Yeah I guess I’m already pretty committed to the C5 SBR only bomber. I don’t think a dual use combat StratB will ever give us a bombing game that actually works for modelling something like the battle of Britain or the Anglo-American strategic bombing campaign in central Europe. A combat bomber will just be used to pad attacks in the opener. The idea to open up all TTs for raiding seems novel, but that doesn’t really get at the heart of it either. It makes sense to have certain TTs much more attractive for these campaigns, like England and Germany in particular.
The element that’s missing is that ABs don’t really do much for the defender facing down SBR. You have a coastal scramble, but that is for naval battles or to deter amphibious assaults. You have the movement bonus but that’s focused on the attackers turn. I’m thinking about ABs in terms of defense during raids. It makes practical sense that these would be first targets, but in the game it doesn’t really work that way. Even at C5, you’re still better off hitting a major that can be damaged for 20, before a base that caps out a 6 (or 8 or 9, of you want to raise the ceiling there.) It seems like any serious bombing campaign, would have the attacker doing the opposite, trying to break airbases first and foremost, in an effort to gain air superiority over the TT. So would be nice if the game modelled that somehow.
Args idea about timed repair limits seems like it might be interesting. I was thinking more along the lines of a sbr defense advantage that can be neutralized, so that the effect goes beyond just the economic incentive to raid ABs, but extends to making SBR vs factories somehow more attractive (even independent of the repair cost to the AB.) Though I admit, I’m still not sure what exactly that might look like in specific gameplay terms.
As for a set up change, I don’t know what player experience can really reveal about a revised turn order sequence. Seems to me that if one is willing to entertain a set up change, or starting income adjustment, that A&A could support any sequence. I can’t see any real objective advantage for singling out Anzac and France for their own slot, for example. It stalls the PBEM exchange, and isn’t a very meaningful turn to try and stick another player on it FtF. Just seems like an unnecessary anti-climax to have these two closing out the gameround. Seems like an artifact from the separate Pacific game, that should have been reworked to streamline the Global game.
I think we have a lot if HRs in here that work for the current Global game. To carry it forward for the next 100 pages, it would be fun I think to think about what a full set up change might look like. For every TT that houses starting units, we could have a footnote (at least in this thread, if not the actual gamenotes) describing what forces they are meant to represent.
I like a game that builds on the historical situation as opposed to an alternate history, and which mentions anything of interest in the immediate prelude. Then use that as a guide to the unit set up.
For tripleA, I’d consider ditching the relief tiles for pro-side neutrals, and for FtF just using control marker adjustments where necessary.
I’d think about including a special mention for each minor power. Italy China and Anzac in particular, France too (or Canada, if they make the grade.) Just so each player nation has some kind of blurb to set the scene round the globe.