Cont From the AAA Thread, but about warships not AA Guns

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Per your post: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30262.0#new Baron - I like where you are going, but you didn’t list how to differentiate between carrier types. =^_^=

    I do like your priority targets rule for carriers, as they were the primary targets for both Japan and the United States.

    Back to my national fleet advancements:

    • England/India/ANZAC get the improved shipyards technology per standard rules.  That’s to represent how large their fleet was and how practiced they were in putting ships in the water.  Not to mention, it gives them a bit of an edge in getting boats back in the water as I feel it is too costly for them unless Germany and Italy take a pounding round 1.
    • Japan and Germany get their super battleships.  I’ve played with them being 5 or less and I’ve played with them being 3 hit warships.  Either way is really okay with me - both would be too much.  However, the price of their ships also go up from 20 IPC to 30 IPC to reflect the increased cost in steel and reinforcing the ship so it doesn’t snap in half under it’s own weight.
    • America, now there’s something interesting.  I’ve played with carriers and large carrier options where the large carriers cost 33% more (24 IPC instead of 16) but carry 3 fighters instead of 2 - these would be denoted by a control marker placed under the unit and the other carriers are the same as normal.  I’ve also played with escort carriers (again with a control marker under them) but they cost 12 IPC, can only hold 1 fighter, but can move 3 spaces (at the same time, our destroyers for all nations were increased from 2 spaces to 3 spaces.  This was a rule we used for our Anniversary games - but with the larger board, it would certainly translate to Global easily enough!)
    • It’s always nice to include Italy and France, but seriously, neither of these nations need anything special so anything we gave them would be window dressing at best.  I’d leave them alone.

    I’d give all nations hunter-seeker destroyers:  Cost 6 IPC, Move 3, Attack 1, Defend 2, can detect submarines.  The idea are these are unsupported ships that travel in maybe groups of 3, mostly fodder units (to replace the loss of being able to use transports as fodder, if you so desire) but their main job is to go out and clear out convoy raiding submarines.

  • '17 '16

    Too many points to discuss.
    For now, let’s focus on BB and maybe carriers.

    I’m ok about BB able to take a third hit, but not for carrier (there flight deck is a vulnerable point).
    What can be the cost of a BB with 3 hits.
    I would rather suggest: 24 IPCs. (30 IPCs far too much.)
    However, I would keep  basic 1@4.
    And as HR, add the first strike@1 against DD,CA,CV,BB.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    First strike is an interesting idea.  The reduced accuracy would reflect the gunner’s mates trying to get their gun’s trained on the enemy ships at extreme range, or “plunging fire” as they called it.

    I would limit “plunging fire” to Aircraft Carriers and Cruisers.  Cruisers because I view the HMS Hood as a Cruiser and not really a battleship.  They even call it a heavy cruiser in the documentaries, so I am not the only one that draws a distinction between it and the Yamamoto and Missouri!  Carriers, of course, as you mentioned, were essentially useless without their flight decks and their flight decks were also made of wood.

    If we went with 24 IPC battleships with 3 hits to sink, I would say undamaged attack at 4 or less, damaged once would attack at 3 or less and damaged twice would attack at 2 or less - in all events, a battleship would defend at 4.

    Also, to simulate combat, submarines would get to call their targets, but it would be fire once and retreat with no option to fire a second time unless they were forced to remain in the battle by defending destroyers.  That way, they could target the aircraft carriers that they normally would aim for…or even destroyers which they would also be aiming for.  That would prevent battleships from soaking hits for carriers in most instances.

  • '17 '16

    You are in fire Cmdr Jen!!  😄
    there is so many aspects that you are changing about the OOB.
    I take only 1 interesting aspect: escort carrier moving 3 spaces.
    Is it really accurate?
    The Casablanca was a slow carrier.
    Maybe Independence was faster because it is built on a cruiser hull.
    But does they have the speed and the operational range of cruiser?

    Now, that I read about it, I will say this: only a CVL, light carrier have the same speed as the cruiser and larger carrier (around 31-32 knots).
    What is their operating range is the main question now.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I was more looking for 2 destroyer, 1 fast carrier mini-fleets to race out and clear enemy convoy raids or conduct convoy raids.

    I was thinking the fast carrier itself may only defend at a 1 if at all (0 may be better, it’s stripped to the gills leaving nothing for defense and relying only on its fighter screen and escort ships) while the destroyers would protect it.

  • '17 '16

    @Cmdr:

    I was more looking for 2 destroyer, 1 fast carrier mini-fleets to race out and clear enemy convoy raids or conduct convoy raids.� Â

    I was thinking the fast carrier itself may only defend at a 1 if at all (0 may be better, it’s stripped to the gills leaving nothing for defense and relying only on its fighter screen and escort ships) while the destroyers would protect it.

    1 CVL A0D1M3C12, ASW, carry 1 Fgt or 1 TacB
    About half the strength of reg CV but much more operational range.

    How many types of carrier will you have?
    Because, I don’t know which historical fast carrier you are talking about.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @Baron:

    @Cmdr:

    I was more looking for 2 destroyer, 1 fast carrier mini-fleets to race out and clear enemy convoy raids or conduct convoy raids.�Â

    I was thinking the fast carrier itself may only defend at a 1 if at all (0 may be better, it’s stripped to the gills leaving nothing for defense and relying only on its fighter screen and escort ships) while the destroyers would protect it.

    1 CVL A0D1M3C12, ASW, carry 1 Fgt or 1 TacB
    About half the strength of reg CV but much more operational range.

    I’d say 1 fighter only, tactical bombers need bombs and those get heavy.  Fighters I envision it carrying are equivalent to WWI fighters.

  • '17 '16

    @Cmdr:

    @Baron:

    @Cmdr:

    I was more looking for 2 destroyer, 1 fast carrier mini-fleets to race out and clear enemy convoy raids or conduct convoy raids.��Â

    I was thinking the fast carrier itself may only defend at a 1 if at all (0 may be better, it’s stripped to the gills leaving nothing for defense and relying only on its fighter screen and escort ships) while the destroyers would protect it.

    1 CVL A0D1M3C12, ASW, carry 1 Fgt or 1 TacB
    About half the strength of reg CV but much more operational range.

    I’d say 1 fighter only, tactical bombers need bombs and those get heavy.  Fighters I envision it carrying are equivalent to WWI fighters.

    With too many specs and details, you are trying creating a tactical game level with A&A which is a strategical game level.

    For example, I give first strike to BB against BB (CV,CA,DD). It is simpler and will not destroy any of them with this single first strike. A new BB can always soak one hit.
    (And player choose his own casuality, amongst those ships: BB, CV, CA, DD.)

    I was not thinking about HMS Hood, solely about a simple HR: "all surface vessels can suffer from the first strike of BB"

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I know, that’s why I called it Plunging Fire - as that was what sank the Hood.

  • '17 '16

    @Cmdr:

    First strike is an interesting idea.� � The reduced accuracy would reflect the gunner’s mates trying to get their gun’s trained on the enemy ships at extreme range, or “plunging fire” as they called it.

    I would limit “plunging fire” to Aircraft Carriers and Cruisers.� � Cruisers because I view the HMS Hood as a Cruiser and not really a battleship.� � They even call it a heavy cruiser in the documentaries, so I am not the only one that draws a distinction between it and the Yamamoto and Missouri!� � Carriers, of course, as you mentioned, were essentially useless without their flight decks and their flight decks were also made of wood.

    If we went with 24 IPC battleships with 3 hits to sink, I would say undamaged attack at 4 or less, damaged once would attack at 3 or less and damaged twice would attack at 2 or less - in all events, a battleship would defend at 4. �

    Also, to simulate combat, submarines would get to call their targets, but it would be fire once and retreat with no option to fire a second time unless they were forced to remain in the battle by defending destroyers.� � That way, they could target the aircraft carriers that they normally would aim for…or even destroyers which they would also be aiming for.� � That would prevent battleships from soaking hits for carriers in most instances.

    I would say that is again too much complexity for little gain.
    Why reduce the hit ratio, we don’t do that to regular unit.
    If the cost doesn’t suit you (too unbalancing), then raise it (26?); don’t add another layer of rule for this unit.

    My cost was base on this thumb of rule:
    A4+D4= 8 x2 points= 16 + 4 (1 add hit)= 20 IPCs.
    Adding another hit to BB, follow the same rate: +4=

    SuperBB, A4D4M2C24, can take 3 hits, can bombard 1@4.
    Optional HR,
    Plunging Fire: 1@1 first strike on offense or defense against any 1 surface ship present (DD,CA,CV,BB,TT). Player choose his own casuality amongst these surface ships.

  • '17 '16

    @Cmdr:

    I know, that’s why I called it Plunging Fire - as that was what sank the Hood.

    I named this optional HR according to your idea.
    I find you named it very well and have a sound historical basis. 🙂

  • '17 '16

    @Cmdr:

    @Baron:

    @Cmdr:

    I was more looking for 2 destroyer, 1 fast carrier mini-fleets to race out and clear enemy convoy raids or conduct convoy raids.��� �

    I was thinking the fast carrier itself may only defend at a 1 if at all (0 may be better, it’s stripped to the gills leaving nothing for defense and relying only on its fighter screen and escort ships) while the destroyers would protect it.

    1 CVL A0D1M3C12, ASW, carry 1 Fgt or 1 TacB
    About half the strength of reg CV but much more operational range.

    **I’d say 1 fighter only, tactical bombers need bombs and those get heavy.**� � Fighters I envision it carrying are equivalent to WWI fighters.

    Same simplicity line as early, let’s the player choose.

    CVL has 1 carrying plane capacity.
    So, if it is a TacB on a single CVL unit A3D3M4C11, it will seem a worst choice vs a much interesting Fgt A3D4M4C10.
    However, with 2 CVLs  A0D1M3C12, you can combine arms:
    1 Fgt and 1 TacB. So the TacB become A4.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    By your formula, shouldn’t it be {(Attack Value) + (Defense Value ) + (Opening Fire Value)} * 2 + 4 (Number of Hits Unit Can Sustain until Sunk) or: 
    =2(4+4+1)+4(3)
    =2(9)+4(3)
    =18+12
    =30 IPC?

  • '17 '16

    @Cmdr:

    By your formula, shouldn’t it be {(Attack Value) + (Defense Value ) + (Opening Fire Value)} * 2 + 4 (Number of Hits Unit Can Sustain until Sunk) or:�  
    =2(4+4+1)+4(3)
    =2(9)+4(3)
    =18+12
    =30 IPC?

    This formula was essentially base upon face value of unit and usually didn’t consider special capacity, since every unit got one, and doesn’t even consider the number of extra move.
    Example DD= A2D2=4x2 total 8 IPCs
    (ASW is not part of the formula)

    Optionnal HR Plunging Fire was meant to all Battleships. And as such imply a bonus capacity to increase buying and interest in them at no additional cost.

  • '17 '16

    @Cmdr:

    By your formula, shouldn’t it be {(Attack Value) + (Defense Value ) + (Opening Fire Value)} * 2 + 4 (Number of Hits Unit Can Sustain until Sunk) or: 
    =2(4+4+1)+4(3)
    =2(9)+4(3)
    =18+12
    =30 IPC?

    You made 4(3), but it is 4(2), because it is only additional hit which cost IPCs, the first hit value isnt part of the formula.

    Proof of this rule of thumb:
    CV A0D2 (2*2= 4 pts)  1 additional hit (4 pts)

    • 2 planes A3D4= (14*2= 28 points)= 36 IPCs
      36 minus 2 Fgt (10 IPCs each)= 16 IPCs for CV only. (1940 version)

    Convince about the 4 points value of an extra-hit?

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Hmm, I’d rather apply it to all ships and adjust their cost accordingly.  So maybe

    • Destroyers as a basis, so 2x (2ATT + 2 DEF) +2 Special = 10 IPC
    • Cruiser would be 2x (3 ATT + 3 DEF) +2 Special (Off Shore Bombardment) = 14 IPC
    • Carriers would be (2x (0 ATT + 2 DEF))x2 for double hits to sink + 3 Special first fighter + 3 Special second fighter = 14 IPC
    • Battleships would be 2x(4 ATT + 4 DEF)+ 2 Plunging Fire +2 for 2nd hit to damage + 2 for 3rd hit to sink +2 Off Shore Bombardment = 24 IPC
    • Submarines would be 2x(2 ATT + 1 DEF) + 2 Sneak Shot = 8 IPC
    • Transports would be 2x(0 ATT + 0 DEF) + 3 First Unit Carried + 3 Second Unit Carried = 6 IPC

    In this way the price of carriers and transports go down, but the other units go up slightly, which I think evens out over the long haul.    We could apply a 2 IPC Credit towards any warship with a base cost over 10 IPC which would make the prices work out to:

    • DD = 8 IPC = Attack 2, Defend 2, Detect Submarines, Move 2
    • CA = 12 IPC = Attack 3, Defend 3, Shore Bombard 3, Move 2
    • AC = 12 IPC = Attack 0, Defend 2, Carry 2 Fighters, Move 2
    • BB = 22 IPC = Attack 4, Defend 4, Plunging Fire, 3 Hits to sink, Move 2
    • SS = 8 IPC = Attack 2, Defend 1, Sneak Shot, Move 2
    • TRN = 6 IPC = Cargo two ground units, Move 2

    So with the credit, only the BB, AC and SS have price changes but they all have some basis in mathematics to justify their cost!  Just a note, I made all cargo units +3 each to get the price of transports back up. Â

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Yea, we tried posting same time.

    Good with it, but it’s convoluted to me.  2 for special combat, 2 for each combat “point” (attack value + defense value) and 3 for each cargo unit seems to work just fine.  I don’t mind dropping the price of carriers because they are useless without their cargo.

  • '17 '16

    @Cmdr:

    Yea, we tried posting same time.

    Good with it, but it’s convoluted to me.  2 for special combat, 2 for each combat “point” (attack value + defense value) and 3 for each cargo unit seems to work just fine.  I don’t mind dropping the price of carriers because they are useless without their cargo.

    How did you establish the different value?

    I suggested mine base on a simple inference from regular combat unit.
    But, it doesn’t work for planes, neither for AAA guns.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I started with the destroyer being 8 IPC and worked out a divisor for the attack and defense values.  It worked out, there are very minor changes, mainly the submarine is 2 IPC more expensive as is the cruiser, but the aircraft carrier is 2 ipc cheaper and the battleship with its added benefit of an extra hit and plunging fire is where it was in classic in cost.

    If we took off shore bombardments off, the cruiser is the same as it was, and the bb is 22 ipc where you suggested.

  • '17 '16

    @Cmdr:

    I started with the destroyer being 8 IPC and worked out a divisor for the attack and defense values.�  It worked out, there are very minor changes, mainly the submarine is 2 IPC more expensive as is the cruiser, but the aircraft carrier is 2 ipc cheaper and the battleship with its added benefit of an extra hit and plunging fire is where it was in classic in cost.

    If we took off shore bombardments off, the cruiser is the same as it was, and the bb is 22 ipc where you suggested.

    Why are you trying to revised all the established cost?
    If your formula isn’t able to predict the basic units, for me the formula need correction.

    The formula that I applied is A and D point1 for ground unit.
    A and D point
    2 for naval unit.
    Planes and AAA seems arbitrarily fixed by Larry upon long experience.
    Transport are another difficult case.
    Special ability are not part of the formula but developped differently.
    Inf A1D2= 3  Art A2D2= 4 MecInf A1D2+1M=4 Arm A3D3= 6
    Sub A2D12=6  DD A2D22=8  CA A3D32=12
    BB A4D4
    2+4 (1 hit)= 20 IPCs.

    I can tell that’s the second capacity which cost something.
    But, I find CA cost too much, so I add M3.
    A CVL A0D1M3 ASW and carry 1 Fgt.
    1 Plane 72= 14  +(12)=2 + 2 for 1 xtr Move + 2 for ASW= 20
    So, it will cost only 10 IPCs.

    Unless you made it A1D1 but in 1940, CV has A0.
    Is it too low 10 IPCs?


  • Give Germany super subs?

    And give USA war bonds,

    I like giving enhanced shipyards to UK, but not to ANZAC

    Adding units such as, escort carriers, are more for a smaller tactical game

    I would argue they are already represented in the game


  • I thought about this today,

    It goes along the lines of letting Cruisers hit planes when they roll a 1

    If unit X rolls a 1, then…

    -Super Submarines on offense only can choose surface target hit (TRN, CV, CA, BB) cannot choose destroyers or other subs, transports are valid
    -Destroyers on offense and defense can choose a submarine hit (SS)
    -Cruisers on offense and defense can choose an aircraft hit (FG, TAC, STRT)
    -Battleships on offense and defense can choose a surface target hit (TRN, DD, CV, CA, BB) transports are valid targets

    -Tanks on defense and offense can choose ground hit (INF, MECH, ART, ARM, AAA)
    -Fighters on defense and offense can choose air hit (FG, TAC, STRT)
    -Tactical bombers on offense and defense can choose ground target (INF, MECH, ART, ARM, AAA) Land combat only
    -Strategic bombers on offense only; the defender will choose 2 hits instead of one (Bomber killed 2 guys instead of 1) Land combat only

    This would be a ruleset for a G40 ‘enhanced’ version

    Cruisers would also have a +1 movement

  • '17 '16

    I agree with the way you define each “critical hit” for each unit.
    Why did you forget the regular sub on attack?
    Is it because of A2 only?
    At least, when no ASW are present, on roll of “1” give the choice between TT and combat vessels (defender’s choice).

    I also answered your former post in the other tread, which is specially about carrier.


  • @Baron:

    I agree with the way you define each “critical hit” for each unit.
    Why did you forget the regular sub on attack?
    Is it because of A2 only?
    At least, when no ASW are present, on roll of “1” give the choice between TT and combat vessels (defender’s choice).

    I also answered your former post in the other tread, which is specially about carrier.

    Because subs at 6 IPC choosing targets everyother time they hit would be overpowered ?
    And submarine torpedoes were terrible in early WWII ?

    but with tech advances…

    Now the supersub tech is almost as good as heavy bombers 😉

  • '17 '16

    @Cmdr:

    Per your post: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30262.0#new Baron - I like where you are going, but you didn’t list how to differentiate between carrier types. =^_^=

    I’ve also played with escort carriers (again with a control marker under them) but they cost 12 IPC, can only hold 1 fighter, but can move 3 spaces (at the same time, our destroyers for all nations were increased from 2 spaces to 3 spaces.�

    I’d give all nations hunter-seeker destroyers: Â Cost 6 IPC, Move 3, Attack 1, Defend 2, can detect submarines. Â The idea are these are unsupported ships that travel in maybe groups of 3, mostly fodder units (to replace the loss of being able to use transports as fodder, if you so desire) but their main job is to go out and clear out convoy raiding submarines. Â

    Thinking about it,
    I rather prefer hunter-seeker destroyers like this:
    Fast hunter-seeker DD A2D1M3C7 ASW.
    I see them as an advance patrol craft which is faster, has more operative range but is less armored than regular DD.
    There is no need to lower the cost to 6 IPCs since it is a give and take: M3 but D1.
    Caution: Multiplying ASW ship will unbalance vs Subs.
    “Danger and addiction grow with consumption.” 😉

    Now, you have 3 types of ship in this advance Task Force vs Subs:
    ** CA  A3D3M3C12  1 hit, bombard 1@3.
    Fast DD A2D1M3C7  1 hit, ASW.
    CVL   A0D1M3C11 1 Hit, ASW, carry 1 plane.
    1 Fgt  A3D4M4C10 1 hit, can attack sub when paired with ASW.**

Suggested Topics

  • 5
  • 3
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 8
  • 2
  • 6
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

61
Online

16.4k
Users

38.2k
Topics

1.6m
Posts