[1942.2 & G40] Destroyers able to get a Shore Bombardment?


  • I am curious about your shore bombardment rules. Why did you cut them all down one from their normal combat values? Do you think warships’ shore bombardment abilities is less effective than their ship vs. ship combat abilities?
    Because shore bombardment was too strong.
    Battleship at 4 is way too much…

    I like that you have cruisers and heavy cruisers. Do you have different pieces for them?

    Yes
    heavy cruiser = attack and defend at 3. 2 hit to destroy.
    Cruiser = attack and defend at 3 but 1 hit to destroy and shore capabilities is not the sae.

  • '17 '16

    @crusaderiv:

    I am curious about your shore bombardment rules. Why did you cut them all down one from their normal combat values? Do you think warships’ shore bombardment abilities is less effective than their ship vs. ship combat abilities?
    Because shore bombardment was too strong.
    Battleship at 4 is way too much…

    I like that you have cruisers and heavy cruisers. Do you have different pieces for them?

    Yes
    heavy cruiser = attack and defend at 3. 2 hit to destroy.
    Cruiser = attack and defend at 3 but 1 hit to destroy and shore capabilities is not the sae.

    Because shore bombardment was too strong.
    Battleship at 4 is way too much…

    It is really the short answer.
    Don’t you have any proof or recall a specific game which show this?
    Or a specific circumstances in ETO or PTO where it could be very unbalancing?

    Besides, what was the cost of your ships in your HR game:

    Cruiser A3D3M2 , 1 hit, bombard @1, cost?
    Heavy cruiser A3D3M2, 2 hits, bombard @2, cost?
    Battleship, A4D4M2, 2 hits, bombard @3, cost?


  • Cruiser = C10

    HCruiser = C12

    Battleship= C18

  • '17 '16

    @SS:

    Cruiser = C10

    HCruiser = C12

    Battleship= C18

    Cool prices for cruiser and BB !!! :-D

    Interesting… For how long are you playing with these costs?
    Don’t you find that cruiser isn’t buy much because a 2 hits Heavy cruiser at 12 is quite a bargain?
    Maybe cruiser have other capacity you didn’t mention?

    Maybe damaged heavy cruiser cannot be repaired the same way as BB?

    I would have expected around 14-16 IPCs, not this low 12 IPCs.

    Because as I see it, it is the deal amongst the ships:
    Heavy cruiser 12 IPCs/ 2 hits = 6 IPCs/hit, as low as the Subs.
    G40 Carrier 16 IPCs/ 2 hits= 8 IPCs/hit, as low as the Destroyers
    BB 18 IPCs/ 2 hits = 9 IPCs/hit
    Cruiser 10 IPCs/hit

    Also, this heavy cruiser unit is a big winner all the way in a Battlecalc vs either Cruisers or BBs on a same IPCs basis.

    In this way, it is clearly historical:
    your main ship in any fleet is certainly heavy cruiser units, isn’t?

    Cruiser A3D3M2C10, 1 hit, bombard @1,???
    Heavy cruiser A3D3M2C12, 2 hits, bombard @2 :evil:
    Battleship, A4D4M2C18, 2 hits, bombard @3


  • Some countrys pay more for ships.

    USSR -  Cruiser = C16          USA -  Cruiser = C10
               Hcruiser = C18                   Hcruiser = C11
               No battleship                     Battleship = C18

    UK -  Cruiser = C12             China - No Cruiser
            Hcruiser = C13                       Hcruiser = C13
            Battleship = C17                    No Battleship

    Germany -  Cruiser = C10        Japan - Cruiser = C11
                     Hcruiser = C12                   Hcruiser = C13
                     Battleship = C18                Battleship = C18

    Italy - Cruiser = C11               France - Cruiser = C14
             Hcruiser = C13                           Hcruiser = C16
             Battleship = C24                        Battleship = C22

    Sorry I didn’t post all of them.These are the costs. Crus will have to tell you why they are different. I probably asked long time ago but don’t rememer what the answer was. Maybe do to time of war, navy strength and size, and availability. Some of these cost you may not agree with. But they do work for this game. SS AUS!

  • '17 '16

    @SS:

    Some countrys pay more for ships.

    USSR -  Cruiser = C16          USA -  Cruiser = C10
                Hcruiser = C18                  Hcruiser = C11
                No battleship                    Battleship = C18

    UK -  Cruiser = C12            China - No Cruiser
            Hcruiser = C13                      Hcruiser = C13
            Battleship = C17                    No Battleship

    Germany -  Cruiser = C10        Japan - Cruiser = C11
                      Hcruiser = C12                  Hcruiser = C13
                      Battleship = C18                Battleship = C18
           
    Italy - Cruiser = C11              France - Cruiser = C14
              Hcruiser = C13                          Hcruiser = C16
              Battleship = C24                        Battleship = C22

    Sorry I didn’t post all of them.These are the costs. Crus will have to tell you why they are different. I probably asked long time ago but don’t rememer what the answer was. Maybe do to time of war, navy strength and size, and availability. Some of these cost you may not agree with. But they do work for this game. SS AUS!

    Thanks for the detailed post.

    I cannot disagree with your cost since it is clearly a customized game. However, you can help me better understand what’s underlying.

    I still have the same question however: there is clearly some costs of the three units in the same country which clearly maximize the combat value vs IPC investment. Is it intentional? Just to reflect the historical bias of a country toward some warships vs others?

    Clearly, if I’m US player, I never buy any cruiser (at 10) and it is all-in Heavy cruiser at 11 IPCs.

    If I’m UK, I may think twice before bying Heavy (at 13) and go to BB at 17 IPCs.

    Maybe if I was Japan, the cruiser at 10 would have been competitive but at 11 IPCs it is too much vs the heavy at 13.

    So, in general, cruiser unit is never competitive or maximized (combat value/IPC) vs Heavy cruiser?

    Does some country are so poor that they still buy cruiser or wait until they can offer Heavy?

    I probably would have kept around a basic 4 IPCs difference between cruiser / heavy cruiser / BB.
    Starting at 10 to 12 for Cruiser / 13 to 17 for Heavy/ 17 to 21 for BB.
    And having some specific reduction or increase for some unit in each country.
    But I would have probably kept a minimum of 3 IPCs between units (to tantalized about buy another Inf instead of buying the bigger class warship).


  • Interesting… For how long are you playing with these costs?

    32 games since 1995.

    Don’t you find that cruiser isn’t buy much because a 2 hits Heavy cruiser at 12 is quite a bargain?
    Maybe cruiser have other capacity you didn’t mention?

    Good bargain…yes.if you have the cash…

    Maybe damaged heavy cruiser cannot be repaired the same way as BB?
    No but it will be a good idea.

    Also, this heavy cruiser unit is a big winner all the way in a Battlecalc vs either Cruisers or BBs on a same IPCs basis.
    In this way, it is clearly historical:
    your main ship in any fleet is certainly heavy cruiser units, isn’t?

    No, the carrier and escort carrier still the main ship.


  • I cannot disagree with your cost since it is clearly a customized game. However, you can help me better understand what’s underlying.
    I still have the same question however: there is clearly some costs of the three units in the same country which clearly maximize the combat value vs IPC investment. Is it intentional? Just to reflect the historical bias of a country toward some warships vs others?
    Clearly, if I’m US player, I never buy any cruiser (at 10) and it is all-in Heavy cruiser at 11 IPCs.
    If I’m UK, I may think twice before bying Heavy (at 13) and go to BB at 17 IPCs.
    Maybe if I was Japan, the cruiser at 10 would have been competitive but at 11 IPCs it is too much vs the heavy at 13.
    So, in general, cruiser unit is never competitive or maximized (combat value/IPC) vs Heavy cruiser?
    Does some country are so poor that they still buy cruiser or wait until they can offer Heavy?

    The game begin september 1 1939.
    All important units of WWII  are represented on the game baord. But once the game start, it’s up to the player to buy what he needs.


  • We finally gettin a break? :-D

  • '17 '16

    @crusaderiv:

    Interesting… For how long are you playing with these costs?

    32 games since 1995. _The accuracy is impressive. And all the 32 games were based on the previous cost?

    Don’t you find that cruiser isn’t buy much because a 2 hits Heavy cruiser at 12 is quite a bargain?
    Maybe cruiser have other capacity you didn’t mention?_

    Good bargain…yes.if you have the cash…
    When you need only 1 or 2 IPCs, you manage to cut somewhere else…

    Maybe damaged heavy cruiser cannot be repaired the same way as BB?
    No but it will be a good idea.
    Just think about the difference between 1942.2 BB and G40 BB, it can open up something…

    Also, this heavy cruiser unit is a big winner all the way in a Battlecalc vs either Cruisers or BBs on a same IPCs basis.
    In this way, it is clearly historical:
    your main ship in any fleet is certainly heavy cruiser units, isn’t?

    No, the carrier and escort carrier still the main ship.
    I thought "… amongst warships with guns, I was excluding carriers (in my mind, 'cause the topics is about warships which can bombard somehow.)
    So, besides carriers, the main gunships is surely Heavy cruiser, no?
    And, very few, if no buying of little cruiser?
    Â

    Is your customized A&A G40 is based on an historical rules system, or something else we found on the forum?

  • '17 '16

    @SS:

    We finally gettin a break? :-D

    Admit it, you like this torture.  :-D


  • _Admit it, you like this torture. _

    Of course…he’s SS after all…


  • Is your customized A&A G40 is based on an historical rules system, or something else we found on the forum?

    At start, the games was Based on Xeno game but I changed most of the rules that now it’s no more a Xeno game.
    In fact I tried my best to do something historical and accurate.
    With a game board of 82 x 43 and Europe map 32’’ x 36’’ and more than 1000 pieces, I think it worth it.
    So stop to write….and you ready to play against us? :roll:


  • @Baron:

    @SS:

    We finally gettin a break? :-D

    Admit it, you like this torture.  :-D

    :-D

    @crusaderiv:

    Is your customized A&A G40 is based on an historical rules system, or something else we found on the forum?

    At start, the games was Based on Xeno game but I changed most of the rules that now it’s no more a Xeno game.
    In fact I tried my best to do something historical and accurate.
    With a game board of 82 x 43 and Europe map 32’’ x 36’’ and more than 1000 pieces, I think it worth it.
    So stop to write….and you ready to play against us? :roll:

    That sucks. Live to far away.

    Baron you better jump on the chance to play if your close!


  • :?

  • '17 '16

    @crusaderiv:

    Is your customized A&A G40 is based on an historical rules system, or something else we found on the forum?

    At start, the games was Based on Xeno game but I changed most of the rules that now it’s no more a Xeno game.
    In fact I tried my best to do something historical and accurate.
    With a game board of 82 x 43 and Europe map 32’’ x 36’’ and more than 1000 pieces, I think it worth it.
    So stop to write….and you ready to play against us? :roll:

    I would be very happy to play a game… but it is a question of timing and opportunity.
    By the way, I would need some practice on triple A G40 before being a real challenge to anyone.

  • '17 '16

    @SS:

    :?

    Sorry, I have a lot of cats to whip out…  :-)


  • @knp7765:

    I know that you are right that destroyers often shelled Japanese positions in support of landings.

    Yes, one thing is to shell a position, another thing is exactly what did that shelling accomplish ? If it was common during WWII that small gun fire from destroyers whipped out army corps from the surface of earth, then yes let destroyers shore bombard on4 or less. But if they at best killed like 2 or 3 men, of a 50 000 men strong corps, then no. We cant loose touch with the ground. I read about a Romanian destroyer that was in a duel with a Russian tank during the first week of Barbarossa, and the destroyer won. But since this only happened one time during the war, I don’t want to make a house rule that allows destroyers to hit tanks, or tanks to hit destroyers in an adjacent seazone. I also know about a sub that shoot down an airplane, a heavy bomber, with the small gun on deck. This too only happened one time in history, so I don’t want to make a rule where subs can target aircrafts, that would be too much, even for me. end of line, let the destroyer bombardment go

  • '17 '16

    @Razor:

    @knp7765:

    I know that you are right that destroyers often shelled Japanese positions in support of landings.

    Yes, one thing is to shell a position, another thing is exactly what did that shelling accomplish ? If it was common during WWII that small gun fire from destroyers whipped out army corps from the surface of earth, then yes let destroyers shore bombard on4 or less. But if they at best killed like 2 or 3 men, of a 50 000 men strong corps, then no. We cant loose touch with the ground. I read about a Romanian destroyer that was in a duel with a Russian tank during the first week of Barbarossa, and the destroyer won. But since this only happened one time during the war, I don’t want to make a house rule that allows destroyers to hit tanks, or tanks to hit destroyers in an adjacent seazone. I also know about a sub that shoot down an airplane, a heavy bomber, with the small gun on deck. This too only happened one time in history, so I don’t want to make a rule where subs can target aircrafts, that would be too much, even for me. end of line, let the destroyer bombardment go.

    You have a point.

    Was the DD shore bombardment so ineffective?
    Were they seldom use for this kind of Infantry/Marines support on shore bombardment?
    If that so, clearly it is absurd to give 1 reg Shore B. @1.
    A kind of 75% less dangerous than BB.

    (However, don’t forget we are talking about  around 50 destroyers ships bombarding for days beaches and stronghold.)

    Actually, you give me an argument to keep a great difference of scale between CA and BB ShoreBomb vs DD SB.

    Giving DD this kind of Shore Bombardment:

    The idea is to keep it far less effective than Cruiser and Battleship Shore Bombardment without neglecting this historically accurate point.

    For now, it seems to me that it is the simplest and more balance way to do it.

    DD is acting as a 1 round +1A support for Infantry like an Artillery unit but without having the capacity to roll for itself as the Artillery unit does (or even SB of Cruiser or BB).
    This HR for DD increase the odds of having a same number of casualty without having more of them.

    Seems to have that kind of proportion vs 1@4 BB SB attack.

    On historical accuracy, I just found this:

    Meanwhile, the Navy continued looking ahead. In September 1941, it requested studies for a destroyer with greater anti-aircraft capability. In May 1942, before the first Fletcher was even commissioned, it approved a six-gun ship in which the Fletchers five 5-inch single mounts were replaced with three 5-inch twins the 2,200-ton Allen M. Sumner class, with 20 per cent more firepower on a Fletcher hull widened by 14 inches. By VJ Day, 67 Sumners 55 destroyers and 12 destroyer-minelayer conversions plus 45 ships of a lengthened production variant, initially referred to as the 2,200-ton long hull class and later as the Gearing class. Together, these classes dominated the US Navys destroyer force over the next 25 years.

    As the first big ships to appear and because there were so many of them, however, the Fletchers are remembered as the signature US Navy destroyer class of the Pacific war. There, the earliest ones saw action in the nighttime surface battles in the Solomon Islands, many fought at Leyte and all completed in time for fleet screening and shore bombardment assignments and the notorious anti-kamikaze radar picket duty at Okinawa. While 19 were lost and six damaged beyond repair, 44 earned ten or more service stars, 19 were awarded the Navy Unit Commendation and 16 received the Presidential Unit Citation.

    http://destroyerhistory.org/fletcherclass/

  • Customizer

    Destroyer bombard has been used as a tech before, and if we’re talking HRs as well as custom pieces I see no reason to exclude them from shore bombardment. Just IMO if you have the resources at you disposal this could be perfectly and historically reasonable in conjunction with other HR and custom piece rules.

Suggested Topics

  • 1
  • 1
  • 3
  • 24
  • 17
  • 1
  • 4
  • 26
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

35

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts