AARHE: Phase 2: Naval Combat


  • Also I would like to bring up an old question.

    Is it realistic for one DD to provide early warning for an unlimitedly large fleet?

    Recall how each DD can “screen” one friendly surface ship.
    Maybe the DD can also “esort” two friendly surface ships.

    ++++ Well its possible certainly… but how many capital ships ( CV and BB) is a player gonna have?  if a DD can now protect 2 such ships then you will need buy too many of them. or will you? Or will this effect the number of BB or CV you buy? the answer can only really be borne out of playtesting.


  • I wasn’t intending to change buying pattern is a major way.

    I guess instead of 2 it should be more like 4.

    Actually, historically what is the typical ratio of DD (Destroyer, Crusier, etc) vs. CV (Carrier) in a fleet?


  • Ahh well… usually BB traveled with DD and CV traveled mostly with CA . Say at Layte gulf you had like 1-2 battleships along with 8-12 destroyers  ( about a 6 to one).

    The carriers were escorted by a ring of ships: below is what Nagumo had at midway…

    FIRST CARRIER STRIKING FORCE (1st Air Fleet), VADM Chuichi Nagumo
    Carrier Group, VADM Nagumo
    CarDiv 1
    CV Akagi  (flagship, Akagi) 21 Zero fighters, 21 dive bombers, 21 torpedo bombers (Sunk)
    CV Kaga (Kaga) 21 Zero fighters, 21 dive bombers, 30 torpedo bombers (Sunk)
    CarDiv 2 – RADM Tamon Yamaguchi
    CV Hiryu (flagship, Hiryu) 21 Zero fighters, 21 dive bombers, 21 torpedo bombers (Sunk)
    CV Soryu (Hiryu) 21 Zero fighters, 21 dive bombers, 21 torpedo bombers (Sunk)
    Support Group – RADM Hiroaki Abe CruDiv 8
    CA Tone (flagship, Tone)
    CA Chikuma (Tone)
    2nd Section, BatDiv 3 –
    BB Haruna (Kongo)
    BB Kirishima (Kongo)
    Screen (DesRon 10) – RADM Susumu Kimura
    CL Nagara (flagship, Nagara)
    DesDiv 4 – 4 DDs
    DesDiv 10 – 3 DDs
    DesDiv 17 – 4 DDs
    Supply Group – 5 oilers, 1 DD

    At Leyte gulf the japanese had:
    5 BB (Yamato, Musashi (S), Nagato, Kongo, Haruna)
    10 CA  (Atago (S), Takao, Chokai (S), Maya (S), Myoko, Haguro, Kumano,
    Suzuya (S), Chikuma (S), Tone)
    2 CL (Noshiro (S), Yahagi)
    15 DD (Shimakaze, Hayashimo (S), Akashimo, Kishinami, Okinami, Naganami, Asashimo,
    Fujinami (S), Hamanami, Kiyoshimo, Nowaki (S), Urakaze, Isokaze, Hamakaze, Yukikaze)

    It may be hard to extrapolate some idea about your question but its clear that the ratio of suporting ships was allways in excess of the primary warships. perhaps you have a good idea with this… propose some idea lets take a look.


  • so we need to determine what is a good number required to form a ring around all your primary warships

    maybe the OOB rule of letting your submarine-attack casualities fire back is not realistic

    in fact, should submarines fire in opening-fire?
    if so, should an early warning from friendly DD actually let you fire back?

    destroyers are guranteed a chance to hit back…is that realistic?


  • so we need to determine what is a good number required to form a ring around all your primary warships

    +++++ Its not only that… it was the idea that a sub could not get a clear shot and also to have a forward, rearguard and laterel defense to search for U-boats.
    Thats why if a cruiser or destroyer is present the subs premtive strike is negated.

    maybe the OOB rule of letting your submarine-attack casualities fire back is not realistic

    in fact, should submarines fire in opening-fire?

    ++++ yes if you have no supporting ASW warships.

    if so, should an early warning from friendly DD actually let you fire back?

    ++++ for who? the player with the subs? or the player who owns the ships?

    destroyers are guranteed a chance to hit back…is that realistic?

    ++++ well the subs can still sink a ship… only that it now gets a parting shot… ok i think i see what you mean… you want to allow the sub to still maintain its premtive shot, but then also allow any destroyer/ cruiser the ability to then search and attack the sub under ASW ideas?


  • @Imperious:

    destroyers are guranteed a chance to hit back…is that realistic?

    ++++ well the subs can still sink a ship… only that it now gets a parting shot… ok i think i see what you mean… you want to allow the sub to still maintain its premtive shot, but then also allow any destroyer/ cruiser the ability to then search and attack the sub under ASW ideas?

    yeah sort of
    so ASW by destroyer/crusier would be in in opening-fire now

    (probably more realistic than saying destroyer fire at enemy destroyers (in main round fire), meanwhile throws a few depth charges and chases enemy submarines too)

    ships killed by submarines in opening-fire are removed and do not fire in main round fire, whether there was a friendly DD around, whether the submarine was detected at all, whatever ship it is


  • Ok great … sorry to ask this but can you compile what we got at this point for phase two?  We have to reword my horrible linguistic interpretation of the new combat system.

    Plus i feel some new people will join us soon and it would be good for them to see where we are in a single thread for phase one and two…

    the question remains:  where is Duke?


  • you don’t have duke’s contact right?
    yeah people come and go
    maybe he has a life and forgot about us already  :evil:

    yeah I’ll compile the current standing of phase 2
    this one is gonna be long


  • That would be great! that way others can see where we are currently… often we are discussing very specific details and dont step back to look at the larger framework of the project. Its important to do this like painting a picture really.WE will also know where we are and what we still have left to do.

  • Moderator

    @Imperious:

    Ok great … sorry to ask this but can you compile what we got at this point for phase two?  We have to reword my horrible linguistic interpretation of the new combat system.

    Plus i feel some new people will join us soon and it would be good for them to see where we are in a single thread for phase one and two…

    the question remains:  where is Duke?

    Please do! I didn’t really get to understanding the gibberish you guys had on Phase 1 so I got lost in the general ideas for combat… It would help to understand it in Rule form…

    GG


  • LOL


  • yep I’ll get to it soon

    for now read about phase 1 at
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=6743.0

    it comes with justifications in italics  :-)


  • Hey guys, two completely random naval combat ideas: Sherman DD amphibious tanks and Catalina flying boats!

    (These are new units)

    DD Sherman Tank
    Cost: 6 IPCs
    Move: 2 (1 when on water)
    Attack: 3
    Defense: 2
    Ability: Able to move across sea zones; may not blitz

    PBY Catalina Flying Boat
    Cost: 18 IPCs
    Move: 7 (8 with Long-Range)
    Attack: 4
    Defense: 1
    Ability: No SBR; able to attack ships?

    *What do you think? Swimming tanks can be able to help D-Day. Fact: They were used in the actual D-Day landings, however a lot of them sank at Omaha (27 of 32)


  • Need to double check the level of deployment of these swimming tanks to see whethre its under the level of abstraction in AA.

    But there is a place for sure a unit in our amphibious assault rules!  8-)
    These tanks would actually fight from first round!

    Our current rule is that only attacking INF fights in the first round of land combat in an amphibous assault.

    ARM and ART fights from second round and only if there are surviving attacking INF in the first round.
    This is to model the capturing of the beach, without which the slow offloading of tanks and artillery from landing craft would make them sitting ducks.
    This is probably the reason why historically infantry were the first waves in amphibious assault.


  • See… I didn’t even see those rules… So we need a compilation. Btw I saw Phase 1; is there still room for changes?


  • room for changes only after phase 2 and 3 are complete… we then we scour the entire document with a fine tooth comb.


  • Ok


  • oh yeah we need to formalise naval combat antiair

    current the these units are assign antiair values

    Cruiser (CA) 4
    Destroyer (DD) 2
    Battleship (BB) 1
    Carrier (CV) 1

    SS (submarine) and AP (transport) have no antiair capabilities

    just let these units in opening-fire in every round roll a dice hitting on 4, 2, 1, and 1 respectively?

  • 2007 AAR League

    I think CA makes more sense for CArrier that Cruiser.

    Perhaps add for the Amphibious tanks “cannot move more than 1 (or 2) SZs from a coast”. It doesn’t seem realistic to have a tank moving across the Atlantic or Pacific.


  • oh yeah we need to formalise naval combat antiair

    current the these units are assign antiair values

    Cruiser (CA)  4
    Destroyer (DD)  2
    Battleship (BB)  1
    Carrier (CV)  1

    SS (submarine) and AP (transport) have no antiair capabilities

    just let these units in opening-fire in every round roll a dice hitting on 4, 2, 1, and 1 respectively?

    Yes exactly! but was this the correct value?  was it not:

    Cruiser (CA)  4
    Destroyer (DD)  2
    Battleship (BB)  2
    Carrier (CV)  1

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 47
  • 1
  • 1
  • 19
  • 17
  • 17
  • 106
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

31

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts