Clearing the Dark Skies

[baron Münchhausen]

I was thinking about a different condition to reduced StBs damage from D6+2 to D6.
Instead of requiring “- Bombers conducting SBRs only receive a +2 damage bonus if they have departed from an operational airbase”
Interceptors can act mostly like Destroyer affecting Submarines, negating +2 bonus on damage.
When at least 1 Fg is intercepting, all StBs can only make 1D6 damage each.
That way, it can be a good incentive for interception just to reduced the heavier full damage when all defending planes duck and cover instead.
It virtually put almost all SBRs within the 1:1 break even ratio of 1942.2 TripleA SBR, which is right on the line for both attacker (need to invest 12 IPCs) and defender (need to invest 10 IPCs).

For example, against 5 StBs, a single Fg would cut +10 bonus damage to IC, that way it makes a good investment for defender since it already save the cost of a Fg if all StBs reach IC and bomb it.

It is also a way to overcome the big attacking bonus coming when there is as much escorting Fgs as there is interceptors, since it make StBs out of arms way of interceptors. With this rule, there is no need to make StBs first casualty.

About Fg escort and taking StBs as first casualty, don’t forget that intercepting is not mandatory and attacker have to divert Fg unit for a single hypothetical roll @1 from more useful rolls as an air support unit @3 in a regular combat. Denying Fg escort this ability to be taken as cannon fodder for an StB is a deterent for the attacker to use Fg for such random outcome in SBR. In fact, fighter escort main role is more as cannon fodder rather than as offensive weapon in these  circumstances (as well as Fg can better be used as a mobile attack support in other combat zone).

What do you think of this trick?
It has more scope than only solving India’s IC case from japanese StBs.

[baron Münchhausen]

• During air battles with interceptors, roll 1 dice @1 per bomber formation instead of 1 dice @1 per bomber.

This feature is well balance in itself and if the rule mechanics is agreeable within your group, it can be possible to extend it to transports.
Instead of defenseless TPs, you get a single roll @1 for all defending TPs and you allow them 1 hit value per TP.
Keeping TP as taken last casualty, it can stay at 7 IPCs.
That way, you slightly boosted up Allies defending fleet.

If you want a more stronger counter for Dark Skies, let the owner choose TP casualty anytime, even before warships.

That is two ways to weaken StBs stack attack on fleet.

[Shin-Ji]

Why not just play Balanced Mod?  With that ruleset, Allied fleets can get very big - big enough that bombing them is possible, but not a slam dunk.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Shin:

Why not just play Balanced Mod?  With that ruleset, Allied fleets can get very big - big enough that bombing them is possible, but not a slam dunk.

Allied fleet is bigger and stronger because Allies NOs bonus are many and higher in Balanced Mod than OOB, right?

[Young Grasshopper]

@Baron:

I was thinking about a different condition to reduced StBs damage from D6+2 to D6.
Instead of requiring “- Bombers conducting SBRs only receive a +2 damage bonus if they have departed from an operational airbase”
Interceptors can act mostly like Destroyer affecting Submarines, negating +2 bonus on damage.
When at least 1 Fg is intercepting, all StBs can only make 1D6 damage each.
That way, it can be a good incentive for interception just to reduced the heavier full damage when all defending planes duck and cover instead.
It virtually put almost all SBRs within the 1:1 break even ratio of 1942.2 TripleA SBR, which is right on the line for both attacker (need to invest 12 IPCs) and defender (need to invest 10 IPCs).

For example, against 5 StBs, a single Fg would cut +10 bonus damage to IC, that way it makes a good investment for defender since it already save the cost of a Fg if all StBs reach IC and bomb it.

It is also a way to overcome the big attacking bonus coming when there is as much escorting Fgs as there is interceptors, since it make StBs out of arms way of interceptors. With this rule, there is no need to make StBs first casualty.

About Fg escort and taking StBs as first casualty, don’t forget that intercepting is not mandatory and attacker have to divert Fg unit for a single hypothetical roll @1 from more useful rolls as an air support unit @3 in a regular combat. Denying Fg escort this ability to be taken as cannon fodder for an StB is a deterent for the attacker to use Fg for such random outcome in SBR. In fact, fighter escort main role is more as cannon fodder rather than as offensive weapon in these  circumstances (as well as Fg can better be used as a mobile attack support in other combat zone).

What do you think of this trick? It has more scope than only solving India’s IC case from japanese StBs.

I like it… will look into this.

[simon33]

Another House rule would be interceptors and escorting fighters roll at 2. Adds much more value to interception, and escorting fighters.

[baron Münchhausen]

@simon33:

Another House rule would be interceptors and escorting fighters roll at 2. Adds much more value to interception, and escorting fighters.

Already suggested in the Balanced Mode:

Regular Kid’s Balance Mode
G40.2 SBR HR
Bomber A1
Damage: 1D6+2
Cost 12

Fighter A2 D2
Cost 10

2 StBs A1 against 1 Fgs D2
1D6+2: +10.639 - 7.334 = + 3.304 IPCs damage/SBR
*12=+39.648, 24 vs 12
1 StB A1 vs 1 Fg D2
1D6+2: + 4.723 - 5.333 = - 0.61 IPC dam/SBR
*65= -39.650, 65 vs 65
Net: -0.002
For 24 StBs vs 12 Fgs

• 65 StBs vs 65 Fgs
  Break even point: 89 StBs A1 C12 D6+2 vs 77 Fgs D2 C10
  1.156 StB/Fg break even ratio
  13.87 IPCs/10 IPCs = 1.39 offense/defense IPC ratio

It is a deterrent against SBR when there is 1 Fg interceptor above the number of StB.
And the same number of both StBs vs Fgs gives negative odds for the attacker.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Young:

@Baron:

I was thinking about a different condition to reduced StBs damage from D6+2 to D6.
Instead of requiring “- Bombers conducting SBRs only receive a +2 damage bonus if they have departed from an operational airbase”
Interceptors can act mostly like Destroyer affecting Submarines, negating +2 bonus on damage.
When at least 1 Fg is intercepting, all StBs can only make 1D6 damage each.
That way, it can be a good incentive for interception just to reduced the heavier full damage when all defending planes duck and cover instead.
It virtually put almost all SBRs within the 1:1 break even ratio of 1942.2 TripleA SBR, which is right on the line for both attacker (need to invest 12 IPCs) and defender (need to invest 10 IPCs).

For example, against 5 StBs, a single Fg would cut +10 bonus damage to IC, that way it makes a good investment for defender since it already save the cost of a Fg if all StBs reach IC and bomb it.

It is also a way to overcome the big attacking bonus coming when there is as much escorting Fgs as there is interceptors, since it make StBs out of arms way of interceptors. With this rule, there is no need to make StBs first casualty.

About Fg escort and taking StBs as first casualty, don’t forget that intercepting is not mandatory and attacker have to divert Fg unit for a single hypothetical roll @1 from more useful rolls as an air support unit @3 in a regular combat. Denying Fg escort this ability to be taken as cannon fodder for an StB is a deterent for the attacker to use Fg for such random outcome in SBR. In fact, fighter escort main role is more as cannon fodder rather than as offensive weapon in these  circumstances (as well as Fg can better be used as a mobile attack support in other combat zone).

What do you think of this trick? It has more scope than only solving India’s IC case from japanese StBs.

I like it… will look into this.

Cool  :-)
Let me know if you get a chance to use it.
Keeping a better break even ratio than Balanced Mode SBR (Fg A2 D2), 0.9925 vs 1.156 StB /Fg.
It still provides an incentive to SBR at good odds when fighting 1:1 in large numbers.
For instance, 10 StBs vs 10 Fgs gives +0.02310= +0.23 IPC damage for this raid while
Balance Mode is at -0.6110= -6.1 IPCs for such raid.
Not an optimized attack at all.

And under no intercept situations, 10 StBs would get at 6D+2 damage +2.583 10= +25.83 IPCs damage so a fully damaged IC and AB on average, 26 IPCs.  That way, it worth something to intercept these 10 hypothetical bombers.
Even with only a single 1 Fg, you get 9 +0.917 = 8.253 (for 1D6 per StB damage on IC and bases)

• 8.062 (odds of killing the only Fg with 9 StBs rolls @1)
  +1*0.023 (odds of 1 StB vs 1 Fg) = +16.338 IPCs.
  A drop from +26 to 16 IPCs on avg for a single Fg interceptor, 10 IPCs less damage.
  A good defender’s investment to make.

Also, it helps Russia against German’s SBRs, as RetroFuhrerMeister pointed since it seems an issue in Dark Sky strategy.

@RetroFuhrerMeister:

@Baron:

Facilities roll AA Fire now at 2.
   Strategic Bombers can only attack at 2 against naval units.
  Strategic Bombers only receive a +2 bombing damage bonus if they depart from an operational Airbase.

What line of reasoning made you radically change the AA facilities to @2?

The other two seems enough to better balance StBs.
I can see from historical perspective reducing StBs vs naval units to A2 or from game POV to limit Dark Skies Strategy.
The first one, IC’s AA@2, completly negates StBs usefulness in SBR.
Hence, StBs stay unhistorically useful for regular combat against ground units.

It was to help aid the Soviet Union, who is destroyed by bombing faster than by actual combat, resulting in most of the axis victories you tend to see.

I’ll change the AA fire rule.

[Dauvio Vann]

@Young:

What can be done to prevent German players from deploying a “Dark Skies” strategy? I don’t want to see it abolished altogether, but there should be something to slow down this gimmicky gambit.

I’ll get it started with the following ideas…

• Bombers conducting SBRs only receive a +2 damage bonus if they have departed from an operational airbase
• During air battles with interceptors, roll 1 dice @1 per bomber formation instead of 1 dice @1 per bomber.
• All hits from an air defence of any kind must be applied to participating strategic bombers first.

Okay, I am a G40 novice. I can Germany afford bombers when they have to buy units against Russia???

[Argothair]

I think the idea is that sometimes the German economy is so much larger than the Russian economy (e.g., 60 IPCs vs. 30 IPCs) that the Germans can afford to keep buying enough land units to contain and push back Russia while also affording a bomber or two each turn. There’s often an asymmetry in the bombing patterns – if Germany conquers eastern Europe, then German bombers are in range of Moscow, but Allied bombers aren’t in range of Berlin from anywhere.

I want to throw some gasoline onto the unit redesign fire – what if you imagine the various types of modern A&A planes as each being their own type of “upgrade” from a basic biplane?

| Type | Cost | Attack | Defense | Move | Dogfighting | Special |
| Basic Biplane | 8 IPCs | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | None |
| Fighter | 10 IPCs | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2 | Can scramble, land on carrier, +1 defense at friendly airbase |
| Tactical Bomber | 11 IPCs | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | Can deal 1d6 industrial damage, land on carrier, +2 attack when paired with tank or fighting in a sea zone |
| Strategic Bomber | 12 IPCs | 2 | 3 | 6 | 1 | Can deal 1d6+2 industrial damage |

The concept I’m trying to develop here is that the planes are all built off of the same default template, and then they each have a couple of cool abilities that make them different from each other.

[Ucross]

Just thought I’d share what our group uses:

The max attack of all of your strategic bombers is capped at the number of enemy units.

It means massing them kinda sucks for attacking and defending.

[Ichabod]

I never thought there was anything wrong with spam purchasing bombers as this means Germany might be weak in other areas of required units like ground units.

Even when I play Germany I want to purchase lots of bombers but find myself needing to purchase other stuff in order to get Moscow.

[dreifeino]

In our play group we reduced the attack value of strategic bombers - at sea only -to 3. In ground battles we keeped it at 4.
Ratio: Bombs dropping into water are doing no/less damage than at land where they can still do some damage if they don’t hit exactly.

[baron Münchhausen]

That’s the issue how many TPs are baits?

All of them, on near 2 StBs for 3 TPs ratio, increase the effectiveness of attacker while not helping defense.

[baron Münchhausen]

@SS:

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.

Tweaking with SS heavy bombers on Global War40, it made me think about a way to nerf a bit strategic bombers and keeping D6 dice within an already accepted mechanics (associated with heavy bombers tech). That way, in naval combat StB becomes weaker, as historically the case. But you keep the same combat values for attack in both cases, only you get another dice in regular combat compared to naval combat.

Strategic bomber 1942.2 or G40
Attack 2*, in ground combat rolls twice per combat round (like Revised Classic Edition Heavy bomber)
Defense 1
Move 6-7
Cost 12
Damage D6+2

This double @2 provides same rate of success than @4 but instead of just 66.7%  of making a single hit, you get (20/36) 55.6% of making at least one hit and (4/36) 11.1% of making a second hit.

Now, naval combat is only 33.3% rate of success.