Back in the day when the "Hi-Level Bomber" SA was created, the only targets available for those bombers were ships. Because destroyers and torpedo boats can "dance-on-the-water" so well, they were excluded from being targeted by this SA.
Now that we have "installations" ... I wonder how many people have considered an "adjustment" to the SA.
The SA as it is now:
High-Level Bomber - Whenever this unit makes a Bomb attack, it only scores a hit on a 6. This unit can't hit Destroyers or Torpedo Boats with Bomb attacks.
(It actually does more than score a hit on a 6, it gets "successes". The original rule is poorly written, not showing that it gets 2 successes on a 6.) A change I think is a worth piece of <dare I say it?> "errata" or a house rule is to eliminate the penalty against installations completely, by a rewrite:
High-Level Bomber - Whenever this unit bombs a ship, it only scores successes on a 6. This unit can't hit Destroyers or Torpedo Boats with Bomb attacks.
Comments? Thoughts? Ramblings?
Allowing them their full attack against Installations makes them much more viable units!
I think we all know how bad accuracy was with Hi- Level Bombing and WAS's PB"s are a smaller group i think about 3planes. Against Installations;; how about you must attack with a group of 3 PB's and only then each 6 is 3 success's. You've got to commit or go back to the old rules???
High level attacks were relatively ineffective anyway, aside from heavy fortification,2 6s will damage a installation anyway, so you need to concentrate them to knock one out.
I think the bigger issue for HLBs is they dont get a defence bonus against ships AA, theyre out of reach of light AA, and difficult to hit with heavy AA
High level attacks were relatively ineffective anyway, aside from heavy fortification,2 6s will damage a installation anyway, so you need to concentrate them to knock one out.
I think the bigger issue for HLBs is they dont get a defence bonus against ships AA, theyre out of reach of light AA, and difficult to hit with heavy AA
I agree with Flak on that point. Its not just that High Level Bombers aren't all that accurate, they don't really get any benefit from being "Hi"! Ship/Installation-based AA should be less effective against them.
I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way. - Captain John Paul Jones
In terms of errata, uts probably a let it ride situation. That said, someone inclined to do so, could do a deck of cards that addresses these sort of issues and have it as a 'At the start of the game Draw 5, pick 3' add on
High level attacks were relatively ineffective anyway, aside from heavy fortification,2 6s will damage a installation anyway, so you need to concentrate them to knock one out.
I think the bigger issue for HLBs is they dont get a defence bonus against ships AA, theyre out of reach of light AA, and difficult to hit with heavy AA
I agree with the lighter AA; But this was from WW2 Aircraft.net thought it was interesting
To get an idea look at a few select statistics during the war.
Between January and April 1941 Flak accounted for 79% of the 144 aircraft downed in the West (including Norway). In the last six months of 1941 Flak in the Reich accounted for 647 aircraft, including 242 at night. To put this in perspective, Luftwaffe night fighters accounted for 421 aircraft in all of 1941 . A further 1,325 aircraft were shot down by Flak, mostly in the East, in the last three months of the year alone.
A Bomber Command ORS conducted research into aircrew casualties between April and November 1942. 95 casualties returned wounded by Flak, 105 by fighters BUT the ORS pointed out that an aircraft damaged by Flak was much more likely to fall prey to fighters. In the second half of 1942 the RAF lost 169 aircraft to fighters and 193 to Flak.
It wasn't until early 1944 that RAF losses to fighters exceeded those caused by Flak. For the entire war Flak accounted for 41% of Bomber Commands losses, night fighters for the rest.
Between June and August 1944 the US 8thAF lost 341 aircraft to flak with a staggering 10,972 damaged. For the 15th AF these figures are 313 and 3,357 respectively. 31% of 8th AF losses to all causes were caused by Flak. For the 15th AF this was 44% (of heavy bombers). If you break down the figures for the Mediterranean Allied Air Forces (MAAF) you find that for all aircraft types in the last year of the war the flak outscored the fighters at a rate of 2.6 to 1.
Flak accounted for about 50% of all US losses of heavy bombers and nearly 26,000 8th AF bombers were damaged. Of aircraft damaged by flak 27% were deemed "serious".
Aircrews, particularly the Americans operating in daylight did indeed fear the flak. It drove bombers higher and made bombing much less accurate. General Lemay complained that due to violent evasive manoeuvring on the bomb run the 8th AF was "throwing bombs every which way." This, he maintained, was reducing the 'accuracy' of area bombing.
In March 1945 General Spaatz rated flak "the biggest factor affecting bombing accuracy.
A post war USAAF study concluded that 39.7% of US radial bombing error was due to nerves, evasive action and reduced efficiency due to flak. A further 21.7% of the error was attributed to increased bombing altitudes in an attempt to evade flak. In other words the flak directly caused over 60% of the bombing's inaccuracy.
The reason in my eyes for addressing this SA is because these bombers (while ineffective) were used a lot in real life ... yet almost never in this game. To me that means they are not "gotten right". So, even though normally, we don't go for SA's that do more than one thing, I recommend (also based on above inputs and previous discussions) that "High-Level Bomber" may be one that really deserves (as a house rule?) an expansion. Instead of what I recommended earlier: (letting full bomb load on installations)
High-Level Bomber - Whenever this unit bombs a ship, it only scores successes on a 6. This unit can't hit Destroyers or Torpedo Boats with Bomb attacks.
How about:
High-Level Bomber - Whenever this unit bombs a ship, it only scores successes on a 6. This unit can't hit Destroyers or Torpedo Boats with Bomb attacks. Fighters without Interceptor roll one less die against this unit. Ship/Installation based AA gets -1 per die against this unit.
There are 4 things here (not K.I.S.S.!), and that should be enough! There is more room to discuss modifying/changing the last 2. As I suspected, there is "energy" around the original SA.
Not sure I would include the bit about fighters without interceptor but I like it.
Yes, that part is open to discussing "how" to represent their high altitude and how not all fighters could truly intercept them. For example, the US Army Air Corps flush the P-39 because of it's lack of high altitude performance. The Soviets LOVED it for it's top-notch low altitude performance. I'm open to other game mechanics on that.
Großadmiral Swizzle
Browncoat by fandom; Cossack by blood; American by birth; Virginian/Husband/Father by wife; Libertarian by choice; Human by race; Christian by grace.
The reason in my eyes for addressing this SA is because these bombers (while ineffective) were used a lot in real life ... yet almost never in this game. To me that means they are not "gotten right". So, even though normally, we don't go for SA's that do more than one thing, I recommend (also based on above inputs and previous discussions) that "High-Level Bomber" may be one that really deserves (as a house rule?) an expansion. Instead of what I recommended earlier: (letting full bomb load on installations)
High-Level Bomber - Whenever this unit bombs a ship, it only scores successes on a 6. This unit can't hit Destroyers or Torpedo Boats with Bomb attacks.
How about:
High-Level Bomber - Whenever this unit bombs a ship, it only scores successes on a 6. This unit can't hit Destroyers or Torpedo Boats with Bomb attacks. Fighters without Interceptor roll one less die against this unit. Ship/Installation based AA gets -1 per die against this unit.
There are 4 things here (not K.I.S.S.!), and that should be enough! There is more room to discuss modifying/changing the last 2. As I suspected, there is "energy" around the original SA.
If your thoughts were on Installation attacks only; i could see a change in the SA; but attacks against moving ships [the SA is generous as is] and since everyone feels the bomber is flying so high, AA is less effective, can the bomber see the dot in the ocean let alone hit it. Even with all that taken out of the picture are players still going to bring a HI-level Bomber even if its likely to make its attack, or would you prefer that risk for better results?? Think players would still chose for similar cost 1 DB over 2 HI-Level Bombers. Personally i would just add a benefit to the attack against Installation; I do like the Interceptor part adds some thought on what to and not to bring.
The point is that the game almost never sees them, while they were active in the real war. It's like playing without carriers ... you can do it, but if you do it all the time, you miss out on a lot. I tried to write the SA to address all four issues, and am pretty sure it can be fine-tuned.
(Also, I should have labeled the 2nd one as High-Level Bomber (Rev.)
Großadmiral Swizzle
Browncoat by fandom; Cossack by blood; American by birth; Virginian/Husband/Father by wife; Libertarian by choice; Human by race; Christian by grace.
Post by Awesome_Pirate_Ninja_Master on Apr 23, 2017 1:21:33 GMT
I like the idea of taking another look at this SA, would it be worthwhile to change "This unit can't hit Destroyers or Torpedo Boats with Bomb attacks" to "This unit may not attack Destroyers or Torpedo Boats with its bomb attack"