Posts made by baron Münchhausen

I have a new version of SBR rule, I call it F because E was � :
@BJCard:

What about during the bombing raid- the only thing that actually kills units is AA fire? � What if the interceptors getting a ‘hit’ causes a bomber to turn back (could still be subject to AA fire); and an escort ‘hit’ causes a negation of the interceptor ‘hit.’? �
Every air unit represents hundreds of aircraft- I for one would strategic bomb more often if it were only AA fire I had to get through- � interceptors would cause the bombing run to be aborted (If they get a ‘hit’).

Maybe this isn’t historical, but dang aircraft are so expensive in this game, more than 25% of most countries’ income. � I rarely see strategic bombing raids as it is because everyone is afraid of the ‘1’ being rolled in AA fire. � If one side is doing Strategic bombing, likely they are already winning the game as it is (because they can afford a bomber loss).

Version F:
Apply only for the SBR battle, not any ground combat.
StrB 2A@1 can take 1 hit before being destroyed.
TacB A3 can take 1 hit before being destroyed.
Fgt A3 can take 1 hit before being destroyed.
Fgt Def 4 can take 1 hit before being destroyed.

_The airbattle lasts for 2 rounds.

Any aircraft can retreat after first round.
On second round all hits must be allocated, no retreat allowed._

After this 2 rounds,
any attacking StrB survivors (even damaged) can proceed toward AAA and IC. Only undamaged TcB can proceed and attacks AB & NB.

I prefer to allow each StrB Att2@1 to simulate the Flying Fortress MGs.
And gives a better defense against the interceptors when alone just to be able to get one Fgt down.

Attacker and defender allocate hits as they want, except for this one rule:
The attacker, after allocating a hit to an undamaged fighter, must allocate a hit to a StrB  or a TacB or a damaged Fgt. This obligation is reset for each round. Thus, even if the last hit of the first round was allocated to an undamaged Fgt, the attacker can allocate a first hit on an undamaged Fgt on the second round.
This rule is a way to integrate “Bomber are ennemy’s priority target”.

Example 1: 1 StrB vs 2 Fgt
Rolls: � “2” “2” � � � � � � � “6” “4”
Result: 1 StrB damaged.
Before 2nd round: StrB can retreat.
Because, on the other round the StrB can be destroyed if any 1 Fgt hits.

Example 2: 2 StrB vs 2 Fgt
Rolls: � � “1” “2” "1"“2” � � “2” “4”
Result: � 2 StrB damaged / 2 Fgt damaged
2nd rolls: “1” “3” � � “2” "3 � � � � � � � � � � � � “4” “5”
Result: 1 StrB down 1StrB can SB IC / � 1 Fgt destroyed � 1Fgt damaged

The second round lets every player a chance to retreat before getting too much damage on his or her aircrafts.

Do you think this SBR rules could generate more SBR because it let more calculated risks for both attacker or defense?

That’s what I hope.

@Der:

By jove I think I have it!

Picturing the battle, the bombers would be flying with an interceptor shield around them, so you are right - some of the interceptors should hit escorts. To simplify it: 1/2 may hit escorts, 1/2 may get through to hit bombers.

Therefore:

1. Attacking bombers and escorts all roll @ 1. (casualties all return fire)

2. Interceptors roll @ 2

**All ones destroy bombers first as priority, then escorts

All twos destroy escorts first as priority, then force bombers home**
So….

A bomber and an escort dogfight with three int:

• Roll 2 dice for attackers - a “1” is rolled - defender loses a fighter.

• The three fighters fire back - and get two “2’s” - attacker loses the escort. Since there are no other escorts, the bomber is forced home by the other “2”.

This adjustment makes the interceptors twice as effective as the attackers - as they should be over home soil, but softens them a bit by spreading their hits over both plane types and by sending 1/2 the bombers back home where they can attack another day. �

That’s work but it is still a StrB grinder vs OOB Global.
A different situation 2StrB+2 Fgt /3 Int Fgt.
Rolls: “3” “3” “1” “4” � � � vs “2” “2” “3”

A) Global 1940: only @1 count so Defender loose 1Fgt / still 1 SB on IC.
B) Dk revised: only @2 for Def Fgt : Def loose 1 Fgt/ Att loose 2Fgt.
D) BM version 2: StrB get 2 hits Def loose 1 Fgt / Att loose 2 Fgt.

So at first B and D are similar but change the two “2” for “1”
Rolls: “3” “3” “1” “4” � � � vs “1” “1” “3”

A) Attacker loose 2 Fgt.
B) Attacker loose 2 StrB No SB on IC
D) Attacker whether loose 1StrB but get 1 SB on IC/ or No SB but 2 damaged StrB can turn back home.

I make some thoughts simulation of scenarii.
The less aircraft the more A B and D have similar effect. The more aircraft the more A B and D diverge and get their essential traits.
A) Escorting Fgt killers � (1/6vs Fgt first for each interceptors)
B) StrB & Fgt killers (1/6 vs Fgt&StrB for each Interceptors)
C) Mainly Fgt killer but can tgt StrB (1/6 vs Fgt, 1/6x1/6=1/36 vs StrB for each Interceptors.)

Thus DK’s SBR rules revised works but “1s” are still fearsome for the attacker.
That why introducing StrB with 2 hits reduced somewhat this effect of the terrible “1”.
To be clear I’m not trying to convince you that mine D are better than your B.
Your tread with “2” forcing StrB to turn back opens a wide number of thinking outside the box. :-)
The StrB get two hit was a way to adjust your idea with A&A system and the nearer rule was about the 2 hits BB.
This is not a final point, I think their is still many fine tuning to reach a SBR rule that will promote a lot more aircrafts battle than actually.

As I work the last post out I’m pondering:
if to keep balance, and still introducing 2 hits bombers, is it necessary to expose them to AAA fire even when they are damaged?
Because in a situation of loosing 1 Bomber and doing 1 SBR or keeping 2 damage Bomber, attacking player will probably prefer keep a 12 IPCs unit rather trying inflicting a 3-8 IPCs damage.

If the damage bomber can still be destroy by AAA fire, the attacking player will had a more difficult tactical decision: risking both Bombers for no damage on IC (0-24 IPCs lost) or lose 12 IPCs and making 3-8 damages but it can still be a 24 IPCs lost if AAA hit “1”.

The option D is much more preserving attacking StrB, by introducing the AAA exposure for all StrB it may decrease the frequency of SBR because of a psychological fear of loosing this precious unit.

So by trying to equilibrate the loss between Att and Def, it can decrease what we want to promote…

@BJCard:

If interceptors hit on a 1 or 2, then UK/USA will likely never strategic bomb Germany because they likely have 3+ fighters in Berlin.

I like that you are trying to come up with better rules though, just hard to keep it all straight.

Let’s give it a try 4 against 4:
2 StrB @1 + 2 Fgt 1@2 &1@1= 5 points � vs 4 Fgt @2 = 8 points
Suppose 1 hit “1” and 2 hits “2” from interceptors and a “3”.
Results: 1 StrB is damaged and 2 Fgt down. 1 SBR (Lost 20 IPCs)

The same dice against interceptors could result: at least 1 Fgt down and at most 2 Fgt down. (Lost 10-20 + 3-8 IPCs)

Net result: Worse Allies scenario: 1 SBR, keep 2 StrB vs 3 Fgt / or the better one vs 2 Fgt.

So Allies kept their bombers vs Axis may have lost the same number of fighter.

If we change one “2” for a “1”, it becomes interesting:
Allies can keep both StrB  damaged for the next turn and 1 Fgt but cannot SBR IC. (Lost 10 IPCs)
Axis lost 2 fighters and even 1 third one depending on which aircraft roll the “2”. (Lost 20 or 30 IPCs but save 3-8 IPCs)
Net result: Axis save their IC and trade 2 or 3 fighters for 1 allies Fgt.

I think the balance is kept because giving 2 hits to StrB and 1Fgt@2 for each pair of attacking fighters that allows to give all interceptors @2. Otherwise, you came to the conclusion of OOB Global SBR minimize all @1 thus defending Fgt get no advantage and it is sheer number the decisive point.
And this is in favor of attacker which decide how many StrB and Fgt it will place in the SBR.
The Defense @2 and increase damage against IC when no interceptors can motive a player to engage incoming aircrafts (so the attacking player don’t get the impression of loosing a precious fleet of Fgt doing nothing to support the ground combat during SBR.)

For me, the SBR rule is not only about IC damaged, it is also about killing $$$ precious aircraft. It must be a balance gamble for both the Axis and the Allies.

@BJCard:

Well, my point is- say Germany is bombing London with

2 bombers, 2 fighter escorts

London scrambles 2 fighters as interceptors

Battle of Britain ensues- London rolls- 1, 3 <-� � yes! a 1!� �
Germany rolls for escorts- 2,3 <- nothing (If either got a ‘1’, they would negate the interceptor ‘1’ - as if it didn’t happen).
Now, because a British escort got a ‘hit’, one of the German bombers must abort the bombing run.
The other German bomber has to get through AA gun fire, but can otherwise finish the bombing run.

So, Germany and Britain are much less afraid to have an aerial combat because the results are still beneficial to both parties if successful (Either they get to bomb London or are repulsed), but not as devastating (Only lose planes from AA fire).� � You may have strategic bombing every turn with this-� �

In the normal A&A rules- why would the British scramble its 2 fighters? � They can’t afford to lose one, and unlikely they get a hit anyway. � In WWII they scrambled as often as possible!� �

Thanks for your reply,

That’s why it was better to give Fgt interceptor @2 instead of OOB Global SBR rule @1: option A.
Defending with 2@2 is far better than 2@1.
The temptation to fight for the kill attacker @1 is an advantage in DK’s SBR rules: option B.
In house rule option B: it is 2A1 vs 2D2. In my SBR rule option D it is 1A1 and 1A2 vs 2D2.

With your option E, you will probably have more SBR and it worth a try.
I’m wondering: why not allow fighters making also real risky mission.
In this case, SBR is like a first stage before the Combat Move start.
Of course Bombers in SBR can not attack other targets. But you can allow fighter to be usefull elsewhere.

@BJCard:

**What about during the bombing raid- the only thing that actually kills units is AA fire?  What if the interceptors getting a ‘hit’ causes a bomber to turn back (could still be subject to AA fire); and an escort ‘hit’ causes a negation of the interceptor ‘hit.’?  **
Every air unit represents hundreds of aircraft- I for one would strategic bomb more often if it were only AA fire I had to get through-�  interceptors would cause the bombing run to be aborted (If they get a ‘hit’).

Maybe this isn’t historical, but dang aircraft are so expensive in this game, more than 25% of most countries’ income.�  I rarely see strategic bombing raids as it is because everyone is afraid of the ‘1’ being rolled in AA fire.�  If one side is doing Strategic bombing, likely they are already winning the game as it is (because they can afford a bomber loss).

I’m not quite sure to fully understand your idea. Need more explanations.

Is it like a no damage situation? If the case, how can it be interesting to put fighters in it either escort or interceptor?

If their is only the StrB and Fgt escort making the “hits”? Will it negates an AAA fire for each hit against Fgt interceptor?

@Der:

OK we’re talking apples and oranges a little bit because my house rule doesn’t really account for tac bombers as I don’t play the global games.

I think the “pay for bombers repair” idea is good and matches the BB repair well.

I like your first rules fine. The only thing is the number of variables in them make them hard to learn: "if one intercetor comes" “if two interceptors come” might make it too hard to keep track of without a chart posted or something as to what to do.� � � �

I add this rule to allow a single Fighter interceptor to be able to get down a StrB.
Otherwise the StrB may be hit but will never be destroy. A kind of no risk situation for the attacker.
Just to forbid this I introduce: “2” means damage StrB and “1” mean StrB destroy.
All other situation are as the regular rule: 2 Fgts intercepting 1 StrB must hit twice (on “1” or “2”) to destroy the StrB.
Devil is in details!!!
Single Fgt interceptor rule amendments:
1 StrB@1 + 1 Fgt@1 vs 1 Fgt interceptor@2.
If it hits “1” it destroy the StrB and if it rolls “2” the attacker decides: either StrB is damage or Fgt escort is destroyed.

I included the TacB to get a complete house rule on SBR, you can pass by for 1942.1 or 1942.2.
For Att and Def balance, just keep the Fgt escort paired with another Fgt escort get 1@2 and the other 1@1.

@Der:

Sorry but it seems very complicated to me - you lost me about halfway down the page….simplicity is one of the main traits of this game.

The last post about what I tried to develop before you start your tread is not so important. :wink:

I tried to develop a fair rule which assign a singular target to every single interceptor. So even bombers can be targetted not just Fgts escorting. All the rest is technicallity… So I have the same intention as you in your initial post.

A) Global 1940 OOB SBR rules are almost no Bomber casuality and all Fgt destroyer when escorted.
For example: 3 interceptors against 2 Bombers & 2 Fgts escort mean all rolls to take down the Fgt first.
So 2 rolls “1” means 2 Fgts down and “2” for nothing. Rest: 2 SBR on IC and 0 Fgt.

B) Your SBR was far more Bomber destroyers and no Fgt even escorted: all escorts get a chance to hit a Bomber on a roll of 1 or 2.
Example : 3 interceptors against 2 Bombers & 2 Fgts escort mean all rolls to take down the StrB first.
So 2 rolls at “1” means 2 StrB down and the “2” for 1 Fgt down. Rest: No SBR on IC and 1 Fgt.

C) My initial SBR rule revised was allowing almost to 1, seldom 2, chance to hit a Bomber during SBR but still remains an escorting Fgt destroyer as OOB 1940.
For example: 3 interceptors against 2 Bombers & 2 Fgt escort mean no roll to take down the 2 Bombers unless one of the 2 Fgts was hit twice.
So 2 lucky rolls “1” and 1 at “2” means � 2 Fgt down and the last “2” can be a hit, if it was the case, then 1 StrB is down because of 2 hits cannot be allocated on the same Fgt so it pass to a StrB.
Even if the “2” was a miss, if the same Fgt was hit twice then, it is 1Fgt and 1 StrB down.
Rest: 1 SBR on IC and 0 Fgt worse scenario / 2 SBR on IC and 0 Fgt best scenario / 1SBR and 1 Fgt middle scenario.

D) Now, the new one SBR rule based on your ideas give all interceptors 1 chance/D6 to hit a Bomber on roll of 1 but it is not automatic destruction on a roll of “1”. It gives a second chance to the Bomber. It can be hit twice before being destroyed. And even though give some other tactical options to the attacking player doing the SBR.

For example: 3 interceptors against 2 Fgts escorting 2 Bombers mean 3 rolls to take down Bombers or Fgt.
So 2 lucky rolls “1” and a “2” means 1 StrB down and 1 Fgt down / or 2 StrB damaged going home and 1 Fgt down.
Rest: 1 SBR on IC and 1 Fgt  / or No SBR and 1 Fgt but still have 2 StrB for next turn.

It means option D is less a killer but can still negate a SBR on a IC and destroy StrB or Fgt.

In this manner, the D option is more dangerous to bomber than A & C but not as much than option B.

The D version is simpler for allocating the hits (“1” for Bombers / “2” for Fgts).
It is more respectful of the attacking and defending value than
A OOB1940 (all @1) and
B (only interceptor@2) or
C (Fgt1@2/2 Fgt, others @1)
when compared to standards in normal combat situation: Fgt A3D4 or TcB A3D3 and StrB A4D1.

It is the other post (version D) that I want your comments because it is base on your ideas:

Here is my proposal:
All the stages are similar as the original post.

Jet fighter A@2 & D@3
Fgt Interceptor @2
Bombers (StrB and TcB) @1
Fighter escort @1 +1 if paired with 1 TcB or Fgt. ***
So 1 pair of Fgts: 1@2 and the other 1@1.

When interceptors rolls “2” they hit the escorting fighters.
When interceptors rolls “1” they hit the bombers (TcB and StrB).

The novelty is here to discuss:
Give StrBomber in SBR only, can take a hit before being destroy.
But if receive this hit, the StrB can not do bombing and must turn back home.
Damaged StrB are repaired at the end of turn like BB in 1942.1&.2
Ex.: So 3 StrB can endure 3 hits without being destroy but they can not bomb IC.
In the same situation another player can decide to destroy 1 StrB, and proceed with one Bomber to attack the IC and keep the other damaged bomber, which can do no arm to the defender.
In case of a mixed group of StrB and TcB, it is the attacking player as usual which decides casualty: destroying a TcB or taking a hit on a StrB forcing it to turn back home.

Finally, keep the damage on IC and NB,AB as 1D6+2 for a StrB and 1D6 for TcB.
But to promote more airbattle with interceptors, when a SBR get a free ride without interceptors:
the bombing damage get fiercer: 2D6 keep the better and add +2. (As it was a heavy bomber).
If playing 1942.1 or .2, this could be 1D6+2 (instead of OOB 1D6) for the more accurate bombing.
I’m sure defending players will allocate more interceptors to prevent this.

When their is only one interceptor � � maybe the rule can be:
Roll “1” destroy a StrB / roll “2” damage a StrB.
Otherwise, if there is more than 1 Fgt, the interceptors roll a hit on “1” or “2” but it takes 2 hits to destroy a StrB.

The last rules about roll “1” target Bombers / roll “2” target Fgts escorting is much more simple than what I developped earlier on a different tread, feel free to compare and comments:

@Baron:

After reading more comments on SBR and Air Supremacy,
I will add that this way of allocating hits can be used against StratB during SBR.

Also, instead of giving every aircraft att or def@1, I suggest now:
Strat and TacB Att1 Def1 against other aircrafts.
Fighter (escort or interceptor) att@1 /def@1 (single) but when paired with either 1 other fighter or 1 TacB gained att@2 /def@2 for this fighter only.

Example:
during a SBR: 4 planes: 1StratB+2TacB+1Fgt = SB Att 1@1+TB Att2@1+Fgt Att 1@2
defending interceptors: 5 Fgt = 2 Fgt: 2Def@2 + 3 Fgt 3Def@1
When allocating rolls and hits: an escort screen is trying to protect the main aircrafts from being targetted, the fighter@2 are allocated to other fighter before any other aircraft.

The 1st and 2nd D@2 goes against Fighter / the 3rd and 4th D@1 against the two TcB/
the 5th D@1 against Bomber/
A 6th  would be allocated against the Fgt
a 7th allocated target would have been then (for the 2nd time) one of the TcB.

So even if StrBomber and TacBomber are protected in priority, after getting two rolls against them, the fighter escort is nontheless doing is job.
The defender still have a real chance to destroy bigger target but once per plane in most case, unless attackers are very outnumbered.

In case of a double hit against the same target,
I suggest now to put the “hit” on the next other kind of aircraft if possible:

1st hit: StrB, then 2nd hit get down a Fighter, (if none then a TacB)
1st hit: TacB, then 2nd hit get down a StrB, (if none then a Fighter)
1st hit Fighter, then 2nd hit get down a TacB, and if there is none then at last a StratBomber.

So it is possible to destroy the Strategic Bomber even if their is only one hit, so this contradict the rule about SBR and escort from Global 1940 that say defender always allocates hit.
In this case, surely the defending player would discard the fighter, but this house rule say if the rolls that score the hit was already allocate to the bomber then it is.

About the aircombat phase preceeding the first cycle of a naval combat I rather prefer now this option:

Instead let’s give the defending player the choice to send even his only aircraft (and all his aircrafts).

I rewrite the initial post:

I’m wondering about a way to add some flavor to naval combat in the Pacific (for 1942.1, 1942.2 or even Global versions).

Before every naval combat, allow 1 round of air combat between attacking and defending aircrafts.

All Fighters, Tac bombers and Strat Bombers attack and defend @1.
However, 1 fighter paired with a TacB or another fighter get Att/Def@2.

Each roll are allocated separately on a one on one basis except for fighter escort which block two aircrafts then letting one go on other target.
Bomber are always the most protected target. TacB are second.
If one side outnumbers the other, then one aircraft is targetted twice (or three times for a fighter), then a second and so forth.

In this way, 1) each individual fighter can be targetted three times before  2) a TacB being a double target, then 3) Strat Bomber at last.

Fighter @2 are allocated first to the fighters then TacB, and last to the Strat Bomber.

Example 1
1 Strat Bomber and 1 fighter attack 4 fighters.
Thus, two fighters defend @2, and two defend @1.
The first two @2 are allocated to the escorting fighter.
The third one @1 is allocated to the Bomber.
The fourth one @1 is allocated to the fighter.

If their was only 2 defending fighters, the Bomber couldn’t be hit.

Example 2
5 fighters attack against 1 TacB and 1fighter.
2 fighters @2 and 3 fighters @1.
The TacB is @1, the fighter @2.
The fighter is targetted three times 2@2, 1@1 and two times for the TacB 2@1 .
If their was only 4 fighters the TacB would only be the target of 1@1.

If two aircrafts targeting the same enemy aircraft get both a hit, the additionnal hit is pass to another target following the order of protection (Fgt toward TacB toward StrB toward Fgt), so no “1” is lost.

Example 3
8 fighters against 1 TacB and 2 fgts.
4@2&4@1 vs 2@1&1@2.
The two Fgt are targeted three times (2@2+1@1) each and 2@1 for TacB.
If only 2 rolls out of 8 get “1” and fall on the same Fgt, then the second hit is allocated to the TacB, not the second Fgt.

So, this rules will make possible to shot Strat and Tac Bomber even behind a screened of escort fighters even during a Strategic Bombing Raid. And at the same time, bombers are still screened by their escorting fighters if they outnumbered the opponent. Thus making less likely to lose those bombers instead of fighters.

All attacking aircrafts must be part of this unique round of air combat before a naval battle occur.

The defending player get some choice to determine the number of defending aircraft:

If there is only 1 fighter (or TacB) on a carrier, then their is no aircombat (the aircraft is considered patrolling near the other naval units).
The naval battle is as usual.
If there is 2 fighters (or TacB) on a carrier, then 1 fighter is sent away against incoming attacking aircraft(s).

If he had 3 or more fighters, the defender can sent 1 or more aircrafts but should keep 1 aircraft in reserve near the naval units. (So the defender always keep 1 aircraft that will fights normally (at @4 or @3) screened by cheaper unit or a BB that absorbs 1 hit.)

In the 1940 version, if the sea-zone is near an airbase, the defender can scramble up to 3 fighters (no TacB) against the attacking aircrafts.

This first round of battle before the regular naval combat occurs, is it unbalanced in favor of the Axis in 1942 (and about 1940)?

Does the defender choice too limited?
Instead let’s give the defending player the choice to send even his only aircraft (and all his aircrafts)?

Is it a real way to simulate the Pacific battles and enhanced battle during SBR or just a sophisticated rule with no benefits?

What do you think of all this?

I like this tread. :-)

Here is my proposal:
All the stages are similar as the original post.

Jet fighter A@2 & D@3
Fgt Interceptor @2
Bombers (StrB and TcB) @1
**Fighter escort @1 +1 if paired with 1 TcB or Fgt. *****
So 1 pair of Fgts: 1@2 and the other 1@1.

When interceptors rolls “2” they hit the escorting fighters.
When interceptors rolls “1” they hit the bombers (TcB and StrB).

The novelty is here to discuss:
Give StrBomber in SBR only, can take a hit before being destroy.
But if receive this hit, the StrB can not do bombing and must turn back home.
Damaged StrB are repaired at the end of turn like BB in 1942.1&.2
Ex.: So 3 StrB can endure 3 hits without being destroy but they can not bomb IC.
In the same situation another player can decide to destroy 1 StrB, and proceed with one Bomber to attack the IC and keep the other damaged bomber, which can do no arm to the defender.
In case of a mixed group of StrB and TcB, it is the attacking player as usual which decides casualty: destroying a TcB or taking a hit on a StrB forcing it to turn back home.

Finally, keep the damage on IC and NB,AB as 1D6+2 for a StrB and 1D6 for TcB.
But to promote more airbattle with interceptors, when a SBR get a free ride without interceptors:
the bombing damage get fiercer: 2D6 keep the better and add +2. (As it was a heavy bomber).
If playing 1942.1 or .2, this could be 1D6+2 (instead of OOB 1D6) for the more accurate bombing.
I’m sure defending players will allocate more interceptors to prevent this.

When their is only one interceptor maybe the rule can be:
Roll “1” destroy a StrB / roll “2” damage a StrB.
Otherwise, if there is more than 1 Fgt, the interceptors roll a hit on “1” or “2” but it takes 2 hits to destroy a StrB.
I hope that it will increase the number of SBR in a game.

StrB now still can be destroy even behind a screen of escort Fgts.

However, StrB get better chance to survive than in the previous “Bomber are priority target rule”.

So this precious unit is not on a suicidal runs and if they past the AAA can still deliver what 1940 OOB rules say: 1D6+2.

In the case you SBR with more than 1 StrB you now have a tactical decision to make when interceptors got more than 1 hit on your Bombers. In 1940, you may even choose between a TcB or a StrB.

*** I modified the escorting Fgt with 1@2/2 Fgts to get the exact proportion of number /2 for aircraft against ground target:
Fgt Def4/2=2 Fgt A3/2=1.5 � TcB and StrB are still inferior in dogfight with their @1.

This rules are quite similar to navy battle including BB so it respects the A&A system rules and are not too complex.

It does not contradict history in the way that even when the StrB were priority target, the Fgts doesn’t have the choice to engage the escort screen and sometimes destroy the escort Fgt instead of the bomber.

About the second hit for StrB, don’t forget that it is a whole flight of maybe 100 bombers and not only 1 plane. So many can be crippled, delayed, lost fuel, lost their way, etc. so they weren’t able to reach their target and have to get back home. Thus a damaged StrB unit, can have repair the older ones, and add some new Bombers to reach their operational number.

I was looking for a middle way to reduce the odds of loosing too many bombers if compare to OOB Global 1940 rule for escort that was realy protecting StrB behind escort Fgts. The rules below was another way to make possible attack against those units but it is far more complex than the one developped here.

What do you think?

@Der:

I decided to do some research on this. Axis and Allies Strategic Bombing rules (including Alpha 2) have been published eight times over 14 the years since AA Europe and have changed all eight times! It seems no one can decide what to do with them.

Here’s my attempt to make a sensible set of rules based off the last 14 years of rules:

• How to make a strategic bombing raid:
1. Announce how many bombers you are bringing to bomb your enemy’s factory.� �
2. Interceptors: If your enemy has fighters stationed in the territory, these fighters can try to intercept you. In this case you may need to bring escort fighters along with your bombers to help see them through.� �

This battle lasts only one round:

1. All incoming escorts and bombers fire @ 1 against the interceptors. (Casualties get to
return fire before being eliminated.)

2. All interceptors then fire at against the incoming planes, with bombers taking priority.
(Escorts can only take hits after all bombers have been hit.) Any one’s rolled destroys a
bomber. Any two’s rolled forces a bomber to turn back. Any two or less destroys an
interceptor if all bombers have already been hit.
� �
3. All casualties, both sides, are removed. Surviving escorts and interceptors withdraw.

4. Surviving bombers will face any AA Fire from the defending territory. For every “1”
tossed, a bomber is shot down and eliminated from play with no chance to counterattack.

5. BOMBING DAMAGE: If the bombers met interceptors earlier, roll one die for every
bomber that survived the AA attack. If there were no interceptors, Roll one die and add 2
for every bomber that survived the AA attack. (representing more accuracy)
� �
6. The total is the amount of damage done to the Industrial Complex.

Please leave your input and blunt criticism…. :lol:� � � � � � � � �

First: I found it very interresting and challenging.
I would like to know those 8 different rules.
For sure, I know of 1942.1, 1942.2 and 1940 and they are all different.

Your post makes me think about the difference between OOB rules, yours and mine (the other post on SBR below).
I would recall it later just for comparison.
But the more interresting is that your post inspire me an other different way to play it.

However, my first critique will be the same wich I received from BJCard:

@BJCard:

In this strategic level game air units are representing hundreds of aircraft, and they cost a lot of IPCs. � If we make them too vulnerable in a strategic bombing raid then there would be less of them (How many strategic bombing do you see? � The only ones I see are German/Italian bombs over London or Moscow- never the western allies because it is too easy for Germany to have 5+ fighters in West Germany to intercept).

The main reason is here:

All interceptors then fire at against the incoming planes, with bombers taking priority.
(Escorts can only take hits after all bombers have been hit.) Any one’s rolled destroys a
bomber. Any two’s rolled forces a bomber to turn back.

By this Bomber priority target rule, it seems to me that it will forbid many if not all SBR as long as there is any one fighter near an IC. Instead of promoting aircrafts only battles it will obliterate it for psychological (fear of loosing precious Bombers) and tactical (odds) reasons.

However, I’m very fond of your post, I hope it will open a discussion on this topic.
Very soon, I will expose what I have in mind about a slightly different SBR and escort rules from yours.

Exploration on SBR.

Cpt_Hellcat wrote:
I would like to see the bases knocked out for a turn which make them juicier targets for SBR.

1. Pay to repair damage as now.
2. Repairs do not take effect until beginning of Mobilize Units phase.
3. Then place new units, so a newly repaired factory can still place units, but bases are inactive for the turn. Ships being repaired at a newly repaired naval base would also be repaired at the same time (when new units are placed, so the damaged ship would have to sit there for the whole turn).

Regarding SBR and escorts/intercepts, the only change I’d consider is having all aircraft dogfight simultaneously so that escorts would be at risk and could also be taken as casualties to let a bomber make it thru. Not sure if I’d let escorts take AA hits for bombers as well, though.

SBR on ICs is still a viable option - the +2 per bomber is right on, IMO.

I’ve considered this change in repair phase as well. As it is, the repair phase seems shoehorned in, matching up with AA50 rules for repair. The problem is that AA50 repair made no difference at what time in the turn it was, as long as it was before the place unit phase. Delaying repair to end of turn didn’t matter then.

NOW, with the introduction of installation pieces that can be bombed, and also make a difference DURING the turn (again, factories only matter at end of turn), I think it was a missed opportunity not splitting the repair phase (or rather thinking of it as a repair takes time just like the build so pay now, fixed/finished later). However, just to be clear, I don’t buy spreading it over multiple turns as IL campaigns, because I think that snowball effect would be too much to ever overcome - first player to 8 bombers wins.

If repair was changed, it would make bombing campaigns against naval installations a HUGE tactical/strategic target. It would also mean damaged ships would need to stay out of battle for at least a little while (on the other hand, the Bismark gets fixed at end of G1, among other switches). range form airbases, or paratrooping tech, would also be affected.

The only loaner ends up being scrambling, and the best way to make airbases a priority target is to rearrange SBRs turn order… Again, in previous games it made perfect sense that SBRs took place during the combat phase - clean, and absolutely no ramifications to gameplay. But if SBRs took place prior to scrambling, the airbase is VERY important. As a bonus, the Battle of Britain is reflected more honestly - control of the air was to be met by attacking airfields, to prevent the British being able to field fighters later.

I’m not sure it wouldn’t break aspects of the game (but it would open up other tactics, and isn’t that the point in a massive theater or global game?). But I am a little surprised that it wasn’t this way to begin with. Like I said, prior to AA1940, repair phase timing made no difference as long as it was before mobilize. Now, timing makes a HUGE difference, and would give installation SBRs much more importance. So much so that the +2 might have to go away. And tac bomber hits on installations might have to be nerfed (div by 2, round up, so max 3 damage, calculate tac bomber hits individually. a hit of 3 and a hit of 5 is a total of 1.5=2, 2.5= 3, 5 total damage, not 8 total div 2 = 4 damage)

Interresting combination of 2 rules and a way to promote islands hopping:

http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4222&start=48

Darby wrote:
All Amphibious Assaults
a) Are at -1 for land amphibious launched land units for the first two rounds.
b) Defenders fire at +1 for the first round.

Amphibious Assaults staged from an adj. tt with some land in it - negate one round of Offensive minuses, and negate the Defensive pluses.

I REALLY like that it still allows people to do the 3 move assaults, but makes it more difficult.

Here’s a few changes I suggest:

On all amphibious assaults, all attacking units in the land battle have their attack value reduced by 1 for the first round of combat and all defending units in the land battle have their defense value increased by 1 for the first round of combat (These include Shore Bombardments and Anti-Aircraft Guns). If all transports unloading units on the amphibious assault have moved one or less spaces this turn before unloading, all units attack and defend without these modifiers.

---

�A lie never lives to be old.� � Sophocles

mantlefan
Post subject: Re: Theory Crafting For Alpha.+3
PostPosted: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:52 pm

The Changes do well to clarify … but I’m still wondering if we want to reward coming from a bit of land that serves as a logistic staging base.
The way you have it worded – A fleet can wait in a sea zone for a turn before attacking – No benefit as compared to attacking Honolulu from The Marshalls or Japan from Iwo Jima
(Besides the benefit of course of being able to put you land units safely on the islands while waiting to attack rather then at risk on transports.)

Do we want to reward Island hopping as well as just slow assault speed ?

Also I don’t think all attacking units should be minus just ones from transports
a) planes should not really get a minus
b) units from adj. flanking land tts should not get minuses (eg. Landing in Normandy - support from Holland)
c) Shore Bombard should be at full if applicable
etc.

hat might work, but it still harms the UK in London more than it helps Japan IMO. I like the idea where you can still attack if you want, but your troops fight worse if it’s done long range. How about a fusion?

Land units unloading into a enemy territory from transports that have moved 3 spaces that turn have their attack value reduced by 1 for the first round of combat. Land units (including Anti-Aircraft guns) that are defending in an amphibious assault have their defense values increased by 1 for the first round of combat, as long as at least one of the Transports unloading into the territory has moved 3 spaces that turn

This post give an interesting historical point of view:
@Game:

The issue is control of the air

In World War II, pure naval firepower didn’t mean a thing unless one have the planes to back it up. Surface ships without air protection were simply vulnerable to air attacks. The Japanese gave a very convincing demonstration of this early in the war, sinking two armored British warships (Repulse and Prince of Wales). And unlike Pearl Harbor, The British ships were at sea and underway, capable of maneuver and prepared for air defense. And yet they were sunk … quickly.

Carriers themselves were vulnerable to air attack – though they proved more durable than many expected. But they could also deliver offensive blows from hundreds of miles away, long before heavy ships had closed to within range of island objectives. So one of the primary tasks assigned to the fast carrier forces was the destruction and suppression of enemy air forces. The fast carriers would sweep in ahead of the landing and bombardment forces, seize control of the air, and maintain control of the air until local ground-based forces could take over. This kind of offensive strike was the best possible defense, both for the carriers and the heavy ships.

Carriers and battleships were fundamentally different weapons. A heavy ship could only throw its ordnance a few miles; a carrier could strike targets hundreds of miles away. A heavy ship had to stay in close proximity to its objective. A carrier 200 or 250 miles out had thousands of square miles of sea to disappear into, and would still be in striking range of its targets. The fleet carriers held the edge in terms of raw speed and maneuverability. And they were more difficult to put out of action than anticipated. A ship that’s hard to find, hard to hit, and capable of delivering heavy blows from hundreds of miles away is a formidable weapon.

Moreover, the Allies won battlefield air supremacy in the Pacific in 1943, and in Europe in 1944. That meant that Allied supplies and reinforcements would get through to the battlefront, but not the enemy’s. It meant that the Allies air power could support land forces in their immediate combat, as a form of “flying artillery”. In Europe the Allied fighter-bombers seemed everywhere, and it was difficult for the Germans to move in daylight. Close airsupport might attack the tank or artillery piece that is actively attacking friendly troops.

The quick fix for these facts is the optional rule “Air Supremacy”:

Air Supremacy
Fighters attack or defend in the opening fire step of combat if no enemy fighters or AA-guns are present or remain in combat. Any casualties are removed from play without being able to counterattack.

@BJCard:

It may even **make scrambling land based aircraft even more powerful than they already are. ** What will the Allies do when they are always outnumbered in aircraft?  You want to make the Axis even more powerful?

I would like to learn more about what you saw in this.

Otherwise, as long as we talk about SBR, Allies outnumbered can still wait, duck and cover, one turn or two just to built a substantial airfleet. It means Axis used and diverted some aircraft from land and sea battle. So even a defensive refusal to engage Bombers and escorts can work.

@BJCard:

@Baron:

@BJCard:

This is getting crazy.  In this strategic level game air units are representing hundreds of aircraft, and they cost a lot of IPCs.  If we make them too vulnerable in a strategic bombing raid then there would be less of them (How many strategic bombing do you see?  The only ones I see are German/Italian bombs over London or Moscow- never the western allies because it is too easy for Germany to have 5+ fighters in West Germany to intercept).

Naval battles.  Maybe have air combat first, but there are so few battles in this game between carrier groups that we may not see this even in effect.  It may even make scrambling land based aircraft even more powerful than they already are.  What will the Allies do when they are always outnumbered in aircraft?  You want to make the Axis even more powerful?

Thanks, that the kind of post I like: detail and to the point.
It will helps me figure it out something else.

I was not trying to be obtuse, just trying to follow all the proposed house rules make my head hurt.

The initial rule: all aircrafts @1 Att or Def is OOB rules.
The jetfighter had Att or Def @2.

I was trying to fit the fighter in its due place.
That why I introduce 2 elements:
Fighter paired with another Fgt/TcB gain @2.
More able to screen TcB or StrB from enemy aircrafts: must allocate 2 rolls against fighter before getting access to TcB and StrB.

After your comments, I had to inverse the rule about priority target because it means too much danger for Bombers to risk a SBR (which means going in combat mission instead). Thus they need a better cover from other TcB and Fgt.

To complet those rule is to integrate the house rule on Air Supremacy.
I like the idea of Aircraft making first shot when their is no air cover or AAA to protect ground units.

This is what I’m thinking about:

@Baron:

@Game:

The issue is control of the air

The quick fix for these facts is the optional rule “Air Supremacy”:

Air Supremacy
Fighters attack or defend in the opening fire step of combat if no enemy fighters or AA-guns are present or remain in combat. Any casualties are removed from play without being able to counterattack.

I like it because it gives another reason to buy AAA in this game.

Question:
In 1942.2, does AAA blocks all aircrafts for Air Supremacy or only 3 aircrafts?

Other question: if someone uses the house rule Cruiser get 1 AA shot, will you use it in a way to block Air Supremacy for all aircrafts or only 1?

Thanks anyone to tell me about how you use this rule in your games and how it affect the balance between Axis and the Allies.

Just to complete the details on this rule:

@Baron:

@B.:

@Imperious:

Yes i second that… air fights air untill one side has so air and following that hits go against land forces as preemtives. Thats very simple.

One need to think more than once before engage an enemy force of figthers and how to protect those bombers. By your rule fighters will be a very important unit, maybe too important and hence become a game breaker. However I will try it in my next game. Another variant would be what I suggested before, air-to-air combat for the first cycle of combat where only air units may be taken as casualities. If no side has got air supremacy after the first cycle of combat, the fighters attack as normal. If air supremacy then fighters attack/defend during opening fire step of combat!

I would like to know what kind of rule you use.
Is it like 1942.1 : Fgt A1/Bmb A0  vs Fgt D2?
Is it like 1942.2 : Fgt A1/Bmb A1 preemptives shots vs Fgt D2?
Is it like Global 1940: Fgt A1/Bmb A1 vs Fgt D1?
And if it’s neither, maybe you have an idea on wich one among these three is better for tactical and balance.

Great idea:
“If air supremacy then fighters attack/defend during opening fire step of combat!”
Air Supremacy
Fighters attack or defend in the opening fire step of combat if no enemy fighters or AA-guns are present or remain in combat. Any casualties are removed from play without being able to counterattack." :-)
By fighters, you mean any aircraft probably?

@BJCard:

@Baron:

@BJCard:

This is getting crazy.  In this strategic level game air units are representing hundreds of aircraft, and they cost a lot of IPCs.  If we make them too vulnerable in a strategic bombing raid then there would be less of them (How many strategic bombing do you see?  The only ones I see are German/Italian bombs over London or Moscow- never the western allies because it is too easy for Germany to have 5+ fighters in West Germany to intercept).

Naval battles.  Maybe have air combat first, but there are so few battles in this game between carrier groups that we may not see this even in effect.  It may even make scrambling land based aircraft even more powerful than they already are.  What will the Allies do when they are always outnumbered in aircraft?  You want to make the Axis even more powerful?

Thanks, that the kind of post I like: detail and to the point.
It will helps me figure it out something else.

I was not trying to be obtuse, just trying to follow all the proposed house rules make my head hurt.

There was no irony when I wrote it.
I really appreciate a fair comments.
I had Global 1940 but didn’t get a chance to test anything yet.
So you’re point of view mean something real.

@BJCard:

This is getting crazy.  In this strategic level game air units are representing hundreds of aircraft, and they cost a lot of IPCs.  If we make them too vulnerable in a strategic bombing raid then there would be less of them (How many strategic bombing do you see?  The only ones I see are German/Italian bombs over London or Moscow- never the western allies because it is too easy for Germany to have 5+ fighters in West Germany to intercept).

Naval battles.  Maybe have air combat first, but there are so few battles in this game between carrier groups that we may not see this even in effect.  It may even make scrambling land based aircraft even more powerful than they already are.  What will the Allies do when they are always outnumbered in aircraft?  You want to make the Axis even more powerful?

Thanks, that the kind of post I like: detail and to the point.
It will helps me figure it out something else.

@Praetorian:

I’ve never liked A&A’s version of marines.  The attack on a “2”, but only in amphibious assaults, didn’t ring true to me.  Yes, marines specialize in amphibious assaults, but why would they be better in combat in one of the most difficult environments than when they fight in a more traditional situation? **If they kick butt in an amphibious attack and warrant a “2” then they should kick similar butt in standard attacks instead of reverting to a “1.”  **

I don’t forget this initial post, it has some truth in it.
Is it possible to create a unit which is both good in regular combat and amphibious?

@BJCard:

I think we are trying too hard here.

Yes, it probably seems like it because I post some ideas from others (to read them in a same tread) that are creatives but somewhat complex or unbalancing in a way or another.

I’m trying to get a bigger picture here, I have some preferences but my mind is not made.

Actually, a simple unit  which pass over the obstacle about strange marines better in amphibious than regular combat:
Elite: A2 (better than reg Inf) D2 C4 (same as Art…) but give +1 Att to… ???
Suggest: +1 Att. when paired with Art or Arm/ and even one other Elite.
It give this unit a real advantage in both kind of battle.
Variation*: less simple but more historically grounded, *it only received this bonus after the first round (reaching the beach).
It gets the same punch as the Pacific unit (Att. 3 with Art in amphibious battle).
Also, paired with 1 Arm, it worth the 4 IPCs price for the Att punch from a transport: 6 (A3+A3) Att points + 5 (D2+D3) Def pts= 11 pts for 10 IPCs instead of 1 Art (A2D2C4) + Att. (A2+1=3D2C4) points. = 9 points for 8 IPCs.

Do you want to buy them now?

For me, the problem still is 1@3 for a mainly Inf unit. I found this a bit powerfull.

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4222&start=48

Think out loud: Island Hopping

I agree a single move between Japan and Hawaii - Probably hurts the game

I think I like the notion of Island Hopping -
Good
a) It really happened
b) it’s kind of cool
c) makes us use more of the board
Not Good
a) Might make things tale even longer
b) How to shape/force the behavior ? (two 5/7 NOs, and 3 Solomon NOs prob not enough)

I Tried this thought – "Amphibious Assaults must come from an Adjacent Square with at least some land in it. " Theme/Justification: Logistic staging area

Problems:
WUS can only be attacked from Canada/Mexico
Gibraltar, Morocoo, England, Normandy Can’t really be attacked from US
Gibralter, Morocoo , Can’t be attacked even from England

So My “Solution”

All Amphibious Assaults
a) Are at -1 for land amphibious launched land units for the first two rounds.
b) Defenders fire at +1 for the first round.
Amphibious Assaults staged from an adj. tt with some land in it - negate one round of Offensive minuses, and negate the Defensive pluses.

(I also play with marines which negate a round of defensive minuses in amphib assaults an stack these benifits)

Far from perfect, but paired with the NOs – I see Japan and or the US approaching Tokyo, Honolulu, Sydney via Island chains

A build up in England before Normandy , and a little tougher fight to get into N. Africa.

thoughts ?