@SS:
I could try it. I have to see what it does if japan and US get there NA island bases. With that =
Fig M5 + air b + island = M7
I was thinking from the reverse POV on naval vs land aircraft.
Let’s suppose the basic planes are naval ones, able historically to work in all situations.
Land planes are going to be a bit better in range and maybe on A/D but costlier.
How about this?
I have to go now, I will catch up later tonight. Sorry.
@SS:
@Baron:
Can you live with land planes with M5 vs naval planes with M4?
From a non airbase ?
Yes, AB will make land planes M6.
Can you live with land planes with M5 vs naval planes with M4?
On older classic games, Hellcats and Zeroes were only moving 3.
So, they were limited over land.
As I said earlier, I’m a bit rusted.
I need to get the whole picture within your gameframe.
I will do my homework and read more of earlier posts.
I agree, only naval fighter and naval bomber for carrier.
But, all naval planes can land on TTs but not the reverse right?
It is interesting to balance these 6 types of planes.
TcB and Fg
Naval bomber and naval Fg
Heavy and Medium Bombers
What is the average income for Germany and US in your game?
Naval Fighter and bomber had a low defense factor.
I only played with Fg A6 D8 C10 or Fg A4 D4 C6, so do you usually play with such low defense factor?
I like both attack of StB or Heavy on AAA.
On Bombers defense, I only think about ground combat, so planes can be hit too.
StB defense seems high, but to me TcB were A6 D6.
I don’t see bombers on defense as being shotdown on airfields.
But rather being used on tactical bombing mission which don’t have clear objectives and targets as on offense.
It is easier to say : to german bombers bomb Stalingrad (while on offence) than bombing soviet units crossing Volga river pretty much everywhere (while on defence).
You get it right.
It is an additional way, and the original developed with Black_Elk, to increase the Allies bonus to help them with USA R0.
Tactical bombers (Mosquito) were better than Torpedo bombers (Devastator or Avenger) at defending.
IMO, naval dive bombers (Dauntless or Helldiver) are quite similar to Tactical bombers for ground attack.
The main difference is between Tactical vs Torpedo bombers.
Motorized Artillery: C: 5, A: 2, D: 2, M: 2, Can support Mechanized Infantry and Infantry, No Blitz
With these combat values, I would allow blitz when paired to Tank or Heavy Tank.
Simply because Motorized Artillery is a costlier unit and better than MechInfantry, so why denying a combined Move with Tank?
And, in game, you will see that these funny Stug III sculpts with tracks should followed Tank to make sense.
The main point is to restrict blitz capacity to Tank only, so you will need them and you will be ready to purchase Tank to enhanced both MI and MArt mobility.
Self propelled artillery cost 6 IPC, A2, D2 and boost 2 matching infantry units.
It can boost 2 other units because it has better mobility than the horse drawn artillery. I am by far not as good in math as Baron, but I figure a buy of 12 IPC (1 S.P Art + 2 inf) gives you 6 pips in attack. That is as strong as 2 Tanks, but you get more fodder. That makes sense.
Now, if the S.P. Art should cost 5 and only boost 1 inf, that is 8 IPC, or 9 if the inf is a Mech, but you only got 4 pips. That is the same combat value as the old art/inf combo, only more expensive, hardly what I call an improvement, or battlefield game changer.
Combining Move 1 units with Move 2 unit is distorting a bit the comparison.
Of course, we hope for balance sake that M1 unit will be stronger than mobile unit to compensate for higher mobility.
So, it is right that 2 Infantry and 1 SPA at 6 IPCs (avg 2 pips for 4 IPCs per hit) should be stronger than 2 Tanks.
The main thing to consider is Move 2 capacity.
1 SPArt A2 D2 M2 C5
1 MInf A1-2 D2 M2 C4
Gives 4 pips on offence and defence for 9 IPCs or 2 pips for 4.5 IPC per hit.
But, Move1 Artillery and Infantry cost only 7 IPCs or 2 pips for 3.5 IPC per hit.
Your average unit is paying 1 IPC to get +1Move.
And this is correctly balanced based on difference between 3 IPCs Infantry and 4 IPCs Mech Infantry.
Your 6 IPCs SPA with +1A to 2 Infantry will be weaker than 5 IPCs SPA:
1 SPArt A2 D2 M2 C6
1 MInf A1-2 D2 M2 C4
1 MInf A1-2 D2 M2 C4
6 pips on offence and defence for 14 IPCs and 3 hits = 2 pips for 4.67 IPC per hit.
2 Tanks are at 6 pips for 12 IPCs or 2 pips for 4 IPCs per .667 hit.
Of course, you can tell that Tank is 3 pips for 6 IPCs per hit.
So, probably your 6 IPCs SPA, when combined with MInf is the same strength than Tank.
Give Axis to less experienced players and Allies to more experienced ones.
This can be a way to balance things without requiring other twists.
If Allies lost, give Red Bomber to Allies.
After 3 games, if all Axis wins, then goes to America First.
IMO, dicing might occurs one way or another.
It will probably become tight.
@SS:
I kind like wittman"s idea. Bombers shouldn’t get A4 against naval. They should get A2 only against naval. I always felt bombers had to high of attack values against naval.
1 to 1 bases with a fig then A3 at naval.
I’d keep it simple.
If you keep it A4 at naval then give Cruisers and Battleships AA shot’s for 1 round only at bombers do to there slower moves.
Tweaking with SS heavy bombers on Global War40, it made me think about a way to nerf a bit strategic bombers and keeping D6 dice within an already accepted mechanics (associated with heavy bombers tech). That way, in naval combat StB becomes weaker, as historically the case. But you keep the same combat values for attack in both cases, only you get another dice in regular combat compared to naval combat.
Strategic bomber 1942.2 or G40
Attack 2*, in ground combat rolls twice per combat round (like Revised Classic Edition Heavy bomber)
Defense 1
Move 6-7
Cost 12
Damage D6+2
This double @2 provides same rate of success than @4 but instead of just 66.7% of making a single hit, you get (20/36) 55.6% of making at least one hit and (4/36) 11.1% of making a second hit.
Now, naval combat is only 33.3% rate of success.
AAA have no attack value in itself but allowing to amphib with them is just to haste the pace.
That way, you can load a TP with one Inf and AAA, then unload both in amphib. if you win the fight, your AAA will defend next turn.
Or, if loosing, you can sacrifice an AAA for an attacking unit with a combat value.
This AAA rule was more to streamline the move of all combat units.
I can tweak of few things. All are D12s, except bombing damage.
Stg. Bomber
Attack 3, @2 (roll twice? for one round only?, each round?) roll of 1 no return shot (self-explanatory). Ground only
Attack 3 @1 (one round only? each round) roll of 1 no return shot (self-explanatory). Naval only
Defense 2
DF 1 (Dogfight?)
SBR 1d8+1 IC, Air-Naval ports, rail stations and oil refineries for damage
SBR 3, @2 (twice ?) single attack on AA gun after AA gun rolls defense first @2
Escorts and Interceptors allowed
Heavy Bomber
Attack 4 @3 (three times per round?) roll of 1 no return shot. For each Double 12s 1 friendly kill. Ground only
Attack 3 @2 (two times per round?) roll of 1 no return shot. Naval only
Defense 3
DF 2 (Dogfight?)
SBR 1d10+1 Same as Stg. B
SBR 4, @3 (three times?) Same as Stg. B Single attack on AA gun. AA gun gets first defense roll @1 if AA gun survives.
Escorts and Interceptors (NOT) allowed ?
I need you solve my question marks.
My first impression is that you follow a general principle that Heavy is better than Strategic bomber.
Are you sure that Heavy were more suited for Tactical missions than Medium Strategic bombers?
My rather limited understanding of all WWII bombers was that B-25 Mitchell or Twins Engines Betty (Strategic medium but not heavy bomber) were more able to bomb warships than B-24 or B-17.
B-17s were used in early battles of the Pacific with little success, notably the Battle of Coral Sea and Battle of Midway. While there, the Fifth Air Force B-17s were tasked with disrupting the Japanese sea lanes. Air Corps doctrine dictated bombing runs from high altitude, but it was soon discovered that only one percent of their bombs hit targets. However, B-17s were operating at heights too great for most A6M Zero fighters to reach, and the B-17’s heavy gun armament was more than a match for lightly protected Japanese aircraft
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-17_Flying_Fortress
Based on this, I would agree that Heavy have a better AA defense in Dogfight.
Also, I would tend to increase the hit capacity of StB while keeping the double dice.
For instance,
StB treated as medium bomber
Attack 4, @2 against ground unit
Attack 4, @1 against naval unit
Defense 4, @1 (against ground only). (Same single die compared to naval attack.)
Dogfight 1
SBR damage: D8+1
Heavy bomber
Attack 3, @3 against ground unit
Attack 3, @1 against naval unit
Defense 3 (against ground only). (Same single die compared to naval attack.)
Dogfight 2
SBR damage: D10+1
You are adding a lot of little details between both, it makes it harder to memorize. I know your game have plenty of various units.
From a purchasing POV, I would need a clearer line to help me make my purchase decision.
For all bombers, an attack roll of 1 makes for no return shot.
I don’t see why bombers are able to destroy AAA. This feature might be an interesting capacity.
Is it a game POV or an historical POV?
I’m rusted about all abreviations.
My main concern is about which type should receive special features you add.
For example, I feel like StB flying lower altitude than Heavy were less subject to friendly fire casualty.
It radically protects all US Navy assets. And China is less piece of cake.
IMO, it does not make Allies too powerful.
And I rather prefer this over moving German StB into Ukraine per Larry Harris Tournament settings.
A slightly modified rule from an old AA WWII Expansion can figure your rule a bit more historical-like.
You may allow to not sink the BB with a second hit by specifying that a Carrier can be sink instead.
Carriers were priority targets, BB were next.
I liked the skating and team play.
It is improving each olympic game.
Hi SS,
I read about some DeHavilland mosquitoes destroying AA batteries but not about StB.
It is your game, but I feel like all your bombers can be more specialized.
Here is a few examples to explain what I mean.
That way, each purchase of unit type get a greater emphasis on a given way of tactical combat.
TcB better vs Tank or AAA.
Heavy Bombers 4 rolls at carpet bombing (more than 1 hit per round possible but only first combat round) but StB can roll each round (because they were use in tactical situation more often).
StB vs Hbombers,
Less dogfight machineguns vs more mguns (tailgunners and ballguners).
A bit usable on Tactical mission vs only for strategic targets D12 dice:
(Def 4 or 3 vs def 2)
TcB (dive and torpedoes and recon) was very useful on Carriers
Defense 4 is low and compromise defense compared to all Fgs on Carriers.
Etc.
YG wanted to solve some balance issues, not just toying with 8 dices.
At least, he might get credits with tweaking subtly with balance without radical change.
heh heh '46 for the Leaf ? No Way ! C’mon Canada! Defend your honor :)
I remembering an old punk song which said :“I’m proud to be a Canadian, pass me my beer. I’m proud to be a Canadian pass me another beer…”
I know there is another sentence but cannot remember what it was and which group sang this song.
