Klop is not a dog. bbbbbbbbbbbbbbooooooooooooommmmmmmmmmm!!!
2 Destroyers OR 1 Battleship?
-
Why is the defense at 3? a destroyer is very light and hase little armor protection, it should remain at 2/2 which allows the cruiser unit to easilly be installed within your system at 3/3/2/16 (takes 2 hits) . Does this not present a clearer picture of what these vessels actually were capable of?
summarize:
battleship
4/4/2/20 (two hits)cruiser
3/3/3/16 (two hits)destroyer
2/2/2/8 (one hit)Carrier
1/3/3/16 ( one hit) -
@Imperious:
Why is the defense at 3? a destroyer is very light and hase little armor protection, it should remain at 2/2 which allows the cruiser unit to easilly be installed within your system at 3/3/2/16Â (takes 2 hits) ….
The reason for a 2/3 DD is because you just dont want another piece to buy! And because of that 2/3 makes most sens since it is balanced and also give some historical accuracy as well. The balance thing is because now one want to buy DD for defens since it is better than SS. DDs are however not better than SS in naval attacks, but is good in attacks were one can use shore bombardment(island hopping). DDs In World War IIÂ were truly all-purpose ships, ready to fight off attacks from the air, the surface and under the surface. They handled a variety of duties such as picket ship, escorting larger ships and convoys, shore bombardment, rescuing pilots who were forced down at sea and even acting as mailman for the fleet. DDs were armed with dual-purpose guns (small - around 5 inches), torpedoes, depth charges and antiaircraft guns. This made them more of an defensive weapon, due to the fact range of the DDs armament compared to the gunnery of BBs. IMO only the Imperial Japanese Navy had DDs that could be said to be as good in attack as in defens due to excellent torpedoes and night combat tactics. The best shot for torpedoes is always as close as possible, and the best circumstances for close shots are at night. I think this 2/3 DD with shore bombardment actually will do better than bring in a new unit (cruiser), but I need to play test it. Would you like to do that as well?
Why 2 hits for the cruiser when carriers just can take 1 hit, does not make sense in a historical point of view. They were mostly built of the same hulls.
-
Ok a few points… Destroyers getting a 3 on defense is to close to a battleship and the same as a carrier, which as you know that is built on the same hull. The cost in real terms of a destroyer or submarine is about the same and in some cases the the destroyer was lighter than the submarine and had a lower cost basis. That is why they should cost the same. The attributes of each vessel are basically like hot and cold water each having nearly opposite justifications for their purpose. One preys under the tactic of stealth, while the other escorts more important vessels, looking for trouble. A value of three on defense shows a destroyer to be something like an armed cruiser and makes it too sweet a buy, even if you maintain that 10 IPC price point… which i argue should goto 8 IPC ( like the sub). If your taking their defense by qualifing that 5 inch gun and comparing it to a battleship which has 14-16 inch guns, plus a number of secondary 7-8 inch guns, then the value should not be demonstrated with this 3 value, but rather a 1. While you have to factor into the equation its torpedo attack that would marginally add some value, but destroyers rarely were able to torpedo a larger ship unless it was allready crippled so they sent them in to give the coupe de grace and finish them off. Their main task was for protection of convoys, ASW, invasion escorts, and AA support in the event of aerial combat against the fleet.
On the issue of carriers and cruiser hulls its correct to figure that they have the same basic hull structure and they should take by that example up to two hits, however the carriers surface is flat and not nearly as heavily plated and the gun crusted cruiser. The carriers were longer and wider and had many larger cargo pockets in order to carry planes which were under the top deck. The cruiser was basically a JR. battleship with caliber guns in the 9-12 in range and they were plated well and down below the decks were much smaller rooms with many more watertight doors. I have been on these vessels in san diego on a tour and their is a big difference on construction. That is why a carrier should get really one hit, while a cruiser should get two IMO.
as far as the math looks it also fits much better. A cheaper destroyer at 8 IPC 2/2/2 is a good buy, while that battleship at 20 4/4/2 also has merits, but the carrier was been proven that its a better deal, because its planes can attack any other unit and are more flexible, so the carrier to be viable basically needs to not change too much ( at least not to a two hitter).
a cruiser whether its adopted or not will fit perfectly under my system at 3/3/2 taking those two hits and costing around 14 IPC
I want to really elaborate further with some additional information , but time has run out. BTW im working on a Jutland game that ill be allowing a free download (boardgame) . Any input would be helpful on that project.
You know i fully support the work your doing and i want you to have the most realistic outcome so that it will be widely accepted by the vast poll of players so that they can eventually take further steps into more advanced systems.
-
@Imperious:
Ok a few points… Destroyers getting a 3 on defense is to close to a battleship and the same as a carrier, which as you know that is built on the same hull. The cost in real terms of a destroyer or submarine is about the same and in some cases the the destroyer was lighter than the submarine and had a lower cost basis. That is why they should cost the same. The attributes of each vessel are basically like hot and cold water each having nearly opposite justifications for their purpose. One preys under the tactic of stealth, while the other escorts more important vessels, looking for trouble. A value of three on defense shows a destroyer to be something like an armed cruiser and makes it too sweet a buy, even if you maintain that 10 IPC price point… which i argue should goto 8 IPC ( like the sub). If your taking their defense by qualifing that 5 inch gun and comparing it to a battleship which has 14-16 inch guns, plus a number of secondary 7-8 inch guns, then the value should not be demonstrated with this 3 value, but rather a 1. While you have to factor into the equation its torpedo attack that would marginally add some value, but destroyers rarely were able to torpedo a larger ship unless it was allready crippled so they sent them in to give the coupe de grace and finish them off. Their main task was for protection of convoys, ASW, invasion escorts, and AA support in the event of aerial combat against the fleet.
On the issue of carriers and cruiser hulls its correct to figure that they have the same basic hull structure and they should take by that example up to two hits, however the carriers surface is flat and not nearly as heavily plated and the gun crusted cruiser. The carriers were longer and wider and had many larger cargo pockets in order to carry planes which were under the top deck. The cruiser was basically a JR. battleship with caliber guns in the 9-12 in range and they were plated well and down below the decks were much smaller rooms with many more watertight doors. I have been on these vessels in san diego on a tour and their is a big difference on construction. That is why a carrier should get really one hit, while a cruiser should get two IMO.
as far as the math looks it also fits much better. A cheaper destroyer at 8 IPC 2/2/2 is a good buy, while that battleship at 20 4/4/2 also has merits, but the carrier was been proven that its a better deal, because its planes can attack any other unit and are more flexible, so the carrier to be viable basically needs to not change too much ( at least not to a two hitter)……
Well, well, here we go. Ok Impy! The hole idea of this topic was to be a wake up call about that the DDs really aren’t a good buy as is. It’s by provocation one gets the most important arguments out of a discussion. My introduction of this topic was definitely a provocation for all those people who buy BBs and DDs. In my opinion a fully loaded AC is always the best buy, but it need to be complemented due to the enemies. If your enemy goes for navy, then buy subs, if your enemy goes for air then buy another fully loaded AC. The fighters on board the AC can replace the shore bombardment of BBs, more or less IMHO. The thing is that my answer to the Q of this topic (1BB or 2DD), is that I would not chose any of them. Never BBs or DDs, except for one thing. If the enemy buy subs then I buy one DD, but just one. The reason for this is simply that a fully loaded AC is the best buy for defens, and subs is the best buy for attack. The shore bombardment is good, but two fighters would be almost as good for amphibious assaults. The hit and run engagements for BBs, were damaged BBs retreat and self repair, is good when one play against a bad opponent. A good player who buy according to my suggestions and stack the fleet to one sea zone, will have the odds to win big time! The best thing happens when the enemy goes for navy and you have bought a lot of subs and your opponent are pleased with his odds against your fleet. The very next thing you will do is go for Supersubmarines (ca 30 IPCs of investment) or just another 4-5 subs!
No frankly, the BBs and DDs need some extra spice to make them desirable IMHO. I don’t know how to counter this problem, but I do have suggestions. Like those mentioned before. A 2/2/2 DD would be dominant and brake them game, since it would be the best buy for both defens and attack. Why would someone buy a SS (submarine) when one can buy a DD for the same price, but the DD can defend against air. If your enemy buys a DD the opening fire for your SS would be lost, hence no benefit for buying any SS. Another thing is that 3 DD (2/2/2) would be a much better buy then a BB, so the price for the BB need to go down, 20 IPCs (for reasons not disclosed right now).
Well, there is still one Q to answer and a problem to solve. The problem is how the subs could be more desirable My first thought is to take a look att the rules for subs in A&A:E were subs were not susceptible to air attacks without destroyer presens. Another feature from A&A:E is the interdiction ability of subs. Since there are no convoy centers, my suggestion is a rule that would do (see “Convoy Raids” below). So now that we have found a possible solution to the problem, that would make the subs desirable irrespective of the improved DD and its submarine disruption ability. Ok great, but what about the Q; Will BBs and DDs be desirable at all? Well, they are still very much the same type of units but improved. It is now a tough choice between a DD in defens or fully loaded AC, and between BBs or DDs in attack se below:
DD ( 360 IPCs)
Att: 245 = 90
Def: 245 = 90
Hits: 45AC + 2 Ftr (360 IPCs)
Att: 101+203 = 70
Def: 103+204 = 110
Hits: 30BB / 20 IPCs (360 IPCs)
Att: 184 =72
Def: 184 =72
Hits: 36If DDs are not allowed for shore bombardment the BB will probably be the best choice as long as no subs are around. An extra spice to the BBs would be an opening fire ability in conjunction with an inability to hit subs, meaning subs can never be hit by BBs. That is goody goody and the 24 IPC price for a BB would be acceptable. Well, it was just a thought! In defens ACs would still be the choice along with some cannon fodder, now not only SSs but DDs as well. But in defens, I would buy mostly DDs. DDs are simply the best balanced allround piece to buy and will therefore most likely be the mainstay in the fleets. More over, subs will now be important for special reasons like the transporters or more likely bombers, to “sink” IPCs from your enemies like bombers in SBRs! Ok, I think that’s it! The bottom line is no cruiser unit is needed. Belive it or not Impy, the fewer pieces the better it gets, since the game is pretty messy as is ;-) And by the way, your arguments about the DDs defens on a 3 is not realistic. I must say that if an AC defens on a 3, then an DD will most likely do as well. You are right about that an AC is much bigger, but that just means easier to hit as well as a bigger possibility to absorb hits. I think the DDs size and gunnery could be said to be at least equal to an AC in both antiaircraft gunnery and the size of guns compared to its size! And remeber a DD unit most likely represent a bigger number of destroyers than a carriers for a AC unit. Don’t you think?! The torpedoes should not be underestimated, remember that the DD was invented to hunt torpedoboats down due to their effectiveness against capital warships. They are small and fast and were used for hit and run engagements.
Convoy Raids
The U.K, U.S. and Japanese players are susceptible to supply line interdiction. This rule imply that enemy submarines may conduct an economic attack against the supply lines (sea zones) adjacent to any of these nations industrial complex to “sink†IPCs. On the U.K, U.S. and Japanese players collect income phase, the player must subtract 2 IPCs to the bank for each enemy submarine within 1 sea zone of an industrial complex contolled by respective nation. For each enemy submarine within 2 sea zones of an industrial complex, the player must subtract 1 IPC. Any submarine that became submerged during the subjected players turn’s conduct combat phase, does not cause any economic loss. Multiple submarines may affect a single industrial complex, but the maximum combined loss can be no more than the territory’s (containting the industrial complex) income value. An individual submarine may only affect one industrial complex during each turn, but can affect multiple industrial complexes each round (i.e. one industrial complex per player).
-
A fully loaded CV is not always the best buy.
To invade a province quickly you it’s better to use 3 DDs with 9, rather than 1 CV 2 ftr at 7. If you’ve got time you can force the enemy to attack you in that SZ, but there are still many reasons why a fully loaded CV is not always the best.
-
@Afrika:
A fully loaded CV is not always the best buy.
To invade a province quickly you it’s better to use 3 DDs with 9, rather than 1 CV 2 ftr at 7. If you’ve got time you can force the enemy to attack you in that SZ, but there are still many reasons why a fully loaded CV is not always the best.
You don’t get it! I said start with a fully loaded AC for defens. If you consider a naval attack then complement with just subs and one DD if the enemy has got subs! What I said was that a combo of just fully loaded ACs and subs, except for one DD, is the best buy all times!!! The bottom line is that there are no incentives to buy more than one DD or any BB!  :evil:
-
Hi agian Impy,
A quick fix to our problem would be to keep the 3/3/2 DD and add the special ability of shore bombardment on a 2. However it will not solve the big problem, it will just make DDs a bit more desirable. But even then I dont know if I go for DDs. But if I consider the 2/3/2 DD and the shore bombardment ability to a cost of 10 IPC, then I would consider to buy it for defens. But still not enough. No what is needed is the same reason one buy expensive ground units, a better mobility. A fully loaded AC has that benefit of extra movement, due to the fighters. Fast carriers and destroyers would most likely make them more desirable. Don’t you think??? Â :?
-
If you bring down the DD cost to eight and leave the values as they are 2/2/2 then wont they be a good buy? they present a good foil to subs like “matter and anti matter” or a positive or negative charge. Thats a simplistic way to look at their roles. If you only buy subs you can protect your ships, and if you buy only destroyers, they can be attacked by planes, plus dont get the free shot against groups of destroyerless ships ( unescorted). i would buy or consider them equals but for entirely different purposes, both needed in the game. Check out my Jutland rules under (variants thread) what you think>? ideas?
-
Not necessarily, since subs don’t attack air.
@The:
u don’t get it! I said start with a fully loaded AC for defens. If you consider a naval attack then complement with just subs and one DD if the enemy has got subs! What I said was that a combo of just fully loaded ACs and subs, except for one DD, is the best buy all times!!! The bottom line is that there are no incentives to buy more than one DD or any BB!
-
@Afrika:
Not necessarily, since subs don’t attack air.
Well AK, what a combo means depends on what the opponent does! If the enemy has build up a fleet, that player most likely lack a big airflottila since it cost a lot to buy a fleet or an air flotilla! So if you will attack a fleet then buy subs, that are protected by a fully loaded ACs and perhaps a DD. Always try to stack your navy in one sea zone.
By the way what did you vote?
-
… battleships are far superior in hit and run engagements. If you go in for a round and absorb hits on battleships then retreat, you have lost nearly nothing while incurring casualties on the other navy…
IMO: Yes this is an advantage, but as I said it is probable more theoretical than practical when veterans play the game, who are aware of every units cons and pros!
… I would take the battleships because they’re great at flushing out troops on the islands and because you hardly lose the core of your investment once you get enough of them…
IMO: You are right about once you get enough of them, but ones you do you most likely lost a lot of land territories, due to the fact that a any BB will be bought to the cost of lost land troops. And as you said (see comment from you below) land is cheaper to buy relative navy.
…I’m pretty happy overall with the cost of battleships vs destroyers. If anything I think that destroyers need to have some incentive vs battleships, not the other way around. I’m just not that happy about the cost of navy in general versus land troops and fighters…
About your incentive for DDs vs BBs I do have a suggestion. What about If DDs got the ability to bombard on a 2 in an amphibious assault, like a battleship? Then control of the sea, would be more valuable, hence a bigger incentive to buy navy! The main reason for why the game designers didn’t want the destroyer bombardment from A&A:P and A&A:E was because they wanted pieces to have only one main special ability. But also the fact that the territories in A&A:R were too big compared to A&A:P. A relative smaller map means that the destroyer bombardment would be more useful and hence a too big benefit. I simply don’t agree upon that and have never got an argument that are good enough to convince me.
Â
I would like you to be more precise on why you are not pleased about the cost of navy in general versus land troops and fighters. IMO I think the cost and abilities of fighters are balanced compared to navy units abilities and costs. How ever I do agree upon that land troops in general are a better buy than sea units.In order to make the air as well as navy more attractive to buy relative land troops I do have four house rules that would do:
Destroyer Bombardment
In an amphibious assault, your destroyers may like battleships make a support shot on amphibious assaults on a 2. Each destroyer fires once during the Conduct Opening Fire step against enemy land units in the territory being attacked (the enemy units do not fire back). A destroyer cannot conduct shore bombardment if it was involved in a sea combat prior the amphibious assault.Air Supremacy
Fighters can support infantry attacks and artillery defense if no enemy fighters are present. Air supremacy increases your infantry’s attack to 2 or your artillery’s defense to 3. Each infantry or artillery must be matched one-for-one with a supporting fighter.Heavy Artillery (replace Combined Bombardment)
Your artillery are now heavy artillery. They attack on a 3.Convoy Raids
The U.K, U.S. and Japanese players are susceptible to supply line interdiction. This rule imply that enemy submarines may conduct an economic attack against the supply lines (sea zones) adjacent to any of these nations industrial complex to “sink†IPCs. On the U.K, U.S. and Japanese players collect income phase, the player must subtract 2 IPCs to the bank for each enemy submarine within 1 sea zone of an industrial complex contolled by respective nation. For each enemy submarine within 2 sea zones of an industrial complex, the player must subtract 1 IPC. Any submarine that became submerged during the subjected players turn’s conduct combat phase, does not cause any economic loss. Multiple submarines may affect a single industrial complex, but the maximum combined loss can be no more than the territory’s (containting the industrial complex) income value. An individual submarine may only affect one industrial complex during each turn, but can affect multiple industrial complexes each round (i.e. one industrial complex per player). -
IMO: You are right about once you get enough of them, but ones you do you most likely lost a lot of land territories, due to the fact that a any BB will be bought to the cost of lost land troops. And as you said (see comment from you below) land is cheaper to buy relative navy.
Maybe I should be clear. The only nation who is really thinking of big navies is the US, and he can afford to mess around with battleships if he thinks his allies can hold out. He hardly has territories to lose, and Japan is hardly in a position to fortify 3 islands with land troops especially considering they have no complexes and it takes a few turns or many transports to get infantry to the farthest one (east indies).
-
The supersupmarine tech cost around 30 IPCs to achieve and a submarine (SS) cost 8 IPCs. So If we consider a fleet of 72 IPCs we see that BBs are never really a choice if one will invest 78 IPCs (6 subs + super sub tech). Break even seems to be around 72 IPCs for BB vs SS (considering super subs tech)! I know this more of theoretical than practical work, but I consider it interesting!
3 BB (24IPCs/BB)
Cost: 72 IPCs
Att: 34 = 12
Def: 34 = 12
Hits: 65 super SS (30 IPC tech + 8IPCs/SS)
Cost: 70 IPCs
Att: 53 = 15
Def: 53 = 15
Hits: 51st combat cycle
sSS scores: 15/6 = 2,5 hits -> 3 BB left (absorbed by 2-hit rule for BBs)
BB scores: 12/6 = 2 hits -> 3 sSS left2nd combat cycle
sSS scores: 33/6 = 1,5 hits -> 2 BB left (opening fire means no return fire from casualties)
BB scores: 24/6 = 1,33 hits -> 1,67 sSS left3rd combat cycle
sSS scores: 1,673/6 = 0,83 hits -> 1,17 BB left
BB scores: 1,174/6 = 0,78 hits -> 0,89 sSS left4th combat cycle
sSS scores: 0,893/6 = 0,44 hits -> 0,72 BB left
BB scores: 0,724/6 = 0,48 hits -> 0,41 sSS left5th combat cycle
sSS scores: 0,413/6 = 0,20 hits -> 0,52 BB left
BB scores: 0,524/6 = 0,35 hits -> 0,06 sSS left -
Maybe I should be clear. The only nation who is really thinking of big navies is the US, and he can afford to mess around with battleships if he thinks his allies can hold out. He hardly has territories to lose, and Japan is hardly in a position to fortify 3 islands with land troops especially considering they have no complexes and it takes a few turns or many transports to get infantry to the farthest one (east indies).
To win the battle of the seas should be an incentive, that is why I suggest Convoy Rule and Destroyer Bombardment. By these to new rules it will be more important to take control of the sea, or one will get bombarded and ruined and cannot do much about it! Japan and Germany seems to be the loosers one might think, but I think it depends on how you play. One thing is sure one must change the stategy a bit. The Air Supremacy and Heavy Artilley tech favor the Axis in my opinion, but just a bit. I dont think these rules will tip te game too much to Axis or Allies favor, but rather make the navy more important! What do you think about these optional rules of mine? Do you like any of them?
-
The navy is fine the way it is. BBs are very fine, UK can use them to great effect against Europe, as can Germany use it’s BB to support land troops attacking Africa. The repair is very nice as well and BBs can pay for themselves conceivably.
-
If you want to give the Axis a chance at building a navy, then you’d have to give them a cheaper navy to buy because the $ aren’t there in their budget to overcome the 26 IPC difference at the beginning.
By these to new rules it will be more important to take control of the sea, or one will get bombarded and ruined and cannot do much about it! Japan and Germany seems to be the loosers one might think,
No, they are unconditionally the losers in this situation. Germany can never keep his navy alive unless he wants Russia crashing him on like R4 or something, and the US can outspend Japan for a few turns……
I think the Axis needs to be given a chance to create a strong navy, but they really don’t have the cash to do so. You can increase the incentive to maintain a navy but if you don’t give the Axis a way to actually do this while maintaining their land territories then…
-
No, they are unconditionally the losers in this situation. Germany can never keep his navy alive unless he wants Russia crashing him on like R4 or something, and the US can outspend Japan for a few turns……
I think the Axis needs to be given a chance to create a strong navy, but they really don’t have the cash to do so. You can increase the incentive to maintain a navy but if you don’t give the Axis a way to actually do this while maintaining their land territories then…
I agree upon Germany when you talk about buying a navy, but the Convoy rule can never affect Germany negatively. Rather it helps Germany and Japan to thwart UK to build any ICs in Africa or Asia! The Air Supremacy definitely help Germany to conquer Russia and most likely Africa and more over it help Japan in main land Asia a lot! No buddy, you act on feelings here, not statistics and facts! These two rules certainly favors Axis and the heavy artillery tech most certainly will do too! S
Something that would protect the German fleet in the Mediterranean is a rule for Gibraltar that says that noone can pass Gibraltar with navy, except for subs, unless one control Gibraltar. What do you think about that?
-
Oh sorry I didn’t see that it only applies to US/UK/Japan. I thought Germany’s IPCs could be sunk that way hahaha that would suck.
I like your suggestion overall; isn’t it going to come up in Advanced A&A in a different form? To be honest I’m never going to use optional rules that’s not “official” unless my friends want to. I use u-boat interdiction NA as Germany when I wanna sink IPCs : )
-
@Afrika:
The navy is fine the way it is. BBs are very fine, UK can use them to great effect against Europe, as can Germany use it’s BB to support land troops attacking Africa. The repair is very nice as well and BBs can pay for themselves conceivably.
I would much rather buy a carrier and a fighter (26 IPCs) or an infantry, an artillery, a transport and a fighter (25 IPCs) than a BB (24 IPCs) to fight Europe! Buddy you are lost! Germany will chose that battle, not UK! Germany will attack the navy with air and perhaps a few subs. And when they do, they will be sure about the odds to win! The repair is useful if one win a battle and UK wont if Germany decides to attack the navy! And that is especialy so if UK buy BBs instead of fully loaded ACs!
-
Oh sorry I didn’t see that it only applies to US/UK/Japan. I thought Germany’s IPCs could be sunk that way hahaha that would suck.
I like your suggestion overall; isn’t it going to come up in Advanced A&A in a different form? To be honest I’m never going to use optional rules that’s not “official” unless my friends want to. I use u-boat interdiction NA as Germany when I wanna sink IPCs : )
Where have you red about this Convoy Rule in Advanced A&A. I have not seen it yet!? If so I am very happy, cause then you might use my house rule, since it will become official! ;-)
Suggested Topics
