Topics created by baron Münchhausen

@Imperious-Leader
Hi IL,
I can see that some TTy in Siberia did not worth a real boost in economy.

Your suggestion made me think about a way to expand my first idea a little bit more, even if it is not truly accurate/realistic from a geo-economic POV.

When invading a Zero IPC island TTy with an amphibious assault, if winning get 2 IPCs.
If defending side won the battle, he get 1 IPC.

If it is a Zero IPC continental TTy, the invader gain 1 IPC.

It remains a bonus given through the result of a combat. No additional economic value to keep such islands on subsequent rounds.

That way, it is an incentive to fight over these TTys nonetheless.

@SS-GEN
I mentionned the OOB ways in beginning of my last post.

@SS-GEN said in Special SBR phase prior to regular Combat move:

We just played with figs C8 stg b C8

In that regard, it means that Fighter is twice better at dogfight than StBomber.
It is probably interesting to commit aircraft into various combat because of lower cost.
My own cost is Fighter at 7 IPCs and TcBs at 8 IPCs.

It is a small margin but your Fighter value is less direct against aircraft than mine. So, it means less aircraft attrition somehow. So, all in all, I feel both Fighter configuration are balance.

Here is a variant map.
Toying with Guadalcanal, Gilbert and Line SZs to make Solomons 2 SZs from Western USA SZ…

That way, both Hawaii and Carolines get a lot of Islands within 2SZs reach.

Carolines is like the core of a seven star from which you can use 7 branches and reach every PTO Islands, except Aleutians.
Hawaii can reach all south-eastern islands, New Zealand, Australia, New Guinea, Carolines, Marshalls and Wake.

DKs Hybrid PTO SZs_36_BM_revised_Midway_Johnston_Line SZ.png

galley / trireme, preferably with a ram.

they must have seen Ben Hur or whatever, by this age.

The on going discussion:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=40520.msg1693864#msg1693864
on Transport with defense roll makes me wonder about actual combat strength of Classic Transport and an escorted TP:

Transport and Destroyer A2 D2 C15, 1 hit
Offense & Defense factor:
36*(2/15^2) = 0.32

Transport and Cruiser A3 D3 C19, 1 hit
Offense & Defense factor:
36*(3/19^2) = 0.30

Classic Transport A0 D1 C8, 1 hit
Defense factor:
36*(1/8^2) = 0.5625

I revised the opening post.
As comparison points, a Fighter A3 D4 C10 off/def is 1.08 / 1.44

Destroyer A2 D2 C8, 1 hit
Offense & Defense factor:
36*(2/8^2) = 1.125

Submarine A2 D1 C6
Offense:
36*(2/6^2) = 2.00
36*(3/6^2) = surprise strike 3.00
Defense:
36*(1/6^2) = 1.00
36*(1.33/6^2) = surprise strike 1.33

You need to send 2 Destroyers to get a similar defense value with Classic Transport strength 0.5625:
Transport and 2 Destroyers A4 D4 C23, 2 hits
Offense & Defense factor:
36*(2/11.5^2) = 0.544

Or make defenseless Transport a 4 IPCs unit:
Transport and Destroyer A2 D2 C12, 1 hit
Offense & Defense factor:
36*(2/12^2) = 0.50

Now, if you want to introduce a Classic TP with the same strength of actual DD+TP combo 0.32:
You need to make TP cost 10,5 IPCs:
Classic Transport A0 D1 C10, 1 hit
Defense factor:
36*(1/10^2) = 0.36

At 11 IPCs, it would be 0.30 though.

Transport defending A0 D1 would be interesting at a clean 10 IPCs.

I made little changes and a few tests in Pacific.
In PTO, I reduced US double Subs and DDs into single one.
It gives many interesting little and epic Naval battles in the first and second rounds.

Adding one additional TP in Japan SZ makes for a more dynamic and fast explosive deployment into main land Asia.
Japan can now better rivaled with Szechwan IC in second and third rounds or get to all money islands at the cost of loosing TPs.

IDK how would do a conservative player since all I tried is as many big naval combats within reach in the first two rounds.

Here is a picture.
I will do more game tests and then write the complete set-up, of the final version to be experiment in a F-2F game.

@Argothair:

Yup, I’m a big convert to Anniversary. I own both games, and I’ve played more Spring '42 2nd Edition (1942.2) than I have Anniversary, but that will change over the next couple of years, because now I almost exclusively play Anniversary.

1942.2 is maybe one hour shorter than Anniversary on average, but the price you pay to save that hour is having to put up with ridiculous sea zone configurations (America typically needs three separate stacks of transports to be effective in Europe) and weird, crunchy flight paths that force you to send fighters from California on turn 1 through Australia and India so that they can reach West Russia in time to stop the German advance.

1942.2 does have some interestingly tight/sharp trading in eastern Europe; I like the territory divisions in Eastern Europe better in 1942.2 than in Anniversary. Instead of being rapidly forced back to Moscow, Russia has a real chance to stack in West Russia or Archangel through the middlegame, and the Germans can be defeated if they over-invest in the pricey 6 IPC tanks and then let those tanks be killed by efficient stacks of Russian infantry and fighters.

There are also interesting possibilities in 1942.2 if you adopt a “US goes first with a non-combat turn and extra purchase,” which tends to re-arrange the entire board and perhaps even allow for a small Axis bid.

That said, the well-designed eastern european front is not enough to save 1942.2 from its otherwise terrible starting setup. With no bid, the Allies will be pushed out of Egypt, China, Siberia, the central Pacific, and the north Atlantic sea zones no matter what they try to do about it. The British are wedded to their disaster of a factory in India, which deprives them of the income needed to make a real contribution in the Atlantic. Because Australia, China, Malaya, Burma, and Hawaii are all 1-IPC territories, the Allies have nowhere in the Pacific that makes sense a a place to build a factory as a forward base. Meanwhile, the Japanese have no reason at all to go south or east, and so in every game they either seize the British Indian factory and use it as a base to attack Stalingrad, or plow through China/Siberia and attack Moscow. There is no Battle of Midway or Battle of the Coral Sea or Battle of Guadalcanal; instead the Japanese get to do a bizarre repeat of the Pearl Harbor attacks, even though it’s supposed to be Spring 1942 instead of December 1941. There is no Battle of El Alamein or Battle of Kasserine Pass; instead the British get thrown out of Egypt and the American Atlantic fleet is sunk in its entirety by German subs before the Americans even get a turn, which means that when the Americans finally do make it to Morocco, they land with overwhelming force. The setup is rigid, unbalanced, ahistorical, and ultimately unrewarding.

SanFran1941_Baron_Alpha07.png

Yeah we have about twenty guys in our Bay Area group.  Black Elk is also in our group just haven’t met him yet lol. Hopefully soon though.  A great group of guys who love A&A. :)

Maybe this might come in handy, someday. Too easily lost if not quoted with a fitting thread name.

@Argothair:

Just brainstorming here – I thought I’d throw out a handful of potential national objectives for the 1943 game, and see if anyone likes any of them. If nothing else, maybe they’ll help inspire other people to come up with better ones.

AMERICA
Free French: +3 IPC if there is at least one Allied-controlled factory in Quebec, French Indochina, Normandy, France, or Southern France.
I Shall Return: +3 IPC if America controls the Philippines.
Champions of Democracy: +5 IPC if America controls at least 4 of the following: Norway, Holland, Denmark, Southern Italy, Poland, Greece, Yugoslavia.
Chinese Bases: +5 IPC if the Allies control at least 8 territories marked with a Chinese rondel AND America has a strategic bomber in Kwangtung, Kiangsu, Shantung, Jehol, or Manchuria.
Naval Supremacy: +5 IPC if the Japanese have no carriers or battleships on the map.

BRITAIN
Secure Supply Lines: +3 IPC if there are no Axis troops in Africa, Trans-Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Persia, Northwest Persia, or Eastern Persia.
Colonial Restoration:+5 IPC if Britain controls India, Burma, Malaya, and Kwangtung.
Pacific Commerce: +3 IPC if the Allies control New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, New Zealand, and all of Australia.

RUSSIA
Relieve the Siege of Leningrad: +3 IPC if the Russians control Novgorod, Archangel, and any one of the following territories: Belarus, Baltic States, Vyborg, Karelia.
All Quiet on the Eastern Front: +5 IPC if the Russians control Amur and did not participate in combat with any Japanese units this turn.
Ukrainian Conscripts: +3 IPC if the Russians control Western Ukraine, Ukraine, and Rostov.

GERMANY
Atlantik Wall: +10 IPC if the Allies do not control any of Norway, Denmark, Western Germany, Holland, Normandy, or Spain.
Oil Supplies: +5 IPC for each of the following territories the Germans control: Venezuela, Romania, Caucasus, Iraq, Persia, Saudi Arabia.
Panzer Offensive: +5 IPC if Germany has a total of at least three tanks in the territories marked with Russian rondels.
Finnish Defenders: +3 IPC if the Germans control Finland but not Novgorod.
Baltic Shipping: +3 IPC if there are no Allied ships in Sea Zones 113, 114, and 115.
Not a Step Back: +3 IPC if Germany attacked at least one Allied-controlled territory this turn and did not perform any retreats this turn.

JAPAN
Inner Defense Ring: +5 IPCs if Japan controls Iwo Jima, the Marianas, Guam, Formosa, and Okinawa.
Petroleum Shipments: +10 IPCs if the Japanese control Persia, Borneo, or Celebes and there are a total of at least 3 Japanese transports in Sea Zones 6, 18, 19, 20, 21, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 43, 44, 79, and/or 80.
Soviet Non-Aggression Pact: +5 IPCs if Japan controls Manchuria and Korea, and Japan has not participated in combat with any Russian units this turn.
Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere:: +3 IPCs for each of the following territories Japan controls: Kwangtung, Malaya, India, French Indo-China, Korea, Shensi, Yakut.
Imperial Glory: +10 IPCs if Japan controls at least two of the following territories: Amur, Hawaii, Alaska, New South Wales, South Africa, New Zealand.

The issue is resolved now. djensen has informed me, that he freed up some space.
I have already tested it, and new savegames will be uploaded to the forum correctly as well as downloaded to the user’s harddrive.

Enjoy gaming :-)

This mechanics can also be applied to ABs as Carolina is suggesting:

Air and Naval base damage
@Carolina:

Great topic - hi-lights how A&A is a little too basic.  ie. not all hits should be equal - really, when would AAA blow every plane out of the sky?

I would propose to change the AAA rule for bases and industry that AAA does not kill but affects the accuracy of the attacker.  Defending installation rules a 1d6 and this is subtracted from the attacker’s roll.  
1d6-1 for fighters and tacB
1d6-2 for bombers
Roll an AAA dice for each attacking aircraft.

IDK if even 1 IPC bonus per working Convoy SZ can remain manageable.
US 9, UK 8, Japan 7, Germany 2, URSS 1.

Well, there’s no reason we can’t decrease the number of convoy zones. The point should be to simulate a few of the most important, most vulnerable commerce lanes, not to put a convoy box in every single sea zone that saw merchant traffic. Just off the cuff, here’s another possible distribution of convoy zones for 1942.2:

USSR: Archangel, Soviet Far East
Germany: Baltic, Central Med
UK: English Channel, Central Atlantic, Eastern Med, Persian Gulf, Cape of Good Hope
Japan: Tokyo Bay, South China Sea, Java Sea, Coral Sea, Leyte Gulf
USA: Solomon Islands, Pearl Harbor, Caribbean, New York, Brazil

That should produce a less crazy income swing. If you think that’s still too much, you can relocate income from land territories to adjacent sea zones, instead of adding fresh income. E.g., Borneo drops from 4 IPCs to 3 IPCs, but the Borneo Sea Zone is now worth +1 IPCs if its convoy is undamaged.

In G40, attacking bombers and defending fighters roll for 1’s.

Say you have x bombers and y defending fighters. The attacker will lose y/6 bombers on average, for an IPC loss of 2y. The defender will lose x/6 fighters, an IPC loss of (5/3)x.

The remaining x-y/6 bombers will be fired on by the AAA’s. These will kill (x-y/6)/6 of them, a further 2x-y/3 of IPC loss for the attacker.

(In both of the above cases, I’m assuming neither side outnumbers the other by a factor of 6 or more, else all planes on the weaker side will die).

The remaining (5/6)(x-y/6) bombers will do damage to facilities. Each will do 3.5 IPC’s of damage on average.

Therefore, the attacker lost 2y+2x-y/3=(5/3)y+2x IPC’s. Meanwhile, the defender lost (5/3)x+(7/2)*(5/6)(x-y/6)=(55/12)x-(35/72)y IPC’s.

For these to be equal, we need (55/12-2)x=(5/3+35/72)y, which becomes (31/12)x=(155/72)y. This simplifies to y=(6*31/155)x, which becomes y=(6/5)*x. Therefore, 5 bombers against 6 fighters, or 50 bombers against 60 fighters will cause the same IPC loss on both sides (assuming facility damage isn’t maxed out).

Thanks for your honest comment Ozymandiac,
is the opening post easier to read and understand now?
Same information, different order.
I tried as much as possible to be clear in this new edited version.
Even the second post of this thread is just a more formalized way inspired by OOB 1942.2 written rules, which say same things than first opening post but with all words of official rules.

@Kreuzfeld:

@Baron:

You answered a different question.
You are questionning Destroyer’s blocker ability.
Maybe, if a more accurate naval is needed, DD can only be used as blocker against Sub ; to block surface vessels you can house rule that Cruiser or bigger is needed.
That way, some Carriers will be needed to do so.

I would disagree. I think I talked about how subs and DDs are way to effective (compared to CVs) when building a combat fleet. If you wanted to make the game historically correct in composing a combat fleet, you would simply count the number of carriers and their planes, and then almost completely disregard the other ships. A fair version of this would be to make it so that ships had AA only, and planes where the only thing that was allowed to fire at enemy ships in a fleet battle. It is difficult to grasp how dominant they where.  Remember that UK sank half of the italian fleet using 20 gladiators in a nightraid.

Blocker ability cannot be a fruitful tactics if you have to commit costly units.
The OOB cost structure is made in a way that destroyer is first fodder/blocker.
12 IPCs Cruiser is a high cost and 10 IPCs Fg can be fodder but not blocker.
Commit Carrier as blocker, you need an additional unit such as Escort Carrier, CVE, around 10 IPCs.

@Imperious:

The Strategic Bomber is just fine as it is. The only OOB unit that’s problematic is the Cruiser at 10 IPC.

People buy Bombers because of their reach for both land and sea, numbers don’t quantity that value.

Sorry IL but it is a totally different paradigm we were talking about.
A game changer for Strategic bomber, no more A4 C12 M6.
It is a much different dynamic and have way more interesting implications.

Here is the link to this Redesign discussion:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39384.msg1632453#msg1632453

Soon, you will be able to playtest G40 both AA Cruiser C12 and bomber C5 on Triple A.

This method is to compare between SBR values in itself.
It cannot consider general combat values for sure.

And a way to explain why some SBR method and values may be unbalanced even without a lot of gametests.

Also, it looks like you’ve made submarines 1 IPC cheaper and given them a convoy raiding ability, without any real compensating disadvantages. You’ve changed the submerge ability, but on balance I think the submerge ability is still equally powerful. I think submarines are already a pretty good buy OOB at 6 IPCs, in part because they are the cheapest ship and therefore often the best available fodder.

One thing to know about Subs A2first strike A1 C5 is that loosing them on defense as fodder, is a pretty good news to the attacker. Because, if they submerge, they will gets a much better attack factor than DDs, and for 5 IPCs, pretty cheap to buy. Also, you cannot use them as fodder against other sub.
So, on offence, it is better to lose DDs because A2 first strike should be preserved.
On defense, it is better to use your Sub later, hence Submerging eventually.
And Subs cannot hit subs so you must pick DD as fodder instead.

These posts from a past thread on AA guns summarized many AAA’s limitations:

@Vance:

I guess the issue is that AA guns are of equal value to fighters, as Fortress said, but only in terms of defense.

Fighters are expensive units, but are often a good buy because they provide defense, offense, and mobility.

AA guns are all defense, only move 1 space in NCM and have no offense at all.

So while its true that a $5 AA gun has a 50/50 shot at taking out a $10 plane (and yes sometimes they get 2 or even 3 planes, including more expensive tacs or bombers), overall you don’t see people building AA guns very often, if ever. A house rule for AA guns getting something extra like antitank capability would add some extra historical flavour to the game.

@allweneedislove:

like ryguy, i also would like to know why aaguns were changed but still suck.
aaguns were a boring unit that no one purchased. 2nd edition did a good job changing them to behave like a regular unit that can have more than one in the same territory and be taken as casualties. however, they are still boring and a bad purchase.
@Fortress:

Why are we trying to fix something that’s not broken? I laid out the math very specifically. Nobody has refuted it. It literally couldn’t be fairer. They are worth exactly what they should be worth. Where’s the case that there is a problem?…

aaguns are broken and should have been fixed with the 2nd edition revision. they are overpriced.

@Fortress:

….That is absolutely perfect. You can’t improve on that. Literally.

i think you are being disingenuous. you are a better player than what your posts in this thread would have readers believe. you do not purchase aaguns yourself as they are the least flexible and cost efficient unit.

your math works with the framework of a single battle with fighters attacking aaguns. thankfully the game is more than just this one type of battle.
like vance states, they are the unit with the least offense, they are the unit with the least mobility, they only fire if planes are attacking them, they are only used in land battles, they are the 2nd most expensive land unit.

@ryguy:

Part of the problem might be that they are so damn immobile when traveling overseas. Why can’t AA guns move during the combat phase? Would it mess the game up completely? If you capture a territory overland, you can always move the AA gun into that territory during the non-combat phase on the same turn so you are accomplishing the same thing. You cant do that via transports however if the transport was involved during the combat phase. Why cant you just unload the damn AA guns with the attacking force? Why not treat AA guns like tanks/mech infantry/artillery in respect to transports? Why not let the AA guns travel with the attacking force overland during the combat phase?

If were talking in real life terms this might seem weird (Im not a buff on military equipment used in WWII) but it makes them more versatile. You can make it a rule that AA guns cant be chosen as casualties when attacking if you wish, but they definitely cannot shoot at planes when attacking. Theyre just along for the ride. This makes it much easier to transport them overseas without having to purchase separate transports for the non-combat phase. I like mixed arms and this might incorporate AA guns into the mix more often for the Allies.

Im not sure if I like the idea of one IPC AA guns with one shot. I would rather see the current AA gun scheme with a value of 3-4 IPCs with the above rule changes about movement perhaps. If theyre valued under infantry they will get used as fodder more than their original purpose and I dont like that. I still find it strange that AA guns can be chosen as casualties first. Was that rule created just because of the UK and Sea Lion?

@WILD:

Yeah I don’t like how AAA guns are just ignored after the first round of battle, and normally are the first casualty (seems like a flaw). Not sure that they should be able to fire one shot each round afterwords though unless you made it that they only fire 2 shots in the opening round, and one shot each round after that. I also agree that attacking planes should have the option to attack AAA guns directly (maybe AAA is taken as a casualty if air units roll a 1?), and/or can retreat after any round if AAA are allowed to continue firing.

WILD BILL provided two interesting abilities to planes which can limit somehow the unbalancing effect of AAA#1 or AAA#2 continuous firing :

1- Any hit from attacking planes could be directly taken on AAA units.
2- All attacking aircraft units can retreat after each combat round while ground units still be part of the battle.

Maybe one or both should be add to the mix to reach an equilibrium point.

@Baron:

1942.2 SBR Black Elk hypothesis

Strategic Bomber
Attack 0
Damage 1D6, 1D6+2
Cost 5

Fighter
Attack 1
Defense 1
Cost 10

Break even point C5, 1D6 damage: near 1 StB vs 2 Fgs: 0.5 StB/Fg
1 StB vs 2 Fgs : + 2.025 - 2.106 = -0.081 IPCs
12 StB vs 23 Fgs: exactly 0.522 StB/Fg
No FIT (Fighter Interception Threshold), always beneficial to Intercept.

Down below here is a different values doing SBR for 1942.2 and G40

Strategic Bomber in air-to-air combat SBR:
Attack 0
Bombard IC damage: D6 or 1D6+2

Fighter in air-to-air combat SBR:
Attack 1
Defend 1

IC’s AAA: @1 against each Strategic Bomber

1942.2 SBR HRules with StB A0 and Fg A1 D1 : damage 1D6 or 1D6+2

1 Strategic Bomber doing SBR against no interceptor

AAA roll = odds casualties

5/6 StB survived * 5.5 IPCs = +4.583 IPCs *3.5= +2.917 *6.5= 5.417
1/6 StB killed *5 IPCs = -0.833 IPCs

D6: +2.917-0.833= +2.084 IPCs
D6+2: + 4.583 - 0.833 = +3.750 IPCs damage/SBR

1 Strategic Bomber Att 0 doing SBR against 1 interceptor Def 1

Interceptor Fg roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties

1/66/6 = 6/36 1 StB killed by Fg
5/61/6 = 5/36 1 StB killed by AAA
5/6*5/6 = 25/36 No casualty at all.

Results:
Bombard on IC 25/36* ((1+2)+(6+2) IPCs)/2= +5.5 IPCs) = + 3.819 IPCs *3.5= 2.431 *6.5=+4.514
StB killed 11/36 *-5 IPCs = - 1.528 IPCs

D6: + 2.431 - 1.528 = +0.903
D6+2: + 3.819 - 1.528= + 2.291 IPC damage/SBR

1 Strategic Bomber Att 0 doing SBR against 2 interceptors Def 1

Interceptors Fgs roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties

11/366/6 = 66/216 1 StB killed by Fg
25/361/6 = 25/216 1 StB killed by AAA
25/36*5/6 = 125/216 No casualty at all.

Results:
Bombard on IC 125/216* ((1+2)+(6+2) IPCs)/2= +5.5 IPCs) = + 3.183 IPCs *3.5= 2.025 *6.5=+3.762
StB killed 91/216 *- 5 IPCs = - 2.106 IPCs

D6: + 2.025 - 2.106 = -0.081 IPCs
D6+2: + 3.183 - 2.106 = +1.077 IPC damage/SBR

1 Fighter Att 1 and 1 Strategic Bomber Att 0 doing SBR against 2 interceptors Def 1

Fighter roll/interceptors Fgs roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties

1/61/366/6 = 6/1296 1 Fg and 1 StB killed by Fgs vs 1 Fg
1/610/361/6= 10/1296 1 Fg killed by Fg and 1 StB killed by AAA vs 1 Fg
1/610/365/6= 50/1296 1 Fg killed by Fg vs 1 Fg
1/625/361/6 = 25/1296 1 StB killed by AAA
1/625/365/6 = 125/1296 No casualty vs 1 Fg

5/620/366/6 = 600/1296 1 Fg and 1 StB killed by Fg vs no casualty
5/616/361/6 = 80/1296 1 Fg killed by Fg and 1 StB killed by AAA vs no casualty
5/616/365/6 = 400/1296 no casualty at all

Results:
Bombard on IC: 1050/1296 * ((1+2)+(6+2) IPCs)/2= +5.5 IPCs) = + 4.456 IPCs 3.5= +2.836 6.5=+5.266
Killing 1 Fg: 216/1296 +10 IPCs = + 1.667 IPCs
Fg killed: 300/1296-10 IPCs = - 2.315 IPCs
StB killed: 150/1296 -5 IPCs = - 0.579IPCs
StB & Fg killed: 96/1296 -15 IPCs = - 1.111 IPCs

D6: +4.503 - 1.690 = +2.813 IPCs
D6+2: + 6.123 - 1.690 = + 4.433 IPC damage/SBR

1 Fighter Att 1 and 1 Strategic Bomber Att 0 doing SBR against 1 interceptor Def 1
Fighter escort taking the casualty.
Fighter roll/interceptor Fg roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties

1/61/61/6= 1/216 1 Fg killed by Fg and 1 StB killed by AAA vs 1 Fg
1/61/65/6= 5/216 1 Fg killed by Fg vs 1 Fg
1/65/61/6 = 5/216 1 StB killed by AAA vs 1 Fg
1/65/65/6 = 25/216 No casualty vs 1 Fg

5/61/61/6 = 5/216 1 Fg killed by Fg and 1 StB killed by AAA vs no casualty
5/61/65/6 = 25/216 1 Fg killed by Fg vs no casualty
5/65/61/6 = 25/216 1 StB killed by AAA vs no casualty
5/65/65/6 = 125/216 no casualty at all

Results:
Bombard on IC: 180/216 * ((1+2)+(6+2) IPCs)/2= +5.5 IPCs) = + 4.583 IPCs 3.5= +0.833 6.5=+5.417
Killing 1 Fg: 36/216 +10 IPCs = + 1.667 IPCs
Fg killed:30/216-10 IPCs = - 1.389 IPCs
StB killed: 30/216 -5 IPCs = - 0.694 IPCs
StB & Fg killed: 6/216 -15 IPCs = - 0.417 IPC

D6: +2.500 - 1.111 = +1.389 IPCs
D6+2: + 6.250 - 1.111 = + 5.139 IPC damage/SBR

2 Strategic Bombers Att 0 doing SBR against 2 interceptors Def 1

Interceptor Fgs roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties

1/3636/36= 36/1296 2 StBs killed by Fgs
10/366/36 = 60/1296 1 StB killed by Fg and 1 StB killed by AAA
10/6*30/36= 300/1296 1 StB killed by Fg

25/361/36 = 25/1296 2 StBs killed by AAA
25/3610/36 = 250/1296 1 StB killed by AAA
25/36*25/36 = 625/1296 No casualty at all.

Results:
2x Bombard on IC 625/1296* ((2+4)+(12+4) IPCs)/2= +11 IPCs) = +5.305 IPCs *7=+3.378 13=+6.269
1x Bombard on IC 550/1296 ((1+2)+(6+2) IPCs)/2= +5.5 IPCs) = + 2.334 IPCs 3.5=+1.485 6.5=+2.758
2 StBs killed 121/1296 -10 IPCs = - 0.934 IPCs
1 StB killed 550/1296 -5 IPCs = - 2.122 IPCs

D6: +4.863 - 3.056 = +1.807 IPCs
D6+2: + 7.639 - 3.056 = + 4.583 IPCs damage/SBR

2 Strategic Bombers Att 0 doing SBR against 1 interceptor Def 1

Interceptor Fg roll/ AAA roll = odds casualties

1/66/36 = 6/216 1 StB killed by Fg and 1 StB killed by AAA
1/630/36= 30/216 1 StB killed by Fg
5/61/36 = 5/216 2 StBs killed by AAA
5/610/36 = 50/216 1 StB killed by AAA
5/6*25/36 = 125/216 No casualty at all.

Results:
2x Bombard on IC 125/216* ((2+4)+(12+4) IPCs)/2= +11 IPCs) = +6.366 IPCs *7=+4.051 13=+7.523
1x Bombard on IC 80/216 ((1+2)+(6+2) IPCs)/2= +5.5 IPCs) = + 2.037 IPCs 3.5=+1.296 6.5=+2.407
2 StBs killed 11/216 -10 IPCs = - 0.509 IPC
1 StB killed 80/216 -5 IPCs = - 1.852 IPCs

D6: + 5.347 - 2.361= + 2.986 IPCs
D6+2: + 8.403 - 2.361 = + 6.042 IPCs damage/SBR

@Young:

@BM,

During Alpha 2 I was upset that each interceptor got 1@2 and each escort and bomber were 1@1. This prevented any SBRs being attempted and a game mechanic I loved in classic was now extinct in 1940 Global due to the risk vs. reward. Than Alpha 3 came out with all air units hitting @1 during air battles and I was so happy because if I wanted to conduct a SBR, my teammates couldn’t scream “PLEASE DON’T” at me for tring a foolish strategy. So, I’m happy for the way things are and my lone bombers without escorts can still have a chance to get by (there were lots of guns on bombers, so I don’t have an issue from an historical view point). The problem with the India bombing raids is not the air battles or the fact that it can get maxed with a couple of raids, it’s the UK Pacific income and the inability to repair faster than it gets damaged. The SB+AB=+2 DMG house rule helps the UK Pacific problem without hurting the Europe theaters because there are lots of Air bases in Europe. If attacking bomber gets zero defence capability against interceptors, SBR would go extinct like Alpha +2 IMO. What would happen is I would raid India with 2 bombers against 2 interceptors and the UK could just roll 4@1 if they like (interceptors + AA Guns) I would not expose my bombers to those odds if I can’t fire back, plus American players who have watched Memphis Belle a hundred times would wonder why their Super Fortress bombers don’t have a least a 1/6 chance to hit in an air battle during SBRs. The way I see it, the SBR mechanic doesn’t need changing IMO because you never see it too much or too little (at least in our groups), there are problem areas with the rules like cruisers, neutral territories, the victory conditions etc…. but I’m happy with the balance of SBRs.

I’m very grateful Young Grasshopper for this deeper and more extensive answer about what criterions where important for a good SBR.

There is at least two points which are beyond statistics comparison.
Even if odds are really goods for the attacker (with higher bombing damage such as 1D6+3), having a defenseless Strategic bomber @0 in dogfight is quite an intuitive deterrent to use bombers in Strategic Bombing Raid. And it is less funny to have those big and costly unit being passively slaughtered.

Also, the historical depiction is a pretty good annoying argument against a zero-attack strategic bomber.
Flying-fortresses defensive formation were not defenseless planes, even if they were still vulnerable against interceptors.

Also, if YG’s fellow players feel that Alpha 2 SBR was a wasted strategy, while the actual G40 OOB SBR is sound, this give me another target.
Any viable SBR should be pretty much as efficient as it is actually with OOB G40 SBR.
And odds clearly reveals how G40 OOB SBR gives pretty good ones for the attacker.
One issue is that the actual values are so against interceptors, that defender decision to keep all his fighters grounded is most of the optimized one. While intercepting is much like a gambit than a sound tactics.

Now, with your answer YG, I really made my decision on which of the many values I calculated is the optimized one, funnier, historical, at least as balance as the actual OOB SBR rules, and to have the better incentive while staying as close as possible with the odds of OOB G40 SBR.

So, thanks a lot YG.
I will probably submit a more complete post with all the reasons which make the most interesting SBR.
For now, here is the real winner for Global 40 SBR after a closer analysis and comparison.

I already provided the answer elsewhere, the only difference is that I would advocate for a bombing damage of 1D6+3, instead of 1D6+2.
And I would use oztea idea, but rise to +3 minimum damage per StB shooted down by IC’s AA, instead of +2 minimum damage:

I still recommend D6+2 (+2 minimum damage) for 1942.2 SBR, because the economy is so much lower than Global.

If you take a look at the table below and compare D6+3 with OOB G40 SBR, you will find that the numbers are pretty close from each other, except when there is no interception, but the overall odds stay similar and you gain a much more interesting dynamics which provides a lot of incentive to make such interceptions as a vital and optimized defense against bombers run.

@Baron:

@oztea:

Totally different suggestion I have been considering.
Bombers ALWAYS do their +2 damage, even if hit by AAA.
To make SBR more attractive.

You could consider this rule to offset your beefing up of fighters.

From a realistic standpoint it has always been gut-wrenching to send over 2 bombers and get snake-eyed. Knowing that you just sent over probably 1000 bombers and not a single bomb fell on anything important.

Bombers ALWAYS do their +2 damage, even if hit by AAA.
Do you also imply when destroyed by interceptors, Bombers can still do +2 damage?

After a fast review, I think I would add your idea as integrated part of the above SBR HR, since it has a small statistical impact (approx. 3,00 IPCs/SBR instead of 2,583 IPCs/SBR.)

I would keep the +2 damage only if hit by AAA exclusively, when an interceptor hit bombers, it is destroyed with no compensation.
That way, it would provide an additional incentive to intercept bombers to wholy protect IC.
And this is a double lever effect.
Attacker will more willingly commit bombers and defender will be more incline to throw fighters against them.
And this is in addition to the fact, that interceptor’s hit must be on bombers first.
It is a much more interesting target.

@Baron:

Working on the most balanced SBR with Fighter A2 D2, and the winner is…

A more historical depiction of SBR which keeps interesting odds compared to G40 OOB.
In this one, intercepting Fighters are targeting attacking Bombers (TcBs or StBs) first, then escorting Fighters.

There is also a special attack (as an AA gun @1 first strike against up to 2 Fighters) for each Strategic bomber (whichever the lesser number between Fgs or StBs) in air-to-air combat which provides some restriction about Bombers spamming strategies (Darken skies), see above chart for comparisons:

Strategic Bomber
Attack 4
Defense 1
Move 6
Cost 12
SBR or TBR damage 1D6+2. [EDIT: 1D6+3 for G40]

Tactical Bomber
Attack 3-4
Defense 3
Move 4
Cost 11
TBR damage 1D6.

Fighter in air-to-air combat SBR:
Attack 2
Defend 2
Always hit Bombers as first target, whether Tactical or Strategic (owner’s choice).

Strategic Bomber in air-to-air combat SBR:
Attack 1 first strike* as an AA gun @1 against up to 2 intercepting Fighters, whichever the lesser
Bombard Industrial Complex or Air Base or Naval Base, damage: 1D6+2

Tactical Bomber in air-to-air combat SBR:
Attack 1 first strike
Bombard Air Base or Naval Base, damage: 1D6

IC’s AA gun: @1 against each Strategic Bomber
Naval Base or Air Base’s AA gun: @1 against each Strategic Bomber or Tactical bomber

I will explain sooner how I came to this conclusion.

Follow this line in each combat situation (fs= first strike):
D6+2 (First target: StB A1fs =2AA@1)

@Baron:

Working on the most balanced SBR with Fighter A2 D2, a more complete table is needed to make for additional options:
Comparison of various SBR OOB & HRules StB A1 damage 1D6+2 /1D6+3 / 2D6 / Fg escort A2 Interceptor D2
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35883.msg1409543#msg1409543
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35614.msg1392008#msg1392008

Here is the minimum damage for each StB killed by AAA according to SBR basic damage:
D6: +1 IPC
D6+1: +1 IPC
D6+2: +2 IPCs [Edit: 1942.2]
D6+3: +3 IPCs [[color=red]Edit: Global 40]
2D6:+3 IPCs

SBR HRules : 1 StB doing SBR without interceptor, various damage:
Regular SBRs / with special HR bonus damage to IC when STB is killed by IC’s AAA
1D6+2 (avg 5.5 IPCs): +4.583 - 2 = +2.583 IPCs damage/SBR / +2.916 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+3 (avg 6.5 IPCs): +5.417 - 2 = +3.417 IPCs damage/SBR / +3.917 IPCs damage/SBR
2D6 (avg 7 IPCs): +5.833 - 2 = +3.833 IPCs damage/SBR / +4.333 IPCs damage/SBR

G40 OOB D6+2: +4.583 - 2 = +2.583 IPCs damage/SBR
OOB 1942.2 D6: +2.917 - 2 = +0.917 IPC damage/SBR

SBR HRules :1 StB A1 doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fg D2
Regular SBRs / with special HR bonus damage to IC when STB is killed by IC’s AAA

Regular SBRs (First target: StB A1_first strike_ =2AA@1) / with special HR bonus damage to IC when 1 StB is killed by IC’s AAA
1D6: +4.712 - 6.321 = -1.609 IPCs damage/SBR / -1.514 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+1: +4.375 - 4.778 = -0.403 IPC damage/SBR / -0.283 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +4.977 - 4.778 = +0.199 IPCs damage/SBR / +0.440 IPC damage/SBR
**1D6+3: +5.579 - 4.778 = +0.801 IPCs damage/SBR / +1.162 IPCs damage/SBR
2D6: +5.880 - 4.778 = +1.102 IPCs damage/SBR / +1.463 IPCs damage/SBR

G40 OOB D6+2: + 5.486 - 3.667 = +1.819 IPC damage/SBR
OOB 1942.2 D6: +3.8 - 4.8 = -1 IPC damage/SBR
1942.2 D6+2: +4.977 - 4.778 = +0.199 IPC damage/StB

SBR HR: 1 StB A1 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D2

First target: StB A1fs =2AA@1: as AA against up to 2 Fgs / with special HR bonus damage to IC when 1 StB is killed by IC’s AAA
1D6: +4.712 - 6.321 = -1.609 IPCs damage/SBR / -1.514 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+1: +5.186 - 6.321 = -1.135 IPC damage/SBR / -1.040 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +5.659 - 6.321 = -0.662 IPCs damage/SBR / -0.473 IPC damage/SBR
**1D6+3: +6.132 -6.321 = -0.189 IPCs damage/SBR / +0.095 IPCs damage/SBR
2D6: +6.369 - 6.321 = +0.048 IPCs damage/SBR / +0.764 IPCs damage/SBR

G40 OOB D6+2: +4.85 - 5.056 = -0.206 IPCs damage/SBR
OOB 1942.2 D6:+3.071 - 7.185 = -4.114 IPC. damage/SBR
1942.2 D6+2: +3.874 - 7.185 = -3.311 IPCs damage/SBR

SBR HR: 1 StB A1 & 1 Fg A2 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D2

(First target: StB=2AA@1): StB A1 as AAA against up to 2 Fgs / with special HR bonus damage to IC when 1 StB is killed by IC’s AAA
1D6: +7.870 - 8.667 = -0.797 IPCs damage/SBR / -0.723 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+1: +8.241 - 8.667 = -0.426 IPC damage/SBR / -0.352 IPCs damage/SBR
D6+2: +8.611 - 8.667 = -0.056 IPC damage/SBR / +0.092 IPC damage/SBR
1D6+3:+8.981 - 8.667 = +0.314 IPCs damage/SBR / +0.536 IPCs damage/SBR
2D6: +9.167- 8.667 = +0.500 IPCs damage/SBR / +0.722 IPCs damage/SBR

(First target: StB A1_first strike_ as AAA vs up to 2 Fgs) / with special HR bonus damage to IC when 1 StB is killed by IC’s AAA
1D6: +8.095 - 7.556 = +0.539 IPC damage/SBR / +0.626 IPC damage/SBR
1D6+1: +8.530 - 7.556 = +0.974 IPC damage/SBR / +1.061 IPCs damage/SBR
D6+2: 8.965 - 7.556 = +1.409 IPC damage/SBR / +1.583 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+3:+9.399 - 7.556 = +1.843 IPCs damage/SBR / _+2.104 IPCs** damage/SBR_**
2D6: +9.617- 7.556 = +2.061 IPCs damage/SBR / +2.322 IPCs damage/SBR

OOB G40 D6+2: +7.775 - 5.33 = +2.445 IPCs damage/SBR
OOB 1942.2 D6: +6.018 - 7.556 = -1.538 IPCs damage/SBR
1942.2 D6+2: +7.557 - 7.556 = +0.001 IPCs damage/StB

SBR HR: 2 StBs A1 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D2

First target: StB A1 first strike, as AAA up to 2 Fgs / with special HR bonus damage to IC when 1 or 2 StBs are killed by IC’s AAA
1D6: +7.547 - 9.556 = -2.009 IPCs damage/SBR / -1.835 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+1: +8.751 - 9.556 = -0.805 IPCs damage/SBR / -0.631 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +9.954 - 9.556 = +0.398 IPCs damage/SBR / +0.746 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+3: +11.158 - 9.556 = +1.602 IPCs damage/SBR / _+2.124 IPCs** damage/SBR_**
2D6: +11.760 - 9.556 = +2.204 IPCs damage/SBR / +2.726 IPCs damage/SBR

G40 OOB D6+2: +10.973 - 7.334 = +3.639 IPCs damage/SBR
OOB 1942.2 D6: +7.547 - 9.556 = -2.009 IPCs damage/SBR
1942.2 D6+2: +9.954 - 9.556 = +0.398 IPC damage/StB

SBR HR: 1 StB A1 & 1 Fg A2 doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fgs D2

(First target: StB A1fs =2AA@1): / with special HR bonus damage to IC when 1 StB is killed by IC’s AAA
1D6: +6.550 - 4.777 = +1.773 IPCs damage/SBR / +1.893 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+1: +7.152 - 4.777 = +2.375 IPCs damage/SBR / +2.495 IPCs damage/SBR
D6+2: +7.754 -4.777 =+2.977 IPCs damage/SBR / +3.218 IPC damage/SBR
1D6+3:+8.356 -4.777 = +3.579 IPCs damage/SBR / _+3.940 IPCs** damage/SBR_**
2D6: +8.657 -4.777 = +3.880 IPCs damage/SBR / +4.241 IPCs damage/SBR

G40 OOB D6+2: +7.639 - 3.667 = +3.972 IPCs damage/SBR
OOB 1942.2 D6: +5.973 - 5.159 = +0.814 IPCs damage/SBR
1942.2 D6+2: +7.639 -5.159 = +2.480 IPCs damage/SBR

SBR HR: 2 StBs A1 doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fgs D2

First target: StB A1 first strike, as AAA against up to 2 Fgs / with special HR bonus damage to IC when 1 or 2 StBs are killed by IC’s AAA
1D6: +6.690 - 6.778 = -0.088 IPCs damage/SBR / +0.153 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+1: +8.125 - 6.778 = +1.347 IPCs damage/SBR / +1.588 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2: +9.561 - 6.778 = +2.783 IPCs damage/SBR / +3.264 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+3: +10.996 - 6.778 = +4.218 IPCs damage/SBR / _+4.940 IPCs** damage/SBR_**
2D6: +11.714 - 6.778 = +4.936 IPCs damage/SBR / +5.658 IPCs damage/SBR

G40 OOB D6+2: +11.459 - 5.666 = +5.793 IPCs damage/SBR
OOB 1942.2 D6: +8.214 - 6.315 = +1.899 IPCs damage/SBR
1942.2 D6+2: +11.162 - 6.315 = +4.847 IPCs damage/SBR

SBR HRules : 2 StBs doing SBR without interceptor
Regular SBRs / with special HR bonus damage to IC when 1 or 2 STBs are killed by IC’s AAA
1D6 (avg 3.5 IPCs): +5.834 - 4 = +1.834 IPCs damage/SBR / +2.168 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+1 (avg 4.5 IPCs): +7.500 - 4 = +3.500 IPCs damage/SBR / +3.834 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+2 (avg 5.5 IPCs): +9.166 - 4 = +5.166 IPCs damage/SBR / +5.832 IPCs damage/SBR
1D6+3 (avg 6.5 IPCs): +10.834 - 4 = +6.834 IPCs damage/SBR / _+7.834 IPCs** damage/SBR_**
2D6 (avg 7 IPCs): +11.666 - 4 = +7.666 IPCs damage/SBR / +8.666 IPCs damage/SBR

OOB G40 D6+2: +9.166 - 4 = +5.166 IPCs damage/SBR****