Thinking outside the box... I was toying around with how best to utilize the electric .50cal dorsal gun into the game. The easy aspect was to give the plane the LDA special ability which I don't think fits it. What if we gave it the following SA:
Dorsal Defensive Fire: At the beginning of the Air Defense step choose an opposing fighter in the same sector, that fighter rolls one less die during that step.
I think the wording would need to be cleaned up, but you get the idea. It would replace the rugged ability on the TBF-1, and we don't have to play games with the armor/bomb proposal (which I also like).
Combined with escort, it could help get more attack craft through.
We don't even need to be so picky as to lean on a dorsal gun. It rates a defensive/survival ability by its sisters.
Dive bomber SA is a proposal only. I am personally a lot more interested in making units with a clear identity, than a homogonous group of iterative improvements. The other tbf's have rugged and +1 vital. There isnt a need to fill that requirement here, as this doesnt preclude thier use.
For arguements sake, sunderlands are 4/7 bombers and i use them on soft target frequently. This has that defensive line and +3 bomb optionally. And is otherwise more rugged that the barracuda. So thats the level of pazzazz i'd hope to see as a 3rd SA
A5 v8 h1 Mission selection Press the attack +torps
I think as it stand, avenger is the better unit. So it's at least 12 point minimum.
What bugs me is that FAA had opportunities to use this better aircraft in 43 and 44 and didn't. Theres very little to go on for the Avenger. (Interesting to compare the raid on tirpitz with barracudas versus musashi in terms of hit number and weight of individual bombs)
What if we just made this a dedicated dive-bomber?
Tarpon GR.I Dive Bomber 1943 B 9 ASW 3 A5 V8 H1
Raider Advanced Dive Bomber: Enemy units roll one fewer die when making AA attacks against this unit.
*This is essentially a combination of Texasarcher's observation about glide-bombing (which I think is slightly safer than dive-bombing, but that should be double-checked), and AU64's suggestion of the AA-die reduction, which I liked.
University Student— Lover of Plato, Aristotle, War At Sea, Palestrina, and Mozart
But more seriously, alternate torpedo payload could be fine, but that makes it more akin to the Barracuda, and is not borne out by historical usage with the RN, as you pointed out.
University Student— Lover of Plato, Aristotle, War At Sea, Palestrina, and Mozart
Id be curious to know why the FAA preferred the cuda, until the hot and high conditions forced thier hand
Firefly's switch hit capability insulates it.
My though was,
DIVIDE THE DEFENSE: Once per game you can declare you're using Divide the Defense. If you do, each Ship in this unit's sector gets -1 on each attack die when making Antiair attacks this turn, and this unit gets -1 on each attack die when making Bomb attacks and can't make Torpedo attacks this turn. You cannot use this with any other ability against enemy ships
Honestly, Not keen on advanced dive bomber honestly. If you want a defensively better avenger use the 1942 TBF. That an opinion seperate from my role managing the project.
Operations against tirpitz saw avengers dropping mines while barracuda's went after tirpitz. That 'distraction' is enough to go divide the defence in my book. But equally the base stats and SA are within reason justifiable since the didnt actually do much. At best cruiser or raider killer might fit