San Francisco (ruleset for 1942.2 and Global)

@SS:

I can’t see a fig only getting M4 from a non airbase but a M6 from a base.

Just make it Fig M5
                 Tac M5
Stg bomber M7. +1 for all three from airbase and island base

I also agree with CWO that there shouldn’t be bases in game at all. But Black Elk is probably right about messing up the game mechanics.
Be something like this. Fig A3 D3 M4 If it wanted to move 5 then -1 on the attack like YG mentioned to that affect and Baron. And the other one is the Japan A3 D3 tank D12 A6 D6. But that’s another topic .

Does poeple here are mostly against really increasing Sea range from 2SZs to three SZs away from Coastal TTy with AB?

Against giving Fg escort when StB is bombing West Germany?

Against giving possibility to Fgs and TcBs island based to attack the other island in the next SZ?

Is this the issue?

Or a too long NCM move which reinforce to fast another Allied?

I’m just curious, because if AB allows +2M in Combat Move, but only +1M in NCM does it open some space?

It seems absurd but in game, combat move usually means going from point A to B, then returning to A.

Or, AB allows +2M, only if returning to same Base? Otherwise +1M.
This one can be explained by more familiarity with terrains and navigators using known transmission towers and radars.

Also, with a dedicated StB for SBR only, Tactical bomber can be seen as a medium bomber if taking off from AB.
Such bombers, like Condor, or PBY Catalina were used in Ocean survey.
Attacking Subs or merchant ships seems a tactical target IMO, and fit into TcB unit functional use.

Increasing TcB and Fg range to basic M5, so a AB allow them to reach M6 is still problematic because when on a Carrier this additional +1 is probably too much projection of power.
That’s why +2M in specific condition improve the game, even if it seems an high rise from 0 to 2, the idea is to get only 1 SZ or TTy further away.

CWO,  I was not implying that you wanted no airbases in game. I was agreeing to your information which is always valuable.
I got sidetracked some what with the AB +2 move. I still back up my IMO. Remove all bases and make it air M5 M5 M7 naval M3.

My last reply. I’ll just stay in the Global War Thread.

@Baron:

… the idea is to get only 1 SZ or TTy further away.

Yep. It’s the shuttle that concerns me. You have to buy an AB though, which can be bombed though, so…

@barney:

@Baron:

… the idea is to get only 1 SZ or TTy further away.

Yep. It’s the shuttle that concerns me. You have to buy an AB though, which can be bombed though, so…

Exactly, I forgot that point.
If an AB provides a longer range to escort Fgs, you may bombed that base away.
Such +2M bonus is not like making a Fg M5+1 or TcB M5+1.
The basic range is M4, and require an operational AB.
Which becomes a target to bomb in this more SBR oriented SFR.
In return, player will have to pay to keep it operational. Or may wonder if it needs this additional movement bonus.
The opponent can do something about it, if long range escort Fgs seems a problem.

With no M6 Bomber  combat unit, suddenly Bases grow important. In such a huge G40 map, reducing projection of power via bombing AB has a real impact as strategy. It’s not just scrambling capacity which is needed now.

Also, on NCM range around globe, I may add that a turn length seems about a 6 months period, so aircraft travel have not to be considered like a single trip with no stopover anywhere. It is moving a whole squadron organization. For example, like building Flying Tigers from scratch, it requires a year to get it in China and able to fly?
Does it requires 6 months from a airplane built in USA to reach London and find a pilot to use it in combat?

Or, AB allows +2M, only if returning to same Base? Otherwise +1M.

This one can be explained by more familiarity with terrains and navigators using known transmission towers and radars.

I can think of a different movement bonus to reach same result but for Strategic bombing only:

AB gives +1 bonus move
StB A0 D0 M6-7 C5
Gives +1M bonus to all Fgs and TcBs on same SBR/TBR mission,
That way, you still need Long range Aircraft Tech to bomb Germany but West Germany can be SBR with escorting Fgs.
And you cannot use this bonus in regular combat, that way Fg and TcB remains M4-5 for real battle.
It can be explained that operational range is not the same for intensive ground support army invasion compared to extensive escorting missions.
However, PTO ABs becomes less interesting for Island hopping Strategy.

Just to jump in here… I don’t understand why there’s a desire to change the range of air units or to change the role of bases. I absolutely love the 1 role bomber idea, and the more I think about it… the more I feel it’s one of the best ideas that has come from this forum. However, the range argument is kinda weighing it down.

Strategic Bomber
Cost = 5 IPCs
Movement = 6
A@1 (dog fight only) / D@0
May only conduct strategic bombing raids
+1 damage bonus if bomber departs from an Airbase
+1 damage bonus if bomber doesn’t face an interceptor

I’ll throw out there another radical idea I had years ago that I couldn’t quite verbalize back than, (no bases back than playing 50th AE), it goes something like this…

Fighters and Tactical Bombers have a base range of 6
Strategic Bombers have a base range of 8

Each air unit would count how many movement point it would cost to take off and land during combat movement, any remaining movement points would determine how many combat rounds the unit could stay in the fight.

So…

If a fighter and a strategic bomber left Germany to attack Leningrad on the G40 map, and both were gonna land in the Baltic States… The fighter could attack for only 2 combat rounds, and the strategic bomber could only attack for 4 combat rounds.

Just an old idea I had seeing as the subject here has a lot of range ideas in it.

@Black_Elk:

Pretty clean, and simple to implement on the fly. I’d be content to let it ride as a stand alone HR, since it seems to be the more popular of the 3 proposals.
:-D

The rest of the HRs aimed at a somewhat more dramatic overhaul, which might be a bit much for some tastes. I think the stratB tweak alone is not going to upend the game in any major way, it kind of just does what you’d expect it to… makes bombing more effective, while mitigating the ability to nuke fleets or ground stacks at crazy long distances.

It also makes tactical bombers much more valuable, which is a good thing… not sure what triple A does, but they rarely get purchased around our table before fighters and S. bombers.

@Young:

Just to jump in here… I don’t understand why there’s a desire to change the range of air units or to change the role of bases. I absolutely love the 1 role bomber idea, and the more I think about it… the more I feel it’s one of the best ideas that has come from this forum. However, the range argument is kinda weighing it down.

Strategic Bomber
Cost = 5 IPCs
Movement = 6
A@1 (dog fight only) / D@0
May only conduct strategic bombing raids
+1 damage bonus if bomber departs from an Airbase
+1 damage bonus if bomber doesn’t face an interceptor

The main reason is probably because you keep seeing StB C5 as a combat unit, even restricted to SBR dogfight, instead of a toothless unit. It needs escort when StBs have no attack at all.
From my few playtest of SFR 1942.2 in TripleA (thanks to Barney hard work and dedication, which make this dream come true), to be more accurate in spirit with WWII air combat, you need Fgs along StBs. Specially against Germany.
I can understand it is not as accurate in a Medium map like this 1942.2, but I believe this can be more accurate in G40 map.
AB +2M solve this issue.

There is mostly 3 configurations (and a special fourth) in which x bombers are lesser combat unit than y Fighters.
From weakest to strongest bombers:

1. xA0 vs yD1
2. xA1 vs yD2
3. xA1 first strike vs yD2
4. You once suggested 1@A1 (for whole group of x bombers) vs yD1

SFR is working in #1 configuration, which provides a lot of incentive to do raid, intercept and escort.

From my little TripleA playtests compared to many tested dogfight HRs, I rarely seen something working so well that the system provides in itself incentive to act accordingly to historical SBR and dogfight.

I explain:
StB is A0 D0 C5 bombing damage D6
TcB is A1 D0 C11 bombing damage D6
Fg is A1 D1 C10 no bombing.

Now, suppose one of each against 3 Fgs interceptors.
First case scenario:
1 casualty on attacker side.
What do you chose as casualty?
Hard choice but…
You may decide to forfeit bombing on IC, lost 5 IPCs unit.
And you still have 2 regular combat units for defense, later.

You may decide to sacrifice your Fighter, hoping to inflict maximum damage on IC, lost 10 IPCs unit, and less defense later.

You will not sacrifice your TcB on that one.

So, in WWII interceptor were mostly taking down bombers, and seldom escorts. (This fit IMO)

Let’s suppose 2 casualties,
choice is harder this time, clearly depends on a lot of contextual aspects…

First) StB+Fg, keeping TcB, lost 15 IPCs, still D6 damage possible
Second) StB+TcB, only if you need this Fg on defense, lost 16 IPCs and no damage
Third) Fg+TcB is not an option because you loose 2 combat units, 21 IPCs and D6 damage possible,
first option is better.

In this 2 casualties situation, it describes a dreadful dogfight, in both case either all bombers were lost (Battle of Britain)
Second case, bombers and escorts were lost, but still TcBs able to destroy secondary target (Air combat over Western Europe)
Now, TcBs are not specifically chosen as fodder to protect bombers, bombers remains the main juicy target and escort can be shotdown if fight is harder.

I know it is not compelling evidence specifically about A0 vs A1 bomber, it is another story in numbers which I will tell another day…  :-D

For now, just accept the possibility of a defenseless bombers, which needs escort as much as possible.

I can quickly add this, rising StB to A1 C5 against Fg A2 D2 C10 is already a deterrent on same IPCs basis.

2 StBs A1+A1 vs 1 Fg D2 provides a worse 1:1, A2, 2 hits vs D2, 1 hit than OOB G40 :
1 StB A1 C12 vs 1 Fg D1, A1, 1 hit : D1, 1 hit. And in case of a draw, attacker loose 12 IPCs, defender 10 IPCs.
In the first case, 1 hit on each side make for 5 IPCs lost for the attacker but 10 IPCs lost for defender.
In addition, attacker lose a non-combat unit while defender lost a D4 regular combat unit.
Anyone would think twice before launching an interceptor against 2 StBs A1 C5.

Basically, a major deterrent to intercept.
But in two A0 bombers case, defender has nothing to loose launching 1 Fg D1.
And attacker can take the risk of loosing one 5 IPCs unit much more easily.
That’s make a lot of difference when you need your regular units for offensive action on your turn.

Increase attack to 1 somehow imply to rise the cost of StB around 8 IPCs and giving D6+2 bonus as you suggested is good:
“May only conduct strategic bombing raids
+1 damage bonus if bomber departs from an Airbase
+1 damage bonus if bomber doesn’t face an interceptor”
But increasing cost means less bombers and SBRs.
But at 8 IPCs, you may ponder between a regular TcB at 11 for bombing,
or simply no bombing and purchasing a 10 IPCs very useful Fighter.

I forgot to talk about this little one:
4) You once suggested 1@A1 (for whole group of x bombers) vs yD1
IMO, if someone wishes to give some teeth to bomber, it is probably the higher you can get in SBR combat.
Even if there is many StBs, you only get one roll.
On a 1:1 dogfight, a single interceptor may be at risk, but if you have more you will be more tempted to launch interceptors.
That seems the minimum deterrent I can think of for a C5 unit.

@Baron:

@SS:

@Baron:

@Marc,
Do you know if, in Pacific, there was some air combat and/or attack on ABs from Fgs and TcBs starting from airfield of other islands?
IDK enough about Rabaul and Guadalcanal campaign.
I believe there was an old TV Series about F4U-Corsair and a “Papy Boyington”.
I cannot remember precisely.

You mean BA BA Blacksheep show ?

Yes. That one. Baa Baa Black Sheep or Black Sheep squadron staring Robert Conrad.
Thanks.
It said they were stationed in Solomon Islands.

I wonder if they were able to make air raid on other islands enemy’s airfields or port.

I found that one on fight between land based squadrons in PTO:

In August 1943, a group of twenty-seven young men under the leadership of Major Gregory “Pappy” Boyington (who was later awarded the Medal of Honor) were joined together to form the original “Blacksheep” of VMF-214. Major Boyington had just returned from a year’s tour in China as a member of the 1st American Volunteer Group (nicknamed the Flying Tigers), and had been credited with multiple kills of Japanese aircraft. The squadron was not assigned any aircraft or ancillary personnel at first and flew to Guadalcanal and later the Russell Islands in borrowed planes that were in less than satisfactory condition.

The Black Sheep squadron fought for eighty-four days. They met the Japanese over their own fields and territory and piled up a record of 203 planes destroyed or damaged, produced nine fighter aces with 97 confirmed air-to-air kills, sank several troop transports and supply ships, destroyed many installations, in addition to numerous other victories. For their actions, the original Black Sheep were awarded the Presidential Unit Citation for extraordinary heroism in action. Following their first combat tour, 26 pilots from the squadron left the airfield at Munda for a week of rest and relaxation in Sydney, Australia where they holed up in the Australia Hotel.

@Black_Elk:

I think the side track was pretty fruitful actually. If anything the conversation has indicated to me that the proposed solution for Global of AB+2 will probably be rejected. So now I have to explore possible alternatives.

What’s stalling me up is this question of whether the game can function properly with no mobile combat air unit at M6?

The tacB+fighter combo, can only produce a viable air umbrella at A4 if they work together. Which in practical terms means only 2 tiles from the Coast. Considered from the German “dark skies” perspective M5 doesn’t really make a difference over M4 here, because they probably don’t have carriers to exploit the AB+1 bonus, and fighters are likely already positioned at a coastal territory anyway, like W. Germany or possibly Holland (with an AB purchase.)

This is a pretty significant change from the OOB situation, where the stratB has a standard range of M6, 3 out and 3 back, and M7 from an airbase.

Talking here not about SBR or Escort, but regular combat.

Do you think the game still works under these conditions? Will anyone give up the OOB combat bomber for a defenseless SBR only bomber, with no units to fill the M6 combat gap under any conditions?

Clearly this is an advantage to the Allies for the Atlantic crossing, but if it pushes over the edge, will Axis players just refuse to even try it? There is a bit of a trade off here for Italy, but hard to say if that’s enough of a lure to make the HR attractive for both sides. Absent the AB+2, Germany gets hit hardest by the loss of the combat stratB.

Here is the first post on Dark Sky and bombers seen as broken.
@JamesAleman:

Bombers are broken because:
They are +2 to bomb damage, (we send 3 fighters, 4 bombers to shut down Moscow builds beginning on turn 3) (Indian builds beginning on turn 3 as well)

They get to shoot at interceptors, (I will trade German, Japanese and Italian bombers for Moscow fighters any day)

They can move 7 from airbases (I can stack in Southern Italy and hit Moscow, London, Egypt, and West coast of Gibraltar)
They are cheaper than any other naval war units save destroyers and subs. (3 bombers costs the same as a carrier and 2 fighters)

AAguns are limited to shooting 3 times against land unit strikes, meaning you are better off defending your builds with infantry then aaguns as you will hit more bombers that way since infantry fire each round if they get a second round.
AAguns may be destroyed by air unit strafes (making them worthless except for casualties and blocking blitzes).
When Germany has 18 bombers , 5 tacticals and 5 fighters, Allies need a large navy to approach Europe as well, and you can ignore this navy and simply counterattack the weaker land force after it lands.

I don’t agree with a “defenceless” bomber… bombers had turrets and gunners to help protect themselves, so the A@1 for bombers and A@2 D@2 for escorts and interceptors is the most historically accurate IMO.

If bombers MUST be defenceless, and toothless… than why not just give them a duel role as paratrooper transports seeing as the only refit between turns would be a difference in cargo? (Their cost would need to go up of course).

@Young:

I don’t agree with a “defenceless” bomber… bombers had turrets and gunners to help protect themselves, so the A@1 for bombers and A@2 D@2 for escorts and interceptors is the most historically accurate IMO.

If bombers MUST be defenceless, and toothless… than why not just give them a duel role as paratrooper transports seeing as the only refit between turns would be a difference in cargo?

But you accept to play with defenseless TP, right?
These military TP got AA machineguns too.

C5 worth it because they bomb more than any bomber ever.
What you lost in dogfight you double your profit in bombing damage.
A small tactical misrepresentation for a far more accurate depiction at strategic level.
StB are willing to be sacrificed in SBR because cheap and effective.
Fg can commit into dogfight because they can stop bombing damage.
You can risk escorting Fighter because a hit destroy an enemy Fg and you can take a 5$ StB for fodder instead of loosing a 10$ reg combat unit.

That’s it.
You can make a single dice roll for all StBs attacking to depict bomber’s machine gun. 1D6 not more.

Otherwise you break the magic, plain and simple. You should make a few try in Triple A against yourself, even a few rounds of 1942.2 will make you see the wonder. A small sacrifice for a lot in return.

And most of A&A fans agree to strange combat behavior like Fgs protected behind a wall of Infantry units retreating once this stack is depleted with no risk for their high cost unit. Tactically not a good depiction but strategically it shows how much it was a slaughter on the ground compared to air combat.
Gives a rough ratio of 50 for 1 casualty rate. IDK the real ratio, if anyone have an idea…

The only other way to maximized tactics dogfight with A1 StB and optimized SBR is rising StB cost and lowering Fg and TcB cost.
But higher cost StB imply SBR is not the same commitment for attacker (vs regular combat needs).
Higher attack factor for StB is more deterrent for interceptors.
Unpredictable intercept or not is blurring decision process if to bring escorts is good or a waste of reg combat units.
More time in decision making process.

All this is cristal clear with A0 C5 bombers. That’s the joy.

I have a question about this concept of increasing strategic bomber range by trading it off against reduced damage.  I havent’t read this thread in close enough detail to be sure I’m grasping the concept correctly, so here’s my question: is the trade-off a reduction in the amount of damage that a bomber can take fron enemy attack (meaning its defensive power) or in the amount of damage that a bomber can inflict on its targets by dropping its bombs (meaning its offensive power)?  The reason I’m asking is that the second scenario is perfectly credible, while the first one is not.  WWII bombers did indeed sometimes extend their normal range by reducing their bombload in order to carry extra fuel.  (The 1943 Howard Hawks movie Air Force, for example, show a B-17 crew landing in the Philippines after a multi-hop flight from the U.S., extracting an auxiliary fuel tank from its bomb bay and replacing it with bombs.)  As far as I know, however, bomber range was not increased on combat missions by removing defensive armaments.  For one thing, doing so would have been inadequate: the weight of a bomber’s defensive armament was tiny compared to the weight of its bombload.  Moreover, doing so would have been hazardous: US and British bombers in the first half of the war already had the problem of inadequate escorting fighter range on normal-range missions, and thus had to depend on themselves for defense; on extended-range missions, the problem would have been even more severe, so reducing defensive firepower while increasing mission range would have been a very bad combination.  Also keep in mind that, at least in US practice, bombers didn’t just defend themselves; they also defended each other by flying in carefully planned three-dimensional formations so that the planes could maximize the amount of defensive firepower that they could pump into the space around (and inside) the bomber formation.

@CWO:

I have a question about this concept of increasing strategic bomber range by trading it off against reduced damage.  I havent’t read this thread in close enough detail to be sure I’m grasping the concept correctly, so here’s my question: is the trade-off a reduction in the amount of damage that a bomber can take fron enemy attack (meaning its defensive power) or in the amount of damage that a bomber can inflict on its targets by dropping its bombs (meaning its offensive power)?  The reason I’m asking is that the second scenario is perfectly credible, while the first one is not.  WWII bombers did indeed sometimes extend their normal range by reducing their bombload in order to carry extra fuel.  (The 1943 Howard Hawks movie Air Force, for example, show a B-17 crew landing in the Philippines after a multi-hop flight from the U.S., extracting an auxiliary fuel tank from its bomb bay and replacing it with bombs.)  As far as I know, however, bomber range was not increased on combat missions by removing defensive armaments.  For one thing, doing so would have been inadequate: the weight of a bomber’s defensive armament was tiny compared to the weight of its bombload.  Moreover, doing so would have been hazardous: US and British bombers in the first half of the war already had the problem of inadequate escorting fighter range on normal-range missions, and thus had to depend on themselves for defense; on extended-range missions, the problem would have been even more severe, so reducing defensive firepower while increasing mission range would have been a very bad combination.  Also keep in mind that, at least in US practice, bombers didn’t just defend themselves; they also defended each other by flying in carefully planned three-dimensional formations so that the planes could maximize the amount of defensive firepower that they could pump into the space around (and inside) the bomber formation.

Marc,
on bombing range, am I correct to believe that US bombers were able to reach Berlin?
Bombers and Escorts were able to fly over what is described as West Germany on Global Map?

P-38 Lightning seems to have far greater range than some other Allies Fgs.

They were talking about reducing Fgs escorts firepower for range in previous posts.

@CWO Marc

In the oob rules, strategic bombers each received a +2 to their roll when damaging facilities. I was discussing applying the same damage bonus to the 1 role 5 IPC bomber, however, instead of messing with the range given air units departing from an airbase… a bomber that needed an extra movement point to get to its target would surrender that damage bonus.

@Young:

In the oob rules, strategic bombers each received a +2 to their roll when damaging facilities. I was discussing applying the same damage bonus to the 1 role 5 IPC bomber, however, instead of messing with the range given air units departing from an airbase… a bomber that needed an extra movement point to get to its target would surrender that damage bonus.

Ah, okay – thanks for this information.