New concepts in naval combat

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Under this thread i intend to produce a case for creating some new changes respective to the naval units in revised.

    New order of what piece fires first during naval/air combat:
    a) cruisers get that free AA roll on planes
    b) planes roll against ships  and hits are applied
    c) attacking followed by defending battleships fire preemtive salvos, hits are applied
    d) all remaining attacking surface ships followed by defending ships fire and hits are applied.


    attack 4
    defend 4
    move 2
    cost 20

    These ships take two hits to sink and each time they fire the hit is preemtive ( to demonstrate the fact that they have long range guns). So any hits go against targets before they have a chance to hit. If the assigned ship is sunk as a result, then it cannot fire back in return unless its another battleship. They also have a shore shot capability which requires that 2 infantry land as well to get one free shot. So if you have landed 8 infantry and have 5 supporting ships, only 4 can participate in the attack (your choice) … If you ask my id make that 4 infantry for one free shot, but i understand that this may not be too fun.


    attack 3
    defend 3
    move 3
    cost 16

    Special considerations:

    1. Each cruiser take two hits to sink (like battleship) note they move 3 spaces no matter what.

    2. they can screen out one ship from air planes at a 1/1 basis. Under these new rules planes now can target which ships they want to sink, however if a cruiser is present first the cruiser gets a free preemtive AA roll against all attacking planes hitting  at a result of “one” … much like a AA gun does against planes attacking a land terrifory. If the cruiser hits the plane then its gone and does no damage. remember they screen out only one ship at a 1/1 basis. So now in the same example if they miss the plane, then the plane hits, the hit goes against the cruiser.

    attack at 2
    defend at 2
    move at 2
    cost 8

    new considerations:

    1. they cannot be attacked by air units w/o a destroyer being present and they cannot be attacked by any bomber ever
      Reason: only late in the war were planes able to use advanced ASW concepts against surface cruising subs, but that usually requires a ship to coordinate action. IN the case of Bombers their is no way a level bomber could drop its payload of ordinance and hit such a small area with any decent accuracy.

    2. when a submarine attacks a surface ship it can select its target, and obtain a one time surprise shot against this target, unless a defending destroyer is present. For each matching destroyer present that destroyer can “screen” one other ship ( example: a battleship or carrier) forcing the submarine to attack the destroyer instead.

    3. Each submarine conflict must resolved seperatly from any naval combat. Subs cannot attack other subs and a sub attack is for only one round.

    4. At the end of an attack involving a submarine if any enemy subs survive at the end of that one round of combat and if they are adjacent to any of your controlled territories, they may perform a economic attack against the income you get from this by rolling one D6. 1-3= number of IPC lost, 4-6= no effect.

    5. difference on what gets hit: Destroyer hits can go against planes ( unlike subs hits which can only apply against surface ships)


    attack 2
    defend 2
    move 2
    cost 8

    New considerations:

    1. These can counteract the effects of submarines at a 1/1 basis. So if you got one destroyer and a carrier w/ 2 planes against 3 subs, the destroyer is only screening off one ship while the other two subs can fire a surprise shot and sink your other ships .However,  If you lose your destroyer in combat as a result of a preemtive surprise sub attack, then any planes on the carrier cannot roll to defend against the sub attack. So sometimes you may just want to lose the carrier in order to gain the additional rolls from those fighters

    2. If moving with Carriers they can move 3 spaces at a 1/1 basis.  ( under Mr. Anderssons proposal he advocates that carriers move 3 under his thread “fast carriers”).

    3. Destroyer can shell during invasions one shot of 2 preemtive for each destroyer as long as you land at least 2 infantry ( e.g. 1/2 basis)


    attack 1
    defend 3
    moves 3
    costs 14-16

    Note the cost varience is due to the possible introduction of a 2 hit carrier, which has been discussed as a solution to make this piece more value.
    these ships now move 3 spaces and if they move with a destroyer, they can boost that units movement +1 at a 1/1 basis.

    Other rules:

    I am not sure that bombers should continue to be allowed to participate in naval combat. It is not realistic and brings too much value to this unit. Id add a paratrooper or air transport capability to this plane and remove it from the ability to attack naval ships. I would consider it able to sink transports which move very slow, but only if they are alone.That brings up an important idea:

    Transports should not have any defense factor. They should not become fodder in naval combat and they have no capability to sink freekin bombers… This silly idea must end! If your too dumb to leave your transports unprotected, then you should lose them for free. They have no guns so how could they possible be able to hit a battleship or down a fighter?

    I would like comments however i dont wanrt to get any arguments about “how the battleship actually is groups of cruisers, and all sorts of ships” as a defense to explain away the fact that in the original game they can do some ahistorical things. Each piece is exactly what it is. A fighter is a fighter group and a a bomber is a bomber group, a battleship is a group of battleships and a carrier is a group of carriers. Thier is nothing deeper than this gentleman. So keep your ideas with this in mind and play test this as i have and youll see a need for every piece with equal value.

  • Cruisers are smaller than Carriers, you should adjust the price as well, more materials involved in their construction.

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Yes quite right!

    I am thinking to raise carriers to 16 IP, but i was waiting to see Anderssons math on these new prices/values.

    A carrier is now closer to a battleship which is better because they were about the same size only lighter.

    But we also have the “game” considerations to account so pricing may have to reflect the cost in terms of value in the game.

    What price would you make a carrier?

  • If you have Cruisers for 16 ipc, then leave Carriers at standard 18 ipc.
    Battleships should stay at standard 24 ipc (ducks from the thrown tomatoes by the other members :-P) and heres why…

    1. Revised edition and many house rules put Battleships at 2 hits without ever adjusting the price. (I dont like this rule, the smaller ships in a fleet are their to protect the flagship (battleship or carrier) by intercepting the enemy torps. All the smaller ones should go down before the flagship. You dont need to blow up the entire battleship to sink it. Just a well placed hit can break its back and send it to Davey Jones locker, maybe hit its fuel or power source, etc…
    2. Battleships can conduct shore bombardment and the shelled units cannot fire back (unless you use the coastal defense gun house rule)
    3. Battleships attack at 4
    4. Battleships defend at 4
    5. Sure 24 ipc is high but remember that the battleships saw their last days in use during the second world war, made obsolete by fighters and aircraft carriers. Why use big guns, when you can just drop ordnance over the enemys’ ships from greater range. Battleships are even easier targets than tanks for a fighter. With this in mind, and 1 hit only at 24 ipc, no one is gonna buy battleships anymore and instead build carriers, just like after the war. This also means you build more ships to protect that starting battleship that would be a pain to lose…
  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    I see your points,but the general idea is to bring down the naval prices in general, because for the most part i think you will agree that the Navy is largely a limited importance in terms of overall purchases for many nations, while the axis and allies pacific game laid this to rest and provided a glimpse of what might have been with more substantial naval forces available to a player, the trick IMO is to get the prices down and to invigorate some the the way these naval units interact with each other. I d prefer that all the prices go down equally or that their is some compensation to their price structure based on some new attribute they recieve under these new proposals. In the case of a Cruiser at 3/3/3 you propose that with all other factors as equal, the difference from a battleship is a new of 6 IPC for one extra attack/defense factor and one movement point ? i think this is too much money to spend to now buy a battleship as i would fair batter with a cruiser and destroyer. BUT if the battleship goes to 20 IPC and the cruiser is at say 16… then would you still buy a cruiser and destroyer combo instead of that battleship? or would you get the carrier? I am just trying to get the prices realistic AND make the choices work with the math so that everything is basically equal and DESIRABLE. Showing us some math what would the value in combat situations then be under what you and i have proposed?

  • How about adding more islands and sea zones in the Pacific and increasing IPC in a few areas. (Yep, I made my own expansion for it) Cheaper ships will not really encourage me to fight in the south Pacific, instead add more islands, sea zones, add more and adjust some IPC values. Its bad enough that the game currently doesnt support any fighting for Port Moresby and the control of Australia. The East Indies are a great source for oil.

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Id like you to post an image of your map. On the matter of east indies oil, the most important consideration for japan going to war was for this oil source since we cut them off after they went into French- Indo China. The game completely misses this point and an oil center should be included on some of these islands to feed the japanese war machine. Summatra/borneo should have greater values and additional islands should be on the map. The whole idea of island fighting in the pacific is lost in revised with that dreaded KGF deal. Ill post something on this more elaborate soon… stay tuned.

  • Problem with KGF plan is like the British mentality in the real war they wanted USA to focus 100% on Germany first, but of course we did not accept that fact and routed at least 30% of supplies/manpower etc to Pacific theatre, becuase ignoring Japan and letting them trample through New Guinea and walk across across Australia then going east would have been foolish. And we wont ignore someone that bombs Pearl and claims Autu and Kiska for themselves. Just think of what a “pipeline” connecting both Axis powers would have done.

    Im still playing around with my map, I keep making changes and never seem to finish.
    I do have a handful of these mineature red fuel pumps (half the size of infantry) from another board game that I want to incorporate in Axis and Allies some how. But currently dont know what to do with them. I’ve added territories from the Nova version that were dropped out by MB and rearranged the islands to their actual spot in the pacific with many more sea zones and islands in the area.

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    They make nifty little oil drums from that command decision miniatures series (old glory) . You get about 20 clumps of oil drums (4-6 drums molded together). 13.00 each bag

  • IL,
      These are the oil drums you used for Battle of the Bulge right?  I remember seeing a photo you had of these.  How do they measure up height wise to the Axis and Allies Infantry piece.  About 2/3 the size an infantry piece?  The General Storage Pack is the one that has the oil drums your talking about right?  Can you tell me what the supply and fuel dump set look like.  What kind of piece/pieces are they and about how big compared to an Axis Allies Infantry piece.

    CDSP-01  General Storage Pack - Jerry cans, oil drums, crates, camo net, tarpauline  $10.40 
    CDSP-02  Sherman Track and Road wheels, jerry cans, .30 cal, .50 cal and M/G  $10.40 
    CDSP-03  Sumply Dump  $10.40 
    CDSP-04  Fuel Dump  $10.40Â


  • Can someone confirm A&A scales for me.  Are these numbers correct?

    Ships-     1/3000 (.54mm) or 1/2400 (.67mm)

    Planes-    1/700 (?mm)

    Armour-  1/300 (5.4mm) or 1/285 (5.6mm)

    Infantry-  1/107 (15mm) or 1/72 (?mm)

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    CDSP-01  General Storage Pack - Jerry cans, oil drums, crates, camo net, tarpauline  $10.40 
    CDSP-02  Sherman Track and Road wheels, jerry cans, .30 cal, .50 cal and M/G  $10.40 
    CDSP-03  Sumply Dump  $10.40 
    CDSP-04  Fuel Dump  $10.40


    Not sure what the code is and yes they are the same. I will get the code but i think its 04

    Can someone confirm A&A scales for me.  Are these numbers correct?

    Ships-    1/3000 (.54mm) or 1/2400 (.67mm) 1/3000 is best IMO

    Planes-    1/700 (?mm) Yes good

    Armour-  1/300 (5.4mm) or 1/285 (5.6mm) 1/285 is best imo

    Infantry-  1/107 (15mm) or 1/72 (?mm) 1/72 (HO scale) best or 20 MM

  • About 20 individual/separate pieces per bag?
    How large would you say they are in comparison when standing next an AA infantry piece?
    and thanks for looking into which code it is so that I can place the order.

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Yep about 24 pieces, plus some jerry cans, but they are too small for any use.

    The oil drum goes up to the just below the head of axis and allies pieces, or about the chest of a 1/72 scale man. The drums are in groups of 3-6 drums so the girth is about 5/8 inch.

  • jerry cans too?

    CDSP-01  General Storage Pack - Jerry cans, oil drums, crates, camo net, tarpauline  $10.40 
    CDSP-02  Sherman Track and Road wheels, jerry cans, .30 cal, .50 cal and M/G  $10.40 
    CDSP-03  Sumply Dump  $10.40 
    CDSP-04  Fuel Dump  $10.40

    Maybe it’s code 01, not code 04?  What do you think?

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    camo net, tarpauline

    you will have to call… but i didnt get the above items, so im thinking its just fuel dump. All that was in the bag was oil drums, jerrycans, possible crate (very small) pieces. I immediatly threw away everything except the oil drums.

  • Very good.  Thanks for the info IL!  Appreciate it.

    Just placed my order.  I had been meaning to ask you about those pieces ever since I saw your Battle of the Bulge pictures.

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    I gotta post them pictures. damm it!

  • Ive dropped the idea of rearranging and changing the map and instead bought one of those large world maps and drew in the borders for territories and sea zones. I cant stand narrow Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and hate the idea of how US transports can just go from eastern US to Africa in 1 turn without the Axis being unable to have a chance of hitting them in the middle of the ocean.

    Also came up with a new unit for those fuel pumps…

    Supply Dumps/Ports

    Cost: 5-10? ipc / Move: 2 / Atk: – / Def: –
    You may place 1 newly purchased land unit on each territory that is equipped with a  supply dump once per turn. If an attacker overkills a defender (more hits than neccessary rolled), the defender has the option of destroying the supply dump so the attacker cant claim it. Supply dumps are first placed on a territory with an IC. A transport can carry them also, but only 1 supply dump and nothing else. Once used to deploy a new unit, Supply dumps can no longer be moved.

    Starting placement: Egypt, India, Southern Europe…

    Not sure on starting placements, maybe some ideas from you guys, what do you think.

    Supply Ship (Use either MB transport or Revised transport)
    Cost: 8 IPC / Move: 2 / Atk: – / Def: –
    When a battleship is damaged, taking only 1 hit, you may repair the ship at no cost if grouped with a supply ship in the same sea zone at the end of your turn. If a battleship has no Supply ship, then it must be repaired at a port and suffers the effects of being damaged, atk: 3 / def :3 / move: 1

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Along the lines of what you have proposed:
    I am not sure about the suitability of having ports have any defense, but rather coming up with a unit that can adress a number of characteristics of a fortified territory (think maginot defenses).

    Battleships are powerful units. A damaged battleship may be repaired if it is in a sea zone adjacent to a territory with an IC controlled by its country. The repair costs are equal to the roll of one d6. The battleship may not move or participate in combat during the turn of repair. The repair is complete at the end of the players turn.

    These units can be added to any controlled territory for the cost of 10 IP and can defend only with two rolls each combat round with a defense value of 3/3.They “protect” the defending units from direct attack. The units inside the fortress cannot be affected by attacking combat rolls until the fortress is destroyed by a roll of 1 only. Once built they cannot move and if destroyed cannot be reused by enemy forces. The maximum number of fortresses is limited to the IP value of the territory and in the case of China is limited to one.

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 17
  • 11
  • 52
  • 3
  • 9
  • 5
  • 47
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys