The G40 Waffen-SS Assault Pioneer unit rule is now available at the top of pg. 1 on the Axis & Allies Global 1940 House Rules Expansion thread.
Rethinking Air Units
-
Well, we could imagine that an A&A Bomber unit is 50 real Bombers, and an A&A Fighter unit is 500 real fighters. The combat value of a fighter unit represent so much firepower by machine guns and cannons, and the combat value of a Bomber is so much destruction you got from a bomb load
The same with inf. A real German inf division had 4 times more firepower than a Russian inf division, but the A&A inf have the same cost. So since all A&A inf units have the same combat value, its obvious that the German unit represent 100 000 men, and the Russian 500 000 men. You are paying for the firepower, not the numbers of men or planes
-
It feels like a big 4 engine bomber should cost more than a fighter or tac bomber.
Of course… -
I am really seeing strategic bombers more in a strategic role where it is mostly used for bombing facilities and bases. I am kind of inclined to make them immune from AA Gun fire in order to encourage this.
The trade off for having built in paratroopers, and the ability to conduct SBR (which I am proposing be removed from dive bombers), etcetera is they cannot go to naval wars. Makes sense, I have never heard of an Operation where fleets of ships were attacked by Flying Fortresses at high altitudes, not like cities, bases, and complexes were in World War II (i.e. stationary targets.) I have heard of dive bombers attacking fleets however, Pearl Harbor, Taranto, Battle of the Bismarck, etc.
In my perfect world, Fighters and Tactical bombers are the main aircraft on the board. Major super powers with money to burn are tossing out a few strategic bombers to tip the scales through carpet bombing economies. Kind of like late in the game when the United States is sitting in Tokyo Harbor wit 12 battleships and using attrition to burn down the defenses of Japan - not because battleships are cost effective, but because the United States has IPC to burn and nothing better to do with it.
-
@Baron:
Your method will increase the odds for the attacker because you don’t know when 2 hits were coming from the same StB.
9 or 10 hits nothing change for both method.
7 or 8 hits can results in 4 or 5 casualties.
5 or 6 hits can result in 3 or 4 or 5 casualties.
4 hits can results in 2 or 3 or 4 casualties.
3 hits results in 2 or 3 casualties.
2 hits results in 1 or 2 casualties.Baron the odds are exactly the same. Ten dice rolled all at once are the same as ten dice rolled separately. If it’s five bombers you have a max of five hits. That is simple math.
DK I don’t care for pick the better dice I’m just pointing out that the math is the same no matter how you roll it.
-
Hi Toblerone,
here is a detailed example which show it is different, and that your method increase the odds toward attacker:10 rolls, 6 hits : 1-2-3-4-5-5-6-6-1-2
A) pick in any order, necessarily 5 hits maximum.
B) Pick in the exact order, each being rolled in pair: 3 hits only (1-2) (3-4) (1-2) 2 misses: (5-5) (6-6)
-
@Cmdr:
I am really seeing strategic bombers more in a strategic role where it is mostly used for bombing facilities and bases. I am kind of inclined to make them immune from AA Gun fire in order to encourage this.
The trade off for having built in paratroopers, and the ability to conduct SBR (which I am proposing be removed from dive bombers), etcetera is they cannot go to naval wars. Makes sense, I have never heard of an Operation where fleets of ships were attacked by Flying Fortresses at high altitudes, not like cities, bases, and complexes were in World War II (i.e. stationary targets.) I have heard of dive bombers attacking fleets however, Pearl Harbor, Taranto, Battle of the Bismarck, etc.
In my perfect world, Fighters and Tactical bombers are the main aircraft on the board. Major super powers with money to burn are tossing out a few strategic bombers to tip the scales through carpet bombing economies. Kind of like late in the game when the United States is sitting in Tokyo Harbor wit 12 battleships and using attrition to burn down the defenses of Japan - not because battleships are cost effective, but because the United States has IPC to burn and nothing better to do with it.
Hi Cmdr Jen,
Here is something about Japanese StB Betty (not a Flying Fortresses, but still an StB according to A&A) which should be notice:Operational history
The G4M was similar in performance and missions to other contemporary twin-engine bombers such as the German Heinkel He 111 and the American North American B-25 Mitchell. These were all commonly used in anti-ship roles. The G4M Model 11 was prominent in attacks on Allied shipping in the 1941 to early 1944, but after that it became more and more an easy prey for Allied fighters.The G4M’s baptism of fire occurred on 13 September 1940 in Mainland China, when 27 “Betties” and Mitsubishi C5Ms of 1st Rengo KÅkÅ«tai (a mixed force including elements of the Kanoya and Kizarazu KÅkÅ«tai) departed from Taipei, Omura, and Jeju City to attack Hankow. The bombers and the reconnaissance aircraft were escorted by 13 A6M Zeros of 12st[clarification needed] KÅkÅ«tai led by the I.J.N. lieutenant, Saburo Shindo. A similar operation occurred in May 1941. In December 1941, 107 G4Ms based on Formosa of 1st KÅkÅ«tai and Kanoya KÅkÅ«tai belonging to the 21st Koku Sentai (Air Flotilla) crossed the Luzon Strait en route to bombing the Philippines, and this was the beginning of the large-scale invasion of the islands of the Southwest Pacific Theater.
IJN aviators pressed home a torpedo attack against American ships off Guadalcanal on 8 August 1942, suffering heavy losses. The plane on the left and at extreme low-level (approximately 5 meters) was flown by Jun Takahashi, who is still alive in 2013.
As a torpedo bomber, the G4M’s most notable use was in the sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse off the eastern coast of British Malaya on 10 December 1941. The G4Ms carried out the attacks along with the older Japanese bombers, the Mitsubishi G3M “Nells” which were doing high-level bombing runs. The battleship Prince of Wales and the battle cruiser Repulse were the first two large capital ships to be sunk exclusively by air attack during a war, while in open waters. The bomber crews were from the Kanoya Air Group of Kanoya KÅkÅ«tai (751 Ku), Genzan Air Group of Genzan KÅkÅ«tai (753 Ku), and the Mihoro Air Group of Mihoro KÅkÅ«tai (701 Ku), trained in torpedo attacks at an altitude of less than 10 metres (30 ft), and in long-range over-ocean navigation, so they could attack naval targets moving quickly at sea. They later carried out an extended series of attacks against U.S. Navy and Allied ships, as well as on land targets during the six month long Battle of Guadalcanal (in the Solomon Islands) in late 1942.
On 8 August 1942 during the second day of the U.S. Marines landing on Guadalcanal, IJNAF’s 23 G4M1s conducted a torpedo attack against American ships at Lunga point, Guadalcanal. A total of 18 of the attacking G4M1s were shot down, due to very heavy anti-aircraft fire, and air attacks from Grumman F4F Wildcat fighters based on three American aircraft carriers. In all 18 Japanese crews – approximately 120 aviators– were missing at the beginning of August 1942. More than 100 Japanese G4M1s and their best pilots and crews (with no replacements or substitutes available) were shot down during the subsequent numerous battles on and near Guadalcanal (August to October 1942).[2] In the two days of the Battle of Rennell Island, 29 and 30 January 1943, 10 out of 43 Japanese G4M1s were shot down during night torpedo attacks, all by U.S. Navy anti-aircraft fire. About 70 Japanese aviators, including Lieutenant Commander Higai, were killed during that battle.
-
@Baron:
Hi Toblerone,
here is a detailed example which show it is different, and that your method increase the odds toward attacker:10 rolls, 6 hits : 1-2-3-4-5-5-6-6-1-2
A) pick in any order, necessarily 5 hits maximum.
B) Pick in the exact order, each being rolled in pair: 3 hits only (1-2) (3-4) (1-2) 2 misses: (5-5) (6-6)
The odds are still the same no matter how you cook the books either example has equal chance to roll the same number of hits. Coming from you a guy who touts battle calc odds continually you should know this. I don’t even like the rule. I’m simply pointing out you’re wrong. Odds and math are odds and math.
-
@Baron:
Hi Toblerone,
here is a detailed example which show it is different, and that your method increase the odds toward attacker:10 rolls, 6 hits : 1-2-3-4-5-5-6-6-1-2
A) pick in any order, necessarily 5 hits maximum.
B) Pick in the exact order, each being rolled in pair: 3 hits only (1-2) (3-4) (1-2) 2 misses: (5-5) (6-6)
The odds are still the same no matter how you cook the books either example has equal chance to roll the same number of hits. Coming from you a guy who touts battle calc odds continually you should know this. I don’t even like the rule. I’m simply pointing out you’re wrong. Odds and math are odds and math.
True, it is the same odds to roll these numbers.
But the trick is on this specified thing: take the best results and never more than 1 hit per Strategic bomber.
So it is required to take separate StB dice rolls in pair. As I showed in the above quote, if all the good rolls are made twice by the same bomber, the result is lower than maximum.If it was allowed to give 2 hits per bomber then you are totally right, you just throw all dices and makes the sum.
-
The odds are just as good that five seperate rolls will score five hits. The base odds are the same for each die rolled. By your logic rolling for ten bombers with one die each separately decreases the number of hits that rolling for all ten at once would. The bases numbers and odds are still the same. Each die has an equal chance of rolling a hit no matter what. You will still hit or miss either way.
If you don’t like the rule fine. I get it. But your reasoning still doesn’t make sense mathematically. It doesn’t matter which bomber hit what singularly or in a group because whether you roll them together or seperately the odds are equal that the same amount of hits or misses will be rolled.
I’m harping on this because you frequently use stats to show favor or proof of your ideas and in this instance you have totally ignored the base numbers, statistics and the math.
-
The odds are just as good that five seperate rolls will score five hits. The base odds are the same for each die rolled.
1 dice roll of 1 single dice = 1 hit or miss. Right.By your logic rolling for ten bombers with one die each separately decreases the number of hits that rolling for all ten at once would.
I agree with you, there is no difference here as long as 1 dice determined a hit or a miss. Rolling separately or together doesn’t change anything. The reverse would be absurd.
The bases numbers and odds are still the same.
Each die has an equal chance of rolling a hit no matter what. You will still hit or miss either way.If you don’t like the rule fine. I get it. But your reasoning still doesn’t make sense mathematically.
It doesn’t matter which bomber hit what singularly or in a group because whether you roll them together or seperately the odds are equal that the same amount of hits or misses will be rolled.
Probably here that we disagree.I’m harping on this because you frequently use stats to show favor or proof of your ideas and in this instance you have totally ignored the base numbers, statistics and the math.
No problem, if I’m wrong it’s fair-play that you corrected me.
Actually I’m wondering is it you or me which miss something in this particular mechanics brought up by Cmd Jen?
I thought I bring mandatory evidence. But you still disagree.
Maybe it is me which miss something to really understand that there is absolutly no difference at all between both procedures.
If you have anyway to provide me some explanations to help me think the right way. Please show me step by step.
Do we agree on the basic procedure?
1 StB throw 2 dices: 1-4 + 1-4 = only 1 hit, 1-4 + 5-6 = 1 hit, 5-6 + 1-4= still 1 hit, only 5-6 + 5-6 results in a miss.
Right? -
Okay Baron take out your dice and your board. Roll out either method and see what results you get. If there is a cap on hit equal to the number of units it still doesn’t matter. The odds will still be the same whether you roll each plane single or in groups.
Don’t believe me fine. I’ll drop it but go ahead and actually roll it out both ways you’ll see no difference.
-
Okay Baron take out your dice and your board. Roll out either method and see what results you get. If there is a cap on hit equal to the number of units it still doesn’t matter. The odds will still be the same whether you roll each plane single or in groups.
Don’t believe me fine. I’ll drop it but go ahead and actually roll it out both ways you’ll see no difference.
It’s not a matter of believing or not, maths is about understanding.
Your stand, in itself, makes me doubt about my maths intuition…
Fine. I want to know where is my mistake.
I will think about it.
See you around. -
If you roll multiple bombers together and just cap the max hits at the # of bombers, you won’t change the probability that the bombers will score at least one hit (what i think toblerone is getting at), but you do actually raise the probability of scoring more hits.
Some basic stats so we’re clear:
2d6 (1-4 hit, 5-6 miss, max 1 hit)
2/32/3 =4/9 chance of scoring “2” hits (only 1 counts)
2/31/3+1/32/3=4/9 chance of scoring 1 hit
1/31/3=1/9 chance of scoring 0 hits
overall 8/9 chance of scoring a hitRolling 2 of these bombers separately:
8/98/9=64/81 chance of scoring 2 hits
8/91/9+1/98/9=16/81 chance of scoring 1 hit
1/91/9=1/81 chance of scoring 0 hitsNow, rolling 4d6 (1-4 hit, 5-6 miss, max 2 hits)
2/32/32/32/3=16/81 chance of scoring “4” hits (only 2 count)
(2/32/32/31/3)4=32/81 chance of scoring “3” hits (only 2 count)
(2/32/31/31/3)6=24/81 chance of scoring 2 hits
these total to 72/81 chance of scoring 2 hits
(2/31/31/31/3)4=8/81 chance of scoring 1 hit
1/31/31/31/3=1/81 scoring 0 hitsAs you can see, lumping bomber dice together raises the chance of scoring higher numbers of hits, but it does so by lowering the chance of scoring a lower number of hits, while the chance of missing altogether stays untouched. Thus, to avoid this rise in average hits, you have to roll each bomber’s 2 dice separately from each other.
-
CC you model shows the point that any unit on the boards odds of scoring go up as more of the same unit is applied. The pick the best of 2 dice provides a cap so you don’t have 2D6 heavy bombers. The point I’m trying to make is that we don’t roll out tanks one at a time so why the bombers?
-
I really don’t care for the “pick the best dice” mechanic - regardless of the math.
What if Strategic bombers attacked @ 2 or even 1? Do you think people would still buy them @ 12 IPCs for strategic bombing purposes? Or is attacking @ 3 enough? I might still attack units with them @3 because of their superior range.
-
CC you model shows the point that any unit on the boards odds of scoring go up as more of the same unit is applied. The pick the best of 2 dice provides a cap so you don’t have 2D6 heavy bombers. The point I’m trying to make is that we don’t roll out tanks one at a time so why the bombers?
No, it doesn’t. I compared 2 separate bombers (4 dice total) to 4 dice thrown at the same time. They should have the same probabilities of every outcome if what you claim is true, but they don’t. Rolling multiple bombers at the same time allows ones that score “multiple” hits to cover for those that get none, thus raising the average hits.
@Der:
I really don’t care for the “pick the best dice” mechanic - regardless of the math.
What if Strategic bombers attacked @ 2 or even 1? Do you think people would still buy them @ 12 IPCs for strategic bombing purposes? Or is attacking @ 3 enough? I might still attack units with them @3 because of their superior range.
I don’t care for it either. It’s clumsy, forces you to roll them separately, and requires the extra restriction against sea attack. Reducing their normal attack to 2 I think could work for the combat department. They can still work if you need a tad extra firepower, but they’ll generally deal more damage on SBR. Attacking @1 would definitely warrant a reduction in cost; you might have to reduce them to 11 anyway for attacking @2.
Though this could solve the fact that people avoid SBR since it could cost them their expensive, high-powered bomber, another problem I feel is that instead of losing ~1/6 of your bomber squadron each raid, there’s just a 1/6 chance you’ll lose the entire squadron to Anti-Aircraft fire (before they even drop a bomb!), which is a bit absurd.
Maybe give Strat Bombers a damage counter (attack @1, can’t SBR when damaged), and change AA (against SBR) to rolling a die and dealing shown # damage on a 1-3?(Radar roll 2 dice) Then you can pay 1 IPC per damage to repair them like factories.Hmm…
-
Though this could solve the fact that people avoid SBR since it could cost them their expensive, high-powered bomber, another problem I feel is that instead of losing ~1/6 of your bomber squadron each raid, there’s just a 1/6 chance you’ll lose the entire squadron to Anti-Aircraft fire (before they even drop a bomb!), which is a bit absurd. Maybe give Strat Bombers a damage counter (attack @1, can’t SBR when damaged), and change AA (against SBR) to rolling a die and dealing shown # damage on a 1-3?(Radar roll 2 dice) Then you can pay 1 IPC per damage to repair them like factories.
Or how about roll AA fire AFTER the bombing is done - that way there is always damage done to the IC whether you lose the plane or not.
-
DK I know your game is custom and you don’t like the OOB rules for Tacs. I wouldn’t nerf the SB though. I would simply make it:
Cost: 10
Attack:4
Defense:3
Move:4These stats are simply the reverse of the fighter and reflect the fact that it is an attack weapon rather than a defensive weapon like the fighter.
-
@Der:
Though this could solve the fact that people avoid SBR since it could cost them their expensive, high-powered bomber, another problem I feel is that instead of losing ~1/6 of your bomber squadron each raid, there’s just a 1/6 chance you’ll lose the entire squadron to Anti-Aircraft fire (before they even drop a bomb!), which is a bit absurd. Maybe give Strat Bombers a damage counter (attack @1, can’t SBR when damaged), and change AA (against SBR) to rolling a die and dealing shown # damage on a 1-3?(Radar roll 2 dice) Then you can pay 1 IPC per damage to repair them like factories.
Or how about roll AA fire AFTER the bombing is done - that way there is always damage done to the IC whether you lose the plane or not.
I also don’t like when running an SBR that a lucky shot from the AA kills your bomber with nothing to show for it. I had an idea a while back of giving the bomber full damage roll if the AA gun misses and half damage roll if the bomber is hit by AA fire.
So if you take a bomber on an SBR and the AA gun hits it, you still roll 1 die and get half the number rolled (rounding UP). So the least you could get is 1 damage on the enemy factory. So if your hit bomber rolls a 1, obviously you can’t put 1/2 damage point on the factory so you get 1 damage point. If you roll a 3, you get 2 points of damage. If you roll a 5, then you get 3 points of damage.
At least this way while you are out a 12 IPC bomber, at least the enemy has to pay a little to repair his factory so it’s not a total loss. -
No, it doesn’t. I compared 2 separate bombers (4 dice total) to 4 dice thrown at the same time. They should have the same probabilities of every outcome if what you claim is true, but they don’t. Rolling multiple bombers at the same time allows ones that score “multiple” hits to cover for those that get none, thus raising the average hits.
@Der:I really don’t care for the “pick the best dice” mechanic - regardless of the math.
I don’t care for it either. It’s clumsy, forces you to roll them separately, and requires the extra restriction against sea attack. Reducing their normal attack to 2 I think could work for the combat department. They can still work if you need a tad extra firepower, but they’ll generally deal more damage on SBR. Attacking @1 would definitely warrant a reduction in cost; you might have to reduce them to 11 anyway for attacking @2.
Thanks Col. Carter for the time taken providing explanations and all the maths in your previous post. I wouldn’t been able to be say it that clearly.
I only think about a reverse argument adopting the defender POV.
1 StB throw 2 dices and pick the better results:
1-4 + 1-4 = only 1 hit,
1-4 + 5-6 = 1 hit,
5-6 + 1-4= still 1 hit,
only 5-6 + 5-6 results in a miss.
So, to get a miss defender needs 2 dices with high 5 or 6.
Using my previous detailed example:10 rolls, 6 hits : 1-2-3-4-5-5-6-6-1-2
A) pick in any order, necessarily 5 hits maximum.
B) Pick in the exact order, each being rolled in pair: 3 hits only (1-2) (3-4) (1-2) 2 misses: (5-5) (6-6)
The defender will say that since there is four dices at 5 or 6 then there is two misses.
If attacker follow A (1 dice 1-4 gives a hit) and defender the reverse of A (2 dices at 5 or 6 gives a miss), this gives contradictory results.So the 2 methods A (disorder) and B (keeping order) aren’t the same.
This was a minor issues which I tought would be solved in 1 or 2 posts.
I was wrong. Sorry.
It has no high stakes. I agree.
I’ll be back to main topic on next post.
Suggested Topics
