AA Guns

[baron Münchhausen]

To Cmdr Jen,
about your BB problem,
if there is so few BB in your game, give them a little something that as some historical basis.
Instead of giving a non-historical AA, since Battleships were the big guns-carriers with the longer range over any other ships:
When fighting any ships and not just planes,
each BB get 1@1 additionnal attack & defense in first rnd against any of Sub, DD, CA, CV, BB. The player taking the hit choose his own casuality, including plane if he prefer. This hit is treated as a regular casuality.
So, it won’t give any limitation for the player’s which chose casuality.

What do you think about this?

[Jennifer]

Hmm…maybe.  An interesting thought.

I’ve played with rules that say Battleships hit on a 5 or less, damaged Battleships hit on a 2 or less.  But at the time, we also paid 1d6 IPC to repair battleships, it wasn’t free if you were located close enough to a friendly naval base (as defined as being in a sea zone adjacent to one.)

The battleships still only hit on a 4 or less on offshore bombardments, but it gave them significantly higher punch against enemy warships.  With their two hit ability, they were virtually immune to being attacked by submarines (the damage took effect after the battle, so damaged or not, for THAT battle where they got damaged, they stayed at 5 or less) and it reduced the instances of “cheap shots” where 2 fighters would attack a battleship and sink it with an average loss of 1 fighter.  Of course, this was AAR days where there were two hit battleships and I think they just auto repaired on your next turn back then.

Too many rule sets. lol.

Maybe I’ll go back to 5 or less battleships in my games.  We had some really nifty rules like that.  Japanese and German battleships took 3 hits to sink (because they were super battleships) but cost 10 IPC more (30 IPC instead of 20 IPC so it was the same cost per hit ratio) etc, but American carriers could carry 3 fighters (because you could LITERALLY balance 3 fighters on them) and cost 24 IPC - it was a way to reduce the amount of American carriers.  My friends and I are HUGE navy fanatics in these games, sometimes to the point we blind ourselves to the ground combat.

Hey, now there’s an idea for Larry!  He has a Pacific game, why not an Atlantic game but instead of land you need to grab, its control of sea lanes with virtually no land on the board (Eastern Sea Board, Western Europe and England with a Iceland, Greenland, Ireland and parts of Canada being the only land masses from which to use aircraft)

I’d buy 5 copies of that in a heartbeat!  (I buy 5 copies of games.  I have too much money, I know.  I don’t even OPEN them most of the time)

[baron Münchhausen]

Hi Cmdr Jen,
a BB@5 and 1BB@4 + 1@1 is very different, since you can get two hits in the first round.

I’m thinking about it, and heard that many US admirals feared the Yamato and forbid a direct combat with ships against it.

Maybe this BB @1 can be 1 first strike against surface vessels only: DD,CA,CV,BB, (and even TT, if their is both scramble planes and TTs)
I think that can inspire some kind of fear of risking a direct shot without being able to be in range of the BB group.
Don’t you think it could be more historically grounded, seems you like navy battle?

[Jennifer]

Yes, but you are referring to all battleships, I was referring to only German/Japanese battleships.

I am starting to think more along the lines of each fleet having a special unit that is similar to what they could do in WWII.

ie:

• Germany/Japan have battleships that, when not damaged, attack at 5 or less
• Italy/France have fast destroyers that attack at 2, defend at 1, move 3
• America has super carriers that can carry 3 fighter/tactical bombers or 1 strategic bomber (because of that battle soon after Pearl where they launched, what was it, B17s? off an AC over Japan.)
• England/ANZAC get improved shipyards technology as it is now - it just isn’t a technology, it’s what they get.

Since Italy/France rarely have ships ANYWAY and what they do have usually ends up being coral reefs for the fishes to live in at the bottom of the ocean, I don’t see they need anything, I just didn’t want to leave them out.  Could just leave their destroyers as is, but I could see a break out Italian destroyer making a run for Brazil being an issue for the Allies.  Maybe swap it so it’s ATT 1, DEF 2 that way it can snipe at enemy shipping.  The French one would probably be  that destroyer they start with by Africa racing to Australia or up to England as the player sees fit.  Dunno, that’s what makes it interesting.

Then nothing would need AA Guns.  Battleships for the axis would, essentially, have it built into their increased damage output.  Since America was heavily focused on carriers, USS Enterprise anyone? we’d give them a bonus there instead - and a good bonus too, imho.  England would make up for not having AA Guns on their ships by having cheaper ships - reflecting the reduced cost of not putting massive anti-aircraft screens on their oats.

[baron Münchhausen]

Do you ever read my post about carriers ?:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30262.0#new

You get some comparison between US carriers. It was based on 1942 carrier.

I don’t want to derail this post on AAA. We can discuss more about ships on that one about carriers.

[Jennifer]

Fleet discussion continued: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=31177.new#new

[toblerone77]

B25 Mitchell

[baron Münchhausen]

@toblerone77:

B25 Mitchell

Thanks!
But it was not easy to catch at first that you were responding to this question  :?:

@Cmdr:

• America has super carriers that can carry 3 fighter/tactical bombers or 1 strategic bomber (because of that battle soon after Pearl where they launched, what was it, B17s? off an AC over Japan.)

[toblerone77]

@Baron:

@toblerone77:

B25 Mitchell

Thanks!
But it was not easy to catch at first that you were responding to this question  :?:

@Cmdr:

• America has super carriers that can carry 3 fighter/tactical bombers or 1 strategic bomber (because of that battle soon after Pearl where they launched, what was it, B17s? off an AC over Japan.)

It’s rare I get to correct a statement like that. I am totally against srat bombers on carriers however. Maybe an NO that once per turn a carrier may carry one strat bomber. US only.

[Derek]

The b-17s you refer to we’re extremely modified, pilots spent much time training just for the takeoff, and in no way could they have landed

They also carried extremely light in weapons I believe

[toblerone77]

@Uncrustable:

The b-17s you refer to we’re extremely modified, pilots spent much time training just for the takeoff, and in no way could they have landed

They also carried extremely light in weapons I believe

If we’re talking the Doolittle raid yes it was the twin-engine B-25 Mitchell, not the B-17 which was a four enginge bomber and far too large to ever be used in carrier flight. Almost all of thier weapons were stripped. They carried a light load, and lastly they made a fake gun port on the tail to fool Japanese interceptors that there was rear defensive aramament.

[Derek]

Yeah 25s I meant lol
And as far as “heavy carrier” is concerned, I don’t believe there was such a thing in WWII

[toblerone77]

@Uncrustable:

Yeah 25s I meant lol
And as far as “heavy carrier” is concerned, I don’t believe there was such a thing in WWII

Jets in post-war USA and Korea made the difference. Still you never saw or see large aircraft on carriers. our modern carriers now are built to handle the speed of jet aircraft. The size and cost eliminated most of the post war allies from owning them with few exceptions. The Harrier and various helicopters can operate on smaller Aircraft Carriers, but other than a few examples and exceptions the US dominates the large carrier business in the modern age.