Historical Carriers, ASW and other vessels : 1942.1/1942.2/1940

  • '17 '16

    @Uncrustable:

    Adding units dilutes the game

    And why add escort carriers before torpedo boats?
    Or super battleships, battlecruisers, light cruisers, etc

    The carrier in the game now does not represent a specific carrier, but rather a ‘group’ or ‘task force’ focused around aircraft carriers. I imagine the groups would include multiple different types of carriers both large and small

    I could say because Troop Transport need more escort and protection (since TT has no combat value).
    And CVL were design for this during WWII and it was a cheaper way than using Fleet Carrier.

    You can recreate this interesting historical effect in a game without introducing a totally different unit, (such as Torpedo boat: A1D1M2C4-5, maybe).

    Instead of a complete battle Task Force to defend TTs against Sub and support landing :
    1DD+1CV+2Fgt= 8+16+20=44 IPCs / 1fgt=34 IPCs.     Combined A8D12, 5 hits/1Fgt A5D8, 4 hits
    Support land attack with 2 planes, many rounds 2@3   /  1 plane 1@3.

    You can have a smaller, faster Escort Group able to do a little something vs Subs and support landing too:
    1CVL A0D1M3C11(10?) + 1Fgt A3D4C10 = 21 (20?) IPCs       Combined A3D5, 2 hits
    Support land attack with 1 plane, many rounds 1@3.

    And it is still different than slower Escort/attack ship only:
    1DD+1CA= 8+12= 20 IPCs                                 Combined A5D5,  2 hits
    Support land attack 1 bombardment, 1 round @3.

    On the other part,
    creating battlecruiser and lightcruiser will require something special to create an incentive toward essentially combat ship, which we already have in 2 versions: Cruiser and Battleship.

    How will those 2 new units (which can bombard?, have AA guns?, or have ASW, have 3 spaces move?) will add something?
    The same question will rise, as shown by many treads complaining about few buying of cruiser.
    Many will say: why buying this or that, if it doesn’t improve or maximize the offensive or defensive punch?

  • '17 '16

    @Baron:

    @Uncrustable:

    Adding units dilutes the game

    And why add escort carriers before torpedo boats?
    Or super battleships, battlecruisers, light cruisers, etc
    The carrier in the game now does not represent a specific carrier, but rather a ‘group’ or ‘task force’ focused around aircraft carriers. I imagine the groups would include multiple different types of carriers both large and small

    On the other part,
    creating battlecruiser and lightcruiser will require something special to create an incentive toward essentially combat ship, which we already have in 2 versions: Cruiser and Battleship.

    How will those 2 new units (which can bombard?, have AA guns?, or have ASW, have 3 spaces move?) will add something?
    The same question will rise, as shown by many treads complaining about few buying of cruiser.
    Many will say: why buying this or that, if it doesn’t improve or maximize the offensive or defensive punch?

    I found this about historical light cruiser CL and heavy cruiser CA:

    Perhaps the ultimate example of this interchangeability of light and heavy cruiser design was the Japanese Mogami class, which were commissioned as light cruisers armed with 15-6.1" guns in five triple turrets in order to conform to the Washington Naval Treaty. When war became imminent, they were rearmed as heavy cruisers simply by exchanging the triple 6" turrets for twin 8" turrets, which by design shared the same size turret rings. The Mogami’s were, in fact, among the most powerful and capable of all WW II heavy cruisers and graphically demonstrated that there was no longer any practical difference, in terms of hull size or displacement, between light and heavy cruisers.

    http://www.chuckhawks.com/best_light_cruisers.htm

    About Battlecruiser, specially the H.M.S. Hoods:

    The Royal Navy had three battlecruisers at the beginning of the Second World War: Renown, Repulse, and Hood. All three were begun during the First World War, and represent the second generation of battlecruisers.

    Renown and Repulse were sisters, and carried 6-15in guns and a 9in belt on about 32,000t standard displacement. Both were modestly refit in the 1920’s. Renown was given a major reconstruction which, when completed in 1939, brought her up to contemporary British standards. Due to the outbreak of the war, Repulse did not receive this second reconstruction.

    The German Admiralty was particularly nervous about the British battlecruisers, as they were the only British ships which were as fast as the two third generation fast battleships, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, and also out gunned them. Repulse, along with the battleship Prince of Wales, was sunk off Malaysia in December, 1941 by Japanese naval aircraft. Renown survived a very busy war to be sold to the ship breakers in 1948.

    The third ship, Hood, was the largest battlecruiser of all time, and probably the most famous. For almost all of her life she was the largest warship in the world. She was known everywhere as “the mighty Hood”. She was originally designed as a response to the WW I German Mackensen class. When it became clear that these would never be completed, the three other members of the Hood class were canceled, but the Hood herself was far enough along to be worth completing. She was intended to be a 32 knot battlecruiser version of the very successful Queen Elizabeth class battleships. She was commissioned in 1920, and represented a new standard of battlecruiser protection. Many authorities consider her to be the first of the new type later to be called “fast battleships”. Certainly, her 12in inclined belt offered good protection by the standards of the time, but a lot of her total tonnage of armor (which amounted to 33.6% of her hull weight) was wasted in inconsequential places. In fairness, it should be pointed out that the Hood was armored to almost identical standards as the vaunted Queen Elizabeth class battleships.

    She got a modest refit in 1929-30, but was never modernized. She was due for a major rebuild in 1939 (similar to Renown), but this was never accomplished due to the outbreak of war. After the beginning of the war, her original 5.5in secondary guns were removed, and more AA guns added.

    Her specifications in 1941 follow (From Jane’s Fighting Ships of World War II and Encyclopedia of the World’s Warships, by Hugh Lion):

    Displacement: 42,100t standard; 46,200t full load

    Dimensions:810ft pp, 860ft 7in oa x 105ft 2.5in x 31.5ft max.

    Machinery:4-shaft Brown-Curtis geared turbines, 24 Yarrow small tube
    boilers, 144,000shp = 28.8kts Oil 4,000t max.

    Armor:Belt 12in-5in; deck 3in-1in; turrets 15in faces, 12in-11in sides;
    barbettes 12in; 12in-9in CT

    Armament: 8-15in/42 (4x2), 14-4in AA (7x2), 24-40mm AA (3x8), 8-.50 MG,
    4-21in TT (2x2)

    Complement:1,341

    Range:5,170nm at 18kts


  • Well let me say this;
    The problem with cruisers is they are essentially a cheaper form of BB
    Whenever you have 2 similar units, 1 will be predominatly purchases while the other is rarely purchased, except when a nation is too poor.
    Giving cruisers +1 movement would easily solve this and give them there own role as a
    “Faster, cheaper BB”

    The more I think about the more I actually think escort carriers do have a place
    As a 'cheaper carrier ’
    Give them 3 movement and now you have a very mobile fleet option
    Cruisers + escort carriers with 3 range

    They should NOT have ASW as that woukd upset destroyer purchases

    I think I have come full circle ;)

  • '17 '16

    @Uncrustable:

    Well let me say this;
    The problem with cruisers is they are essentially a cheaper form of BB
    Whenever you have 2 similar units, 1 will be predominatly purchases while the other is rarely purchased, except when a nation is too poor.
    Giving cruisers +1 movement would easily solve this and give them there own role as a
    “Faster, cheaper BB”

    The more I think about the more I actually think escort carriers do have a place
    As a 'cheaper carrier ’
    Give them 3 movement and now you have a very mobile fleet option
    Cruisers + escort carriers with 3 range

    They should NOT have ASW as that woukd upset destroyer purchases
    I think I have come full circle ;)

    I think about this, and I think your fear about DD is logical but will not pass the game test.
    I explain:
    First: compare the vulnerability against Sub of 1CVL+1Fgt

    Even ASW didn’t forbid sub from making a hit against an ASW ship.
    What will remain, if it’s the case?
    1 Fighter craving for a landing place.

    CVL have A0D1C10-11 vs DD A2D2C8
    You get better offensive and defensive punch.
    Compare those 4 Task Force A, B, C and D:
    TF-A: 1 CVL A0D1C10-11 + 1 Fgt A3D4C10 + 1 CA A3D3C12=  A6D8C32-33, 2 hits vs Subs
    TF-B: 1 DD A2D2C8 +  2 CA A3D3C12 =                                 A8D8C32, 3 hits vs Subs
    TF-C: 2 DD A2D2C8 + 1 CA A3D3C12 =                                   A7D7C28, 3 hits vs Subs
    TF-D: 4 DDs A2D2M2C8  =                                                     A8D8C32, 4 hits vs Subs

    If a 5 Subs attacking scores 2 hits, it means no more TF-A.
    TF-B-C-D can fight another round against Subs.

    And TF-B and D has more offensive punch while TF-C has same 14 pts A/D value, it is 4-5 IPCs cheaper.

    I think ASW add the possibility to other unit going on Anti-Sub Patrol but at a lower offensive capacity compare to DD.

    I will add that it is a better Anti-sub Patrol to add 1 DD to CVL and CA Task Force, even at the expense of loosing mobility, because DD are cheaper and stronger.

    For all this reasons, and an historical one:
    CVL/CVE used more often their planes to patrol against Subs than Fleet Carrier used their planes for this kind of mission.


  • So who would buy a destroyer when for 2 more IPCs you can get a unit with 3 range and carries a fighter and does ASW too?

    Then get rid of destroyer altogether

  • '17 '16

    @Uncrustable:

    So who would buy a destroyer when for 2 more IPCs you can get a unit with 3 range and carries a fighter and does ASW too?

    Then get rid of destroyer altogether

    I think you must compare them on a same IPC basis:
    TF-A: 1 CVL A0D1C10-11 + 1 Fgt A3D4C10 + 1 CA A3D3C12=  A6D8C32, 2 hits vs Subs, only 1 ASW
    TF-D: 4 DDs A2D2M2C8  = A8D8M2C32, 4 hits vs Subs and 4 ASW

    Would you really get ride of the DD?
    Subs have better odds of surviving against TF-A than TF-D

    U-Boat TF: 5 Subs A2D1M2C6 = A10D5M2C30,  5 hits Task Force.
    Fst rnd, 52= 10/6  1 hit     (1 subs casuality)
    Scnd rnd 4
    2= +8   12/6 = 2 hits  No more TF-A   (1 Sub casuality vs DD)
    Third rnd  3*2= 6/6   1 hit            No more TF-D
    Frth rnd  ???


  • Ok if you want more units make it basic:

    3 Carriers: CVB, CV, and CVL
    2 Cruisers: BC and CA
    2 Destroyers: DD and DE
    2 battleships: BB, BBB

    CVB= 3 planes, 3 hits, 2-3-3-
    CV= OOB
    CL= 1 hit, 1 plane, 0-1-3-
    BC= 3-3-3-2 hits, 16 cost, 3 SB
    CA= OOB
    DD=OOB
    DE= preemptive strike negated, plus boosts each transport to 1 defense ( no more one sub kills all thing) 1-2-3-7
    BB=oob
    BBB= 3 hits, 5-5-3-24, sb at 5


  • Ok in the real game, people would much rather spend 2 more for the carrier

    And why the hell did you include a cruiser in your example lol kinda warps it

    And it doesn’t matter if you have one ASW or a million ASW lol that has no affect

    Giving escort carrier ASW will severely impact destroyer purchases

  • '17 '16

    @ Imperious Leader
    Ok if you want more units make it basic:

    3 Carriers: CVB, CV, and CVL
    2 Cruisers: BC and CA
    2 Destroyers: DD and DE
    2 battleships: BB, BBB

    CVB= 3 planes, 3 hits, 2-3-3-  3 hits? Find it too much, 3 planes enough.
    CV= OOB
    CVL= 1 hit, 1 plane, 0-1-3-     I pledge for ASW.
    BC= 3-3-3-2 hits, 16 cost, 3 SB   Probably the only cruiser type which worth the cost. But it should be named Armored Cruiser CA instead.  OOB would be Light Cruiser or Heavy Cruiser CL
    CA= OOB  Would be name Light Cruiser CL
    DD=OOB
    DE= preemptive strike negated, plus boosts each transport to 1 defense ( no more one sub kills all thing) 1-2-3-7                  With M3 and changing TT to D1, I’d rise the cost to 8 IPCs.
    BB=oob
    BBB= 3 hits, 5-5-3-24, sb at 5  Have read the other tread about plundging fire? BBB will still be vulnerable against plane, because it keep A4D4. I think it is more balance.

  • '17 '16

    @Uncrustable:

    Ok in the real game, people would much rather spend 2 more for the carrier

    And why the hell did you include a cruiser in your example lol kinda warps it

    And it doesn’t matter if you have one ASW or a million ASW lol that has no affect

    Giving escort carrier ASW will severely impact destroyer purchases

    I disagree, because in my examples, after 1st/2nd round, Fighter can no longer defends vs subs.

    I add Cruiser because both CVL and CA will have M3: a Natural Task Force.  
    Keeping ASW for the fighter to be able to defend vs Subs, it requires the first hit be taken by the cruiser, it means loosing A3D3.
    After 1 casuality: CVL+Fgt= A3D5 vs 3 DDs= A6D6.  DDs are now better on defense.
    After 2 casuality: Fgt=A3D4 must land or sink vs 2DDs= A4D4.
    Still have 2 units left to defend vs Subs.

    Keeping more DDs help having some good fodders.


  • Your example was dumb becuase it included a cruiser?

    lol it was escort carrier vs destroyer
    not escort carrier and cruiser vs destroyer

    my point was simply that giving escort carriers at 10 IPC ASW would wreck destroyer purchases

    here is a much better example:

    2 fighter + 2  escort carriers = 40 IPCs = A6D10 move of 3 for carrier and 4 for fighter + the fighters can attack on land + ASW
    5 destroyers = 40 IPC = A10D10 movement of 2 + ASW + cant attack land

    you starting to see my point ? it gets even better at lower incomes, for example if a power has 20-24 IPCs to spend, it would get the escort carrier for ASW and the versitily of it + a fighter for 20 IPCs instead of spending so much 16-24 on destroyers that only do ASW and only move 2 and cant attack land, etc etc

  • '17 '16

    @Uncrustable:

    Your example was dumb becuase it included a cruiser?

    lol it was escort carrier vs destroyer
    not escort carrier and cruiser vs destroyer

    my point was simply that giving escort carriers at 10 IPC ASW would wreck destroyer purchases

    here is a much better example:

    2 fighter + 2  escort carriers = 40 IPCs = A6D10 move of 3 for carrier and 4 for fighter + the fighters can attack on land + ASW
    5 destroyers = 40 IPC = A10D10 movement of 2 + ASW + cant attack land

    you starting to see my point ? it gets even better at lower incomes, for example if a power has 20-24 IPCs to spend, it would get the escort carrier for ASW and the versitily of it + a fighter for 20 IPCs instead of spending so much 16-24 on destroyers that only do ASW and only move 2 and cant attack land, etc etc

    Again, 2 CVL will be vulnerable vs Subs attack.
    2 hits and it is over.
    Pray that there is a landing field nearby for the 2 Fgts.
    40 IPCs worth of destroyers can survives  A10D10,  5 hits.

    But we should also compare 2DD+2CA vs 2CVL+2Fgt. or 1 Fgt+1tacB= A7D9, can be possible also.

    2DDs A4D4+ 2CA A6D6= A10D10 4 hits + 2@3 SB vs A6D10 4 hits (except 2 vs subs).
    Now you have 1 rnd of ground support, but much better vs subs.

    If we compare on offensive against a fleet including subs. Both will negate a time the Subs FirstStrike.
    Just compare the 2 Fgts @3+ 2@0 won’t survive longer vs 2DD@2+2CA@3  or 5DD@2.

    I think the fleet will prevail here.

    CVL A0D1M3 ASW will not become the end of DDs.
    They will be needed in slower attacking fleet.

  • '17 '16

    Since I will not introduce 2 types (CVE and CVL) but only one.
    I integrated how they use the Escort Carrier to the CVL.
    There is the historical ground of ASW:

    The Navys escort carriers, called “Jeep carriers” or (by the press) “baby flat tops,” never received the headlines or glory accorded their bigger sisters. Jeeps did the routine patrolwork, scouting and escorting of convoys that their larger fleet-type counterparts couldnt do. Lightly armored, slower than the fleet carriers and with far less defensive armament and aircraft, they performed admirably when called upon.

    Jeep carrier crews, who joked that “CVE” (the Navy’s designation for this type of ship) really stood for “Combustible, Vulnerable and Expendable,” became experts at hunting, finding and killing U-boats in both ocean theaters. Jeeps and their crews also provided fighter and close air support for amphibious landings, and served as aircraft transports as the tempo of the carrier war in the Pacific mounted to a crescendo.

    http://home.comcast.net/~ivorjeffreys/jeep.html

    For those who speak french, here is a documentary mainly about Escort/light aircrafts carriers.
    From 7 minutes to the end (23 min.), they talk about Casablanca-class CVE and Independence-class CVL.
    Working as air support for amphibious assault.
    83 CVE (jeep) 20 knots / 9 CVL 31 knots, 45 Fgts,  all were in operation since 1943 for USA.
    Fighters from CVL were protecting the fleet and his Essex CV, while fighters from CV were protecting TacB.

    Around 14m.30s. They talk about ASW in the Atlantic.

    Sorry, I couldn’t find the original english version  :?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ryjq-dCuin8

    Here is a canadian !!!  :evil: CVL HMCS Magnificent (a Majestic-class CVL-21) Launch in nov. 1944 but only commissionned 1948.
    25 knots, 12 000 nmiles, 37 planes on board.
    Around 5 min. the captain say:
    He have 2 types of planes on board: ASW (Avengers) and fighter interceptors against planes.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Zvnz06-MRc

    Around 40m.45s, talk about Jeep Carriers in Atlantic.
    42min. Some images from success of Guadalcanal CVE boarding U-Boat in Atlantic.
    49 min. Leyte’s Gulf Jeep Carriers victorious defense.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb8BvL0JuAM

  • '17 '16

    Another way to see the weakness of CVL ASW:

    @knp7765:

    Re: HBG Light Aircraft Carriers.
    ASW is a cool idea. Never thought of giving a carrier ASW.
    I think A 0, D 1, M 2, C 9 , 1 hit, carry 1 plane are excellent values for this unit.
    With that in mind, say you have 1 CVE with 1 fighter on board. You see an enemy sub in range so you decide to attack it. In your combat move, you would move both the CVE and the fighter. While the CVE has no attack value, it’s ASW ability allows the fighter to attack the sub (where as if the fighter went by itself, it couldn’t target the sub).

    This kind of attack could be potentially costly to you. While you have decent odds of hitting the sub with your fighter @ 3, and the sub’s weak defense of 1 makes you mostly safe, whether you hit the sub or not, it could get that lucky 1 and sink your CVE costing you a 9 IPC unit to kill a 6 IPC unit. What’s more is now the fighter has to find a place to land with it’s remaining moves. If it can’t, you also lose the fighter. So, it just cost you 19 IPCs to kill the enemy’s 6 IPCs.
    With that in mind, would any of you attack a lone sub with a CVE and fighter?

    By the way, I am assuming we would give these same values to the Seyditz class Light Aircraft Carrier in the German Set, right?

    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30815.0

  • '17 '16

    @Imperious:

    Ok if you want more units make it basic:

    3 Carriers: CVB, CV, and CVL
    2 Cruisers: BC and CA
    2 Destroyers: DD and DE
    2 battleships: BB, BBB

    CVB= 3 planes, 3 hits, 2-3-3-
    CV= OOB
    CL= 1 hit, 1 plane, 0-1-3-
    BC= 3-3-3-2 hits, 16 cost, 3 SB
    CA= OOB

    DD=OOB
    DE= preemptive strike negated, plus boosts each transport to 1 defense ( no more one sub kills all thing) 1-2-3-7
    BB=oob
    BBB= 3 hits, 5-5-3-24, sb at 5

    I don’t know if this hypothetical Armored cruiser CA will be born someday and can be useful.
    But if the case, the extra hit should cost 25% of base price of OOB Cruiser (C Light/Heavy). If BB A4D4, 1hit 2=16 IPCs1.25=20 IPCs  2 hits. Which means 3 IPCs for 1.25% of 12 IPCs.
    CA A3D3M3C15 2 hits, SBombard 1@3. vs
    CB Battlecruiser A4D4M3C16 1hit, SBombard 1@4.
    Will it makes both more viable unit vs nearer cost: 2DDs, A4D4 (2 hits) 16 IPCs?
    But CB is still different from a M2 BB, with 2 hits.
    Same guns but no the same armored bulkhead. Jus 1 little hit and it is over.

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 2
  • 22
  • 2
  • 47
  • 4
  • 15
  • 3
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

30

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts