For reference, here is the three SBR escorting and interception rules:
Latest OOB SBR rules for reference and comparison:
1942.1 : AA fires, then surviving Fgt A1/Bmb A0 vs Fgt D2
1942.2 : Fgt A1/Bmb A1 preemptives shots vs Fgt D2, then AA fires
Global 1940: Fgt A1/Bmb A1 vs Fgt D1, then AA fires.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30248.msg1110913#msg1110913
Or maybe, it is the contrary, that attacking player can somehow get a large fleet of StB A@1 which can obliterated the few defending planes?
So, if a StBomber fleet strategy (without need of Fighter, because it shares the same attack value) is overwhelming, maybe it is correct that interceptor keep @2.
Then 1942.2 SBR and interception rules are better than G40.
Do many people use the escort/intercept rule? I might be in the minority, but it just seems like such an expensive risk of fighters from both the attacker and defender’s perspective. In play I think the rule would just make me even more reluctant than I already am to risk bombers in SBR.
What is the effect on the gameplay? Do people just wait until they can build up a massive bombing/escort force to draw out a decisive air on air battle? I think as the defender, I might be more inclined to just let the aa gun take its shot, and never risk the intercept scramble. The payoff doesn’t seem all that spectacular, when defensive fighters can be like solid gold. Especially for the two main targets of bombing runs (Germany, and Russia.) The rule seems interesting, but it is still difficult for me to get my head around how it is used, and what the payoff is. The old, hard and fast rule, of ‘never strat bomb unless you can’t think of anything else to do with the bomber!!!’ still looms pretty large in the back of my head (and even when I can’t think of something better to do, the chance of seeing that 12 ipcs just crash and burn is still hard to get behind.)
Then again, I remember that bombers used to cost 15, and that’s probably the only thing that drives me to strat bomb with reckless abandon these days hehe
Do many people use the escort/intercept rule? I might be in the minority, but it just seems like such an expensive risk of fighters from both the attacker and defender’s perspective. In play I think the rule would just make me even more reluctant than I already am to risk bombers in SBR.
What is the effect on the gameplay? Do people just wait until they can build up a massive bombing/escort force to draw out a decisive air on air battle? I think as the defender, I might be more inclined to just let the aa gun take its shot, and never risk the intercept scramble. The payoff doesn’t seem all that spectacular, when defensive fighters can be like solid gold. Especially for the two main targets of bombing runs (Germany, and Russia.) The rule seems interesting, but it is still difficult for me to get my head around how it is used, and what the payoff is. The old, hard and fast rule, of ‘never strat bomb unless you can’t think of anything else to do with the bomber!!!’ still looms pretty large in the back of my head (and even when I can’t think of something better to do, the chance of seeing that 12 ipcs just crash and burn is still hard to get behind.)
Then again, I remember that bombers used to cost 15, and that’s probably the only thing that drives me to strat bomb with reckless abandon these days hehe
You touched some goods points. These elements have a large impact on the behaviour of attacking and defending players. All that increase the basic AAA 1/6 odds of destroying a plane (both for attacker and defender) is a deterrent to SBR, escort and interception.
And you also ask the question about the reward of using StB (and Fg) in SBR instead of anywhere else.
Clearly SBR seems the least strategical option. Even for an aggressive SBR strategy, the defenders can duck and cover under AA gun, instead of risking any of his precious defending aircraft, and still get paid by destroying a few StBs.
Maybe I could add that Axis in 1942.2 has fewer start-up planes and lesser cash to buy expensive planes. Loosing even 1 or 2 planes in SBR have a greater impact on both sides.
If you considered this aspect, you can now better understand why 1942.2 SBR/interception rules are bit more deadlier in itself. But, on the battlefields, G40, even with all planes @1, have better odds of destroying planes since there is already plenty of planes.
In G40, probably you can easily get 3-4 Fighters on an IC, but in 1942.2, 1 or 2 Fgs is very good.
So all in all, 3-4@1= D3-4 vs 1-2@2= D2-4.
Another way to see how any odds higher than 1/6 have a cold shower effect:
1 SBR (doing 3.5 IPCs on average) get 1/6 to destroy 1 StB (12 IPCs)
So you can statistically get 5 SBR before being destroyed: 3.5 x 5 raid= 17.5 IPCs.
If the odds are just doubled to 2/6 (33%).
You can only get 2 SBR before being destroyed: 3.5 IPCs x 2 = 7 IPCs.
Making an intuitive calculation, all players doesn’t see a great benefice to risk a 12 IPCs StB for a few shots which can be more disastrous on their side.
But maybe I’m not correct since I forgot to consider the preemptive A1 of StB against interceptors.
2 times 1/6 = around 2/6 x 10 IPCs = 3.3 IPCs + 7 IPCs = 10 IPCs
Still seems 2 IPCs more in favor of the defender.
Does my calculations are good?
Or I should consider a third passage before being shot down by AA fire.
3 times 1/6 = around 3/6 x 10 IPCs = 5 IPCs + 7 IPCs = 12 IPCs
Making it a fair trade?!?
Personally, I find that SBR is overpowered without the interceptor rule (now that bombers only cost 12 IPC) and that 1942.2 interceptor rules are perfectly balanced to give the defender some options while increasing the tactical aspect of the game : do I want to keep my fighters on my industrial complex to defend it or keep them closer to the front for offensive purposes, or do a mix and then how many should I keep in each place?
Basically, with these rules it’s worth it to go for an SBR as long as you can bring 3 planes for every 2 defenders. You can go with a ratio lower than 3:2 if you really need to lower that nation’s production capacity and you don’t mind losing more money than they do (e.g. Americans bombing Germans or Japanese bombing Russians).
In our games, we play with these rules and there are still plenty of SBR going on.
I suppose if everyone gets behind it. So say you are Germany, and you want to keep at least 2 fighters on Berlin to give you that added cover. Then Allies need to bring 3 planes just to have a statistically decent chance getting through the intercept, but afterwards all surviving air (bombers or escorts) still come under AA fire right?
I just see myself being really reluctant to risk like 30+ ipcs of aircraft, on a chance to drop their factory. Since Germany can still be pretty functional, unless they get bombed above their max placement. So then you’re talking about bringing multiple bombers to get in. I guess I have to see it in a game to get a feel, but I suspect I would be even more conservative and wary to go against the AA guns than I already am. Just threatening and keeping fighters tied to a capital might prove strategically useful, but air on air just seems brutal in the swing. Like losing your entire airforce, or killing your opponents (and then crushing on a bombing run) its the sort of gamble I’d probably make once or twice in a game, but harder to justify the regular run every round. That might just be my caution getting the better of me. I guess I should try it though, if the rules are gaining in popularity
SBR is not really worth it in any sense of the word. Aircraft are far more valuable in combat IMO. It rarely pays to risk air power unless it will be overwhelming and you are going to seriously hamper an enemy’s ability to recover from the attack. In other words you would need to seriously damage the economy of an already if not close to defeated opponent to really do any damage worth sacrificing the ability to destroy enemy units already in the field.
The only way I see SBR as viable would be against an enemy that is near to capitulation anyway. I believe that if you wanted to truly or fully simulate the SBR campaigns of WWII you would need to make drastic rule changes.
I suppose if everyone gets behind it. So say you are Germany, and you want to keep at least 2 fighters on Berlin to give you that added cover**. Then Allies need to bring 3 planes just to have a statistically decent chance getting through the intercept, but afterwards all surviving air (bombers or escorts) still come under AA fire right?**
I just see myself being really reluctant to risk like 30+ ipcs of aircraft, on a chance to drop their factory. Since Germany can still be pretty functional, unless they get bombed above their max placement. So then you’re talking about bringing multiple bombers to get in. I guess I have to see it in a game to get a feel, but I suspect I would be even more conservative and wary to go against the AA guns than I already am. Just threatening and keeping fighters tied to a capital might prove strategically useful
Just a side note:
Only StBs must submit to AA gun fire from IC.
Sure you risk losing a bomber or a fighter, but there’s also a good chance of destroying a defending fighter. Basically, as long as you have 3 planes or more for every 2 defending planes, you’ll cause more damage on average than you’ll receive. If your planes aren’t needed anywhere else that turn, it’s a good move to SBR.
Sure you risk losing a bomber or a fighter, but there’s also a good chance of destroying a defending fighter. Basically, as long as you have 3 planes or more for every 2 defending planes, you’ll cause more damage on average than you’ll receive. If your planes aren’t needed anywhere else that turn, it’s a good move to SBR.
Welcome Zombie69,
True in theory.
But the “if” is part of the whole situation, you put 3 escort Fighters + 2 StB for instance, and what happen?
The defender will probably keep his 2 fighters on the ground, loose nothing.
Net results: 3 attacking Fighters unused in any other battle on the board.
StB still submitted to AA gun fire at 1/6 per plane.
Can still be a costly SBR for attacker.
And loose some tactical leverage needed elsewhere, for certain.
Attacker throw less Fgs then defenders show up the nose of his 2 Fgs and get a better hand…
You don’t need to send that much. As per the rules, bombers are used both in the air to air combat phase and in the bombing phase. So to counter 2 fighters, all you need is 2 bombers and 1 fighter.
For example, against 4 fighters, you bring in 5 bombers and 1 fighter. With 6 planes, you hit one defending fighter. With 3 planes left, the defender shoots down your fighter. Then the anti-aircraft fires, probably shooting down one of your 5 bombers. The remaining 4 bombers survive and do 14 damage on average. So you’ve traded fighters and lost one bomber at 12 IPCs to bomb down 14 IPCs. Totally worth it and only ties up one fighter on the attacking side.
You don’t need to send that much. As per the rules, bombers are used both in the air to air combat phase and in the bombing phase. So to counter 2 fighters, all you need is 2 bombers and 1 fighter.
For example, against 4 fighters, you bring in 5 bombers and 1 fighter. With 6 planes, you hit one defending fighter. With 3 planes left, the defender shoots down your fighter. Then the anti-aircraft fires, probably shooting down one of your 5 bombers. The remaining 4 bombers survive and do 14 damage on average. So you’ve traded fighters and lost one bomber at 12 IPCs to bomb down 14 IPCs. Totally worth it and only ties up one fighter on the attacking side.
Yes but why would someone as the defender risk costly aircraft versus paying a probably lesser amount of IPCs to repair a facility? As Russia or UK it would be better to simply hold on to crucial aircraft to defend in battle. The smaller countries like Italy and France would be extremely foolish to risk aircraft to intercept. By the enemy can reach US, ANZAC, or Japan and be able to effectively SBR the game is beyond that point anyway. Germany is just the median measure of the discussion. Until you can really put some hurt into SBR it’s a very unappealing option to conduct or intercept.
You’re just proving my point. If I send 5 bombers and 1 fighter against 4 fighters, or 2 bombers and 1 fighter against 2 fighters, and the defender chooses not to intercept, then all the interceptor rule did was force me to send one fighter with my bombers (and force the defender to keep fighters at home, otherwise I’m not even sending my fighter). The SBR still remains a good option, with every bomber sent costing you on average 2 IPCs (i.e. a 1 in 6 chance of losing 12 IPCs) while doing on average 2.9 IPCs of damage (i.e. 5/6 of surviving and then rolling 3.5 on average).
Especially for a rich nation that has trouble getting its money into the action (e.g. USA) against a nation right in the thick of it (e.g. Germany), that trade is highly advantageous for the attacker.
You’re just proving my point. If I send 5 bombers and 1 fighter against 4 fighters, or 2 bombers and 1 fighter against 2 fighters, and the defender chooses not to intercept, then all the interceptor rule did was force me to send one fighter with my bombers (and force the defender to keep fighters at home, otherwise I’m not even sending my fighter). The SBR still remains a good option, with every bomber sent costing you on average 2 IPCs (i.e. a 1 in 6 chance of losing 12 IPCs) while doing on average 2.9 IPCs of damage (i.e. 5/6 of surviving and then rolling 3.5 on average).
Especially for a rich nation that has trouble getting its money into the action (e.g. USA) against a nation right in the thick of it (e.g. Germany), that trade is highly advantageous for the attacker.
For the US it might be advantageous if you plan to devote a lot of income to bombers. But also remember you can only do so much damage in either edition of the game. You also need safe landing zones or carriers to land your fighters. That means IPCs either shoring up territory or protecting carriers.
I suppose it depends on the opponent. However maybe it’s just a personal thing. I don’t see much advantage to SBR, escorting, or intercepting. The attacker has to expose his intention to SBR leaving the defender in a better position to use his/her fighters in combat or strategic defense. Not only that the attacker may not be able to inflict enough damage through SBR and is taking a tremendous risk of losing a lot of IPCs worth of aircraft.
To me just IMO the only advantage I see in a heavy SBR (multiple aircraft in your example) is slightly quickening the demise of an opponent already on the verge of collapse, at a point where in the game where many players would call it a game already.
Your theory has it’s points, but I don’t really agree that SBR is overpowered by any means.
If safe landing zone for fighters is a problem, don’t buy a carrier, just don’t send any fighter. You’ll lose 2 more IPCs worth of planes (12 vs 10) for every 3 defending planes that didn’t get shot down. For 3 bombers vs 2 fighters, that means losing 1 more IPC per raid on average, but it also means bombing an extra 1.4 IPC worth of stuff per turn (since you only get a bomber shot down by a fighter every second turn). So in that situation, it’s actually even more advantageous to send only bombers.
I’m not saying that the SBR rules are broken with the interceptor rules added. I think they’re perfectly balanced with those added in, and they also add a lot of choices for the defender, meaning more strategy. However, without interceptors, I do believe SBR would be overpowered. USA could just buy nothing but bombers all game and there’s nothing Germany could do about it. USA could bomb 26 IPCs worth every turn, crippling the Germans. They could also bomb 16 IPCs worth every turn against Japan. This is both highly effective and very boring. The interceptor rules prevent that and make the game much more interesting.
If safe landing zone for fighters is a problem, don’t buy a carrier, just don’t send any fighter. You’ll lose 2 more IPCs worth of planes (12 vs 10) for every 3 defending planes that didn’t get shot down. For 3 bombers vs 2 fighters, that means losing 1 more IPC per raid on average, but it also means bombing an extra 1.4 IPC worth of stuff per turn (since you only get a bomber shot down by a fighter every second turn). So in that situation, it’s actually even more advantageous to send only bombers.
I’m not saying that the SBR rules are broken with the interceptor rules added. I think they’re perfectly balanced with those added in, and they also add a lot of choices for the defender, meaning more strategy. However, without interceptors, I do believe SBR would be overpowered. USA could just buy nothing but bombers all game and there’s nothing Germany could do about it. USA could bomb 26 IPCs worth every turn, crippling the Germans. They could also bomb 16 IPCs worth every turn against Japan. This is both highly effective and very boring. The interceptor rules prevent that and make the game much more interesting.
I’m following with interest your exchange (and I like the way you try to prove by maths that SBR are OK).
From what you tell is within 1942.2 SBR rules, so if someone try to play 1942 according to SBR rules from G40 (like in triple AAA version of 1942.2), wouldn’t it be unbalance for defender because all fighters defense is halfed: D2 becomes D1?
Another question:
Where those numbers are coming from?
USA could bomb 26 IPCs worth every turn, crippling the Germans. They could also bomb 16 IPCs worth every turn against Japan.
Well If we look at the original premise of the topic SBR in either edition they are both pretty different from each other. Damage inflicted is based on the territory value while the other is based on actual capacity based on the IC unit itself. The intercept rule is optional in 1942.2.
I’m not against interception all. In fact, I like the fact that it is standard in G40. I’m just saying that it is risky. In optimum situations it can be very effective. Conversely it can be useful as a harassment tool. The same can be said of SBR.
My only argument is that the attacker can only guess what opposition he is going to face until he commits to the SBR. He also doesn’t know what kind of damage he’ll inflict unless he uses a very large and possibly wasteful armada of bombers or takes small and possibly ineffective raids against the enemy.
It’s true you can get a pretty good idea of how much damage you can inflict but more often than not you need to inflict the maximum amount to dampen the enemy’s economy.
All that I’m saying is that you have to either go all the way while risking your overall strategy or commit to raids at a point when you have already weakened the enemy when you might be better served using your bomber force on actual combat units.
@Zombie69 I’m not saying you’re wrong I’m simply offering my experience and POV. I’ve tested and often used the US strategy of a dedicated bombing campaign. It can work but I feel it can also really expose the US in other ways.
BTW welcome to the site.
@Baron:
From what you tell is within 1942.2 SBR rules, so if someone try to play 1942 according to SBR rules from G40 (like in triple AAA version of 1942.2), wouldn’t it be unbalance for defender because all fighters defense is halfed: D2 becomes D1?
No, because in 1942.2, planes hit by the attacker don’t fire back. This doesn’t completely compensate for the defense of 2, but it does make an impact.
In G40, do attacking bombers also get to fire? If not, then that’s a huge difference.
@Baron:
Another question:
Where those numbers are coming from?USA could bomb 26 IPCs worth every turn, crippling the Germans. They could also bomb 16 IPCs worth every turn against Japan.
The rules say that you can bomb an industrial complex up to the point where it has received as much damage as twice its IPC value. If the industrial complexes in Germany and Italy are both in perfect condition before you bo for SBR, you can do 20 damage on the Germany complex and 6 damage on the Italy complex. If Germany wants to produce 13 units, they’ll need to spend 26 IPCs to repair them. If they don’t mind too much producing only 10, then they only need to spend 20 on the complex in Germany. If that’s the case, then you can only bomb 20 IPCs worth per turn, which is still quite considerable.
The Japanese industrial complex is worth 8 IPCs and so can be bombed for 16 IPCs per turn, which Japan is likely to repair because it’s their only complex and they need to produce as much stuff as possible.
I think an interesting way to deal with SBR in 42.2, overpowered or otherwise, would have been to make the factory unit cheaper, to be more in line with the bomber. I favor 12 ipcs over 15, at the same cost as cheap bombers. Most of the practical factory locations have been tweaked or lowered in production value, and the expense of new production is such that only Japan seems able to use factories effectively. Perhaps the US in an all out Pacific campaign, but even then all the potential territories are less interesting in this game. China and Australia have been divided into 1 ipc territories thus not viable. South Africa is a space farther out off the canal by land. Brazil and Alaska are out of position due to the new sea zone divisions. Dutch East indies is farther away. Ukraine, Balkans, Norway and coastal China have been reduced to 2, making them less viable. Basically a unit that used to be interesting has been forced out of play. If it only cost 12 at least this would maybe give an option to expand production, and offset the effect of a ruthless bombing campaign.
15 just seems too costly, and overly restrictive given the cheaper bomber. Many of the old production strats have gone by the wayside. Does anyone else feel this way?
South Africa is the same distance from Egypt as it was in Revised. Alaska is actually in a better position: it can reach both Japanese sea zones in one turn, while in Revised it could only reach one. Brazil can still reach all the African territories that it could before, the only difference being too far away from France (but why go through Brazil to go to France anyway?). East Indies is the same distance as before and can actually reach more territories, because of the division of the East Asian coast.
I agree with making industrial complexes cost 12, but this has nothing to do with SBR and doesn’t protect against it since the new complex could be bombed just as well as the original ones.
