SBR only D6. Interceptors defend at 2.
Against Navy, a Bomber only gets a 2, unless paired with any other unit, then it is a 4. This on a one to one Basis.
Yeah, I see the issue being more with the combat advantage of bombers vs Allied fleets rather than an SBR issue. The fact that the bombers can stall Allied fleet development off Europe and then turn around a bomb Russia without mercy exacerbates things, but it’s the threat against the sea and expeditionary fleets that seems to be the real hang up. I’ve heard some different suggestion that would probably work, but it would nice if we could find just one rules change to handle it. I think a naval unit change might have less impact overall than a change to the bomber unit itself, and be a little easier to isolate the effects of the change. It would be a bummer for example if a change to the bomber fixed the dark skies with G, only to screw the American bomber strategies in the process, since cheap overppwered bombers are one of the few things America has going for it haha
I kind like wittman"s idea. Bombers shouldn’t get A4 against naval. They should get A2 only against naval. I always felt bombers had to high of attack values against naval.
1 to 1 bases with a fig then A3 at naval.
I’d keep it simple.
If you keep it A4 at naval then give Cruisers and Battleships AA shot’s for 1 round only at bombers do to there slower moves.
@aequitas:
I would not play arround with the cost and the abillity of the Bmbrs.
I would rather consider a change of Naval surface ships abillities like:CR’s and BB’s have the ability of AA guns for one round.
After that regular combat.What do you think?
I play with 1 preemptive AA shots per Cruiser and Battleship.
It is not enough IMO.
I like this new idea from Wittmann of a basic A2 boost to A4 if paired 1:1 with 1 Fg or 1 TcB.
Better reflect some limitations of Bomber, specially against Naval.
In my mind this gives:
StB A2-4 D1 M6-7 cost 12, pairing 1:1 with Fg or TcB gives +2 Attack.
TcB A4 D3 M4-5 cost 11, no need for combined arms.
I forgot, but I also suggested these straighter ones, no combined arms:
STRATEGIC BOMBER
12 IPCs A3 D2 M6 +1M with AB
SBR Damage 1D6+2
TACTICAL BOMBER
11 IPCs A4 D3 M4 +1M with AB
TBR damage 1D6
@Baron:
That’s understandable. If they changed bombers to 2 attack than the way defense rules work on Strategic bombing runs would be fine. Have Strategic bombers be used for bombing more than threat projection. They still can have threat projection because of their range, but they wouldn’t be the god unit they are now.
In that case, I would live with a more strategic target oriented bomber:
Tactical Bomber
Attack 4
Defense 3
Move 4 +1 with AB
Cost 12
TBR dmg: 1D6
Attack 1Strategic Bomber:
Attack 2
Defense 2
Move 6 +1 with AB
Cost 12
SBR dmg : 2D6
Attack 1Fighter
Attack 3
Defense 4
Move 4 +1 with AB
Cost 10
SBR:
Attack 2
Defense 2
@wittmann:
SBR only D6. Interceptors defend at 2.
Against Navy, a Bomber only gets a 2, unless paired with any other unit, then it is a 4. This on a one to one Basis.
Do you mean that Strategic Bomber attack at 4 in regular combat vs ground units, but only Attack @2 when attacking units in SZ?
Such a drastic change in SBRs will deters them too much.
At least, keep 1D+2 damage.
Using regularkid’s HR playing escort A2 and intercept D2 is nearer the razor edge between no SBR or no intercept.
However, I know that maths are goods with YG suggestion to better balance StBs vs interceptors.
However, the maths I made were for a A0 bomber with D6+3 damage.
I suggest to keep D6+2 in all situations, not just when starting from AB.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35883.msg1409122#msg1409122
Summary: StB A0 damage: 1D6**+3**, Fg A1 D1
1 Strategic Bomber doing SBR against no interceptor
Sum: + 5.417 - 2 = +3.417 IPCs damage/SBR run
1 Strategic Bomber A0 doing SBR against 1 interceptor D1
Sum: + 4.514 - 3.667 = + 0.847 IPC. damage/SBR run
1 Strategic Bomber A0 doing SBR against 2 interceptors D1
Sum: + 3.762 - 5.056 = - 1.294 IPC. damage/SBR run
1 Fighter A1 and 1 Strategic Bomber A0 doing SBR against 2 interceptors D1
Sum: + 6.933 - 5.334 = + 1.599 IPC damage/SBR run
1 Fighter A1 and 1 Strategic Bomber A0 doing SBR against 3 interceptors D1
Sum: + 3.762 - 5.056 = - 1.294 IPC. damage/SBR run
2 Strategic Bombers A0 doing SBR against 2 interceptors D1
Sum: + 9.027 - 7.334 = + 1.693 IPCs damage/SBR run
1 Fighter A1 and 1 Strategic Bomber A0 doing SBR against 1 interceptor D1
Sum: + 7.084 - 3.667 = + 3.417 IPC damage/SBR run
2 Strategic Bombers A0 doing SBR against 1 interceptor D1
Sum: + 9.930 - 5.666 = + 4.264 IPCs damage/SBR run
Summary:
1942.2 SBR HRules with StB A0 and Fg A1 D1 : damage 1D6+2
1 Strategic Bomber doing SBR against no interceptor
Sum: + 4.583 - 2 = +2.583 IPCs damage/SBR run
1 Strategic Bomber A0 doing SBR against 1 interceptor D1
Sum: + 3.819 - 3.667 = + 0.152 IPC. damage/SBR run
1 Strategic Bomber A0 doing SBR against 2 interceptors D1
Sum: + 3.183 - 5.056 = - 1.873 IPC damage/SBR run
1 Fighter A1 and 1 Strategic Bomber A0 doing SBR against 2 interceptors D1
Sum: + 6.123 - 5.334 = + 0.789 IPC damage/SBR run
1 Fighter A1 and 1 Strategic Bomber A0 doing SBR against 3 interceptors D1
Sum: + 3.183 - 5.056 = - 1.873 IPC. damage/SBR run
2 Strategic Bombers A0 doing SBR against 2 interceptors D1
Sum: + 7.639 - 7.334 = + 0.305 IPCs damage/SBR run
1 Fighter A1 and 1 Strategic Bomber A0 doing SBR against 1 interceptor D1
Sum: + 6.250 - 3.667 = + 2.583 IPC damage/SBR run
2 Strategic Bombers A0 doing SBR against 1 interceptor D1
Sum: + 8.403 - 5.666 = + 2.737 IPCs damage/SBR run
The maths for 1D6+2 and @0 StBs were insert in this thread:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35614.msg1391990#msg1391990
G1940 OOB SBR:
1 StB doing SBR without interceptor
Sum: +4.583 - 2 = +2.583 IPCs damage/SBR run
1 StB A1 against 1 Fg D1
Sum: + 5.486 - 3.667 = + 1.819 IPC damage/SBR run
1 StB A1 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D1
Sum: + 4.85 - 5.056 = - 0.206 IPCs damage/SBR run
1 StB & 1 Fg A1 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D1
Sum: +7.775 - 5.33 = + 2.445 IPCs damage/SBR run
2 StBs A1 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D1
Sum: +10.973 - 7.334 = + 3.639 IPCs damage/SBR run
1 StB & 1 Fg A1 doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fg D1
Sum: + 7.639 - 3.667 = + 3.972 IPCs damage/SBR run
2 StBs A1 doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fg D1
Sum: +11.459 - 5.666 = + 5.793 IPCs damage/SBR run
The original post is this one:
@Baron:
Down below here is a completly different way of doing SBR for 1942.2
Strategic Bomber in air-to-air combat SBR:
Attack 0
Bombard IC damage: 1D6+2Fighter in air-to-air combat SBR:
Attack 1
Defend 1IC’s AAA: @1 against each Strategic Bomber
1942.2 SBR HRules with StB A0 and Fg A1 D1 : damage 1D6+2
1 Strategic Bomber doing SBR against no interceptor
AAA roll = odds casualties
5/6 StB survived * 5.5 IPCs = +4.583 IPCs
1/6 StB killed *12 IPCs = -2 IPCsSum: + 4.583 - 2 = +2.583 IPCs damage/SBR run
1 Strategic Bomber Att 0 doing SBR against 1 interceptor Def 1
Interceptor Fg roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties
1/66/6 = 6/36 1 StB killed by Fg
5/61/6 = 5/36 1 StB killed by AAA
5/6*5/6 = 25/36 No casualty at all.Results:
Bombard on IC 25/36* ((1+2)+(6+2) IPCs)/2= +5.5 IPCs) = + 3.819 IPCs
StB killed 11/36 *-12 IPCs = - 3.667 IPCs
Sum: + 3.819 - 3.667 = + 0.152 IPC. damage/SBR run
1 Strategic Bomber Att 0 doing SBR against 2 interceptors Def 1
Interceptors Fgs roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties
11/366/6 = 66/216 1 StB killed by Fg
25/361/6 = 25/216 1 StB killed by AAA
25/36*5/6 = 125/216 No casualty at all.Results:
Bombard on IC 125/216* ((1+2)+(6+2) IPCs)/2= +5.5 IPCs) = + 3.183 IPCs
StB killed 91/216 *-12 IPCs = - 5.056 IPCs
Sum: + 3.183 - 5.056 = - 1.873 IPC. damage/SBR run
1 Fighter Att 1 and 1 Strategic Bomber Att 0 doing SBR against 2 interceptors Def 1
Fighter roll/interceptors Fgs roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties
1/61/366/6 = 6/1296 1 Fg and 1 StB killed by Fgs vs 1 Fg
1/610/361/6= 10/1296 1 Fg killed by Fg and 1 StB killed by AAA vs 1 Fg
1/610/365/6= 50/1296 1 Fg killed by Fg vs 1 Fg
1/625/361/6 = 25/1296 1 StB killed by AAA
1/625/365/6 = 125/1296 No casualty vs 1 Fg5/620/366/6 = 600/1296 1 Fg and 1 StB killed by Fg vs no casualty
5/616/361/6 = 80/1296 1 Fg killed by Fg and 1 StB killed by AAA vs no casualty
5/616/365/6 = 400/1296 no casualty at allResults:
Bombard on IC: 1050/1296 * ((1+2)+(6+2) IPCs)/2= +5.5 IPCs) = + 4.456 IPCs
Killing 1 Fg: 216/1296 +10 IPCs = + 1.667 IPCs
Fg killed: 300/1296-10 IPCs = - 2.315 IPCs
StB killed: 150/1296*-12 IPCs = - 1.389IPCs
StB & Fg killed: 96/1296*-22 IPCs = - 1.630 IPCsSum: + 6.123 - 5.334 = + 0.789 IPC damage/SBR run
1 Fighter Att 1 and 1 Strategic Bomber Att 0 doing SBR against 1 interceptor Def 1
Fighter roll/interceptor Fg roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties
1/61/61/6= 1/216 1 Fg killed by Fg and 1 StB killed by AAA vs 1 Fg
1/61/65/6= 5/216 1 Fg killed by Fg vs 1 Fg
1/65/61/6 = 5/216 1 StB killed by AAA vs 1 Fg
1/65/65/6 = 25/216 No casualty vs 1 Fg5/61/61/6 = 5/216 1 Fg killed by Fg and 1 StB killed by AAA vs no casualty
5/61/65/6 = 25/216 1 Fg killed by Fg vs no casualty
5/65/61/6 = 25/216 1 StB killed by AAA vs no casualty
5/65/65/6 = 125/216 no casualty at allResults:
Bombard on IC: 180/216 * ((1+2)+(6+2) IPCs)/2= +5.5 IPCs) = + 4.583 IPCs
Killing 1 Fg: 36/216 +10 IPCs = + 1.667 IPCs
Fg killed:30/216-10 IPCs = - 1.389 IPCs
StB killed: 30/216*-12 IPCs = - 1.667 IPCs
StB & Fg killed: 6/216*-22 IPCs = - 0.611 IPCSum: + 6.250 - 3.667 = + 2.583 IPC damage/SBR run
2 Strategic Bombers Att 0 doing SBR against 2 interceptors Def 1
Interceptor Fgs roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties
1/3636/36= 36/1296 2 StBs killed by Fgs
10/366/36 = 60/1296 1 StB killed by Fg and 1 StB killed by AAA
10/6*30/36= 300/1296 1 StB killed by Fg25/361/36 = 25/1296 2 StBs killed by AAA
25/3610/36 = 250/1296 1 StB killed by AAA
25/36*25/36 = 625/1296 No casualty at all.Results:
2x Bombard on IC 625/1296* ((2+4)+(12+4) IPCs)/2= +11 IPCs) = +5.305 IPCs
1x Bombard on IC 550/1296* ((1+2)+(6+2) IPCs)/2= +5.5 IPCs) = + 2.334 IPCs
2 StBs killed 121/1296*-24 IPCs = - 2.241 IPCs
1 StB killed 550/1296*-12 IPCs = - 5.093 IPCs
Sum: + 7.639 - 7.334 = + 0.305 IPCs damage/SBR run
2 Strategic Bombers Att 0 doing SBR against 1 interceptor Def 1
Interceptor Fg roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties
1/66/36 = 6/216 1 StB killed by Fg and 1 StB killed by AAA
1/630/36= 30/216 1 StB killed by Fg
5/61/36 = 5/216 2 StBs killed by AAA
5/610/36 = 50/216 1 StB killed by AAA
5/6*25/36 = 125/216 No casualty at all.Results:
2x Bombard on IC 125/216* ((2+4)+(12+4) IPCs)/2= +11 IPCs) = +6.366 IPCs
1x Bombard on IC 80/216* ((1+2)+(6+2) IPCs)/2= +5.5 IPCs) = + 2.037 IPCs
2 StBs killed 11/216*-24 IPCs = - 1.222 IPC
1 StB killed 80/216*-12 IPCs = - 4.444 IPCs
Sum: + 8.403 - 5.666 = + 2.737 IPCs damage/SBR run
Summary:
1 Strategic Bomber doing SBR against no interceptor
Sum: + 4.583 - 2 = +2.583 IPCs damage/SBR run1 Strategic Bomber A0 doing SBR against 1 interceptor D1
Sum: + 3.819 - 3.667 = + 0.152 IPC. damage/SBR run1 Strategic Bomber A0 doing SBR against 2 interceptors D1
Sum: + 3.183 - 5.056 = - 1.873 IPC. damage/SBR run1 Fighter A1 and 1 Strategic Bomber A0 doing SBR against 2 interceptors D1
Sum: + 6.123 - 5.334 = + 0.789 IPC damage/SBR run2 Strategic Bombers A0 doing SBR against 2 interceptors D1
Sum: + 7.639 - 7.334 = + 0.305 IPCs damage/SBR run1 Fighter A1 and 1 Strategic Bomber A0 doing SBR against 1 interceptor D1
Sum: + 6.250 - 3.667 = + 2.583 IPC damage/SBR run2 Strategic Bombers A0 doing SBR against 1 interceptor D1
Sum: + 8.403 - 5.666 = + 2.737 IPCs damage/SBR run
Comparison of this HR with Triple A SBR for 1942.2
1942.2 SBR HRules with StB A0 and Fg A1 D1 : damage 1D6+2 Triple A SBR for 1942.2: damage 1D6
1 Strategic Bomber doing SBR against no interceptor 1 StB doing SBR without interceptor
Sum: + 4.583 - 2 = +2.583 IPCs damage/SBR run Sum: +2.917 - 2 = +0.917 IPC damage/SBR run1 Strategic Bomber A0 doing SBR against 1 interceptor D1 1 StB A1 against 1 Fg D1
Sum: + 3.819 - 3.667 = + 0.152 IPC. damage/SBR run Sum: +3.69 - 3.667 = + 0.023 IPC damage/SBR run1 Strategic Bomber A0 doing SBR against 2 interceptors D1 1 StB A1 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D1
Sum: + 3.183 - 5.056 = - 1.873 IPC. damage/SBR run Sum: + 2.025 - 5.056 = - 3.031 IPCs damage/SBR run1 Fighter A1 and 1 Strategic Bomber A0 doing SBR against 2 interceptors D1 1 StB & 1 Fg A1 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D1
Sum: + 6.123 - 5.334 = + 0.789 IPC damage/SBR run Sum: +6.155 - 5.33 = + 0.825 IPC damage/SBR run2 Strategic Bombers A0 doing SBR against 2 interceptors D1 2 StBs A1 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D1
Sum: + 7.639 - 7.334 = + 0.305 IPCs damage/SBR run Sum: +8.195 - 7.334 = + 0.861 IPC damage/SBR run1 Fighter A1 and 1 Strategic Bomber A0 doing SBR against 1 interceptor D1 1 StB & 1 Fg A1 doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fg D1
Sum: + 6.250 - 3.667 = + 2.583 IPC damage/SBR run Sum: + 5.973 - 3.667 = + 2.306 IPCs damage/SBR run2 Strategic Bombers A0 doing SBR against 1 interceptor D1 2 StBs A1 doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fg D1
Sum: + 8.403 - 5.666 = + 2.737 IPCs damage/SBR run Sum: +8.403 - 5.666 = + 2.737 IPCs damage/StB
@aequitas:
I would not play around with the cost and the abillity of the Bombers.
I would rather consider a change of Naval surface ships abilities like:
CR’s and BB’s have the ability of AA guns for one round.
After that regular combat.What do you think?
Here is an idea along this line of thinking:
TRANSPORT
7 IPCs A0 D0 *AA1 M2-3 (NB), 1 hit, taken last as casualty
Carry 2 units, 1 Inf + 1 any ground unit
No defense against warships,
Beginning on the second round, 1 Transport can escape from Naval Battle in the same SZ at each end of combat round, if there is no enemy’s aircraft.
Simply remove TP from battle board and place it in the same SZ on the map.
*Regular AA @1 against up to 1 plane each combat round, whichever the lesser.
Maybe this can fit the bill?
@Black_Elk:
Yeah, I see the issue being more with the combat advantage of bombers vs Allied fleets rather than an SBR issue. The fact that the bombers can stall Allied fleet development off Europe and then turn around a bomb Russia without mercy exacerbates things, but it’s the threat against the sea and expeditionary fleets that seems to be the real hang up. I’ve heard some different suggestion that would probably work, but it would nice if we could find just one rules change to handle it. I think a naval unit change might have less impact overall than a change to the bomber unit itself, and be a little easier to isolate the effects of the change. It would be a bummer for example if a change to the bomber fixed the dark skies with G, only to screw the American bomber strategies in the process, since cheap overppwered bombers are one of the few things America has going for it haha
@BM,
You obviously have analyzed this issue, lets not make cases for all ideas for a moment… in your opinion, what is the issue with bombers that makes Dark Skies problematic for balance, and in your opinion… what is the best solution to fix the issue?
What is Dark Skies?
@Young:
@BM,
You obviously have analyzed this issue, lets not make cases for all ideas for a moment… in your opinion, what is the issue with bombers that makes Dark Skies problematic for balance, and in your opinion… what is the best solution to fix the issue?
2 points need to be fix IMO: SBR and mainly regular combat with naval units.
Your SBR rules seems to me the simplest fix while not too much affecting the casualty rate on each side. I collected the datas to create a summary table, yet to be done, for your approach with bomber group attacking with a single @1, IDK for sure if 1D6+2 is enough incentive.
I believe the Defenseless TP is the problem in the Atlantic.
To protect them from the projecting power of Germans StBs, it requires a lot of CVs, DDs and Fgs.
The TP suggested above is my main idea, which is open for debate.
EDIT: Here is the post which contains a summary table for this SBR houserule:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37418.msg1508629#msg1508629
@Baron:
@Young:
@BM,
You obviously have analyzed this issue, lets not make cases for all ideas for a moment… in your opinion, what is the issue with bombers that makes Dark Skies problematic for balance, and in your opinion… what is the best solution to fix the issue?
2 points need to ne fix IMO: SBR and mainly regular combat with naval units.
Your SBR rules seems to me the simplest fix while not too much affecting the casualty rate on each side. I collected the datas to create a summary table, yet to be done, for your approach with bomber group attacking with a single @1, IDK for sure if 1D6+2 is enough incentive.
I believe the Defenseless TP is the problem in the Atlantic.
To protect them from the projecting power of StBs, it requires a lot of CVs, DDs and Fgs.
The TP suggested above is my opening idea open for discussion.
Whats the TP suggestion again?
@Young:
@Baron:
@Young:
@BM,
You obviously have analyzed this issue, lets not make cases for all ideas for a moment… in your opinion, what is the issue with bombers that makes Dark Skies problematic for balance, and in your opinion… what is the best solution to fix the issue?
2 points need to ne fix IMO: SBR and mainly regular combat with naval units.
Your SBR rules seems to me the simplest fix while not too much affecting the casualty rate on each side. I collected the datas to create a summary table, yet to be done, for your approach with bomber group attacking with a single @1, IDK for sure if 1D6+2 is enough incentive.
I believe the Defenseless TP is the problem in the Atlantic.
To protect them from the projecting power of StBs, it requires a lot of CVs, DDs and Fgs.
The TP suggested above is my opening idea open for discussion.Whats the TP suggestion again?
TRANSPORT
7 IPCs A0 D0 *AA1 M2-3 (NB), 1 hit, taken last as casualty
Carry 2 units, 1 Inf + 1 any ground unit
No defense against warships.
Beginning on the second round, 1 Transport can escape from Naval Battle in the same SZ at each end of combat round, if there is no enemy’s aircraft.
Simply remove TP from battle board and place it in the same SZ on the map.
*Regular AA @1 against up to 1 plane each combat round, whichever the lesser.
@Baron:
TRANSPORT
7 IPCs A0 D0 *AA1 M2-3 (NB), 1 hit, taken last as casualty
Carry 2 units, 1 Inf + 1 any ground unit
No defense against warships.Beginning on the second round, 1 Transport can escape from Naval Battle in the same SZ at each end of combat round, if there is no enemy’s aircraft.
Simply remove TP from battle board and place it in the same SZ on the map.*Regular AA @1 against up to 1 plane each combat round, whichever the lesser.
So, essentially a reverse of the “subs can’t fire at aircraft” thing? Transports unable to fire at ships? So a lone transport caught unguarded can conceivably get a one-on-one hit vs an aircraft ala Classic? Not particularly a fan, but I can see the value.
I can get behind an opportunity to defend itself, but every round is a bit too much. If implemented, I’d be more in favor of a one-shot AA at the outset of combat at your ratio of transports vs aircraft whichever is lesser. And an even/odd chance of individual ships even being able to fire (preparedness/verve roll). They are transports after all.
BBs and CAs having an AA shot at the outset is more feasible, being large warships and all… but only on the defense. With AA shots on subsequent rounds at the END of the round, if the attacker chooses to press.
Transports escaping at all is a complete non-starter for me though. Frankly, they were wallowing pigs on the water, and are helpless in game for a reason. At least with subs, escape is conceivable due to submerging.
@Baron:
TRANSPORT
7 IPCs A0 D0 *AA1 M2-3 (NB), 1 hit, taken last as casualty
Carry 2 units, 1 Inf + 1 any ground unit
No defense against warships.Beginning on the second round, 1 Transport can escape from Naval Battle in the same SZ at each end of combat round, if there is no enemy’s aircraft.
Simply remove TP from battle board and place it in the same SZ on the map.*Regular AA @1 against up to 1 plane each combat round, whichever the lesser.
So, essentially a reverse of the “subs can’t fire at aircraft” thing? Transports unable to fire at ships? So a lone transport caught unguarded can conceivably get a one-on-one hit vs an aircraft ala Classic? Not particularly a fan, but I can see the value.
I can get behind an opportunity to defend itself, but every round is a bit too much. If implemented, I’d be more in favor of a one-shot AA at the outset of combat at your ratio of transports vs aircraft whichever is lesser. And an even/odd chance of individual ships even being able to fire (preparedness/verve roll). They are transports after all.
Transports escaping at all is a complete non-starter for me though. Frankly, they were wallowing pigs on the water, and are helpless in game for a reason. At least with subs, escape is conceivable due to submerging.
In classic times, 1 def@1 per Transport wasn’t so high.
I experimented this special kind of rule for TP, unable to defend against warships, in World War II The Expansion from Phillip Schwartzer.
It worked very well indeed.
The TP suggested above have less power than WWIITE (all TPs get D1 vs plane) regular AA@1 instead and less escaping capacity vs warships (2 rounds of fire, then all unescorted TPs escape), only 1 TP can escape per round after the first two combat rounds of fire, according to the HR I just suggested.
It is still less than OOB Sub submerge capacity too.
Besides, the whole point is about how this unit escorted with warships and planes can change the dynamic against a swarm (12 to 20) of Germans Strategic Bombers, not against lonely TP.
I believe it is the main issue about Dark Skies overwhelming and unrealistic projection of power with 7 moves.
The strength of dark sky is not only the damage of bombardment. It is projecting a threat. Buy enough ground troops G1, G2 and G3, after that mostly bombers.
US can’t build lots of transports, chances are they can’t build any at all. UK can’t build a fleet in the med. UK even needs to reinforce london at some point, since it can fall to even 1 transport, if there are enough bombers behind. Of course Moscow is still doomed. Once moscow falls, germany can either continue via middle east or threaten London heavily.
At some point, probably after a lot of rounds, though, USA has a fleet big enough to withstand the bomber threat. They can finally move to Gibraltar. They probably have lots of destroyers and carriers, not many transports. What can they do now? whereever they land, the ground troops are immediately killed by 30 bombers. And another problem is that USA very likely don’t have such a large fleet, that they can defend two seazones. So once they move out of Gibraltar, they can’t get reinforcements.
BBs and CAs having an AA shot at the outset is more feasible, being large warships and all… but only on the defense. With AA shots on subsequent rounds at the END of the round, if the attacker chooses to press.
Such addition is virtually like rising Cruiser defense to D4 and Battleship defense to D5.
Simpler to make the change that way, no need to have a special roll against aircrafts, since there is only StBs attacking by themselves mostly in Dark Skies strategy:
CRUISER
A3 D4 M2-3, 1 hit Cost 12
BATTLESHIP
A4 D5 M2-3, 2 hits Cost 20
I don’t see how this can really solve the Dark Skies issue however.
What is Dark Skies?
A very important aspect of this game is the concept of “threat”.
Often times a threat has a bigger effect than actually making the threat true and using units. A good example for this are fighters that can scramble.
The first three fighters in London for example, are worth double, cause you CAN scramble with them, which means Germany needs to account for them in two ways: In the seazone to secure the landing and again on the land battle. That’s basically a defensive threat.Now, bombers are threatening in an offensive way. If you have lots (and I mean high double digits. I’ve had games against Germany players with more than 30 or even 40 bombers) of them stationed in Rome or Berlin, you can threaten a possible US Fleet at Gibraltar, a possible sealion at London, Moscow, Egypt, middle east, a fleet in the med…. everything.
What happens, is this: USA can’t afford to build transports, since they need to defend against an attack against their fleet. Thus, they will build carriers+fighters every round, without actually moving to Gibraltar.
Egypt can’t build a fleet for the same reasons. Egypt can’t move the whole ground army to persia / Caucasus either, cause otherwise germany takes egypt with 1 transport and 30 bombers. Also, UK needs to fear for london all the time, since germany can take london too, with 1 transport + lots of bombers. If moscow still stands (unlikely), the russian army is trapped within, so the german army can march on caucasus and the middle east and so on.It is not only a very strong strategy, it is possibly the best in the moment.
I’ve yet struggled to find a viable counter to it, if the Allies didn’t find themselves in a good situation early on (maybe lucky 1st rounds or similar). Usually, going for lots of subs (for convoy) and fighters/bombers yourself seems to work decently enough. KJF (with 100% us attention to japan in the first 4 rounds) might work as well, since starting at round 5, usa can use everything for germany with lots of IPC gained in the pacific.What I did as Allies, in some of these games, is not even bothering building an Atlantic fleet with USA (Since that takes A LOT of time!), but rather reinforce the middle east via pacific. Remember, you do not need to win as Allies. All you need to do, is not lose.
@Baron:
BBs and CAs having an AA shot at the outset is more feasible, being large warships and all… but only on the defense. With AA shots on subsequent rounds at the END of the round, if the attacker chooses to press.
Such addition is virtually like rising Cruiser defense to D4 and Battleship defense to D5.
Simpler to make the change that way, no need to have a special roll against aircrafts, since there is only StBs attacking by themselves mostly in Dark Skies strategy:CRUISER
A3 D4 M2-3, 1 hit Cost 12BATTLESHIP
A4 D5 M2-3, 2 hits Cost 20I don’t see how this can really solve the Dark Skies issue however.
That’s quite an oversimplification. It also vastly overbalances BBs and CAs in purely naval combat, and not what I was suggesting.
The intent of the AA shots after declaring a press is to add an element of risk to an air attacker’s decision to stay. Making him weigh the risk of potentially continuing his attack with less than he thought.
True, it isn’t the “silver bullet” solution for the Dark Skies strategy, but it could potentially slow down a Sealion and make a suitably equipped (presuming the Allies bother to buy CAs/BBs) Allied fleet off Gibraltar a little harder to crack, in addition to upping the difficulty/risk of Taranto and Pearl Harbor strikes.
–-
You could just artificially increase the StB price to 15, ala Classic.
This rule attempts to handle some concerns; helpless transports against air only attacks, air attacks by bombers @ high altitude bombers were generally ineffective, any attacks in any area are really a series of sorties (they didn’t have unlimited ammo and fuel), ships are moving targets.
Aircraft in Sea battles:
Each aircraft declares a High or Low level attack.
High Altitude Attack (Str and Tac Bombers only):
Reduce attack factor by 2. Aircraft are not subject AAA defense (see Low Level).
Reduce defense rolls by 1.
Low Level Attack:
All ships have an implied AAA unit. Acts the same as land AAA with these considerations; BB and CV units have full AAA, CA & DD have 2 shot AAA, SS none, and TR 1 shot only. This AAA capability is only available at the start of the 2nd round of combat, except CV start at 1st round of combat (due to CV radar). Note: Radar breakthrough adds the 1st round capability to all ships, but they do not get the hit bonus.
IF the unfriendly force is aircraft only, for both high and low level attacks, each defending ship gets to roll 1 die at end of each round of combat. If a 6, then the ship has evaded, and does not participate in further rounds of combat. This roll is optional, but must evade.
All scrambled air units do low level attacks. If an attacking ship evades during an amphib assault it cannot bombard or land units. (Remember evade is only available when the other side is air only).
@Baron:
Good idea to open a thread on this issue.
I see one situation which is not really adressed: a swarm of StBs attacking a naval fleet.
All defender’s hits directly affects the StBs.
As far as I understand, Dark Skies is a big detterent against US fleet moving to Gibraltar SZ.
US player wait longer to build up a lot of Carrier and planes.What was suggested in previous discussion was a drastic overhaul:
StB A3-4 D1 M6-7 cost 12, pairing 1:1 with Fg gives +1 Attack.
TcB A4 D3 M4-5 cost 11, no need for combined arms.Do you see some flaws in this change?
If someone want to playtest these features with a Dark Skies strategy, Barney has made a Triple A file which is almost like them, except TcB on defense can gives +1D to Tank paired 1:1.
Follow the link to the original post to get the xml file.
Well wasn’t able to get all of it Baron but here’s a triplea xml that has bombers A3 +1 when paired with fighter(1:1), TACs A4 D3 gives +1 to tanks D when paired 1:1. Fighter escort and interceptors A/D 2.
Wasn’t able to get the +1 when no enemy air is present, but I don’t think that will mess things up too much. Most ships have either ACs or ABs to protect them. One fighter shutting down a slew of bmbrs would be the same as one dstry shutting down subs. Not being able to hit a lone blocker or sub killer sets them back as well as solo infrantry attacks but we’ll just play the historical strats weren’t good at hitting ships anyway. :) We probably won’t see many SBRs without fighter escort but that’s the way it goes. Their main advantage is still their range and offense can be boosted with a ftr.
TACs get the 4 hit plus the boost to the tanks D. So they still have a connection. Not sure how that will play out but I think it will be OK. Just have to play it and see.
Anyway gonna start a playtest right now.
If you’re not familiar with adding XMLs to triplea: open triplea, open maps, open WW II Global zip, put the objectives there then open games and put the xml there.
Here is also two reports from his playtests:
Well I’m not done with my test game yet but it looks like the Allies are going to pull it out.
Germany didn’t buy as many bmbrs as usual but that may have been due more to taking moderate air losses the first turn (4 planes) and Italy getting spanked in the Med. Germany built a Med fleet to try and regain the initiative and after successfully destroying a UK tranny fleet off of Guiana, was obliterated off the west coast of Gibralter by a slightly smaller Canadian fleet which suffered a mere dstry loss. Throwing good money after bad, they built a minor in Yugo and with predictable results that failed as well.
Anyway they didn’t really have the dough to go bmbr buying. But poor strategic decisions aside, I think I would have bought a few less but still invested in them. Germany kept their TACs on the eastern front with a fighter or two for when the bmbrs came by while the bmbrs and ftrs mostly stayed in W Germany. The RD 1 attacks weren’t effected because everything is paired anyway. Didn’t do any SBRs on London.
Japan had a -1 on the Yunnan attack wich doesn’t effect much. However with her huge air force she bought more bmbrs to pair with her ftrs. The TACs were deadly and I loaded some CVs with both TACs or ftrs for offense or defense punch. She SBR’d India to good effect since India didn’t want to risk her ftrs. US went fairly bmbr heavy as well. UK had a couple and Italy and ANZAC each had one.
The 3 attack definitely got my attention. A bit of a mind trip after playing at 4 all these years. While some attacks were made unescorted I usually had ftrs with them. It seemed to effect Italy more since she was having to keep her ftrs at home for the most part. Also she never really got a chance to get a 2nd one. I was playing a tech heavy game and when you get Hvy bmbrs you really appreciate the extra roll.
So it definitely slows them down a bit but their still effective at SBR’s if they get through. A little more chancy taking out solo blockers. It was fun sending solo TACs to boost small counterattacks. Next game I’ll try and get in some more SBR’s and crank up some U-boats. Get UK to trade some dstrys. See how that goes. I guess you could pair sub and bmbr +1 for a little more punch to take out blockers but that doesn’t seem very realistic to me.
Anyway it’s fun trying something new. Makes you think a little different. I’m a low to intermediate player but it seems like a nice adjustment to me. I recommend giving it a try.
Played a few more games and it seems to be working out well. SBR’s are still effective although they don’t happen quite as often. I’m somewhat conservative and like to have local air superiority before I attack. Likewise the defense doesn’t want to intercept and risk their fighters, but save them for land attack.
Germany was able to hit London and Moscow with Tac’s along to boost their strength so they encountered no interceptors. Later when Germany was in Belarus fighter escort kept Moscow interceptors grounded. Japan was also successful against India but it did tie up some fighter escorts from other missions.
**The main difference was,obviously,the 3 attack. Noticed it mostly when taking out single blockers. Before you could send a dude and a bomber and feel pretty confidant that the enemy would die and you’d get the territory. But with only a 3 hit I was shut down more often. Even sending a extra dude didn’t always work and sending the fighter to boost kept the fighter from another mission.Same thing with taking out sub killing destoyers. At least I had a carrier to send fighter backup but in the past a lot of times I would just send the bomber and a sub. Also threatening Gibralter sea zones was way weaker.
Found myself buying more fighters (although I’ve always liked fighters) to go with bombers and more Tac’s because of their 4 hit and tank boost on defense. Had Italy can open and moved a large German stack with armor and Tac’s but don’t know if it was really that much different than normal tactics. US and Japanese bombers also felt the difference but for me anyway Germany felt it most.
So I would say it lowers the number of bombers you build mostly due to the desire to have a fighter backup and Tac’s hitting at 4. It’s mostly when they’re on long range missions that they’re weaker. That seems more “real” to me. Tac’s were HellDivers and Stukas taking out aircraft carriers and tanks. Bombers were taking out factories, air bases and naval bases.** Without fighter escort they usually got slaughtered. But the way A&A is designed they need to be able to take out combat units as well.
I know none of this is a revelation :) just thought I’d share my thoughts :) I like it and am going to use it as a standard.
P
I could see pairing them up to get an attack bonus. That would slow them up for sure. I’ve been using Baron’s A3 pretty consistently lately and like it a lot. Really notice it taking out solo blockers or on small counterattacks. Although I haven’t really tried mass bombers with it.
Here is completly different way to deal with Dark Skies:
I have a simple house rule idea for limiting bombers air blitzing abilities. Purpose of strategic bombers is
A) to attack enemy infrastructure and thus damage enemy’s economic production and/or morale.
B) to soften enemy’s defensive positions in preparation before a land attack.But strategic bombers have not been used to kill enemy units directly, at least not in significant numbers. The purpose A) in Global’40 is modeled via strategic bombing rules. Purpose B) is modeled by bombers participating in regular attacks. If you think about it, purpose B) is very similar to naval bombardment. As there is clearly no advantage of supporting amphibious landing of 1 transport with 12 cruisers (and OOB rules nicely model for this by limiting the max number of bombarding warships), there clearly shall not be much difference in a land attack of 2 inf supported by 12 bombers and 2 inf supported by 2 bombers.
So the suggested house rule is: Attacker may bring at most as many strategic bombers into an attack as many land units he has brought or in a case of a naval battle as many warships (including subs) he has brought.
This house rule shall have almost no impact on conventional strategies*****. It will only start to matter with stacks of bombers. Suddenly one cannot simply deter Allied fleet off Gibraltar with tons of bombers, one cannot simply keep Normandy safe by 15+ bombers and 3 mechs in W Germany. One cannot threaten air-blitz of London,Cairo,Moscow, and Gibraltar by simply stacking bombers to Rome. Germany will have to think how to bring land and naval units into its battles. Allies in Europe will be able to move small armies around not worried about being killed by 1 mech and 10 bombers.
Also with this HR one can still possibly try to stack bombers, bomber stack shall still work fine against Moscow as Germany has tons of land units on that front. But defense of western front will be much harder.
*****The impact on conventional strategies is that it would not allow clearing blockers and lone TT’s with bombers only. It would also make unusable “German bombers in Pacific” strategy. If one wants these still to be part of the game, then the house rule can be modified that a single bomber is allowed to participate in any battle regardless of what other units participate. Nice advantage of this rule is that it does not require any modifications to tripleA. Players just have to watch for not violating the rule.
EDIT: As per follow-up discussion I implemented the house rule such that bombers attack @ 0 but if paired 1:1 with any land units or warships (excluding carriers) they get +4 bonus to attack.
Here is an example, say you are attacking with 1 ground unit, 1 fighter and 1 bomber. After the first round of combat the ground unit is destroyed, but the fighter and bomber remain. In the second round of combat, is the bomber allowed to participate as fodder for the fighter, even though the HR does not allow the bomber itself continue attacking? Or is the bomber considered no longer part of the fight, ie it is not longer involved in the combat cannot take any enemy hits?
For simplicity, I was thinking not to put any further restrictions on a combat once it started. The HR would really just restrict the number of bombers that one can bring into a battle, but once the battle started it would follow OOB rules. So bombers can be taken as casualties at any chosen time and can also continue battle even if all land units are dead already. This is mostly to allow game play with tripleA without any modifications.
But with little modifications to the game xml file, one can modify bombers such that their attack value is 0, but if they are combined with any land unit or a warship in 1:1 ratio they get +4 attack bonus. It is much more realistic this way and gives space for interesting tactical decisions. Suddenly taking fighters as casualties before last few armors and artilleries supported by bombers is better for maximizing attack power. One would still be allowed to take bombers as casualties at any chosen time, I think that is ok. I will attach an xml file here soon. Â
Here https://www.dropbox.com/s/2mbsptvi4jxi1ut/World War II Bombers HR.zip?dl=0 you can download the map with bombers having attack value of 0, but if paired with any land unit or a warship* in 1:1 ratio their attack increases to 4. Just unzip the downloaded zip file into maps subfolder of your tripleA installation. Once you launch tripleA select “World War II Global 1940 2nd Ed. - House Ruled Bombers” from the list of available games. I would be interested in any feedback if you try it. You can PM me or post here.
- I excluded carriers here, as carriers have attack value of 0 themselves so it would felt weird if they could boost attack of bombers.
@Baron:
Good idea to open a thread on this issue.
I see one situation which is not really adressed: a swarm of StBs attacking a naval fleet.
All defender’s hits directly affects the StBs.
As far as I understand, Dark Skies is a big detterent against US fleet moving to Gibraltar SZ.
US player wait longer to build up a lot of Carrier and planes.What was suggested in previous discussion was a drastic overhaul:
StB A3-4 D1 M6-7 cost 12, pairing 1:1 with Fg gives +1 Attack.
TcB A4 D3 M4-5 cost 11, no need for combined arms.Do you see some flaws in this change?
Thinking about a way to make StBs and Fgs complementary units, here is a special combined arms:
StB gives to a matching Fg starting from the same TTy +1M bonus during SBR phase only.
Fg gives to a matching StB +1A bonus.
That way, Fg starting from AB would do long range escorting mission.
@Carolina:
High Altitude Attack (Str and Tac Bombers only):
Reduce attack factor by 2. Â Aircraft are not subject AAA defense (see Low Level).
Reduce defense rolls by 1.
I think there are two potential problems with this, from a point of view of realism. The first problem is that tactical aircraft don’t operate at high altitude; by definition, they’re low-level, surface-attack planes. The second problem is that it’s virtually impossible for a high-level strategic bomber to successfully bomb something as small as a warship (especially a moving one) from high altitude with a WWII-era unguided bomb. Even hitting specific large land targets (like factories) was hard for WWII bombers, unless they were working in large numbers and had both good aim and good luck.
