Clearing the Dark Skies

[baron Münchhausen]

2 Strategic Bombers doing SBR against no interceptor
Sum: + 9.166 - 4 = +5.166 IPCs damage/SBR run

2 Strategic Bombers A1+A0 & 1 Fg A1 doing SBR against 1 interceptor D1
A1+A1 vs D1:+ 7.639 - 3.667 = + 3.972 IPCs
A0 vs no: + 4.583 - 2 = + 2.583 IPCs
Sum: + 12.222 - 5.667 = + 6.555 IPCs damage/SBR run

Comparing these two situations, it reveals that when there is a similar number of escorting and intercepting Fgs, it is better for the defender to not intercept.
Intercepting means increasing odds in favor of the attacker.
Here, it gives +1.389 IPCs damage/SBR run.
Same as G40 OOB, 3.972- 2.583 = + 1.389 IPCs.

So YG, your idea to put bomber as first target in SBR dogfight might encourage interceptions.

The break even point for attacker and defender is this situation:
2 Strategic Bombers A1+A0 doing SBR against 3 interceptors D1
A1 vs 1D1: + 5.486 - 3.667 = + 1.819 IPCs
A0 vs 2D1: + 3.183 - 5.056 = - 1.873 IPC
OR
A1 vs 2D1: + 4.850 - 5.056 = - 0.206 IPCs
A0 vs 1D1: + 3.819 - 3.667 = + 0.152 IPC
Sum: + 8.669 - 8.723 = - 0.054 IPC damage/SBR run

This means that as long as you keep only 1 StB below the interceptors number, you keep an even score near 0.00 IPCs. Each additional 1 StB vs 1Fg increase by 0.152 IPC/SBR

Example : 7 StBs 1A1 6A0 vs 8 Fg D1
-0.054 + 5*(+0.152) = +0.706 IPC/SBR

For comparison, in OOB G40 SBR (D6+2 damage), the break even point is:
OOB G40 even point: 4 StBs A1 + 1 Fg A1 against 9 Fgs D1

In your SBR HR (damage 1D6+2), you would be near +0.100 IPCs:
2 StBs (1A1, 1A0) vs 3 Fg + 8.669 - 8.723 = - 0.054 IPC damage/SBR run
1 StB A0 vs 1 Fg D1: + 3.819 - 3.667 = + 0.152 IPC
Sum: + 12.488 - 12.390 = + 0.098
YG HR SBR even point: 3 StBs (1A1 +2A0) against 4 Fgs D1.

If all StBs have no offence A0, and D6+2 damage,
The break even point is:
8 StBs A0 vs 9 Fgs D1 near +0.007

Below 8 StBs if there is 1 more Fg than StB, it is pro-defense.
If there is an even number of StBs against the same number of Fgs, it is pro-offense.

If all StBs have no offence A0, and D6+3 damage,
The break even point is:
7 StBs A0 vs 10 Fgs D1 near -0.065
At 3 StBs A0 vs 5 Fgs D1 ratio, it is pro-defense
At 4 StBs A0 vs 5 Fgs D1 ratio, it is pro-offense.

[baron Münchhausen]

Another daring fix is to forbid Strategic Bombers to hit planes, whether in land or naval combat. Only naval or ground units can be taken as casualty.

That way, all Fighters and Tactical Bombers can survive a swarm of Strat Bombers.
And needs other kind of units to conquer a land territory.

However, surface warships and TPs becomes much vulnerable because you cannot use Fgs as shields.
Battleships and Carriers becomes much easier to target and sink.

---

Another fix which is less potent against StBs is to make all Carriers able to carry 3 Fighters or TacBs instead of just 2 as OOB. It is Black_Elk idea.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35415.msg1383361#msg1383361

To get the better balance, maybe it needs to be put with similar Transport changes such as
suggested earlier:

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.

[Young Grasshopper]

Hey BM, sorry I haven’t read through your posts before throwing out another idea, but how about this…

Strategic Bombers

Cost - 12 IPCs
Move - 6 (+1 from OAB)
Attack @3
Defend @2

(Basically everything the same but drop the attack value from @4 to @3, and boost their defence value from @1 to @2)

This might also solve the cruiser issue by putting the bombers attack value on par with cruisers which cost the same, specialties for bombers would still be SBR, and specialties for cruisers would still be shore bombardment.

[baron Münchhausen]

I like it too.
A3 D2 with no combined arms is simpler.
I truly believe StB should have a basic 3 attack because of the long range capacity.

It helps also when compared with Cruiser.

[Young Grasshopper]

@Baron:

I like it too.
A3 D2 with no combined arms is simpler.
I truly believe StB should have a basic 3 attack because of the long range capacity.

It helps also when compared with Cruiser.

I prefer simple

[baron Münchhausen]

However,
I still would upgrade Tactical Bomber attack to 4 pure and simple.
TcB
Attack 4
Defense 3
Move 4-5
Cost 11 IPCs or 12 IPCs.
SBR A1 Damage 1D6 IPCs.

[baron Münchhausen]

@SS:

I agree. We have had a few discussions about the Bombers attack values.

Str Bomber - A3 against all ships every round
                   SBR 1 D6+2

Str Bomber - A2 against all ships every round
                   SBR 1 D6+2

Str Bomber - A3 against all ships every round
                   SBR 1 D 6+2
                   AA   1D10 A2 at Str Bombers only due to size and speed.

I’ve have also used D8’s A2  for AA shots at all planes in a game. Was a bit strong.

Do you imply that it stay @4 in land combat?
StBs seems historically not that good against ground troops neither.
Maybe A2 D1 with lower cost but higher damage in SBR would appear more accurate?

[General 6 Stars]

Baron yes. Ground attacks by Str Bombers should be lower values to. I was just responding to the naval.

I’m just trying to keep it simple with only 1 or 2 changes.

Str Bombers -   A4  against naval
                      A3 D1 against ground
                      SBR 1D6+2
                      Battleships and Cruisers 1 AA shot each with a cap on AA shots

Str Bombers -   A3  against naval
                      A3 D1 against ground
                      SBR 1D6+2
                      AA 1D10 A2 only against Str Bombers.

[A Former User]

Re: the SS post on a D1 or D2 on naval…. When would a Str Bomber defend against naval fire?  They don’t scramble.  Right?

[General 6 Stars]

I removed the Str Bomber Defense value.

[A Former User]

Its interesting that such a change on bombers has started so much discussion.  The classic game was A4/D1 cost 15.  I wonder why the cost was dropped to 12?  At price of 12 they are too potent.  I would agree the values should be changed to A3/D2.  I just cannot get around the fact that Str Bombers were just not effective against moving targets - land, air, or sea.

I see 3 things that could be done;
A4/D1 cost 15
or A3/D2 cost 12
or A4/D1 cost 12, hits cannot be applied to Fighters or Tac Bombers.

It all cases, BB and CA should get a AA roll.

[General 6 Stars]

Then make it

A3 D1 M6 C15 but no Battleship or Cruiser AA shot

[A Former User]

Actually going to play-test with A3-4/D1/C12.  Gets the same air superiority bonus as tactical.

So without long-range fighter support they are reduced in attack.

[Young Grasshopper]

@Baron:

However,
I still would upgrade Tactical Bomber attack to 4 pure and simple.
TcB
Attack 4
Defense 3
Move 4-5
Cost 11 IPCs or 12 IPCs.
SBR A1 Damage 1D6 IPCs.

If they get the @4 attack outright, I would make them 12 IPCs.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Carolina:

Actually going to play-test with A3-4/D1/C12.  Gets the same air superiority bonus as tactical.

So without long-range fighter support they are reduced in attack.

Let us know how your G40 Dark Skies evolves with this reduced attack factor.
With OOB TacB, your game will be different than Barney play-test and XML file.

I anticipate more Fighters purchase to increase both units attack factor.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Young:

@Baron:

However,
I still would upgrade Tactical Bomber attack to 4 pure and simple.
TcB
Attack 4
Defense 3
Move 4-5
Cost 11 IPCs or 12 IPCs.
SBR A1 Damage 1D6 IPCs.

If they get the @4 attack outright, I would make them 12 IPCs.o

Fine.
I suppose TacB keeps A1 in TBR and 1D6 damage on NB and AB.
Its attack factor is better than StB (1@1 for whole group),
so I believe 12 IPCs is a fair price.
And you keep an iconic A4 bomber unit.
Just not the traditional StB but the new bomber plane for the big game which is global.

Did you ever play first edition Global?
Was Dark Skies a strategy then?

[simon33]

Why is dark skies that devastating that we need to consider changing the rules to combat it?

On a slightly related note, there is a case to be made that interception is too weak and it would be fairer if fighters or all planes rolled at a two.

[baron Münchhausen]

@simon33:

Why is dark skies that devastating that we need to consider changing the rules to combat it?

On a slightly related note, there is a case to be made that interception is too weak and it would be fairer if fighters or all planes rolled at a two.

Follow this link to Mr Roboto post:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37418.msg1507982#msg1507982

YG idea is to weakened StB dogfight capacity.

[Young Grasshopper]

@Baron:

@Young:

@Baron:

However,
I still would upgrade Tactical Bomber attack to 4 pure and simple.
TcB
Attack 4
Defense 3
Move 4-5
Cost 11 IPCs or 12 IPCs.
SBR A1 Damage 1D6 IPCs.

If they get the @4 attack outright, I would make them 12 IPCs.o

Fine.
I suppose TacB keeps A1 in TBR and 1D6 damage on NB and AB.
Its attack factor is better than StB (1@1 for whole group),
so I believe 12 IPCs is a fair price.
And you keep an iconic A4 bomber unit.
Just not the traditional StB but the new bomber plane for the big game which is global.

Did you ever play first edition Global?
Was Dark Skies a strategy then?

I played a lot of 1st edition, back then Sealion was the thing to do because it was easier to pull off and with the London NO, more profitable. Dark Skies is relatively new based on the statistical capabilities, strategic diversity, and cost comparison of Strategic Bombers to other units. I’ve never heard of such binge buying of one unit like this before.

[simon33]

@Baron:

Follow this link to Mr Roboto post:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37418.msg1507982#msg1507982

YG idea is to weakened StB dogfight capacity.

I understand the idea, but I haven’t played with or against it. I just don’t see it becoming as devastating as what people are saying.

BTW, to threaten Gibraltar you have to start closer than WGermany don’t you?