Global SBR Solution

[Young Grasshopper]

Anyone have any thoughts on this house rule?

[onetthome]

sorry,  what exactly did you change from the standard rules?

[knp7765]

@onetthome:

sorry,  what exactly did you change from the standard rules?

1 - he eliminated the dogfight between escorts and interceptors.  Any escorts that are matched with interceptors on a 1-1 basis are simply remeoved and returned to the game board.
2 - he increased the interceptor’s hit capability from 2 to 3.
3 - he has made it so if you have more escorts than the enemy has interceptors, you can use the escorts to take AA hits instead of losing the bombers.
4 - he has made it so if the facility being attacked has 1 or more damage points already, then there is NO AA fire.  Currently, a facility attacks with AA fire no matter what it’s condition is.

[knp7765]

@Young:

Anyone have any thoughts on this house rule?

I think you have some very good ideas.  The elimination of the dogfight between escorts and interceptors is pretty good.  At the very least, it saves one step of the SBR procedure.  The only thing I don’t like about this is in a couple of games, I was actually using SBRs to whittle away my enemy’s fighting strength with the escorts.  With your method, this would not be possible.  Then again, my tactic was only marginally successful anyway.
My main problem is giving the interceptors a hit value of 3.  I think that is too strong.  We should keep it at 2.
I do really like the idea that if a facility already has damage, there is no AA fire.  That’s a good way to show that a damaged facility is not totally functional.

I had another idea for SBRs, basically relating to strategic bombers and ICs.  Currently, each bomber that survives interceptors and AA fire rolls a die.  That number +2 is the total damage to the IC.  Also, any bomber that is hit by AA fire is simply lost and gets NO roll for damage.  My idea was that if a strategic bomber is hit by the AA fire, then they still get to roll a die but get ONLY the die roll of damage, NO +2.  This way, the attacker still loses a valuable 12 IPC bomber but at least still causes some damage.  Not getting the +2 could represent the bomber not getting to drop it’s full load or being hit causing less accuracy in the bombing.  Also, the defender doesn’t get quite as much damage to his factory plus he cost the attacker a bomber.  My thinking on this is the AA gun is firing at the bombers while they are making the bombing run, not just before.  These are two simultaneous acts, like in regular combat where the attacker rolls first and any defenders hit still get to fire back one last time. 
I have incorporated this as a house rule in my SBRs.  I am thinking about using your interceptor/escort rule and perhaps the damaged facility rule as well.

[Variable]

I like both of your ideas here. Let me add one more thought. In a lot of ways, we relate the IPC value of a territory to it’s overall importance. On the facility AA rule, what if they could fire AA until they take more damage than the territory is worth.

For example: An IC in a 3IPC territory can have up to 3 hits and still fire AA. But if a bomber SBRs and the facility has 4 hits already, there is no AA fire. To complex?

[Young Grasshopper]

I really like what you both have added here. Dropping a bombers payload even if it is hit by an AA gun is a great idea. What if that bomber received a -2 to it’s roll instead of no bonus? (just a thought and I still like the no bonus idea). As for the damaged factory/no AA rule, I added that because my opponents were leaving factories with minamal damage and never spending to make the IC fully operational. So I wanted to penalize that strategy with a small disadvantage. If a territory like the UK (IPC=6) has a factory with five damage markers under it, it shouldn’t get it’s AA rolls IMO. With my rule, if I bomb and cause 1 damage marker, there is a strategic chance that my enemy will forget to repair, or at the very least force him to spend the $1 of damage I sacrificed to incure the previous round, if he wants operational AA Guns.

What I really like about your ideas is that they are simple and in line with basic A&A mechanics. I bumped the interceptor hit to 3 because I added a defense roll @1 for each bomber, and I wanted sufficient risk to encourage escort matching, but I need to play test it more to see how balanced it is.

Thanks alot for all your impute, SBR rules are so flawed, they are worth correcting. Hopefully alfa +3 will bring back bombing campaigns.

[knp7765]

Hmmm, reversing the +2 bonus for bombers hit by AA guns?  A little better for the defender, a little less damage.  I would only agree to this if you didn’t take off the 2 damage points if the roll was 2 or less.  Say a bomber gets hit and rolls a 3, then there is 1 point of damage going to the factory, which is at least better than nothing for the loss of your bomber.  But if the bomber rolls a 2 or 1 and you subract 2 from that, then no damage at all and you still lose a bomber.  I think most players would do that once, maybe twice, then never SBR again.  I just thought the idea was to try and get MORE people to make SBRs.

Another thing, I like the extra escorts taking AA hits.  That would be really cool to save on your bomber losses.  However, it could have drawbacks for the attacker.  Say you go in with 3 bombers and 2 escorts (no interceptors).  The AA guns get 2 hits so you choose the cheaper fighters and save your bombers plus get maximum damage to the IC.  You fly the bombers back with no fighters left.  Then on your enemy’s turn, SURPRISE!  He invades the territory with your bombers but you have no fighters to help defend.  Bombers suck at defense @1.  Result, you just lost your territory plus 36 IPCs worth of bombers!  No more SBRs for you.

[Young Grasshopper]

Thats a good point knp, I never thought about that. So essentially if you are bringing in an extra escort to draw flak, you are really only giving the guns an extra dice to hit @1.

The quick fix for me would be, that the AA guns built into ICs may defend (1 dice @1) against strategic bombers and tactical bombers only. That would allow the escorts to absorb the hits and protect the bombers the way they should. That would allow the escorts to push the bombers towards their goal, first by occupying the interceptors (matching 1 on 1), a than finally by diverting AA flak.

You may say thats not fair because bombers will never be shot down, perhaps, but it takes escorts to do it successfully, and those are fighters that can’t attack elsewhere that turn. Ever since the introduction of the tactical bomber, strategic bombers have lost a lot of purpose unless they become effective carpet bombers and it will still take quite a bit of them to really take out a complex.

I normally don’t like changing the mechanics of 1 unit depending on the unit that is engaging it, but in this case  there are 2 separate units. There are AA guns that defend against aircraft attacking the territory, and there are AA guns that are built in to ICs and defend against bombing raids, so I’m Ok with making them slightly different in the way that I explained above.

Since talking with you, I have changed my house rule to surviving bombers receive a +1 damage bonus to their damage roll (instead of +2). I have also adopted your rule of bombing for damage even if they are shot down be AA guns (but not if they are shot down by interceptors). these bombers receive a -1 penalty to their damage roll before they are removed from the board regardless of what they rolled. For example: if a bomber shot down rolls a 1 on their damage roll, the damage inflicted is 0, if it rolls a 2 the damage inflicted is 1.

[knp7765]

@Young:

Since talking with you, I have changed my house rule to surviving bombers receive a +1 damage bonus to their damage roll (instead of +2). I have also adopted your rule of bombing for damage even if they are shot down be AA guns (but not if they are shot down by interceptors). these bombers receive a -1 penalty to their damage roll before they are removed from the board regardless of what they rolled. For example: if a bomber shot down rolls a 1 on their damage roll, the damage inflicted is 0, if it rolls a 2 the damage inflicted is 1.

You know, I could go with that.  A surviving bomber only gets +1 extra point of damage but a hit bomber only has -1 taken away from his roll.  You at least get the chance to roll a 6 and get five points of damage.  Even if you are unlucky and roll a 1, at least you got a chance and don’t JUST lose your bomber.

By the way, how do you do Heavy Bombers if you get that tech?  In the latest rules, it says heavy bombers roll 2 dice and choose the best result, which with SBRs I would imagine would be the highest number rolled.  I use a house rule that goes by the Revised version for Heavy Bombers;  you roll 2 dice and get BOTH.  I just think this is right because they are HEAVY bombers.  They carry a bigger bomb load and cause more destruction.  Anyway, in regards to the +2 for surviving bombers (I’m still using that because I haven’t adapted these new rules yet), I only apply that to each bomber, NOT each dice.  So a Heavy Bomber may get to roll 2 dice, they still only get +2, not +4, in damage.  Even so, when you start counting up 2 dice per bomber, you can close down even a Major IC pretty quickly.

[Young Grasshopper]

I forgot about heavy bombers because my group never plays with tech. The fact that I have made it a lot easier to get bombers through (especially if the AA gun is inoperative), makes it hard for me to make heavy bombers really powerful during a SBR. My first thought is to just allow them to inflict an automatic 7 damage points for each bomber without rolling any dice. However, that to me doesn’t fall inline with basic A&A mechanics, but neither does rolling two dice for one unit (as no other units get this treatment).

Therefore. I would say that each heavy bomber rolls 2 dice @4 when attacking territories and 2 dice @1 when defending territories. However, when conducting SBRs, each heavy bomber inflicts an automatic 7 points of damage when surviving AA flak or an automatic 5 points of damage when getting shot down.

Do you have any alternative suggestions for heavy bombers? I will be play testing these rules on the weekend but we won’t be using the Tech option.

[Variable]

By increasing the amount that you add to the die roll, you increase the effective average damage and increase the MINIMUM damage done. I would recommend this to stay inline with A&A game mechanics. For example, if a normal SB causes 1D6+2, HSB should do 1D6+4 or +5.

[Young Grasshopper]

@Variable:

By increasing the amount that you add to the die roll, you increase the effective average damage and increase the MINIMUM damage done. I would recommend this to stay inline with A&A game mechanics. For example, if a normal SB causes 1D6+2, HSB should do 1D6+4 or +5.

My house rule only gives a 1D6+1 bonus when conducting SBRs, but allows a bomber shot down by AA flak to also inflict damage 1D6-1 before being removed from the board. as far as heavy bombers are concerned, my house rule makes it easy for bombers to bomb ICs and I don’t want them to be powerfully unbalanced especially if they can still drop their bombs after being shot down by AA flak. So I have modified my heavy bomber damage to an automatic 7 for surviving bombers and an automatic 5 for bombers getting shot down. That gives heavy bombers all the maximum odds possible for regular strategic bombers.

[Variable]

Yes, I understand that. But it was mentioned that have an “automatic number of hits” was not standard A&A convention. So, following your SB house rules, make a HSB do 1D6+3 or 1D6+1 if shot down. Essentially this adds +2 automatic hits over a regular SB.

[Young Grasshopper]

Ok, I get it now. Do you think that would be worth getting heavy bombers? I think its good, but now that I think about it, I would like to figure out an alternative using 2 dice per bomber.

[Variable]

If you want to use 2D6, keep my suggestion above but make it best of the 2 dice. So best of two dice +1 and +3. Simulates better targeting and destructive force of HSBs, but still leaves the possibility of a minimally successful strike. Weather and bad luck can always happen…

[knp7765]

I still don’t like the idea of using 2 dice for HBs and choosing the best of the two.  To me that sounds more like precision bombing or smart bombs than heavy bombing.
Look, I understand that giving HBs 2 dice for SBRs is really powerful, especially if you add another +1 or +2 to that total.  (Also, in combat giving each HB 2 hits at 4 or less is pretty tough as well)  However, the attacker had to invest quite a bit just to get these and deserves a return on his/her investment.
1 - You have to buy research dice @ 5 IPCs each.  Usually, to get a good shot at getting a “6”, you have to get at least 6 dice which is 30 IPCs right there.  Even using 6 dice is no guarantee.  You could roll and still NOT get a “6”.  There goes 30 IPCs down the toilet (Unless you use the token system like I do, then at least you can re-roll those dice next turn).  Not everyone uses the token system so if you buy 30 IPCs for reasearch dice and fail, it is simply gone.
2 - If you do get a breakthrough, an you can only get 1 per turn, now you roll again to try and get ANOTHER 6 for HBs.  There are 5 other developments you can get and really none of those are much help if you are really wanting HBs for SBRs.  Three of them are totally useless in this case; Super Subs, Improved Shipyards and Radar.  Long range aircraft will give you an extra movement space to get there, but still doesn’t give you the “punch” you are looking for.  Jet fighters could help you out as escorts against interceptors, but still have nothing to do with the actual bombing of the facility.  My point is that even if you do get a break through, you still have a 1 in 6 chance of getting something that is really useless to you in terms of SBRs. 
Theoretically, it could take you 6 times just to finally get HBs.  If you do use 6 dice each time, that could be 180 IPCs over six turns just to get Heavy Bombers.  That is not even counting any turns that you bought 6 dice and got NO breakthrough.  If you don’t use the token system, you can add that to the total cost of getting HBs.  Plus, you STILL have to buy your bombers at 12 IPCs each.  You could end up investing a total of well over 200 IPCs. 
Granted, I am figuring for MAXIMUM cost, but let’s figure an approximate average.  Say you buy 6 research tokens for 30 ipcs.  Bad luck, not 1 “6”.  So you keep them till next round and re-roll.  Roll again, you get a “6”.  Roll for tech, you get a “4”;  Radar (seems to happen to me alot).  Next turn, buy 6 more.  Roll, get another “6”.  Roll again and get Jet Fighters.  Next turn, buy another 6 tokens, roll and bad luck, no “6”.  Next turn, re-roll, get a “6”.  Roll for tech, EUREKA, you get another “6” this time.  You finally have Heavy Bombers.  Of course you want to use them so you buy 2 or 3, that’s 24-36 IPCs.
So, OVERALL, you just spent 90 IPCs in research over 5 rounds just to get HBs plus the 24-36 so you can put them to use, which won’t happen until turn 6 because you can’t use those new bombers yet.  Even if you already have a couple, it still took 5 rounds and 90 IPCs to get them.  This is just a rough estimated average but you get my point.  For all of that time and money invested, the player should get the extra punch of that second dice.
I know this is all very hypothetical.  For one thing, it assumes that due to spending all that money in research, the enemy hasn’t pushed you back so you can’t bomb his ICs, or are even threatening your capital.  OR, that during all of this you haven’t moven in ground forces and simply taken his capital, in which case now that you have the HBs, you don’t really need them.  Also, I know my number of research tokens/tech dice (6) is not necessarily what anyone else might get.  Some may only buy 4, others maybe 8.  You may get HBs first try or never at all.  Plus, I know there are always those “fluke” rolls where someone happens to have an extra 5 IPCs so they say, “What the heck” and gets a tech dice, rolls it and gets a “6”, rolls again and what do you know, another “6”.  So they magically have HBs on round 1 and tear up the board the rest of the game.  I just tried to give a rough average.

[Young Grasshopper]

Wow, that’s quite a post. So what I understand is that heavy bombers are hard to come by, I get that. Another sinerio is that I buy one research token roll a 6 right away and luck out and score heavy bombers all for $5 plastic the cost of bomber units, but I am being fecisious. My problem with powerful heavy bombers is that I have made it to easy th bomb ICs and I don’t want to create rules that end the game easily. So in my mind, easier bombing rules call for less powerful bombers. So how would you write the heavy bomber rules with my house rules in mind (matching and inoperative AA guns?)

[knp7765]

Hmmm.  Okay I get what you are saying.  Your rules are making it somewhat easier for bombers to get in there, do more damage and survive.  This way, SBRs could be more viable and more people might like to try them out.  Then I throw HBs into it with 2 dice worth of damage kind of tips the scales too far the other way.  Especially if you consider an IC with 1 or 2 damage points, thus an inoperative AA gun, and no interceptors available, then you throw 2 or 3 heavy bombers at it.  They have no fear of being shot down and could conceivably rack up a total of 39 points of damage (6 x 6 dice + 1 per bomber).  Of course, a Major IC can only receive a max of 20 damage points.  Say we are talking about Japan, which is worth 8 IPCs.  Say they have lost all other territory and are holding out hoping that Germany and Italy can win on the Europe board.  They have a big stack of men and the US is taking a few rounds to get enough invasion equipment.  Each time the US can SBR with 1 or 2 heavy bombers and max out Japan’s IC.  With only 8 IPCs per turn, Japan would never be able to produce units again because they would still have 12 damage points and next turn, USA would simply bomb them back to max again with no fear of losing any bombers.  Kind of the point but still kind of unfair to Japan.
Here are some ideas:
1 - Let’s say AA guns work until the facility can no longer use it’s funcitons;  Major IC = 10 damage or more, Minor IC, air base, naval base = 3 damage or more.  However, say they function at only 1/2 ability.  AA guns roll and have to get 2 hits @1 to take out 1 bomber.  This way there is still some threat, but still incentive for defender to repair facilities and not just leave damage there forever.
1a - If the AA guns for an already damaged facility manage to get an odd number of hits (1,3,5, etc), then the attacker must apply the “hit” bomber rules:  HB rolls only 1 dice, regular bombers rolls 1 dice and -1 for damage.  The difference here is that the attacker still keeps the bomber.  Call it a “near miss” that shakes up the crew some.
2 - The +1 for surviving bombers and - 1 for hit bombers applys ONLY to regular bombers.  Heavy bombers get to roll 2 dice with NO add ons.  HBs hit by flak only roll 1 dice with NO subtraction.
3 - I still like your escorts/interceptors wash idea.  We should keep that.  Also, extra escorts can still take hits meant for bombers.  AA guns roll for total # of planes, not separate types.

[Young Grasshopper]

I like some of your ideas but not all of them, give me time to rewrite the house rule and I will post it late tonight. Right now, I need to clean up my basement for our monthly 6 player game tomorrow. Cheers.

[Variable]

knp-

Your above post regarding the research tech rules is exactly why so many people don’t like them. There are a number of people that would like to see a tech-tree system. Have a look in the House Rules section if you’re interested in that. I think IL is a big fan among others and I would like to see something more usable as well.

In regards to the 1D6 vs 2D6 argument for HBs, consider this fact. You want 2D6 because you think they should do more damage. But you also seem to hate things like the wide range of cost for tech research (5 IPCs - 120 IPCs per your example). The 2D6 creates the same issue. Damage could range from 2 -12 with an average of 7. Now, take 1D6 and add, say +3 for HBs and you get a range of 4-9 with an average of 6.5; or add +4 for a range of 5-10 with an average of 7.5. Much more predictable results without overpowering the unit or creating a 2D6 unit. Who wants to go through all the trouble of getting an HB over the target, surviving all the ways it could be shot down, just to roll snake eyes and score 2 hits…