Real rethinking of air units

[EnoughSaid]

@Baron:

Your post is very challenging.
Some old ideas and new ones together.
I like the carpet bombing roll @2.
No retaliation seems a bit overpowered.

2@2 first strike is more powerful than 1@4.
For medium bomber: Maybe 3@1 first strike is comparable to 1@4
For heavy bomber: 2@2 first strike is comparable to 1@5.

Heavy move is too much, just keep it at 7+1 with Airbase.

I also notice this feature:
As OOB, except subs cant sink other subs, and destroyers negate subs on a 1-to-1 basis.
This is another way to have less Subs as sea-fodder.

This is hard on planes but it is a simplify scale A1 D0, A2 D3:
1. One round only of Air-to-air dogfight
Escort figthers att at 2, intercepting fighters def at 3.
All types of attacking Bombers roll 1 in the dogfight. Def Bombers roll 0

The missing part is about Naval combat with planes.
1 Carrier will put on board 2 TcBs for A6 D8 (like the OOB Fg unit)
2 Fgs is very weak A4 D6.

Carrier operations and naval combat already incente for defensive and they lose offensive power.
Now the offensive capacity of 2 Fgs (A4 D6) or 2 TcBs (A6 D8) or 1 Fg+ 1 TcB (A5 D7) is weaker than OOB 1 Fg + 1 TcB (A7 D7).

A single round dogfight phase is it enough to outweight the above?
1 Fg A2 + 1 TcB A1 against 1 Fg D3 + 1 TcB D0 or against 2 Fgs D3+D3 This show how Fg is good on defense.

Because of this, I think TcB should get D1 in air phase also (still 3 times lower than Fg D3).

I feel like I just learned a new language in 10 minutes.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Baron:

The missing part is about Naval combat with planes.
1 Carrier will put on board 2 TcBs for A6 D8 (same as 2 OOB Fg units)
2 Fgs are very weak A4 D6 (2*1 Fg A2 D3).

Carrier operations and naval combat already better in defensive and they now lose offensive power.
Now the offensive capacity of 2 Fgs (A4 D6) or 2 TcBs (A6 D8) or 1 Fg +1 TcB (A5 D7) is weaker than OOB 1 Fg + 1 TcB (A7 D7).

A single round dogfight phase, is it enough to outweight the above?
1 Fg A2 + 1 TcB A1 against 1 Fg D3 + 1 TcB D0 or against 2 Fgs D3+D3
This show how Fg is good on defense.

Because of this, I think TcB should get D1 in air phase also (still 3 times lower than Fg D3).

If air combat in naval setting is excluded, then the regular combat value of Fg and TcB should be increase.

To keep up with OOB set-up and units balance, you can add some bonus to planes in Naval Combat.
I was thinking about combined arms with Fighter and Tactical Bomber or a bonus for Air Supremacy.
Fighter gets +1 A/D when there is no ennemy’s plane.
Consequence: 2 Fgs can reach a A6 D8 (like 2 OOB Fgs)

TcB get +1A when paired with Fighter.
Consequence: 1 Fg A2 D3 with TcB A3 D4 + 1A bonus = A6 D7
When gaining Air Supremacy, Fg+TcB can reach A7 D8.

This last situation is probably very rare.
It can somehow allows to reach the same combat value as OOB Fg A3 D4 +TcB A3-4 D3 = A7 D7.

[Narvik]

@EnoughSaid:

I feel like I just learned a new language in 10 minutes.

Lol, me too :-) I figure he is a Canadian

[Narvik]

@Baron:

.
I like the carpet bombing roll @2.
No retaliation seems a bit overpowered.

But, there is retaliation, or what do you think the AA fire is ?

I really want a set of house rules that makes this game as close to historical correctness as possible. Just before the Normandy landings, Heavy bombers carpet bombed Normandy. This bombing would last one day only. After the soldiers had moved into Normandy, there were no more carpet bombing in that territory, and the Bombers would continue to SBR facilities in Germany as usual. Only fighters and Tacs  did deliver fire that were accurate enough to give close support to the land units, and this land battles would go on for months. Then, after Normandy was occupied, then the Heavy Bombers were called in again, to carpet bomb the next territory, in Operation Cobra. This is what I want to see in my house rules.

And no, I don’t think it is overpowered. Remember that every Bomber need a matching land unit that is attacking that territory, just like the Battleship shore bombard. Every bomber is also exposed to AA-fire before they can even start their mission. And the carpet bombing, like the SBR of facilities, is one round only. You will need pretty many Bombers to make a difference. And they wont make any difference in the great decisive battles like the Battle of Moscow. Now if Russia lose 6 inf to carpet bombing, and must defend with 123 units and not 129 units, is that a game breaker ? Don’t think so either……

[Narvik]

@Baron:

Heavy bomber move is too much, just keep it at 7 spaces +1 with Airbase.

You are correct, and I edited it. If we compare the range of real WWII planes with the size of A&A territories and seazones, then I figure that single engine fighters and Tacs can combat move 2 spaces, double engine fighters, Tacs and Medium Bombers can combat move 4 spaces, and 4 engine Heavy Bombers can combat move 3 spaces. This is historical correct. Of course this should be doubled in non-combat moving. But the fact is that in 1944 the average Allied fighter had a operative range that barely let it cross the English Channel from Dover to Calais, and return, and if you look at a map, that is not a very long distance. The only single engine fighter with long range were the Mustang, and that was an exception.

[Narvik]

@Baron:

Because of this, I think TcB should get D1 in air phase also (still 3 times lower than Fg D3).

Please tell me about just one documented case where Stukas scrambled to intercept Lancasters or Flying Fortresses on bombing raids, and I will be happy to edit my house rules

[Narvik]

@Baron:

The missing part is about Naval combat with planes.
1 Carrier will put on board 2 TcBs for A6 D8 (same as 2 OOB Fg units)
2 Fgs are very weak A4 D6 (2*1 Fg A2 D3).

Carrier operations and naval combat already better in defensive and they now lose offensive power.
Now the offensive capacity of 2 Fgs (A4 D6) or 2 TcBs (A6 D8) or 1 Fg +1 TcB (A5 D7) is weaker than OOB 1 Fg + 1 TcB (A7 D7).

Yes, but the Carrier group was in fact stronger on defense. Lets say a given plane has so much firepower. When attacking, this plane spent most of the time flying to the target. When defending, this plane spent most of the time in the combat zone. One to one, and with equal firepower, both fighters and Tacs are stronger on defense

And exactly what case in history make you think carrier based fighters should be so strong in naval battles ? In fact, they were not.

[crusaderiv]

I feel like I just learned a new language in 10 minutes.

Well at least, you learned something…. :-D

[crusaderiv]

Heavy bomber move is too much, just keep it at 7 spaces +1 with Airbase.

You make me laugh with your air base rules….

AL

[baron Münchhausen]

@Narvik:

@Baron:

Heavy bomber move is too much, just keep it at 7 spaces +1 with Airbase.

You are correct, and I edited it. If we compare the range of real WWII planes with the size of A&A territories and seazones, then I figure that single engine fighters and Tacs can combat move 2 spaces, double engine fighters, Tacs and Medium Bombers can combat move 4 spaces, and 4 engine Heavy Bombers can combat move 3 spaces. This is historical correct. Of course this should be doubled in non-combat moving. But the fact is that in 1944 the average Allied fighter had a operative range that barely let it cross the English Channel from Dover to Calais, and return, and if you look at a map, that is not a very long distance. The only single engine fighter with long range were the Mustang, and that was an exception.

Ok I saw.
Now Heavy are at  OOB 6M+1 with Air Base.
Did you ponder about Medium bombers with a basic 5 spaces move + 1 with Air Base?
From a G40 game play, it will be more interesting for SBR possibility for UK and Germany.
While Japan may need AB to attack from Islands to another islands.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Narvik:

@Baron:

Because of this, I think TcB should get D1 in air phase also (still 3 times lower than Fg D3).

Please tell me about just one documented case where Stukas scrambled to intercept Lancasters or Flying Fortresses on bombing raids, and I will be happy to edit my house rules

I was talking from a game-play balance perspective. Tactical Bomber will be so weak.
In SBR, you can play as OOB, only Fighter can intercept.
But, in a first round air combat phase, all planes are engaged in air combat.

From an historical perspective, Stuka is one type of TcB. UK’s Mosquitos have different capacity but was doing tactical bomber missions and others such as intercepting V1.

That’s why an air defense value of 1 compared to a 3 for fighter doesn’t seems unrealistic nor unbalance.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Narvik:

@Baron:

.
I like the carpet bombing roll @2.
No retaliation seems a bit overpowered.

But, there is retaliation, or what do you think the AA fire is ?

I really want a set of house rules that makes this game as close to historical correctness as possible. Just before the Normandy landings, Heavy bombers carpet bombed Normandy. This bombing would last one day only. After the soldiers had moved into Normandy, there were no more carpet bombing in that territory, and the Bombers would continue to SBR facilities in Germany as usual. Only fighters and Tacs did deliver fire that were accurate enough to give close support to the land units, and this land battles would go on for months. Then, after Normandy was occupied, then the Heavy Bombers were called in again, to carpet bomb the next territory, in Operation Cobra. This is what I want to see in my house rules.

And no, I don’t think it is overpowered. Remember that every Bomber need a matching land unit that is attacking that territory, just like the Battleship shore bombard. Every bomber is also exposed to AA-fire before they can even start their mission. And the carpet bombing, like the SBR of facilities, is one round only. You will need pretty many Bombers to make a difference. And they wont make any difference in the great decisive battles like the Battle of Moscow. Now if Russia lose 6 inf to carpet bombing, and must defend with 123 units and not 129 units, is that a game breaker ? Don’t think so either…

2b. One round only of preemptive carpet bombing. Present AA units roll AA-fire to bombers. Remove casualties.

Medium bombers carpet bomb with two dice, 2+2 is hits
Heavy bombers carpet bomb with 3 dice, 2+2+2 is hits

There is only a single round of carpet bombing?
And AAA defense are specifically destroying bombers?
The fighters are not part of this assault, so can’t be used as fodder?
In the regular assault, does AAA can also fire against Fgs and TcBs?
Do I clearly read this part of your rule?

[baron Münchhausen]

@Narvik:

@Baron:

The missing part is about Naval combat with planes.
1 Carrier will put on board 2 TcBs for A6 D8 (same as 2 OOB Fg units)
2 Fgs are very weak A4 D6 (2*1 Fg A2 D3).

Carrier operations and naval combat already better in defensive and they now lose offensive power.
Now the offensive capacity of 2 Fgs (A4 D6) or 2 TcBs (A6 D8) or 1 Fg +1 TcB (A5 D7) is weaker than OOB 1 Fg + 1 TcB (A7 D7).

Yes, but the Carrier group was in fact stronger on defense. Lets say a given plane has so much firepower. When attacking, this plane spent most of the time flying to the target. When defending, this plane spent most of the time in the combat zone. One to one, and with equal firepower, both fighters and Tacs are stronger on defense

And exactly what case in history make you think carrier based fighters should be so strong in naval battles ? In fact, they were not.

The OOB values of Fgs and TcBs already showed a bias against offense.
In carrier operations 2 TcBs A6 D6, 2 Fgs A6 D8. It is only with TcB+Fg you get A7 D7.
In 2 ways you get 7 or 8 for defense.
For offense you get 6 on offense in two ways.
Even the best configuration offense vs defense gives att 7 against def 8.
And carriers are also better on defense (G40 carriers add 2 defense points and no offense).

I’m just telling you that your planes stats will affect the naval offensive capabilities of carriers.
You can keep a similar defense as OOB 2 Fgs: Defense 8
But the best you can get with 2 TcBs is now: Offense 6
While 2 Fgs are now the weaker combination for offense and defense: Att 4 Def 6.

This will have an impact I believe on how naval combat will be dealt.
OR
For carrier operation, players will rely mostly upon 2 TcBs instead of 2 Fgs or a combination (but this last is most historically accurate).

[baron Münchhausen]

Hi Narvik,
I provided some kind of a more defined HR which probably can be integrated somehow to your own Air rules.

Rethinking Air units simulating historical air-to-air combat 
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34667.msg1337965#msg1337965

[baron Münchhausen]

Fighter cost 8, att 2, def 3, move 2, can scramble, intercept and escort bombers, land on carriers and newly captured territory.
Tac bomber cost 10, att 3, def 4, move 2, land on carriers, SBR Ports and Airfields

I just realized you put them at 2 moves.
What do you mean?
1 Fighter from UK can no more attack land territory in western Europe, because it needs 4 movement points?

[baron Münchhausen]

2.Land units roll as OOB.
Fighters strafe land units, Att 2 or Def 3
Tacs strafe land units, Att 3 or Def 4 Attacking Tanks is boosted +1 with a matching Fighter or Tac

So Tank now can get A4 or D4 while a matching TcB get also D4.
You give the bonus to Tank instead of giving it to Tactical B.
And this bonus is also available for defense.
So there is no more attack bonus for Tactical B paired with a Fighter?

What was the reasons behind all this little changes?

[Narvik]

@Baron:

So Tank now can get A4 or D4 while a matching TcB get also D4.
You give the bonus to Tank instead of giving it to Tactical B.
And this bonus is also available for defense.
So there is no more attack bonus for Tactical B paired with a Fighter?

What was the reasons behind all this little changes?

The reason is I want house rules that are historical correct and make sense. It makes no sense to bonus an aircraft attack if Tanks promise to attack the next day. I imagine that Tacs will bomb the enemy before the Tanks show up. Because it makes no sense to me if Tanks attack first, and capture the ground, and next day the planes come to bomb the POW camps. So lets agree that aircrafts will strafe the enemy before the Tanks come and join the battle. In fact, the Tanks join the battle after the planes are finished bombing and gone. At the moment planes are strafing, the defenders have a set combat value. After being strafed, this value is less, the defenders have been softened, giving the expecting Tanks an easier job and better change of success. Even if the planes miss, and the defender survives, the strafing demoralized them and softened them, giving the Tanks a big advantage and bonus when they attack the next day. So, the initial aircraft attack do not get any advantage from a Tank attack that has not yet happened. But, Tanks get a big advantage if planes strafed and softened the enemy before they attack. The bonus should be given to the unit that follow up, and exploit the situation. Not the opener.

In OOB fighters boost Tacs because there are no opening air to air dogfight. My houserules got a dogfight before the general combat, and all Tacs that survived that dogfight are now free to channel all their effort towards the ground units, and don’t have to bother about fighters. That part is done.

[baron Münchhausen]

Thanks for the answer.
It makes sense.
I’m really OK with the fact that aircrafts support ground units, especially Tanks, and not the reverse.
You analyze the historical situation with a before/after Tank assault.
Sometimes, assault were launch at the same time for Air and Ground isn’t?

I also like that you give this bonus in both offense and defense (+1A or +1D) , not just offense like in OOB (+1A).

However, from a game perspective, you will probably find that to separate Tank getting @4 from those @3 is just a bit more annoying than just looking for TacB to give them the OOB bonus.

---

You gave a better defense to both Fgs and TcBs because…

when attacking, this plane spent most of the time flying to the target. When defending, this plane spent most of the time in the combat zone. One to one, and with equal firepower, both fighters and Tacs are stronger on defense.

I agree, it is clearly the case about combat in land territories.
But, in Naval situation, both fleet are at the same range from each other. Attacking TacBs and Fgs need the same time to reach the other fleet.
The only difference is about the CAG (Carrier Air Group) which stay on close support to protect the Carrier against incoming aircrafts.
The defensive advantage doesn’t seems as relevant.

I thought about a way of justifying a defensive bonus for aircrafts in Naval situation:
Each carrier still present in the embattled SZ give a +1 bonus (can be Att or Def)  for his own aircrafts on board.
So, all defending Aircrafts will get such a +1 defensive bonus as long as their home base is floating.
Attacker willing to bring in arm’s way his carrier, now get an attack bonus.

[Narvik]

@Baron:

But, in Naval situation, both fleet are at the same range from each other. Attacking TacBs and Fgs need the same time to reach the other fleet.

Strong and valid point.

Lets say Fighters and Tacs lose one combat point for every space they combatmove .

Lets say a general Fighter A3 D3.

One landbased attacking Fighter must combat move 2 spaces to the Battlezone, and lose 2 points. This Fighter attack on a 1.
One Carrierbased attacking Fighter get brought to the Battlezone by the Carrier, and attack with full strength, a 3 or less.

One defending Fighter that was based on a Carrier in the Battlezone defend on full value, which is 3 or less.
An additional defending Fighter that scrambled from an adjacent island, lose 1 point, and defend at 2 or less.

How about that, to much to keep track off ?

[baron Münchhausen]

@Narvik:

Fighter cost 8, att 2, def 3, move 2, can scramble, intercept and escort bombers, land on carriers and newly captured territory.
Tac bomber cost 10, att 3, def 4, move 2, land on carriers, SBR Ports and Airfields
Medium Bomber cost 12, att 2+2, def 0, move 4, SBR all facilities with two dice
Heavy bomber cost 15, att 2+2+2, def 0, move 6, SBR all facilities with three dice

AIR COMBAT

1. One round only of Air-to-air dogfight
Escort figthers att at 2, intercepting fighters def at 3.
All types of attacking Bombers roll 1 in the dogfight. Def Bombers roll 0

2. Surviving attacking Bombers commit to SBR a facility or Carpet bomb land units.

2a. One round only of SBR. Facility AA-fire to Bombers. Remove casualties.
Tacs roll 1 dice, Medium rolls 2 dice, Heavies roll 3 dice, every eye is one damage point, as OOB.

2b. One round only of preemptive carpet bombing. Present AA units roll AA-fire to bombers. Remove casualties.

Medium bombers carpet bomb with two dice, 2+2 is hits
Heavy bombers carpet bomb with 3 dice, 2+2+2 is hits A Bomber need a matching land unit when carpet bombing, like the Battleship do when shore bombarding
Casualties are removed from play, they cant defend.

With a Fighter unit with such a high defense @3 in SBR, is this too overpowered compared to OOB?

I think so, after a few calculations.
Any SBR against such a foe, on a 1 StB vs 1 Fg even in this modified situation (2D6 damage, 12 IPCs) gives high odds of losing for the attacker (-3.31 IPCs damage /StB making a raid) while the OOB G40 SBR is clearly positive toward attacker (+ 1.18 IPCs damage/StB making a raid).
Even Heavy StB at 15 IPCs and 3D6 damage is at a low - 2.78 IPCs damage/ Heavy StB making raid.

So, this SBR system is clearly not an incentive to makes SBRaids.