judging by all the discussions going on by MANY players, and also, by the amazing UNDEFEATED record of bmnielsen and dizzy in using this strategy, i think i’m not the only one who is struggling against it. also, this discussion keeps coming up, and for good reason: NO ONE has an answer yet. you claim you have one, as others have too, but so far nothing has actually materialized. i’m really curious how adam will do against bmn.
pretty much everyone i’ve talked to agrees that planes in general are overpowered, bomber range and power is unrealistic and especially when grouped together in stacks of 20 or 30, and SBR vs interceptor rules are problematic.
i do strongly believe that a simple change like the one i am requiring will help improve the game. ultimately, some game experience with the house rule will be the judge.
well, then after playing a few dozen games, i’ll make up some house rules for that as well :lol:
but i think the house rule is good not just for the dark skies strat. i think it just makes more sense. i believe most players will agree something needs to be done to help against mass bombers, and that intercepting as it is now is too weak and unreal.
ok, new house rule in effect for any league game i play going forward:
*fighter planes in a territory with a major factory and airbase will intercept at 2
*escorting fighters also attack at 2 in this particular SBRcyanight is proving without any doubt how inadequate the current intercepting rules are…he’ll go in with like 10 total against say 13 or 15 of my interceptors and still come out ahead, way ahead…we’ll each kill off a plane or two, and then he’ll demolish my economy…how realistic is that?? with overwhelming air defense, how can bombers be so damn effective, and WW2 bombers at that? no way
probably more needs to be done, but i wanna start out with a small change and then go from there.
Well, geesh, are we now allowed to rewrite all of the rules for league games? If that’s the case, instead of doing that, I’d rather just play someone an AA50 game for league – any takers? ;)
axis-dominion, instead of trying to eliminate a potentially overpowered strategy, you should just instead come over to the dark side and play our World At War tournament starting May 1… 8-)
axis, mass bombers are not a problem. they are just a problem against the way you are playing. rather than change the game, why not change your strategy?
judging by all the discussions going on by MANY players, and also, by the amazing UNDEFEATED record of bmnielsen and dizzy in using this strategy, i think i’m not the only one who is struggling against it. also, this discussion keeps coming up, and for good reason: NO ONE has an answer yet. you claim you have one, as others have too, but so far nothing has actually materialized. i’m really curious how adam will do against bmn.
pretty much everyone i’ve talked to agrees that planes in general are overpowered, bomber range and power is unrealistic and especially when grouped together in stacks of 20 or 30, and SBR vs interceptor rules are problematic.
i do strongly believe that a simple change like the one i am requiring will help improve the game. ultimately, some game experience with the house rule will be the judge.
well, then after playing a few dozen games, i’ll make up some house rules for that as well :lol:
but i think the house rule is good not just for the dark skies strat. i think it just makes more sense. i believe most players will agree something needs to be done to help against mass bombers, and that intercepting as it is now is too weak and unreal.
ok, new house rule in effect for any league game i play going forward:
*fighter planes in a territory with a major factory and airbase will intercept at 2
*escorting fighters also attack at 2 in this particular SBRcyanight is proving without any doubt how inadequate the current intercepting rules are…he’ll go in with like 10 total against say 13 or 15 of my interceptors and still come out ahead, way ahead…we’ll each kill off a plane or two, and then he’ll demolish my economy…how realistic is that?? with overwhelming air defense, how can bombers be so damn effective, and WW2 bombers at that? no way
probably more needs to be done, but i wanna start out with a small change and then go from there.
Well, geesh, are we now allowed to rewrite all of the rules for league games? If that’s the case, instead of doing that, I’d rather just play someone an AA50 game for league – any takers? ;)
axis-dominion, instead of trying to eliminate a potentially overpowered strategy, you should just instead come over to the dark side and play our World At War tournament starting May 1… 8-)
axis, mass bombers are not a problem. they are just a problem against the way you are playing. rather than change the game, why not change your strategy?
You can try a different bid. A bid of 2 Russian fighters for example. One in moscow and one in Volgorad and then send all 4 planes to Yunnan. Japan could still attack, but it would cost them dearly. Which in turn allows the Chinese to actually put up a fight against the Japanese and making life easier for the allies and thus give you a better chance against the Germans. Ideally you would also bid a Chinese infantry or artillery in Yunnan as well.
Another good bid would be the mandatory submarine for the UK in Z98 and then an infantry in Yunnan and another Russian fighter in Moscow. It would provide more all round coverage. I am not saying it will work. Try out and see what works for you.
pretty much everyone i’ve talked to agrees that planes in general are overpowered
This. I mean, think about the original game.
Bombers cost 15. Fighters cost 12.
Those costs would probably work well in G40. Because of the much, much bigger map, the disparity between a movement of 1 for infantry and a movement of 5 for fighters and 7 for bombers is monstrous. But infantry still cost 3, and fighters and bombers are actually CHEAPER than they were in the original, though they are far more important than in the original, with air base capabilities and increased bombing damage.
I think they were made cheaper along with boats, to help balance them with boats, but now on land you have tanks being more expensive than ever, and infantry units still at 3. So whereas fighters used to be a multiple of 4 and bombers a multiple of 5 times the cost of an infantry, it is now only 3.33 and 4, even as fighter and bomber capabilities have been increased (airbases)
Ironically it was cheaper to build fighters than tanks, to wit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II#Air_forces
I suppose the reality was that strafing and bombing could degrade/hamper ground formations, but not totally eliminate them, except when you could trap them in a concentrated spot like Falaise.
This would be difficult to work into A&A given the “total elimination” dynamic where the defender is killed entirely without ability to retreat.
Although, didn’t A&A D-Day have some mechanic like that?
Is it also the extra one movement that makes them too powerful?
Should it be enough that an AB allows a scramble. Perhaps the one extra movement from a Base, should have only been allocated to Naval units. (Moving two has always seemed so silly.) Three spaces somewhat addresses that peculiarity.
Bombers, like Subs, are too cheap in 1940.
@wittmann:
Is it also the extra one movement that makes them too powerful?
Should it be enough that an AB allows a scramble. Perhaps the one extra movement from a Base, should have only been allocated to Naval units. (Moving two has always seemed so silly.) Three spaces somewhat addresses that peculiarity.
Bombers, like Subs, are too cheap in 1940.
I don’t think cost is the issue, but the role (others have brought this up). A strategic bomber shouldn’t be able to shoot down planes. It’s role is to bomb. Bombing means bombing things on the ground (or floating on water). So perhaps strat bombers shouldn’t be able to hit planes at all (much like subs can’t), and their effectiveness against ships reduced down to 3 or 2.
Ironically it was cheaper to build fighters than tanks, to wit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II#Air_forces
I suppose the reality was that strafing and bombing could degrade/hamper ground formations, but not totally eliminate them, except when you could trap them in a concentrated spot like Falaise.
This would be difficult to work into A&A given the “total elimination” dynamic where the defender is killed entirely without ability to retreat.
Although, didn’t A&A D-Day have some mechanic like that?
It is different in D-Day, but the game dynamics are different as well.
Yes, we’re dangerously close to going off the rails…. starting to talk about the realism of A&A, of which there is LITTLE :-D
Cost is in fact an important aspect of the issue. Pretty sure if you played with 15 IPC bombers you’ll see less bombers.
While really horribly unrealistic, 6 IPC subs and 12 IPC bombers that can engage all units (except subs at planes) is really fun, and I think that’s the point. :-)
You know what else would be fun? Lowering the cost of battleships (and, hate to open this can of worms - cruisers) to the point that it is reasonable to buy them once in a while :-o
You know what else would be fun? Lowering the cost of battleships (and, hate to open this can of worms - cruisers) to the point that it is reasonable to buy them once in a while :-o
you are the king of opening cans of worms! :-P
Battleship-hater!
(Reference point - Joe McCarthy)
strats should attack at 3 unless paired with a fighter (cover) then they attack at 4. Also, old strat bombing rules where defending fighters hit on 2 needs to come back.
Let’s give all facilities RADAR too while we are at it!!!
I’m so scared of bombers!!! :x :-P
Bombers seem to keep people awake at night. They did that during WWII as well. How is that for realism. :-D
Bombers seem to keep people awake at night. They did that during WWII as well. How is that for realism. :-D
You are on to something there blighter and That Is The Key To Defeating The strat
ok, new house rule in effect for any league game i play going forward:
*fighter planes in a territory with a major factory and airbase will intercept at 2
*escorting fighters also attack at 2 in this particular SBRcyanight is proving without any doubt how inadequate the current intercepting rules are…he’ll go in with like 10 total against say 13 or 15 of my interceptors and still come out ahead, way ahead…we’ll each kill off a plane or two, and then he’ll demolish my economy…how realistic is that?? with overwhelming air defense, how can bombers be so damn effective, and WW2 bombers at that? no way
probably more needs to be done, but i wanna start out with a small change and then go from there.
I’m working on a summary thread which bring some comparison about the odds of various OOB SBR (Triple A, G40.2, 1942.2).
A few quotes leads to some discussion about this issue on the Fighter defending @1 in the Triple A and G40.2 SBR.
Which I believe is the specific issue on SBR balance.
For an optimized play (there are calculations which prove it), StBs never need to bring any Fgs escort.
Just throw all StBs only in the raid, after all, they have the same attack value than escorting Fighter and can defending Fg are no better.
I even made a suggestion to use the 1942.2 SBR instead but keeping Strat Bombers with D6+2 damage.
Gentlemen, 2 questions on neutrals:
I am reading the rulebook, and it seems that an unfriendly or strict neutral attacked and not conquered (attacker defeated) is considered enemy and not unfriendly or strict neutral anymore (meaning in example that all powers can then fly over them in NCM). Am I understanding correctly? rulebook redaction is not fully clear to me.
The rulebook does not especify from which moment powers can fly over one of these neutral territories attacked (in both situations, conquering it or not). If I apply the logic, I believe: The power attacking the neutral, cannot fly over it in NCM, except to land attacking planes to the same neutral territory if those exist. Then, the following powers (Allied or not) can fly over it in NCM with no restrictions. In example:
2)1) USA cannot attack Afganistan with a mech, and then move fighters from Moscow to India in NCM unless those planes also attacked Afganistan.
2)2) USA can attack Afganistan with a mech, and then regarless the territory was conquered or not by USA, UK can move fighters in NCM from Moscow to India (flying over Afganistan).
Are the examples correct?
Thank you
Juan
as soon as you declare war on the neutrals, they become the enemy, and like any enemy territory, you are immediately free to fly over it even in combat movement.
Gentlemen, 2 questions on neutrals:
I am reading the rulebook, and it seems that an unfriendly or strict neutral attacked and not conquered (attacker defeated) is considered enemy and not unfriendly or strict neutral anymore (meaning in example that all powers can then fly over them in NCM). Am I understanding correctly? rulebook redaction is not fully clear to me.
The rulebook does not especify from which moment powers can fly over one of these neutral territories attacked (in both situations, conquering it or not). If I apply the logic, I believe: The power attacking the neutral, cannot fly over it in NCM, except to land attacking planes to the same neutral territory if those exist. Then, the following powers (Allied or not) can fly over it in NCM with no restrictions. In example:
2)1) USA cannot attack Afganistan with a mech, and then move fighters from Moscow to India in NCM unless those planes also attacked Afganistan.
2)2) USA can attack Afganistan with a mech, and then regarless the territory was conquered or not by USA, UK can move fighters in NCM from Moscow to India (flying over Afganistan).Are the examples correct?
Thank you
Juan
as soon as you declare war on the neutrals, they become the enemy, and like any enemy territory, you are immediately free to fly over it even in combat movement.
Gentlemen, 2 questions on neutrals:
I am reading the rulebook, and it seems that an unfriendly or strict neutral attacked and not conquered (attacker defeated) is considered enemy and not unfriendly or strict neutral anymore (meaning in example that all powers can then fly over them in NCM). Am I understanding correctly? rulebook redaction is not fully clear to me.
The rulebook does not especify from which moment powers can fly over one of these neutral territories attacked (in both situations, conquering it or not). If I apply the logic, I believe: The power attacking the neutral, cannot fly over it in NCM, except to land attacking planes to the same neutral territory if those exist. Then, the following powers (Allied or not) can fly over it in NCM with no restrictions. In example:
2)1) USA cannot attack Afganistan with a mech, and then move fighters from Moscow to India in NCM unless those planes also attacked Afganistan.
2)2) USA can attack Afganistan with a mech, and then regarless the territory was conquered or not by USA, UK can move fighters in NCM from Moscow to India (flying over Afganistan).Are the examples correct?
Thank you
Juan
Not correct axis. I thought juan already asked this recently and it was answered. Gamer can set the record straight.
yah but i like my rule better. it’s simpler, and it helps the allies, which need whatever help they can get
as soon as you declare war on the neutrals, they become the enemy, and like any enemy territory, you are immediately free to fly over it even in combat movement.
Gentlemen, 2 questions on neutrals:
I am reading the rulebook, and it seems that an unfriendly or strict neutral attacked and not conquered (attacker defeated) is considered enemy and not unfriendly or strict neutral anymore (meaning in example that all powers can then fly over them in NCM). Am I understanding correctly? rulebook redaction is not fully clear to me.
The rulebook does not especify from which moment powers can fly over one of these neutral territories attacked (in both situations, conquering it or not). If I apply the logic, I believe: The power attacking the neutral, cannot fly over it in NCM, except to land attacking planes to the same neutral territory if those exist. Then, the following powers (Allied or not) can fly over it in NCM with no restrictions. In example:
2)1) USA cannot attack Afganistan with a mech, and then move fighters from Moscow to India in NCM unless those planes also attacked Afganistan.
2)2) USA can attack Afganistan with a mech, and then regarless the territory was conquered or not by USA, UK can move fighters in NCM from Moscow to India (flying over Afganistan).Are the examples correct?
Thank you
Juan
Not correct axis. I thought juan already asked this recently and it was answered. Gamer can set the record straight.
