Alternate 3 planes Carrier, Air oriented for G40 or 1942.2 with TacBs

In addition with the incentive of providing a +1 Defense Combined Arms Bonus to Fighter, Anti-Aircraft Artillery should be reduced by 1 IPC due to the lower cost of his main targets: Fgs and TcBs.
OOB Fg was at 10 IPCs while AAA was at half this price: 5 IPCs.
Now that Fighter is at 8 IPCs, AAA cost should still be halved to 4 IPCs.

ANTI-AIRCRAFT ARTILLERY
Attack 0
Defense 0
NCM 1
Cost 4
1 hit
On first round, get up to three preemptive @1 vs up to 3 planes whichever the lesser.
Combined Arms Bonus:
Gives +1 Defense to up to 3 Fighter units per AAA unit paired with.

Another point, Carrier operations combat values will be similar to OOB situations ranging between A6 D8, A7 D7 and A6 D6:
2 Fighters: Attack 6 Defense 8, sum 14 points, cost 20
1 Fighter + 1 TacB: Attack 7 Defense 7, sum 14 points, cost 21
2 Tactical Bombers: Attack 6 Defense 6, sum 12 points, cost 22.

Let’s suppose these three units at 8 IPCs (sum: 24 IPCs) are on board a Fleet Carrier…

3 Fighters, sum 15 points:
Attack 6 (2+2+2) Defense 9 (3+3+3), and all three units always target planes.
Stay at Attack 6 or Defense 9 (15 points) in Air Supremacy conditions.

2 Fighters & 1 Tactical Bomber (Fg/Fg/TcB), sum 15 points:
Attack 7 (2+2+3) Defense 8 (3+3+2) or (3+2+3), two units always target planes first.
Can reach Attack 8 or Defense 9 (17 points) in Air Supremacy conditions.

1 Fighter & 2 Tactical Bombers (Fg/TcB/TcB), sum 14 points:
Attack 7 (2+3+2) Defense 7 (3+2+2) or (2+3+2), one unit always target planes first.
Can reach Attack 9 or Defense 9 (18 points) in Air Supremacy conditions.

3 Tactical Bombers, sum 12 points:
Attack 6 (2+2+2) Defense 6 (2+2+2),
but can reach Attack 9 or Defense 9 (18 points) in Air Supremacy conditions.

As you can see, all the Combined Arms and Air Supremacy rules were necessary to keep up with the high value (from 6 to 8, 12 to 14 pts) of OOB Fg and TacB units.

Of course, full Carriers are now a little costlier than OOB (2 to 4 IPCs), this can compensate for the increase in combat value because Carrier Group gains an additionnal hit now that it can load up to three aircrafts.

The defensive value of Carrier (giving 3 times +1 Def bonus) with 3 Fighters is increase to up to 9 pts on Defense, to keep the same defensive advantage of a Full Carrier with 2 OOB Fgs compared to attacking Carrier with 1 Fg and 1 TcB.

This is the optimal defensive configuration.
But this increase on defense and additional plane on the Aircraft Carrier will make Cruiser and Battleship even more outmatched.
I strongly suggest to put Cruiser at 10 IPCs and Battleship at 18 IPCs to keep a similar OOB hit ratio/IPCs and % on Battlecalc against aircrafts and carrier. So, Strategic Bomber and Cruiser can still have the same cost (but 2 IPCs lower from OOB).

It is also clear that the best Carrier configuration mixing Offense and Defense is:
2 Fighters with 1 Tactical Bomber (Att 7 Def 8, 3 hits) for 15 pts.

We can also add that hitting planes first isn’t such a big deal in Naval Combat because Fg and TcB have same cost as Destroyer at 8 IPCs.
However, Fighters and Tactical Bombers get higher attack or defense value, so it is still a small advantage to reach Aircraft first.
Also, I don’t think Tactical Bomber should be rise to 9 IPCs.
First, the high air attrition rate implied by Fg special attack.
Second, there main bonus results from Combined Arms bonus.
Third, 2 or 3 Tactical Bombers adds a large distance between OOB Carrier with full TcBs (22 IPCs) and 3 TcBs at 9 IPCs (27 IPCs).
Keeping at 8 IPCs make full Carrier more affordable.

What do you think of the interaction between Fighters against Tactical Bombers?
Fgs only against TcBs only, both are @2 offence and defense.
When attacking planes only, TcBs can not rise above other planes values. Stay @2.
Even TcBs, attacking with ground units against defending Fgs only, will not rise to @3 even if some Fg are also escorting them.

It is only possible to get @3 for TcBs when attacking ground units and having some Fg escort.
Fgs get a very good defense @3 in specific advantageous situations.
(Such as operational Air Base, also an incentive to bombard Air Base…)
And, because of Fg capacity to always hit planes first, Fgs get a better roll than TcB when both are even @2.

Don’t you find it has more historically accurate values?

I forgot to provide the rule of thumb for additionnal plane units.
Also I provide the starting set-up and additional placement on the board due to weaker Fg and TcB units compared to OOB.

On average in combat values and IPCs worth,
2 OOB Fgs A3 D4 M4 C10 = 3 Fgs A2 D2-3 M4 C8,
and
3 OOB TcBs A3-4 D3 C11 = 4 TcBs A2-3 D2-3 C8

In G40, you simply put 1 Fg unit where there is only 2 OOB Fgs units.
Make the sums of all Fgs units and keep this ratio of 2 OOB Fgs give 1 additional Fg.

Then, you need to add 1 Fg sculpt where there is already 2 Fgs unit.
We can take for granted that a full carrier with 1 TcB and 1 OOB Fg, will stay full with 1 TcB and 2 Fgs.
For the rest, it will need mutual agreement on the placement of the remaining additional Fg units.

In G40, you simply put 1 TcB unit where there is 3 TcBs units.
Makes the count and find an approriate zone to put it.

Allies must share their numbers of TcB to get the additional ones.
You will have to chose which Power receive it. I suggest Russia or UK.

For instance:
Italy will get another 1 Fg in Southern Italy.

Germany gets 2 Fgs and 2 TcBs.
Will get another 1 Fg unit and 1 TcB unit in Western Germany.
Put 1 additionnal TcB in Poland.
And must put another 1 Fighter between: Slovakia, Norway or Belgium.

Soviet Union will get an 1 additional Fighter in Novgorod or Russia.

UK gets 3 Fgs and 1 TcB.
Will get 1 Fg in UK and another 1 whether in Malta or Gibraltar.
And also 1 Fg in India.
It gets 1 Tactical Bomber in SZ 98 on board the Carrier with the 1 TcB already there.

France will get 1 additional Fg whether in France or in UK.

Anzac will get 1 Fg and no TcB in New Zealand.

China will get another 1 Fg in Szechwan.
(Willing to give a better survival odds to the Flying Tigers.
An AAA unit could have replace it but it is forbid as a regular placement for China.)

USA gets 3 Fgs and no TcB.
Will get 1 Fg in Hawaii and 1 Fg on board carrier in SZ 10.
And also put 1 Fg in Philippines.

Japan gets 5 Fgs and 3 Tactical Bombers.
1 Fg on each carrier in (2) SZ 6 and (1) SZ 33.
1 Tactical Bomber in Kiangsu.
1 Fg and 1 TcB in Manchuria.
1 Fg and 1 TcB in Japan also.

Hi Marc,
just retrieve your post on how you defined each category of aircrafts, including the better named Strike Aircraft (instead of Tactical Bomber):
Here is the link for others which can be interested your post:
Tactical Bombers and their use
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33181.msg1269224#msg1269224

I also found these historical examples serving as a comments about Tactical Bombers having a low basic Defense @2, from Uncrustable’s G40 Enhanced thread:
@CWO:

@Uncrustable:

I do not feel tactical bombers should be so weak on defense (2), as they are a fighter/bomber essentially and this makes no logical sense. And being so weak on defense they would no longer be the best all around fighting air unit.

Some WWII tac bombers were quite weak on defense. The Stuka is perhaps the best example: it did great in Poland and France, where the Luftwaffe had air supremacy, but the Stukas that participated in the Battle of Britain were cut to pieces by RAF fighters (and were soon withdrawn from action) because they weren’t operating in a secure environment. Torpdedo bombers such as the TBD Devastator were likewise extremely vulerable because their attack runs required them to fly low, level and straight towards their target; at Midway, the American TBDs who attacked the Japanese fleet had (as I recall) close to 100% casualties. Both the TBD and the Stuka had rear-cockpit machine gunners for self-protection, but those gun positions didn’t seem to make much difference in their survivability.

@crusaderiv:

I have no problem with 3 plane carriers. Have that in one of the games. But Dive bombers can’t attack ground troops and naval fighters, fighters and tacs from carriers should have a lower att-def value against ground troops. If planes leave from a carrier they have to land back on carrier.
In one of my games, planes can scramble from carriers and defend against a ground attack next to the territory thats being attacked. but get to use the same defense value for dive bombers, naval fighters and fighters ( that get to attack or defending against ground or ships at any time ) which for me is wrong. But I will request that to be changed.

Amen brother….

BTW It is very useful to have your set of house rules. Thanks.
I better understand your standing POV.
I’m sure that you can aknowledge that your House Games are not for everyone and have a high level of historical and tactical details with much more different types of aircrafts than all the regular A&A versions.

Actually, I’m just trying to make all the three genuine aircrafts from the A&A franchise working together more consistently and as much as possible balance and historically accurate.

In fact, the basic Attack 2 Defense 2 values for both Fighter and Tactical Bomber are also consistent with the aircraft unit of the new A&A 1914 game.
In this game, the planes are also fighting each others.
I think it is two steps foward on the issue about aircraft mostly hitting ground units, as the usual casualty, instead of taking down some units amongst them.

@toblerone77:

My problem with many of the HRs regarding aircraft are that the TB is basically being turned into some “super plane” the strategic level but using tactical level justification to weaken the fighter and using singular examples to also justify weakening both the Fighter and STB but making the TB a cheap alternative to both.

If that’s how someone wants to run their game I’m totally okay with that. But claiming it’s historical and solves flaws in the OOB game IMO is totally incorrect.

As far as custom units, I know many don’t own or may not be able to obtain them, but they do help those who want to customize.

Also I want to emphatically state that I’m pro house rules. I’m a firm believer that this game benefits from people doing things to make the game even better than what comes in the box.

Do you have the impression that the above rules are making Tactical Bombers into a monster compared to Fighter units?

It is not the case, in fact, Fighter units are much more interesting in most cases because of this specific rule:
Air combat unit: All hits are allocated to aircraft units first, if any available.

This makes Fighter able to shoot down enemy’s Tactical Bomber while the reverse is not possible as long as there is some ground or naval units on the Fighter’s side to pick as casualty.
Basically, each round with a mix on both sides of ground units, Fgs are rolling @2 and even @3 to destroy TacBs while the TacBs are virtually unable to touch them since they roll regular @2 or even a regular roll @3 (if paired to a friendly fighter).

IMO, it is as closely as it can a description of what you said here:

Dive bombers and torpedo bombers were even weaker defensively than a strategic bomber. They were slow, lumbering and many, many times missed their target entirely, or had defective bombs or torpedoes.

Don’t you think?

I think you provided a very good summarized description of the role of Fg and TcB in this post. I probably take some past inspirations (or reminiscence) when I tried to draw the actual aircraft HHR.:
@toblerone77:

A tactical bomber or any bomber of WWII is only as good as it’s air cover. The only reason any bomber of WWII was able to inflict maximum damage/firepower was because of ability to dominate airspace over enemy territory, either through air superiority or absence of sufficient defensive air-cover on the part of the defender.

TBs and StBs rely on the ability to bomb/attack at will. That will is only provided by the absence or inferior defensive measures of fighter aircraft on the part of the defender. Fighter aircraft are the essential key of air superiority. Bomber aircraft are strong because of their ability to attack ground targets from above, if they are harassed in the air, than they cannot be effective against ground targets. Hence the fighter, the defender of the airspace, can hamper the effectiveness of ground attack aircraft because any bomber is easily bested in any air-to-air combat, because their primary job is to harass ground targets not to dogfight with or against aircraft to whose primary job is to destroy other aircraft whether they are bombers of any type or fighter aircraft.

This is a point that I clearly remembered when I developed this actual HR on Fgs and TcBs:
@toblerone77:

As I’ve said before and many a time. HRs are HRs I as well as anyone else can love them or hate them; use them or leave them, and do what they please. You will never convince me at the tactical or strategic level that at tactical bomber is better at defense than a fighter. Just my opinion, but trying to bend the TB as this multi-role aircraft (IMO seems to be a modern connotation) is neither historical nor game balancing in any way and does not fit in any way to the game historically or balance-wise, even for the sake of just imagination. I’ve loved and studied WWII especially aircraft all of my life, there is no way in hell that any tactical bomber in WWII is better than a fighter of the same era in dogfighting than a fighter of the same era.

From all your comments people, I’m happy to see that the 3 planes Carrier doesn’t seem a major issue.

@CWO:

@toblerone77:

The issue I have; historically speaking, with most of the HR topics regarding aircraft, is that the TB is being portrayed as almost as a modern-day multi-role aircraft. I really, really wish that some in-depth book research into aircraft was being done before proclaiming a rule is “historical” and true to the role each aircraft sculpt is portrayed in the game. The material is easily found. Dive bombers and torpedo bombers were even weaker defensively than a strategic bomber. They were slow, lumbering and many, many times missed their target entirely, or had defective bombs or torpedoes.

I very much agree, and in one or two earlier discussion threads I’ve given some historical examples of the TB weaknesses to which toblerone77 refers. And he makes a good point about the problem originating at least in part from that fact that the OOB “tactical bomber” (which can be thought of as a kind of generic surface-attack aircraft in terms of the game rules) is depicted by OOB sculpts which are modeled on eight actual aircraft which in some cases had very different roles and capabilities.

I guess the thing that should be kept in mind when designing HRs for TBs is the question of whether the HRs are meant to govern the TB as a generic unit (in which case the combat values of the unit can plausibly be generic too, as long as they’re credible) or whether it’s meant to represent realistically a specific historical subtype of TB (in which case a finer degree of combat value modeling will be needed). Either approach is perfectly okay, since the two approaches serve different purposes: simplicity and ease of play versus detail and enhanced unit variety. But either way, the combat values of the TB need to be historically credible. Handling the TB as a generic unit is fine, but there’s a difference between giving it generic abilities and giving it exaggerated abilities.

Thanks for your analysis, it helps me better understanding where I’m going with this actual House Rule on Aircrafts.
For now, I’m more at the generic level, trying to make it as historically credible inside the actual games parameters to balance all the three units values and abilities.

That’s why I added this to Tactical Bombers bonuses:

Combined Arms Bonus in Air Supremacy situation:
**_Gives +1 Attack / +1 Defense to any Tank paired 1:1 with, when no enemy’s aircraft is present.
Both Air Supremacy associated bonus can be added.
In this case, a lone TcB reach Attack @3 or Defense @3 while the paired Tank reach Attack @4 or Defense @4.

I’m reviewing the thread on Tactical Bombers and their use, it helps understanding why Fighter units have a better defensive role.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33181.0

Here is another interesting description of the Tactical Bombers compared to Strategic Bombers by kcdzim, I present here for completeness and better comparison between the three generic units:

Part of this stems from simplified game mechanics and part of it certainly stems from earlier versions.

In the previous games, they weren’t called Strategic Bombers. They were bombers.
And “Bombers” certainly included more than just high altitude heavy bombers.

The nomenclature changed but their roles haven’t: Strategic Bombers still include medium bombers. The fact that Tactical bombers are compatible with carriers, implies they represent smaller planes. Yes, the Mitchell flew off a carrier for the Doolittle Raid, but that was a VERY specialized use of a medium bomber that was essentially stripped to even get off the flight deck. So Strategic bombers still include medium bombers like the Mitchell, and Tactical bombers are more akin to heavy fighters, ground attack, dive bombers, torpedo bombers, etc., which were more often single engine or single pilot or pilot/navigator, and not manned with a substantial crew, didn’t carry substantial loads.

Historically, medium Bombers like the Mitchell, Invader, Havoc, etc., were effective in low altitude bombing/torpedo attacks on naval units. Torpedoes obviously worked well, but Skip bombing was also very effective against transport and warship alike and used extensively by the allies in the south pacific (battle of the Bismarck sea being a good example). B17’s even got in on the action. It’s just not a high altitude bombing run that you imagine from “strategic bombers” and movies like Memphis Belle.

Look at the Tac bombers we have: a ground attack tank killer (Sturmovik), 3 dive bombers (Stuka, Dauntless, Val) and a Mosquito, which is a blurred recon/day and night fighter/torp bomber/fast bomber/pest. None of those are really close to the role of the Mitchell (which is certainly a “tactical bomber” by any standard definition EXCEPT this game). There’s no good single name that covers the roles of aircraft in between Air superiority Fighter and Strategic Bomber. Tactical Bomber is what we have, but you NEED to imagine it means heavy fighter/dive bomber/torpedo bomber/ground attack/night fighter/fighter-bomber as well. And NOT medium bomber.

Until the game differentiates further with medium bombers vs high altitude bombers (it’s not likely to as that favours the allies), then “strategic bombers” is still somewhat accurate as they don’t simply represent Heavy Bombers alone and it’s acceptable to use them to represent the role of Medium bombers in Naval warfare.

http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=5629_**

@Black_Elk:

The 3 planes per carrier concept is an interesting way to approach a reduced cost/attack/defense value for the standard fighter. I had seen some suggestions before about a lowered cost/ability for fighters, and the thing that seemed to be problematic for it was the effect on carrier warfare. 3 spots on the deck seems to offer some interesting opportunities. I’d be curious to see how it plays out.

Thanks for your opening post.

I played it quite a few times but only with 1942.2.
My previous play-test were more restrictive because a Fleet Carrier was up to 3 Fgs or 2 TcBs Max, or a mix of 2 Fgs with 1 TcB.

This time, this 3 planes carrier HR is simpler, each plane need the same room on the deck, there is no difference whether it is a Fg or a TcB unit.

Another bothering aspect was the combat value given to Fg on attack: @1 First strike.
This proved to be a disturbing procedure to segregate the special values amongst all planes rolling dices. Always starting with AAA, then attacking Fighters, then defending Fgs, finally regular planes attack and defense.
This time, with all simple combat values 2-3-4, the attacker and defender Fgs rolls can be done simultaneously.

I also tried on the Battlecalc some simulations of full Carrier against full Carrier with different complement units and it is almost the same odds as full 2 planes Carrier against 2 full planes Carrier.

The new Carrier at 40 IPCs (16 IPCs + 24 IPCs) and 5 hits is necessarily better than OOB Carrier at 36-38 IPCs (16 IPCs+ 20-22 IPCs) and 4 hits. Compared to other naval units, this means that 3 places Carrier get an increase in combat values.

Does the other inferior Capital ships (Battleships or Cruisers) on the Battlecalc need more than ever an adjustment cost? IDK. At most, this should be 20 to 18 IPCs and 12 to 11 IPCs.

From a physical perspective on a real board, there was enough physical space on a carrier sculpt for 3 Fgs or 2 Fgs and 1 TcB or just 2 TcBs.
However, putting 3 TcBs sculpts on 1 Carrier plastic sculpt will probably be an impossible challenge.

@toblerone77:

I’ll move past the aircraft and move toward the 3 plane carrier concept HBG has several models of carriers that may work well for this “super carrier” concept.

The issue I have; historically speaking, with most of the HR topics regarding aircraft, is that the TB is being portrayed as almost as a modern-day multi-role aircraft. I really, really wish that some in-depth book research into aircraft was being done before proclaiming a rule is “historical” and true to the role each aircraft sculpt is portrayed in the game. The material is easily found. Dive bombers and torpedo bombers were even weaker defensively than a strategic bomber. They were slow, lumbering and many, many times missed their target entirely, or had defective bombs or torpedoes. Research into all aircraft that participated in the war would help anyone creating their own HRs rather than a few scattered examples.

I think the fault is mostly due to the naming conventions used by the producers of the game which may mislead house-rulers. The fighter’s OOB stats could well represent not just what we think of as a fighters, but fighter/bombers as well as other sub categories of aircraft. The same could be said for the other two categories of OOB aircraft.

If I were going to implement a more historical feel. I would use custom sculpts to portray the various “sub-types/categories” of aircraft. Tall Paul has done this with great success.

Added content*

I’m not discrediting the work put forth, but I would suggest If one is to move into such specialization, that custom sculpts are a must and more categories of aircraft must be introduced with such a heavy re-vamp of the OOB rules.

The idea of using various specific sculpts for different type of aircrafts is good advice. But with small scale sculpts, often it is needed to make marks unto them to recognize the difference at first glance, for example: OOB Destroyers can be taken for Cruiser (or the reverse) because some are almost similar in length or have similar features on the top of the hull.

Actually, I mainly see a visible difference between Medium and Heavy bombers based on the number of engines on the wings.

I cannot pretend to have “THE” historically accurate HR, I would just say that I try to be more accurate than OOB rules on TcBs and Fgs.
It’s more a relative comparison than an absolute statement.

For example, I can say that this one HR better depict TcB against Fgs than my previous one (TcB A3-4 D3-4, Fg A1 D2) when fighting above a SZ.
It happens quite often that German’s player have only 2 or 3 TcBs remaining against UK’s scrambled Fgs and Destroyers.
In this case, 3 TcBs got basic @3 against Fgs Def @2. The UK’s player choose to save his Destroyers and loose all Fighters.
This appear contrary to historical accuracy that TcBs have higher combat value and destroyed Fighters and no ships.

With my new HR, such 3 TcBs can only attack @2 while one of the Fg will defend @3 and others @2.
This weaker combat value seems more consistent with history than the previous one. Don’t you think?

Also, if a Fg is escorting 1 TcB, thus rising is attack factor to @3, and TcB rolls a hit which the defender put on a Fg unit instead of a warship.
This can be credited somehow to the Combined Arms bonus of being escorted by Fg.
It still makes sense somehow under the general A&A rules: each player choose his own casualties.

Of course, going further, maybe it can be possible to find a way to forbid a defending player to use his planes as casualty if the hit resulted from a TcB roll.
For now, it seems too detailed and over complexifying.

But, who knows?
Maybe this can become a special capacity for a specific Torpedo Bomber unit, in which any hit must applied against a Naval Unit first, and to a plane when there is no other choice…

About Fighter-bomber, I can see that Fighters making hits upon ground or naval units should certainly imply some kind of air-to-ground ordnance (such as rockets or smaller bombs) to be really effective.
So an Air Dominance only Fighter unit is probably too specific compared to the OOB Fg unit.

At the actual generic-level depiction of aircraft units, do you see Fighter-bomber more in the Fighter category or in the TacB category?

You put this elsewhere, I think it is still correct:
@toblerone77:

A tactical bomber is nothing more than a small bomber. In reality they are large and lightly armed compared to a fighter. They are also very much less maneuverable than a fighter. Planes like the Thunderbolt were already designed as fighters but could function in the role of a tactical bomber.

As for stats the tac bomber should absolutely never be equal to fighters on defense.

@crusaderiv:

_Actually, I’m just trying to make all the three genuine aircrafts from the A&A franchise working together more consistently and as much as possible balance and historically accurate.

In fact, the basic Attack 2 Defense 2 values for both Fighter and Tactical Bomber are also consistent with the aircraft unit of the new A&A 1914 game._

I understand that but you know we started to play World at war 20 years ago. We make some evolution but progressively.  **Play the same game with the same during so many years….it must be boring…**AL.

Probably not possible to always play it with the same set of rules. A&A seems a game which constantly appeal to develop House Rule one way or another.