@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.