@Baron:
Here, I want to explore what can be 2 hits Cruiser and 3 hits Battleship configuration if Fighter are at 8 IPCs.
ASAD: Anti-Submarine Attack 1 Defense 1 pre-surprise strike phase attack def @1
Air Base giving +2M, up to three scramble either Fg or TcB
Second version, 2 planes Carrier, 2 hits Cruiser and 3 hits BB, simpler interactions and 5-6-9-12-15-18 cost structure:
Transport, defenseless
A0 D0 M3 C7, 0 hit,
taken last, carry 1 Inf+1 any ground
Transport and Destroyer A2 D2 C13, 1 hit
Offense & Defense factor:
36*(2/13^2) = 0.43
Transport working as warship (Military Armed TP being escorted by a few DEs)
A0 D1 M3 C9, 1 hit,
carry 1 Inf or MI +1 any ground unit (might help faster US deployment: MI+Tk)
Defense factor:
36*(1/9^2) = 0.44
Submarine
A2fs D1fs M2 C5, 1 hit,
Stealth Move, No DD block, may Submerge after ASAD.
2Ds in Convoy SZ
Offense:
36*(2/5^2) = 2.88
36*(3/5^2) = surprise strike 4.32
Defense:
36*(1/5^2) = 1.44
36*(1.33/5^2) = surprise strike 1.92
Destroyer
A2 D2 M2 C6, 1 hit,
ASA1D1,
1D in Convoy SZ
Offense & Defense factor:
36*(2/6^2) = 2.00
Escort Carrier (optional)
A0 D2 M2 C9, 1 hit,
ASA1D1 carry 1 plane,
No dice in Convoy SZ
Offense factor:
36*(0/9^2) = 0.00
Defense factor:
36*(2/9^2) = 0.89
Escort Carrier and 1 Fighter
A3 D6 M2 C17, 2 hits,
ASA1D1 carry 1 plane,
Offence:
36* (3/2)/(17/2)^2 = 0.75
Defence:
36* (6/2)/(17/2)^2 = 1.50
Cruiser
A3 D3 M3 C12, 2 hits,
Shorebombard @3,
1D in Convoy SZ
Offense & Defense factor:
36* 3 / (12^2) * 2.618034 = 1.96
Carrier
A0 D2 M2 C15, 2 hits,
carry 2 planes, damaged Carrier carry no plane
No dice in Convoy SZ
Offense factor:
36*[0/ (15^2)] * 2.618034 = 0.00
Defense factor:
36*[2/ (15^2)] * 2.618034 = 0.84
G40 Carrier A0 D2 C15, 2 hits with 2 Fgs A6 D8 C16, 2 hits
Offense factor:
6/2 C31/2 2 additionnals hit/2
36*[3/ (15.5^2)] * 2.618034 = 1.18
Defense factor:
10/2 C31/2 2 additionnals hit/2
36*[5/ (15.5^2)] * 2.618034 = 1.96
10/4 C31/4 1 additionnal hit considered as whole unit
36*[2.5/ (7.75^2)] = 1.50
Until further investigation, I believe this average is better: (1.96+1.50)/2= 1.73
Or avg Defence would give (0.84+2.25+2.25) = 1.78
G40 Carrier A0 D2 C15, 2 hits with 1 Fg+1 TcB A7 D7 C18, 2 hits
Offense factor:
7/2 C33/2 2 additionnals hit/2
36*[3.5/ (16.5^2)] * 2.618034 = 1.21
Defense factor:
9/2 C33/2 2 additionnals hit/2
36*[4.5/ (16.5^2)] * 2.618034 = 1.56
9/4 C33/4 1 additionnal hit considered as whole unit
36*[2.25/ (8.25^2)] = 1.19
average is better: (1.56+1.19)/2= 1.38
Or avg Defence would give (0.84+2.25+1.08) = 1.39
Battleship
A4 D4 M2 C18, 3 hits,
Shorebombard @4,
1D in Convoy SZ
Offense & Defense factor:
36* 4 / (18^2)* (1+2*1.618034) = 1.88
Strategic Bomber
A0 D0 M6-8 C5, 0 hit,
SBR 1 hit A1 dmg 1D6
Offense SBR only:
36*(1/5^2) = 1.44
Fighter
A3 D4 M4-6 C8, 1 hit, gives +1A to TcB if paired 1:1
SBR A2 D2,
Can hit Sub without Destroyer presence
2Ds in Convoy SZ
Offense factor:
36*(3/8^2) = 1.69
Defense factor:
36*(4/8^2) = 2.25
Offense & Defense factor SBR:
36*(2/8^2)= 1.125
Tactical Bomber
A3-4 D3 M4-6 C10, 1 hit, get +1A if paired 1:1 with Fg or Tank
TBR A1 D1, dmg 1D6,
ASA1D1, can hit Sub without Destroyer presence
2Ds in Convoy SZ
Offense & Defense factor:
36*(3/10^2) = 1.08
Offense & Defense factor SBR:
36*(1/10^2)= 0.36
Anti-aircraft Artillery
A0 D1* M1 C4, 1 hit,
- @1 vs up to 3 planes, 1 roll per plane max, per combat.
It is preemptive shot.
36*(1.33/4^2) = surprise strike 3.00 per plane for first combat round only.
Tactical Bomber & Tank A7 D6 C16, 2 hits
Offense factor:
36*(3.5/8^2) = 1.97
Defense factor:
36*(3/8^2)= 1.69
Tactical Bomber & Fighter A7 D7 C18, 2 hits
Offense factor:
36*(3.5/9^2) = 1.56
Defense factor:
36*(3.5/9^2)= 1.56
It seems balanced between warships and such 8 IPCs Fighter.
Tactical bomber seems a bit weaker but it has Anti-Sub Attack and Defense.
In addition, it can be possible to introduce a special targeting against warships for tactical bomber in naval combat when playing F-2-F on boardgame.
Here is how I see the procedure: after Anti-Sub phase and Sub surprise strike phase, tactical roll first.
Any hits are allocated on a given warship unit according to TacBs owner’s choice.
Then all other units rolls.
This is more functional since Cruiser, Battleship and Carrier have multiple hits and make Subs rolls and TcBs less effective.
Since 10 IPCs TcBs are a bit weaker in this new configuration against 8 IPCs Fg and 2 hits Naval units, I wonder if there is some tactical impact to the game or plain unhistorical factor if combined arms is also allowed in defense?
Fighter
A3 D4 M4-6 C8, 1 hit, gives +1A/D to TcB if paired 1:1
SBR A2 D2,
Can hit Sub without Destroyer presence
2Ds in Convoy SZ
Offense factor:
36*(3/8^2) = 1.69
Defense factor:
36*(4/8^2) = 2.25
Offense & Defense factor SBR:
36*(2/8^2)= 1.125
Tactical Bomber
A3-4 D3-4 M4-6 C10, 1 hit, get +1A/D if paired 1:1 with Fg or Tank
TBR A1 D1, dmg 1D6,
ASA1D1, can hit Sub without Destroyer presence
2Ds in Convoy SZ
Offense & Defense factor:
36*(3/10^2) = 1.08
Offense & Defense factor SBR:
36*(1/10^2)= 0.36
Tactical Bomber & Tank A7 D7 C16, 2 hits
Offense & Defense factor:
36*(3.5/8^2) = 1.97
Defense factor:
36*(3/8^2)= 1.69
Tactical Bomber & Fighter A7 D8 C18, 2 hits
Offense & Defense factor:
36*(3.5/9^2) = 1.56
Defense factor:
36*(4/9^2)= 1.78
For Carrier defense, both Fg+Fg (C16) and TcB+Fg (C18) would provide 8 defense points but cost is not the same.
With 2 Fgs you save 2 IPCs. Keeping Fgs far more cost efficient for defense (2.25 vs 1.78) and still on par for offense (1.69 vs 1.56).
The only bonus TcB get is for Anti-Sub attack and defense which might sink Sub before doing any damage.
@toblerone77:
@Baron:
@Razor:
@Baron:
The usual situation of casualty picking in A&A is aircrafts hitting ground targets, hence a Stuka is far more effective than a Spitfire to destroy a tank. And I should add that a Helldiver TcB is far better than a Hellcat Fgt to destroy a IJN Musashi Battleship.
Even if your facts are correct, and I agree with you most of the time, the trick will be to make a HR that is so smooth, elegant and simple, that the casual A&A player that happens to be in your basement, agree to play by it, and not the lame OOB rulebook.
Combat in the real world seems to have some kind of sequenced fire phases, where specialized weapon systems can target specific units, and kill them before they can return fire. A Battleship have big long range guns, and can sink a Cruiser before it reach the range to shoot back. The artillery barrage loop shells into the infantry trench, and there is no way the infantry can kill that artillery. Heavy Bombers can carpet bomb infantry from high altitude and the infantry have no way to defend against it.
But then it will not longer be A&A
You are describing tactical situations which need to be translated somehow in a Strategical game.
I agree on this:
“the trick will be to make a HR that is so smooth, elegant and simple, that the casual A&A player that happens to be in your basement, agree to play by it, and not the lame OOB rulebook.”
It is not an easy task, very often as I revised some old ideas I saw easily how far I am from it.
But, sometimes a simpler solution arise. And I’m the most happy man because of the simplest joy of the discovery. Â :-D
That is easily done if you leave the stats OOB, except allow TBs to defend at +1 when paired with a fighter. You could even do this with the StB if you really wanted to.
Also, with lower cost, 20% lower for Fg and 10% for TcB, it makes sense to compensate, by an additional Dogfight phase prior to the main battle, this increase in strength compared to ground units which are far less versatile and mobile.
AAA would be part of it and would allow defender to still protect his air fleet against invaders.
For further thinking on dogfight phase and get a reference to a Tactical Bomber thread:
@Baron:
@knp7765:
Okay, I think I see Baron’s problem with the attack/defense values of fighters, tac bombers and strat bombers in relation to the difference between air to air combat versus air units attacking ground targets. Yeah, if you look at one unit versus one other unit, perhaps the attack/defense values may not make as much sense in some cases. For example, a tac bomber or strat bomber attacking @ 4 against a fighter defending @ 4 does seem kind of ludicrous. Of course it seems equally ludicrous to think of an infantry defending @ 2 taking out a strategic bomber.
The problem is Axis & Allies had to provide a general attack and defense system to make the game playable and somewhat simple. To say unit A can attack unit B at this value but it can attack unit C at a different value and so on would simply make the combat too complicated and probably scare away all but the most hard core gamers.
Also, I’ve got to say increasing a tac bomber’s defense to 4 and lowering a fighter’s defense to 3 is just silliness. That is not the way to fix your problem, at least not with just general combat situations.
I think the best way to address air to air versus air to ground combat would be to have two separate combat phases (only if both sides have aircraft in the battle). First, you have a special air to air combat phase. Since fighters are definitely the superior craft in strictly air to air combat, perhaps they should attack and defend @ 4, tac bombers perhaps 2 or 3 because they do have some dogfighting ability, just not the same as fighters. Strategic bombers would be low, perhaps attack @ 1 or 0, defend @ 1 or 2. This air to air combat phase would continue until one side or the other has NO planes left.
Then, when the air to air combat phase is complete, then you go to the main battle. In this case, I could see fighters only attacking and defending @ 3 while tac bombers would attack @ defend @ 4. In fact, I would say that even defending strategic bombers could defend @ 4 because they would be defending the territory by flying over the attacking ground forces and bombing them from above (remember, at this point there would be NO attacking aircraft to pester the bombers).
In a case where it is aircraft vs. ground units, attacking or defending fighters would be less effective against ground targets than tac bombers or strat bombers so I could see changing their values now.
Another thing I have considered is the possibility of catching enemy aircraft on the ground. In a lot of the early blitzkrieg battles, one reason the Germans were so successful was that the Luftwaffe managed to strike at many enemy airfields thus eliminating effective air defense from their victims. The US was pretty successful at this as well in several of the later battles of the Pacific war (Philippines, Okinawa, New Guinea).
So, I was wondering if there were some way to incorporate that aspect into this game. Like if you attack an enemy territory that has aircraft, and you are attacking with aircraft, roll a die and if you get a “1”, you catch your enemy off guard and destroy their planes on the ground. A roll of 2-6 would accomplish nothing.
Would this be a good idea? Or too overpowering?
Without talking directly on a topic about HR development, I could say that you describe many aspects which I consider about the game or the historical aspect. I bolded them.
When it covers some HR dimension, I just see it as an illustration of where it could have go, having much time to think about. And now, there is also the 1914 A&A mechanics which can give other kind of Larry Harris endorsement rules mechanisms.
For now, I’m mostly concerned about the way “we see offence and defence” for air units, and specifically TcB, at a strategical games which is not intended to be a total war simulation of WWII.
