Posts made by amanntai

@Dafyd:

I do appologize for causing the confusion it appears that I have caused.  My way of thinking about SBR’s on a territory that you are about to attack is not intended to have so many strategic bombers launched at one territory.  The ipc value hinders production of 10 bombers.  You have to have the ground units.  I believe that AAA would be more widly used in this game play.  I also think that if the strategic bombers are going to “fly” over an enemy territory that has an air base and intercepters available and radar tech (for those that play with tech), then they should be able to scramble.  I agree that there were massive waves of strategic bombers used but for game play, I was suggesting limiting it to one pass just as you have one pass at any other SBR.

As a side note, our gaming group has house ruled that intercepters and escorts attack and defend at their normal attack/defense values.  Still only one pass in the air combat but it didn’t make sence to deminish the fighter’s or tactical bomber’s capabilities because they are escorting or intercepting.  It has made SBR’s more challenging.  As for the SBR on a territory that your about to attack, it is a suggestion to consider.  One last thing, if your bombers are close enough to hit an enemy target like was suggested by Shadow Hawk, they may be close enough to have the enemy’s strategic bombers repay the favor.  I will have to play this rule and see what kind of difference it makes.

This thread was specifically made in response to discussion of Germany using very large numbers of Strategic Bombers (I believe 40 was the maximum number discussed). With that many, both OOB bombers and the bombers you described (dealing D6 damage), the bombers are practically broken (more so with the D6 Bombers… even with one pass, they could kill up to 120 infantry…).

If you use the regular values for intercepting fighters, what does radar do?

It’s interesting to note that they appear to stack… Could one be used as a Minor IC and two stacked be used as a Major IC?

@General:

And while I can understand Disney’s decision to start from scratch with the sequels, it’s a shame the EU has been cast aside like some fan-fiction rags. Not that all of it was great, but Heir to the Empire helped keep the SW flame and fanbase alive during the late 80s/early 90s dark ages. Too bad it won’t get any acknowledgment.

Throwing away Heir to the Empire makes no sense. Even the Prequels acknowledged Heir to the Empire by using Coruscant as the official name for the capital planet. Sadly, the leaks on Episode VII don’t seem to agree with Heir to the Empire…

Name: amanntai
Location: Lomita, California
Games: A&A Europe 1940, A&A Classic, Risk, Risk Legacy, Dominion

Wait, does the forum specifically need to know which user died, or do they only need to know you died?

Like what if Leonard Nimoy (just an example) was a user? We all know he died, but we don’t know that he was a user that died.

@Dafyd:

After reading all of the comments I beleive that the Strategic bomber should be just that.  It was designed to deliver a heavy payload on a designated target.  It was not flown like a fighter and you did not use it in a dive bombing manuever.  It flew level and high.  Let the escorts and intercepters fight it out and give the bombers a defence of one.  The B17 did shoot enemy intercepters down.  Leave the D6 roll as its damage value and their cost at 12ipc’s.  The only thing I would change is its mission peramiters.  The strategic bomber was used in industrial targets, rail stations, air and naval bases.  Tactical bombers like the Stuka and the P47 did not attack air and naval bases like and SBR but they attacked the planes, ships, and trains.  Stragegic bombers would carpet bomb a battlefield but this manuever was done prior to launching an attack and was one pass over the field.  It did not stay and engage in the battle.  If you use a strategic bomber on  a battlefield it should be limited to one pass over the field prior to the combat phase and the D6 total applied to the damage to the units in the field.  Say a stragegic bomber is going to be used in Western Ukraine.  The German player would launch all of his SBR’s to hit London’s I/C and air base and one to Western Ukraine.  All of the SBR’s are done prior to any combat rolls.  The Western Ukaraine bomber rolls a 5,  if the Soviet player has 4 infantry, 2 artillery, and two tanks; 5 points of damage would be inflicted on the Soviet’s forces.  One tank and one infantry (defense of 3 & defense of 2) would need to be taken as casualties (or any combination that would equal the amout the bomber inflicted).  Unless there is AAA in that territory, the bomber flies away unscathed.  The ground forces involved are not going to shoot a stargegic bomber down.  The casualties would be removed and the ground combat phase would begin.  I don’t think the Stategic bomber should continue dropping fours in a ground or naval battle.  This just wasn’t their function.  My humble opinion only.

Okay, I don’t like the D6 damage idea, but I like the one pass idea. I think all the OOB stats should stay the same, but in battles against units bombers only participate in one round. If attacking and they survive, they retreat, and if defending they become like AAAs.

Shouldn’t this thread be in House Rules? It deals with changing unit values and abilities…

All in all, I think Strategic Bombers should be reduced in attack to 3, and allow AAA units to participate in Strategic bombing raids. Maybe allow fighters to scramble when an adjacent territory or seazone is getting attacked (not strategic bombing) by Strategic bombers. This would reduce the effectiveness of using Strategic bombers in regular attacks.

@SS:

You could make strategic bombers SBR’s 1 D6, attack ground A2 D2, intercept D1, and cannot attack naval units. Raise cost to 15 icp’s.
From what I’ve read , bombers never really attacked naval. Unless I’m wrong.

If you have bombers attack naval, make it like A2 D0.

The German battleship Tirpitz was sunk by RAF Bombers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_battleship_Tirpitz)

Also, German aircraft in the North Sea in 1940 attacked their own destroyers in error and sunk them.

@GODLEADER:

In counterattack the defender is little help i rebalance a little the attacker in this one. In my head the blitz in this game is not very useful, and i change a little the principle.
Exemple, in the counterattack the german player attack  Rostov territory, Let us start again with this one. In this one the german have 4 infantry, 2 artillery, 3 tank, 1 mec infantry and 1 fighter. The soviet have 4 infantry in Ukraine. The german decide before the start of combat if try a Blizkrieg. On the start the german advance the totality of is troop i engage on Urakine, but i dont use is (viable((1)) troop for the blitz, in this case 2 tank the mec infantry and the fighter. The fisrt attack on Ukraine is go only with 4 infantry 2 artillery and 1 tank. After the first battle is over (Ukraine) it take by german the second one the blitz take place in this exemple in Caucasus, with 2 tank, 1 mec infantry and 1 fighter. This territory is protected by 2 soviet infantry, in this exemple. The second combat is resolve normally, If the german fail is blitz in Caucasus and if the soviet decide the counterattack is valid in a blitz with the normal rules of counterattack. In this rule the attacker have a little more preparation for this kind of strategie, but i have the chance to break the front line. i write, this at 5:00h morning. If is a bit too abstract, i try to re-explain.

(1) tank, mec infantry and if in range fighter and dive bomber.

I actually play this way normally. Since Amphibious assaults and air attacks work like that, I apply it to blitz units too.

@barney:

It’s the latter. I didn’t word it very well earlier.

In my HR I’m using them like the Kamikazi, but I’m using both the attack bonus with artillery and the defense bonus with inf.

@DizzKneeLand33:

@amanntai:

@wheatbeer:

@amanntai:

What about rather than trying to defend, the allies go on the offensive? Send their own air units to attack Germany, taking advantage of all those Bombers having to roll 1?

Wherever the Germans land their bombers, they will surely also station some infantry, aa guns, and/or fighters as needed. Only a really careless opponent will leave them undefended in a vulnerable position.

I think trying to bait them into attack could be effective, but will be challenging.

Depending on the situation, a naval base on British Guiana or Suriname could let you reach Normandy (if you’re willing/able to sacrifice enough transports to make a landing stick).

But if they’re really going all bombers on turn 2-3, how many infantry, AAAs, and fighters would they really have? If the Allies attack with several bombers, some TacBs, and any fighters they have in the UK, surely the Germans would eventually be left with no choice but to start losing bombers? It’d be suicide for the Allied aircraft, but at least they’d eliminate the threat.

Who ever said all bombers?  I know that I myself EXPLICITLY stated otherwise…. 3-4 bombers plus land units.  You can still have a nice stack around G8 or so.  I mean, Germany is going to get several NO’s and have a solid income base.

I usually buy 3 to 4 bombers per turn after the first few turns.  My 2nd round purchase has been 8 bombers, and the 3rd round is usually all bombers too, but of course this can be adjusted.

My Comment matched your description of the strategy.

@John:

@amanntai:

@John:

@CWO:

@AlphaKappa:

They have the same footprint as the chits that are included in Europe / Pacific 1940

Are they really the same size?��  From the few pictures I could find online, they look rather larger, they seem to be welded to a hexagonal base, and they seem to be in multiple colours rather than grey.��  Perhaps you’re talking about a different unit from the same game.��  Can you provide a photo?

I know there is a risk game that has pieces that look like factories, but not sure about this one.

That’s the 2008 version of Risk. Most people though, use the cities as Major, rather than Minor ICs.

Thanks, I couldn’t remember which version it came from, and your right, I use them for major factories as well, but I’m sure about the monopoly game.

Do you know anything about?

I don’t know anything about the Monopoly pieces. I just use the Risk cities as majors and the A&A ICs as minors.

@wheatbeer:

@amanntai:

What about rather than trying to defend, the allies go on the offensive? Send their own air units to attack Germany, taking advantage of all those Bombers having to roll 1?

Wherever the Germans land their bombers, they will surely also station some infantry, aa guns, and/or fighters as needed. Only a really careless opponent will leave them undefended in a vulnerable position.

I think trying to bait them into attack could be effective, but will be challenging.

Depending on the situation, a naval base on British Guiana or Suriname could let you reach Normandy (if you’re willing/able to sacrifice enough transports to make a landing stick).

But if they’re really going all bombers on turn 2-3, how many infantry, AAAs, and fighters would they really have? If the Allies attack with several bombers, some TacBs, and any fighters they have in the UK, surely the Germans would eventually be left with no choice but to start losing bombers? It’d be suicide for the Allied aircraft, but at least they’d eliminate the threat.

@ZeusEQ:

Hi,

I’m looking for some insights into the reasoning behind some unit stats. Note that so far I only played the classic version, and the last time was some time ago, but I received 1942.2 today and am planning on introducing it asap into my board gaming group  :-).

I understand that in a land battle, some units are clearly better suited to being on the defensive, as they can dig or otherwise make use of cover (infantry for example); hence the 1/2 stats for infantry make perfect sense to me. Other units excel on the attack, and loose their advantage if forced to take up a static position (tanks) - hence, the change from 3/2 to 3/3 actually does NOT make much sense to me; 3/2 seemed to me to capture the offensive nature of tanks perfectly. Was this change requested by players, or something the designers ever explained?

Anyway, for land units defense and offense makes a difference. But for naval and air battles, why would a fighter on the defensive be better than the same fighter on the attack? if anything, the attacking aircraft might have the benefit of surprise, but once the battle is joined (whether dogfighting with enemy aircraft, or strafing enemy land units), it doesn’t matter at all whether you’re part of the attackers or defenders, right? For bombers, I understand they wanted to represent their offensive nature with the 4/1 stat, but even there, the attack should be the same irrespective of what side of the battle you’re on.

For naval battles, the same thing goes, however most naval units already have their attack and defense the same, with the only exception being the carrier (and there I would think they should just be 1/1/ in a naval battle).

So what am i missing here?  :-)

Besides the stats themselves, I would also think some units would be focused on certain other units. Fighters for example are obviously much more effective against other aircraft than they are against land units, and would be expected to keep enemy bombers off their land-bound friends’ heads, and keep enemy fighters away from their own bombers. Bombers on the other hand would be very effective against land units, but almost defenseless against fighters.

I haven’t tried yet, but would it make the game too complex or slow it down too much if some sort of “priority targets” would be assigned to some units, and their hits should be assigned to those types of units first? I guess that once there are no more of those priority targets available, their effectiveness would go down, and so should their attack/defense power.

Apologies for the long post, I tend to get carried away with stuff like this  :lol: .

Thanks,

Zeus

I can’t give much insight on the tanks (I believe it has to do with no one wanting to buy tanks and only buying infantry), but I can explain Bombers and Fighters.

Bombers on your home territory (defending) aren’t going to be very good. You can’t easily scramble bombers to intercept the enemy like fighters, and bombing runs might hit your own troops or fortifications or your own civilians on your ground. Hence their usefulness only on offense.

Fighters, however, can be scrambled to intercept enemy planes attacking, or harass advancing armies, without a high chance of collateral damage.

@John:

@CWO:

@AlphaKappa:

They have the same footprint as the chits that are included in Europe / Pacific 1940

Are they really the same size?�  From the few pictures I could find online, they look rather larger, they seem to be welded to a hexagonal base, and they seem to be in multiple colours rather than grey.�  Perhaps you’re talking about a different unit from the same game.�  Can you provide a photo?

I know there is a risk game that has pieces that look like factories, but not sure about this one.

That’s the 2008 version of Risk. Most people though, use the cities as Major, rather than Minor ICs.

What about rather than trying to defend, the allies go on the offensive? Send their own air units to attack Germany, taking advantage of all those Bombers having to roll 1?

I will have to try this out. I like how even though France starts occupied, they have more tactical options due to the additional aircraft.

@barney:

sounds good to me amanntai :)

I was trying to reflect their populations somewhat. I ended up giving China 8. Just started my test game a round ago. I think it’s gonna add a little variety without nutting things up too much. :)

What are you using for the militia?

@Imperious:

What is the issue your having?

Oh, I’m not having an issue. I just wanted to know.

@Baron:

@Black_Elk:

I like the proposal for Russian tanks and German Uboats for that reason. What icon units might we reduce in cost for UK, USA and Japan?

Cheaper spitfire for UK would certainly be potent. Perhaps cheaper transports for USA? Not sure about Japan though, probably a warship, maybe carriers or destroyers? Something slightly less powerful, but which could help them in KJF?

What do you think if we agree on UK’s Spitfire and US Liberty Ship.
To make thing even, Japan can also have a reduced sub cost to 5 IPCs, since they develop the better torpedo.
We can also give to Germany a 1 IPC redux on Tactical bombers, since they keep the Stuka through the war.

Japan and Germany gets 5 IPCs Subs.
Germany gets a 10 IPCs Tactical bombers
Russia gets a 5 IPCs Tank
UK gets a 9 IPCs Spitfire.
USA gets a 6 IPCs transports.

So, Axis gets 3 iconic units and Allies gets 3 iconic units too.

If you find that Sub is too much for Japan, then goes to Zero Fighter production increase.
Japanese Fgs put at 9 IPCs.

I understand we’re in the house rules forum, but last time I played 1942, there were no tactical bombers.