G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

[LHoffman]

@SS:

I get where your coming from. Ever think about after a certain turn in game you can’t bring any more escorts ?

I haven’t considered that, no. If anything, you should be able to take fighters all the way to the target as the game goes on (or if you use tech and get Long Range Aircraft). Any reason in particular for suggesting that you can’t use escort fighters after a certain turn?

In fact, taking fighters all the way to the IC, where they would be subject to AA fire, could only be a liability with the StrBmbr revision we are talking about. You would be subject to losing Ftrs with C10 vs losing a StrBmbr C5.

@Baron:

@LHoffman:

I don’t see why this system wouldn’t work in 42, other than that the SBR dynamic with ICs and AA guns is slightly different and interceptors do not exist. Backfilling 1942.2 with the Tac sounds good to me. However, the Tac pairing with a tank or fighter to get the @4 attack should be maintained, otherwise you get more than half of what the StrBmbr was, but at one less IPC.

Hi Hoffman,
on an alternate SBR with no IC’s AAA able to destroy Bombers, as SS is play-testing:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39189.msg1620459#msg1620459
There is only 2 phases, not 3, as you believed.

1. Interception and dogfight, where StB can be killed
2. StBs bombing damage minus AAA rolls to reduce damage.

Thanks Baron, I see how this works now. Makes sense, interesting concept. How’s it working out?

@Baron:

A 1942.2 game would need TcBs to better increase attack options and a more historical depiction.
But we need a Wizard of the code to introduce this unit in Triple A 1942.2.

Why would you relinquish to give Attack @4 to such bomber to get
TcB A4  D3 M4 C11 or 12 or 10?

I am not sure that I understand your question. Are you asking what we would need to adjust to allow the Tac to attack @4 by default (without requiring combined arms)?

Well… how much value to we assign to an Attack or Defense value of @4? It is the best roll in the game and the cost premium should match, IMO. Fighter has D4 with C10. Maybe keeping Tac at C11 is enough? I really don’t know. Given that the Tac is essentially a Ftr in reverse, it would seem inappropriate to make it much more than C10.

[Black_Elk]

Probably anyone who is serious about making an HR bomber fix in 1942.2 would already own the G40 set. Though I don’t think a defenseless bomber necessarily requires tacBs to work, it does seem to balance better under intercept conditions. Those rules are optional in 1942.2 but probably necessary with defensless bombers to get the desired attrition (either that or you’d probably have to adjust the factories AAAfire so it hits at a higher rate.) I think intercept would be more fun, since OOB I don’t think intercept is very attractive for the defender, and this would give a reason for players to explore the concept.

1942.2 already has a form of combined arms for artillery, so the idea isn’t too foreign. Although combined arms with tacBs are a bit weirder. With artillery it is the more expensive unit that boosts the cheaper unit (the artillery attack value doesn’t change mid-fight depending on whether infantry are lost.) With TacBs, it is the cheaper units that boosts the more expensive unit, and the tacBs attack value is subject to change mid-fight depending on whether the tanks or fighters are still alive.

Combined arms for TacBs can be a little confusing for that reason, since there are occasions where it might make sense to take a casualty on a more expensive TacB, in order to keep a cheaper fighter unit alive into the next round of the combat phase, just to preserve the combined arms hit 4. Nothing like that happens with artillery. There’s never a reason to take a casualty on an artillery unit before an infantry unit mid-fight.

I don’t know if it might be simpler to eliminate combined arms for the TacB, in favor of an attack 4 by default, and raising it’s cost to 12. This would certainly produce a cleaner battle board, with less unit relationships to track. What you lose in mobility for the cost (2 less movement than the OOB strat bomber), you gain on defense and overall ease of use. It would allow you to keep the 4 to 1 ratio (4 infantry to 1 combat bomber) with same basic attack value for the same cost.

[General 6 Stars]

I was just referring to your comment about escorts didn’t fly all the way with bombers later in war .

[baron Münchhausen]

@LHoffman:

@Baron:

@LHoffman:

I don’t see why this system wouldn’t work in 42, other than that the SBR dynamic with ICs and AA guns is slightly different and interceptors do not exist. Backfilling 1942.2 with the Tac sounds good to me. However, the Tac pairing with a tank or fighter to get the @4 attack should be maintained, otherwise you get more than half of what the StrBmbr was, but at one less IPC.

Hi Hoffman,
on an alternate SBR with no IC’s AAA able to destroy Bombers, as SS is play-testing:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39189.msg1620459#msg1620459
There is only 2 phases, not 3, as you believed.

1. Interception and dogfight, where StB can be killed
2. StBs bombing damage minus AAA rolls to reduce damage.

Thanks Baron, I see how this works now. Makes sense, interesting concept. How’s it working out?

I’m eager to learn from SS, what incentive this alternate SBR provides.

The actual idea seems better because it use OOB mechanics in different ways for bombers.

@LHoffman:

@Baron:

A 1942.2 game would need TcBs to better increase attack options and a more historical depiction.
But we need a Wizard of the code to introduce this unit in Triple A 1942.2.

Why would you relinquish to give Attack @4 to such bomber to get
TcB A4  D3 M4 C11 or 12 or 10?

I am not sure that I understand your question. Are you asking what we would need to adjust to allow the Tac to attack @4 by default (without requiring combined arms)?

Well… how much value to we assign to an Attack or Defense value of @4? It is the best roll in the game and the cost premium should match, IMO. Fighter has D4 with C10. Maybe keeping Tac at C11 is enough? I really don’t know. Given that the Tac is essentially a Ftr in reverse, it would seem inappropriate to make it much more than C10.

You understood. It seems easier to rise TacBomber to 12 IPCs to get a pure Attack @4, with no more pairing with Tank or Fighter. I’m just asking if there is some issues to deny such value to TacB.

However, the actual D6 damage seems low for a high 12 IPCs compare to 1D6 for a 5 IPCs StB.
If it is agreeable to prefer StB A0 D0 M6 C5, SBR: A0 & D6 damage
I see no reason to use TcB for Tactical bombing raid anymore. Too risky for little result.
Black Elk provides positive reasons for change, below. I was asking for negative reasons to such change.

@Black_Elk:

Although combined arms with tacBs are a bit weirder. With artillery it is the more expensive unit that boosts the cheaper unit (the artillery attack value doesn’t change mid-fight depending on whether infantry are lost.) With TacBs, it is the cheaper units that boosts the more expensive unit, and the tacBs attack value is subject to change mid-fight depending on whether the tanks or fighters are still alive.

Combined arms for TacBs can be a little confusing for that reason, since there are occasions where it might make sense to take a casualty on a more expensive TacB, in order to keep a cheaper fighter unit alive into the next round of the combat phase, just to preserve the combined arms hit 4. Nothing like that happens with artillery. There’s never a reason to take a casualty on an artillery unit before an infantry unit mid-fight.

I don’t know if it might be simpler to eliminate combined arms for the TacB, in favor of an attack 4 by default, and raising it’s cost to 12. This would certainly produce a cleaner battle board, with less unit relationships to track. What you lose in mobility for the cost (2 less movement than the OOB strat bomber), you gain on defense and overall ease of use. It would allow you to keep the 4 to 1 ratio (4 infantry to 1 combat bomber) with same basic attack value for the same cost.

[LHoffman]

@Black_Elk:

I don’t know if it might be simpler to eliminate combined arms for the TacB, in favor of an attack 4 by default, and raising it’s cost to 12. This would certainly produce a cleaner battle board, with less unit relationships to track. What you lose in mobility for the cost (2 less movement than the OOB strat bomber), you gain on defense and overall ease of use. It would allow you to keep the 4 to 1 ratio (4 infantry to 1 combat bomber) with same basic attack value for the same cost.

This is true and probably most equitable.

@SS:

I was just referring to your comment about escorts didn’t fly all the way with bombers later in war .

Oh… I think you may have mistaken what I said for the opposite. Early in the war, fighters did not tend to accompany bombers all the way to their targets because they didn’t have the range to do so. Obviously that depended on specifically where; I am primarily referencing the Allies bombing Germany. By late 1943 and into 1944, Allied fighters were introduced (P-51, P-38) which had the range to stick with Allied bombers all the way to Germany and back.

[LHoffman]

@Baron:

You understood. It seems easier to rise TacBomber to 12 IPCs to get a pure Attack @4, with no more pairing with Tank or Fighter. I’m just asking if there is some issues to deny such value to TacB.

Okay, yeah. Based on the way Black_Elk explained it, I am on board with that.

@Baron:

However, the actual D6 damage seems low for a high 12 IPCs compare to 1D6 for a 5 IPCs StB.
If it is agreeable to prefer StB A0 D0 M6 C5, SBR: A0 & D6 damage
I see no reason to use TcB for Tactical bombing raid anymore. Too risky for little result.

I agree. Some instances may require it, but that would be a judgement call for the player.

Somewhat unrelated… I just re-read the G40.2 rules about strategic/tactical raids and saw that there is no limit to the number of escort fighters or scrambled defenders for any given raid.

Is this a change from G40.1? For some reason I thought there was a (3) fighter scramble limit on the books. Or is that only for scrambling to defend an adjacent sea zone?

[baron Münchhausen]

@LHoffman:

@Baron:

I share the same belief that a Cost 5 works for a totally attackless/defenseless bomber and giving more reg attack punch and 1 hit need to rise to 6 at least.

Yeah… I agree. The only issue with giving them an attack value at all is that they can then be brought in on attacks as screening fodder, whereas if they had no attack value this would be prevented.

Cost at 6 may still be too low for A1 M6 unit. It is cheap enough that being used as fodder for naval battles in particular is highly likely, IMO.

My mind is mostly sets on these SBR values for 5 IPC attackless-defenseless StB:

Here is what makes a similar SBR odds of damage compare to G40 SBR.
Almost same Break even point 0.522 StB/Fg (OOB 0.526 StB/Fg) but no FIT.
Strategic bomber A0 D0 M6 C5, A0 SBR but D6 damage
Fighter A3 D4 M4 C10, A1 D1 SBR

But if I prefer to keep combat values, and hit point, do you see some issues with these 8 IPCs StB
Weak Strategic bomber:
Attack 1, SBR A1 damage 1D6+2
Defense 0
Hit 1
Move 6
Cost 8

Fighter A2 D2 in SBR

It would be a second option for player which dislike defenseless combat unit but enjoy TP bombing.
8 IPCs is the basic cost of naval fodder DD, 2 IPCs higher than Sub.
Also, why would anyone add such low attack unit in Naval Combat?
It becomes a last chance effort which might become a turkey shoot for defending Naval fleet.
I’m just trying to figure what kind of combat values can work before crunching numbers.
I don’t want to make a random guess and make unuseful calculations.

In my own HR,
StB A1 D0 M6 C8 would be at same cost than my
TcB A3 D2 M4 C8 (Target ground unit) and
Fighter A2 D2 C7 (hit enemy’s plane first, then AAA).
Do you see some issues which can arise?

[LHoffman]

@Baron:

My mind is mostly sets on these SBR values for 5 IPC attackless-defenseless StB:

Here is what makes a similar SBR odds of damage compare to G40 SBR.
Almost same Break even point 0.522 StB/Fg (OOB 0.526 StB/Fg) but no FIT.
Strategic bomber A0 D0 M6 C5, A0 SBR but D6 damage
Fighter A3 D4 M4 C10, A1 D1 SBR

But if I prefer to keep combat values, and hit point, do you see some issues with these 8 IPCs StB
Weak Strategic bomber:
Attack 1, SBR A1 damage 1D6+2
Defense 0
Hit 1
Move 6
Cost 8

Fighter A2 D2 in SBR

It would be a second option for player which dislike defenseless combat unit but enjoy TP bombing.
8 IPCs is the basic cost of naval fodder DD, 2 IPCs higher than Sub.
Also, why would anyone add such low attack unit in Naval Combat?
It becomes a last chance effort which might become a turkey shoot for defending Naval fleet.
I’m just trying to figure what kind of combat values can work before crunching numbers.
I don’t want to make a random guess and make unuseful calculations.

Upping the cost to 8 IPCs looks like a good balance to A1 value and hitpoint. Makes it in the expensive range for fodder. Honestly, I can only give you my opinion as it pertains to an ‘eye test’. Your calculations are great and are the most important justifications for any changes we propose. Let’s see what others think about it.

@Baron:

In my own HR,
StB A1 D0 M6 C8 would be at same cost than my
TcB A3 D2 M4 C8 (Target ground unit) and
Fighter A2 D2 C7 (hit enemy’s plane first, then AAA).
Do you see some issues which can arise?

I like the secondary targeting attributes for these. Been wanting to implement something similar. I don’t see an issues right away.

Does TacB targeting ground unit also include targeting naval units? If so, should TacB be allowed to target Transports?

[Black_Elk]

Ok just going to put this out there.

Let’s say the move 6 strat B, is removed from a combat role, defensless as I suggested earlier.
Players lament, 'but the global map is so large, we need a mobile air unit!" Possible solution, increased movement bonus from the airbase unit from +1 to +2.

This does several things at once. First it means that a move 4 fighter or TacB can have their range boosted to 6 from an opperation airbase (this is still 1 less than an OOB stratB from an OOB airbase.) Limits the total possible range from +7 to +6. Allows escort aircraft to fly farther, and be better at fleet screening. Simplifies the counting of movement considerably by eliminating the the odd number.

This way it’s either 2 moves out and 2 back, or 3 out and 3 back if taking off from an AB.

To offset the extended air coverage on the water, I would seriously consider just doing the same for the naval bases. A movement of +2 from an operational NB would open up more shuck options, and accelerate the pace overall.

This keeps things very simple, both bases at +2 movement, making them a much stronger purchase option for the cost at 15, and a more significant target for SBR.

Then you’d have a game where both the defensless transport and defensless bomber are able to shine. Still provides the entertainment of mobile combat air units (since both fighters and tacBs would get a boon of +1 to movement over OOB if taking off from an AB) and would be way more useful in the escort intercept role. The new defensless stratB definitely doesn’t get a hitpoint here, but with a potential
+8 movement the SBR options are way more glorious 4 out and 4 back.

On the water, the whole naval game would get a reset. Any takers?
:-D

[baron Münchhausen]

@LHoffman:

Upping the cost to 8 IPCs looks like a good balance to A1 value and hitpoint. Makes it in the expensive range for fodder. Honestly, I can only give you my opinion as it pertains to an ‘eye test’. Your calculations are great and are the most important justifications for any changes we propose. Let’s see what others think about it.

I crunch some numbers on StB A1 D0 C8 1D6+2 damage vs Fg D2 C10.
It appears that Break even point is around 2 StBs for 3 Fgs giving 0.667 StB/Fg.
This is slightly less efficient than OOB G40 0.526 StB/Fg but compared to Balanced Mode (1.156 StB/Fg) it is far much better to get more SBRs.
(Break even point: 89 StBs A1 C12 D6+2 vs 77 Fgs D2 C10 : 1.156 StB/Fg)
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37653.msg1521517#msg1521517

IMO, this may work. And it can be easily tried on a modified Balance Mode XML files.
It only requires to change the Strategic bomber combat values A1 D0 and cost 8 in regular combat.
SBR in BMode is already adjust for Fighter A2 D2 and bombers A1 (both StB and TcB).

@LHoffman:

@Baron:

In my own HR,
StB A1 D0 M6 C8 would be at same cost than my
TcB A3 D2 M4 C8 (Target ground unit) and
Fighter A2 D2 C7 (hit enemy’s plane first, then AAA).
Do you see some issues which can arise?

I like the secondary targeting attributes for these. Been wanting to implement something similar. I don’t see an issues right away.

Does TacB targeting ground unit also include targeting naval units? If so, should TacB be allowed to target Transports?

There is no issue with TcB ground unit targeting capacity as I playtested. (Your idea, remember?)
But never tried with Naval unit.
May probably slow down combat phase and increase the TcB power to destroy Capital warships.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Black_Elk:

Ok just going to put this out there.

Let’s say the move 6 strat B, is removed from a combat role, defensless as I suggested earlier.
Players lament, 'but the global map is so large, we need a mobile air unit!" Possible solution, increased movement bonus from the airbase unit from +1 to +2.

This does several things at once. First it means that a move 4 fighter or TacB can have their range boosted to 6 from an opperation airbase (this is still 1 less than an OOB stratB from an OOB airbase.) Limits the total possible range from +7 to +6. Allows escort aircraft to fly farther, and be better at fleet screening. Simplifies the counting of movement considerably by eliminating the the odd number.

This way it’s either 2 moves out and 2 back, or 3 out and 3 back if taking off from an AB.

To offset the extended air coverage on the water, I would seriously consider just doing the same for the naval bases. A movement of +2 from an operational NB would open up more shuck options, and accelerate the pace overall.

This keeps things very simple, both bases at +2 movement, making them a much stronger purchase option for the cost at 15, and a more significant target for SBR.

Then you’d have a game where both the defensless transport and defensless bomber are able to shine. Still provides the entertainment of mobile combat air units (since both fighters and tacBs would get a boon of +1 to movement over OOB if taking off from an AB) and would be way more useful in the escort intercept role. The new defensless stratB definitely doesn’t get a hitpoint here, but with a potential
+8 movement the SBR options are way more glorious 4 out and 4 back.

On the water, the whole naval game would get a reset. Any takers?
:-D

Always interesting idea coming from nowhere.  :-) :-o :-D

I like how you can get a better historical depiction of escorting bombers dynamics with +2 Movement bonus.
Attackless-Defenseless Bombers can reach 4 TTys and going back while Fgs reach only 3 TTys.
It clearly provides more targets from UK/USA POV in Great Britain against Germany.
It allows Fgs and TcBs to fly over France, Western Germany but StBs can reach Germany, Greater Southern Germany, Northern Italy.
IDK if Southern France was within range for Fighters and TcBs…
But at least you get an interesting mobility if someone want to recreate Allies Strategic bombing and escort operations.

I insist on to these values to be somewhat balanced for the cost:
StBomber A0 D0 M6-8 C5 SBR 0 Damage 1D6 and
Fighter A3 D4 M4-6 C10, SBR A1 D1

It nicely solve the lack of mobility for higher attack @4 if TcB is A4 D3 M4-6 C12 Damage D6.
From Airbase you get 6 spaces move, but it can be a one way ticket if not landing on an Air Base.

For Naval Base, it is a very different beast since Naval units cannot NCM to a starting NB.
Going in this direction, I suggest you give all Naval units a basic 3 Move and keep NB+1 bonus.
Probably easier to adjust in XML files.
Otherwise, some fleet action will remain moving from NB to NB, knowing that going where there is no NB, a NO Man’s land for Warships, will totally screwed up the overall fleet mobility compared to an enemy fleet in NB’s SZ.

[Black_Elk]

Seems reasonable enough to me. I’m sure I’m not alone in feeling that naval units are a bit hamstrung OOB. In a period where ships could cross oceans in a month, and the game round is imagined to represent roughly the same or greater lengths of time. Ships don’t have quite the same issue with odd movement numbers that aircraft do. Move 3 as the standard on the water would be a lot more dynamic, and the NB+1 would still be very useful. You’d have better shucks all around for your transports, and carriers would be easier to use in tandem with NB + 1 for ships and AB + 2 for fighters/tacs.

This still isn’t the silver bullet for the zero ipc islands (which is another issue), but I do think it would make those islands with operational bases more attractive all around.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Black_Elk:

This still isn’t the silver bullet for the zero ipc islands (which is another issue), but I do think it would make those islands with operational bases more attractive all around.

You meant Operational Air Bases on Islands more attractive, right?

[Black_Elk]

Yeah, exactly. There are quite a few of them at the start of play, but even at purchase I can imagine new options you wouldn’t see otherwise. With a full move at 3 out 3 back for fighters/tacs the AB is way better for turning those islands into combat lilly pads. Likewise 4 moves out and 4 back for defenseless stratBs from an island airbase makes many locations a lot more viable for launching raids.

Taken together, I don’t see these rules as being any more complicated than the OOB situation. If anything it feels more streamlined to me.

A simpler tacB, a simpler stratB (with a much more singularly defined role in the roster.) Better bases. More SBR and an escort/intercept system that’s somewhat easier to understand. Addresses to a large extent one of the main issues with the defenseless transport (since they’re not as easily sunk by the +7 screen of the death from OOB stratBs anymore). Instead you get more fleet dynamism and less overall drag on the pace of the game where ships are concerned.

It’s not all that much of a departure from the OOB rules, but I like the way these changes play off one another. Would certainly be nice if we could get away with not really having to change the starting unit set up at all. But right now I’m mainly interested in the mechanics for their own sake, because I think they might produce a more compelling game, and perhaps a more historical feel.

Other issues that remain a thorn in my side… the lack of new production options or some form of “land” base unit, the combat aaagun (everyone’s favorite non com headache), and a few others, but I’ll leave those for now hehe. I’d settle for fixing the strategic bombing campaign while addressing the air/naval disparity introduced originally by the defenseless transport concept. I think something like the above would shore up the air umbrella issue, and get us back to a normal naval game on the high seas. One that leaves strategic bombers out of the combat equation, and puts the emphasis on carriers, fighters and tacs, as it should be.
:-D

[baron Münchhausen]

You forgot to mention a Substantial 5 IPCs unit in the roster.
There are units in these spots:
3-4-5-6-7-8-10-12-14 or 16- 20

[Argothair]

A simpler tacB, a simpler stratB (with a much more singularly defined role in the roster.) Better bases. More SBR and an escort/intercept system that’s somewhat easier to understand. Addresses to a large extent one of the main issues with the defenseless transport (since they’re not as easily sunk by the +7 screen of the death from OOB stratBs anymore). Instead you get more fleet dynamism and less overall drag on the pace of the game where ships are concerned…I think they might produce a more compelling game, and perhaps a more historical feel.

Brilliant. This is exactly what it would take to get me to finally go play a game of Global 1940. This patch has fewer, simpler rules than the standard balanced mod, and yet I’m convinced it would be much more fun to play! I would even swallow my pride and overlook the atrocity that is the starting French setup if we played with Balanced mod, the new, leaner SBR/intercept/base/TacB/naval speed rules, and a chess clock (I can supply one) so that people don’t take 20 minutes pondering whether to move their stack of 57 infantry to Upper Southwest Transdneistria or Lower Southwest Transdneistria.

[LHoffman]

@Baron:

There is no issue with TcB ground unit targeting capacity as I playtested. (Your idea, remember?)
But never tried with Naval unit.
May probably slow down combat phase and increase the TcB power to destroy Capital warships.

I don’t remember if I can claim it to be my idea originally, but I definitely am a proponent. I haven’t actively tried it in any games. I am glad that the land unit targeting works in practice.

I would push the naval targeting even more; both because it was a defining feature of ‘tactical bomber’ aircraft and because it would introduce some direct attrition to capital ships. I hope that implementing Tac ship targeting would not overpower aircraft, but WWII was replete with examples of ‘tactical bomber’ class aircraft making targeted strikes on specific ships, often successfully. This involved completely ignoring or bypassing screening ships in favor of attacking carriers and battleships. Maybe only first round of combat targeting for Tacs, if it appears too powerful. This is the HR I am most interested in promoting.

@Baron:

Going in this direction, I suggest you give all Naval units a basic 3 Move and keep NB+1 bonus.

I like this.

@Black_Elk:

Other issues that remain a thorn in my side… the lack of new production options or some form of “land” base unit, the combat aaagun (everyone’s favorite non com headache),

Land base unit… as in a AB/NB type movement booster for land units? I haven’t studied HBGs Global War system in depth, but do they not have a Rail Road feature for land unit movement bonus? Maybe something similar.

Combat AA gun? I don’t want to pull you off track of the discussion you intended to have…

@Argothair:

Brilliant. This is exactly what it would take to get me to finally go play a game of Global 1940. This patch has fewer, simpler rules than the standard balanced mod, and yet I’m convinced it would be much more fun to play! I would even swallow my pride and overlook the atrocity that is the starting French setup if we played with Balanced mod, the new, leaner SBR/intercept/base/TacB/naval speed rules, and a chess clock (I can supply one) so that people don’t take 20 minutes pondering whether to move their stack of 57 infantry to Upper Southwest Transdneistria or Lower Southwest Transdneistria.

:lol:

[baron Münchhausen]

@LHoffman:

@Black_Elk:

Other issues that remain a thorn in my side… the lack of new production options or some form of “land” base unit, the combat aaagun (everyone’s favorite non com headache),

Combat AA gun? I don’t want to pull you off track of the discussion you intended to have…

On this topic, here is an AAA at 5 IPCs which explained why it needs to move only in NCM.
@Baron:

This is a very different way of seeing AAA unit which can increase its usefulness and add a few interesting defensive tactics.

@Baron:

@piscolar:

Good thoughts Barney, thanks for sharing. Never played NWO (actually just looked it up now). I considered something similar in my initial brainstorming but I really want to involve the tactical element: thinking of Fortifications like bases for ground units, rather than ground units themselves.

One old idea to make AAA unit more interesting was this little tweak, which can represents fortified hardpoints, is to make it a 2 hits unit:
Anti-Aircraft Artillery
Attack 0
Defense 0, 1 @1 preemptive, up to three planes, 1 per plane max.
NCM 1
Hits 2, auto-repaired after combat
Cost 5
In addition, if no combat unit is with it, then it is auto-destroy, per OOB rule.

For 15 IPCs, you get 3 regular hits, 3 buffer hits, and up to 9 preemptive strike @1 on aircraft.
With Infantry, it is 5 hits and 10 defense points, but you loose 3 units on first casualties.

An additional ability to figure Atlantic Wall and Siegfried Line can be that when attacked, you may roll 1 defense @1 of preemptive fire on ground unit attacking per AAA unit.

Another possibility can be this:
Anti-Aircraft Artillery as Fortifications
Attack 0
Defense 1, up to three preemptive roll @1, against up to three units, ground or plane, 1 per attacking unit max.
NCM 1
Hits 2, auto-repaired after combat
Cost 5
The one time preemptive roll can simulate the fact that once fortifications are overwhelmed, they can no more use their defensive weapons.

[baron Münchhausen]

@LHoffman:

@Baron:

There is no issue with TcB ground unit targeting capacity as I playtested. (Your idea, remember?)
But never tried with Naval unit.
May probably slow down combat phase and increase the TcB power to destroy Capital warships.

I don’t remember if I can claim it to be my idea originally, but I definitely am a proponent. I haven’t actively tried it in any games. I am glad that the land unit targeting works in practice.

I would push the naval targeting even more; both because it was a defining feature of ‘tactical bomber’ aircraft and because it would introduce some direct attrition to capital ships. I hope that implementing Tac ship targeting would not overpower aircraft, but WWII was replete with examples of ‘tactical bomber’ class aircraft making targeted strikes on specific ships, often successfully. This involved completely ignoring or bypassing screening ships in favor of attacking carriers and battleships. Maybe only first round of combat targeting for Tacs, if it appears too powerful. This is the HR I am most interested in promoting.
I like this.

I believe a single combat round will not work. Because, it is already capital ships hit points which are chosen as  casualty.
Maybe something like all TcBs hits must be allocated to warships first, if any, owner’s choice.
Once all hits are known, then casualty are chosen with this special condition to be fulfilled.
More you make combat rounds, less undamaged Capital ship remains.
Probably the opponent may kept 1 or 2 undamaged Capital ships to not see them being sunk by TcB.
It seems an increase of “pressure” on opponent shoulder. It almost forbid to use the additional hit point from Capital ships.
IDK if it improves the gameplay experience.
Or just demand more focus on which hit must be taken on which unit.
I already have Fg vs planes which requires to pick them out, Sub’s hit which cannot be allocated to air units nor Subs. (And TP which roll as 1AA vs plane only.)
It makes 3 special casualty rules to follow in Naval combat.

Maybe if a lower cost structure is used with this HR, that can work.
(SS5, DD6, CA9, CV12, BB15)
Losing 12 or 15 IPCs unit is less an impact than 16 and 20.

Also, my Fg A2 D2 and TcB A3 D2 have lower combat values, that way you take dice as a whole.
Otherwise, Fg A3 D4 and TcB A4 D3 cannot do a full targeting roll, IMO it should be “2” or less to apply this critical casualty. Another special rule. As such, all special target rules delay combat resolution compare to OOB, let aside Subs/DDs/planes/TP interactions, which BTW I simplified to focus on Fg and Subs.

So, IDK how to get to an interesting and functional naval TcB against warships.
Hope my shared experience from a few playtests might help.

[Black_Elk]

The only way I can see tac targeting in the game without making the unit totally overpowered for the cost, is with some kind of opening phase, but you’d have to provide a chance that the tac might be destroyed in the process or else the defender is at a serious disadvantage. Not sure how that would look exactly. The first strike with submarines doesn’t adequately cover the situation as a model. Subs are cheap and weak on defense (in subsequent turns they only defend at a 1), so they naturally serve as fodder if they miss the opening strike when the enemy returns fire. Whereas a tacB at 12 ipc (and defend 3 in subsequent turns) would rarely make sense as fodder. Since targeting doesn’t currently exist in the game, it would require a more complex or at least less familiar addition to the combat process. I think it would probably be better as a single opening phase, similar to aaafire or bombardment, rather than as a repeating phase like the first strike of subs. I like it for historical accuracy, but it is a departure from the defender chooses casualty model, so to work there would have to be some risk to the attacker (like a built-in chance that the TacB is destroyed while attempting to target.) The only thing that prevents me from embracing the idea, is the practical concern that an ability to target would be so valuable that it’d make every other combat unit instantly obsolete. There is another practical concern which might hold it back as well, and that’s that I don’t see a way to enforce the attacker targeting in tripleA. You could do it by player agreement I suppose where the defender assigns the hit demanded by the attacker, but that would be entirely up to player enforcement. I like the ambition, but I worry about the implementation.

For the aaagun, put simply, I think it should be able to move in the combat phase. There are so many gripes associated with having a unit that only moves in non com, with aaaguns contantly being forgotten or purposely left behind, that I can’t imagine much opposition to such a change.

Right now though, just focusing on the changes proposed earlier, most of this stuff is easily handled in tripleA.

Tactical Bomber: Attack 4, Defend 3, Move 4, Cost 12 ipcs, with no combined arms.

Airbase: +2 movement, cost 15 ipcs, with scramble for 3 aircraft.

All ships Move 3

Strategic Bomber (defenseless): 0/0/0 costs 5 ipcs.

The only issue is whether the defensless StratB can be handled under tripleA’s current factory aaa fire and escort/intercept system. Still hoping maybe Barney has some thoughts on that hehe.

But if we can handle the defenseless stratB, then an HR mod could be assembled in fairly short order, for use with Global 1940, Global 1942, or any variants that use the global unit roster.