact that if there was no AA Gun at an IC then the attacking bomber automatically did at least 1 IPC in damage.
@Trisdin:
I thought about making it less but I wanted to encourage players to send thier bombers into AA guns and enemy fighters especially if their escort fighters can’t reach the target (escort & interceptor rule). Its always a fine balance with all these factors and it could mean the difference between going and not going. 5 damage points is the push players need to go and you never want them to think that the old rule of rolling a dice per bomber would be better for them. The goal is to make it worth bombing every round no matter what the risk is, just like the war.
Thanks for the comments.
ya if your playing with the interceptor rules, 5 makes sense
Ya, sending a $12 bomber in for a possible $5 of damage is still risky, but at least you know what you’re getting with my automatic hit rule. I remember I sent 3 bombers on a raid one game using our house rules, 2 bombers and 1 escort got shot down by AA guns and interceptors and my surviving bomber rolled 1 point of damage….shit, I lost $34 in exchange for $1 and I vowed never to bomb again. If I know one bomber can damage for $5, I might do it.
Bombing still makes mathematical sense even if you can score a 1 IPC hit.
What’s stupid is saying they automatically hit for damage if the AA Gun misses. There needs to be an attack roll to see if your bombardier was strung out on morphine during the mission or not. Then you can roll for damage.
I propose if you HAD to do this kind of thing:
example: 4 bombers SBR roll: 1,4,3,3….so you take 4x4 bombers=16 points of damage
massive bombing has the effect of greater damage than a light sortie of a few planes. Huge raids can create firebombing effects of cities and really destroy.
all in all though, in WW2, you really had to see your target to bomb it, so there was actually quite a bit of chance to it, whether from bad weather, poor visibility, enemy plane interception, poor instrument readouts, poor intelligence, AA defenses, underground facilities, decoy facilities, or multiple small factories that were simply overlooked.
Wasn’t it that the first Allied bomb dropped in Berlin killed the elephant at the zoo? guessing that wasn’t the target.
it was the massive, continual cumulative effect of months, nay, years of bombing and the continual attrition of men/machines on both sides that eventually broke down the Axis production. there was no guarantee, but strength in numbers and time.
Thats correct, these are saturation bombers and just blanket the area. Damage is increased by numbers because more areas are hit at one time and this overloads the ability to cope with damage as ground crews are overwhelmed. The extra damage is caused in larger plan raids, so you have to model increased damage and under my proposal you got a greater chance to do this.
One bomber in A&A does not equal one aircraft, it’s probably meant to be hundreds, so even a single SBR mission is likely to at least cause some minor damage. What I don’t like with SBR is the randomness.
I always viewed a bomber as a squadron (same for fighters.) So one bomber would be like 12 bombers. An infantry, in perspective, would be a battalion or roughly 1,440 men give or take.
I’m probably off, but that’s how I always viewed it.
Back on topic, I kinda like IL’s idea of the multiplier factor. However, I’d still restrict it to those bombers that rolled hits.
For instance, you have 4 Bombers attacking (after AA Shots have been removed) and roll 6, 3, 4, 1 on the attack dice. You then roll damage. Since only three bombers hit, we could say you score 1, 4, 3 on your dice. Highest result is 4, therefore, you get 3X4 or 12 damage to the enemy.
Back from topic… :-)
In 41 when the game starts, Germany has 2 infs one ftr in Norway, in the real WW2 Germany had ca. 200.000 - 300.000 + troops in Norway, but it could have been less in 41. At the start of operation Barbarossa Germany had over 4000 aircraft.
In 1944 during the invasions in Normandy, Germany had about 5000 aircraft, allies had about 12000, but 4000 was landing crafts.
So when we send a single bomber in A&A against an IC, thats 1000 B-17’s or 1000 Lancasters. You can invade and occupy a nation with 100.000 soldiers, but thats the least amount needed.
I don’t mind changing the SBR rules, although I’m happy with the optional interceptor rule, I think SBR is good as it is, but it can be improved. But when changing rules, unless people want complex house rules for for it’s own sake, rule changes should not make the game more complicated than it is now. SBR always hit @4 could be ok, also IL’s idea is also good enough.
when you start breaking down the numbers of troops you really will start finding problems with the abstraction in the game. Some pieces in the game are specifically put out as less because they simulate the surprise of enemy attack and less of their balanced strength. some will simulate the ability of the leader to choose the direction, hence less troops, more money, etc…
i say this to setup that when you are talking about 1 bomber piece equalling 1 fighter wing or 1000 lancasters, you are only half right–it’s those bombers multiplied by several months (up to maybe 6) bombing on whatever scheduled runs they are assigned. It’s not one bombing run done by 12 or even 1000, but maybe 100 bombing runs done by them over the course of 5 months.
So what can come up with that line of thought then is yes, more guaranteed bombing results should be affected, however on the other side, if there are interceptors, would they also then require a greater ability to ‘intercept’ based on the higher magnitude of their usage…
The way interceptors are now are prety accurate and represent the huge defensive advantages of radar pretty well.
Just becasue we are making the rules for bombers more logical does not mean interceptors are some how more effective.
Is you use these SBR rules you must also have fighter interceptors to balance it out. I thought that was the whole point of even giving bombers EVEN MORE strength than before.
@Cmdr:
Bombing still makes mathematical sense even if you can score a 1 IPC hit.
Not sure how losing a $12 Bomber for 1 IPC of damage makes sense.
@Imperious:
example: 4 bombers SBR roll: 1,4,3,3….so you take 4x4 bombers=16 points of damage
I have never played a game where 1 power sent 4 bombers in a single turn but I understand your system and its not bad.
