I feel that anvil attacks as executed in the campaign system doesn't accurately reflect the logic behind the tactic. This is compounded by the limitation in place in the resolution of all aerial torpedo attacks.
To start, the attacker must first roll to see how many flights can attack a single target. No issues with this, but note that a high roll already puts any anvil attack at risk through AA fire.
Then attacking player must have a minimum of four flights to declare an anvil. If four or more, they must roll to see if they can execute the attack. No issues with this as it eliminates the requirement to physically place and maneuver flights on the table top. There is only a 25% chance of executing such an attack. Given the low odds, the following steps unduly burden the attacker.
AA Fire. If the loss/damage of attacking flights is reduced to three or less, then the attacker no longer can execute an anvil attack. Why? This attack is being abstracted and the aircraft are assumed to be attacking from at least two directions. E.g. if the attack consist of four flights, that is 12 aircraft. If three or six aircraft (1 or 2 flights) get shot down/damaged, who is to say that all those losses are from one side of the anvil. More importantly, the target ship is already maneuvering based on both parts of the anvil attacking. A captain is not waiting to see whether one arm of the attack is destroyed before maneuvering their ship.
Our House rule. If an anvil attack is successfully rolled, any surviving aircraft/flights still receive the anvil attack bonus.
Next is the target ship gets to roll for evade. A 1 successfully neutralizes the anvil attack. A 2 not only neutralizes the attack, but the target ship actually does better against the attack. The logic behind an anvil attack is to neutralize a target ship's ability to evade everything. Evading one arm of the attack sets up the other arm of the attack. Allowing the ship to successfully evade an anvil attack throws the logic of the attack out the window. Remember that the attacking flights still need to roll to get a torpedo hit, so successfully executing an anvil attack doesn't guarantee any hits. At best (least amount of AA) an anvil attack only gets the attacker a 33% chance of a hit without an evade.
Our House rule. If the attacker rolls for an anvil attack, the target doesn't get to roll for evade.
After surviving the AA fire, the weight of the AA fire affects the ability to get a hit. So a double whammy on AA fire. Now I do see some logic here, so no big issue. The problem is that the chart only allows one possible torpedo hit from three aircraft. And two hits is only possible against the minimum AA fire and a roll of 1. Why? The first issue is this approach is 180ยบ out from the philosophy of the rules. The rules use luck to a greater extent to generate historical results rather than adjusting hit probabilities (stochastic vice deterministic). All other torpedo attacks are done by mount and if the roll for the mount gets a hit, a second roll is allowed with a reduced chance of a second hit, etc. So why doesn't a flight count as a mount and get another chance to score a hit?
Our House rule for all aerial torpedo attacks (anvil or not). Use the chart as is. If a hit is scored, roll against with a +1 for a second hit. If a hit, roll a third time with a +2. This brings campaign aerial torpedo attacks inline with all the other torpedo rules.
Comments?
v/r Jeff
