Strategic Bombing Raids as of 10/10/11

Link up A&A Pacific 1940 and Europe 1940, and you've got Axis & Allies Global 1940.
User avatar
Infrastructure
Posts: 312
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 11:29 am

Re: Strategic Bombing Raids as of 10/10/11

Post by Infrastructure » Wed Oct 19, 2011 5:18 pm

I agree wholeheartedly.

User avatar
Gargantua
Posts: 448
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:08 pm

Re: Strategic Bombing Raids as of 10/10/11

Post by Gargantua » Wed Oct 19, 2011 5:28 pm

The choice is to SBR or not. There is no other choice. I don't get to choose if my artillery are shooting at your tanks, or your battleship at my aircraft carrier.

Let's DISAGREE.

corriganbp
Posts: 413
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 11:54 am

Re: Strategic Bombing Raids as of 10/10/11

Post by corriganbp » Wed Oct 19, 2011 5:46 pm

Sorry gents you all misunderstood . . .

the choice is logically on the attackers side, do my fighters stay close to my bombers to protect them, giving up potential kills (thus getting an attack at 1) or do I give my fighter escorts freedom to break off and get kills (thus getting an attack at 2 but exposing my bombers to hits from the interceptors).

The choice to intercept is the defenders, and he or she shoots at 2.

The choice to give the order to let the escorts roam free in pursuit of kills is the attacker's . . . if they stay close, shoot at 1, if they roam free shoot at 2.

If they roam free, that can't absorb hits from the interceptors, the interceptors choose their losses.

Make sense?

User avatar
Gargantua
Posts: 448
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:08 pm

Re: Strategic Bombing Raids as of 10/10/11

Post by Gargantua » Wed Oct 19, 2011 6:55 pm

or do I give my fighter escorts freedom to break off and get kills (thus getting an attack at 2 but exposing my bombers to hits from the interceptors).
WRONG

By sending your fighters with your bombers, you already have MADE THE CHOICE to protect your bombers. If you let your fighters break off from the escort, THAT IS A REGULAR ATTACK! Since you can't call them escorts, because they are no longer escorting!

corriganbp
Posts: 413
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 11:54 am

Re: Strategic Bombing Raids as of 10/10/11

Post by corriganbp » Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:07 pm

Gargantua wrote:
or do I give my fighter escorts freedom to break off and get kills (thus getting an attack at 2 but exposing my bombers to hits from the interceptors).
WRONG

By sending your fighters with your bombers, you already have MADE THE CHOICE to protect your bombers. If you let your fighters break off from the escort, THAT IS A REGULAR ATTACK! Since you can't call them escorts, because they are no longer escorting!
Those fighters are talented; they can multi task. And honestly, this is exactly what the USA did when they were bombing Germany, yes strategically bombing them. At first they kept the escorts close to the bombers and the Luftwaffe would just hit and run at will and the fighters couldn't pursue. When the americans gave the orders for the fighters to roam free, it helped them go from air superiority to air supremacy (edit) but it was hell on the bombers. Note that these fighters still came over as escorts, but once the interceptors showed up, their top priority was air superiority not bomber protection.

But don't stress out, this suggestion probably won't be taken seriously.
Last edited by corriganbp on Thu Oct 20, 2011 4:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Gargantua
Posts: 448
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:08 pm

Re: Strategic Bombing Raids as of 10/10/11

Post by Gargantua » Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:22 pm

When the americans gave the orders for the fighters to roam free
I read the book on this. The Americans started to give the orders allowing a little more free play BECAUSE they were winning the battle of Air Supremacy before hand.

Regardless however, the fighters werent there to SOAK HITS for the bombers. They went along side them to FIGHT the escorts. That is all. Giving them a special rule to have a choice to be taken first as a casualty or not is borderline ridiculous.

corriganbp
Posts: 413
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 11:54 am

Re: Strategic Bombing Raids as of 10/10/11

Post by corriganbp » Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:31 pm

I think you're misunderstanding me.

The old rule was that the escorts could never be taken as losses.

The new rule is that the escorts probably will be taken as losses, it's the losing players choice.

My proposal is that if the escorts are restricted in their role, they have limited ability to score hits, however, by staying close to the bombers they make it more likely that they will be taken as a casualty, the losing player gets to decide their losses.

If on the other hand, the escorts are allowed to pursue interceptors, they are more effective at shooting them down (hit on a 2 or less), but in that case, they are not as effective at protecting the bombers, therefore, the interceptors get to choose their hits.

I can understand your objection to the firing player getting to choose the lost units as being un-axis and allies, but the reality is that we already had something like this in the old rules (at least the bombers were chosen as losses).

so if the escorts are allowed to pursue enemy interceptors, the losing player loses bombers first, if the escorts are tight to the bombers, lose fighters first, that takes choice out of the equation, like it better?

I guess what I'm hearing from you is that you like the idea of all fighters and bombers shooting at 1 at the same time, fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion. It makes it almost impossible for the Battle of Britain to take place however, since it's very easy for the German player to overwhelm the British air defence forces.
Last edited by corriganbp on Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

corriganbp
Posts: 413
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 11:54 am

Re: Strategic Bombing Raids as of 10/10/11

Post by corriganbp » Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:42 pm

I'll grant you that saying that the escorts can absorb hits if they stay tight to the bombers is a poor choice of words, however -- it is exactly what happens in alpha 3, as the rule is currently written. Yes the attacking player could choose to lose their bombers, but then they would lose the bombing value, so most would choose to lose their escorting fighters, and after all, the fighter is the cheaper unit to lose.

The fighter is the cannon fodder in the SBR situation, just as the infantry absorb the initial hits in a land battle, not because the losing player is obligated to lose them, but just because it makes sense to do it that way.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests