AARHE: proposed naval combat rules change


  • Another issue i didn’t bring up is this: IN the case of Germany and Russia a dive bomber was a totally land based plane to direct targeted attacks on tanks and armored cars. A Japanese dive bomber has the connotation of a purely naval based plane.

    This is another reason why we just have fighter-bomber because the name includes both types and nobody can complain. a stuka and a kate are both fighter-bombers.


  • To add to what Tekkyy wrote, destroyers and cruisers serve as escorts under my system as well. Anything which can hit a capital ship can also hit an escort ship. Hits are allocated to escorts before they’re allocated to capital ships; so your battleships and carriers can’t start taking hits until your destroyers and cruisers are all dead. I realize the current system is a little more realistic–ships choose their targets, then escorts interpose. But this added realism makes the system somewhat more cumbersome; especially if it were to be computer-based. In a sea battle where each side had ten sea units, the computer would have to ask each player for 10 different targeting decisions. That would be very cumbersome. The changes I’m suggesting would be much more acceptable from a GUI standpoint, while retaining most of the realism of the current system. I admit my system makes escorts a little too good at shielding capital ships, but it’s worth that price to obtain dramatic simplification of the GUI.

    Imperious Leader raised a good point about the differences between a Japanese (carrier-based) Val dive bomber and a German land-based Stuka. Germany did not complete construction of any carriers during the war. But there were one or two partially completed carriers. The plan was to equip the carriers with aircraft that had been modified for carrier use. (There wouldn’t have been a huge difference between the carrier-modified version of these planes and their land-based analogues.) For simplicity, my suggestions interpret all nations’ planes as though they had been modified to land on aircraft carriers. I suppose if I wanted to be 100% realistic I could allow players to choose between land-based and carrier-based fighters, dive bombers, and maybe even torpedo bombers. The land-based versions of these planes would be either slightly cheaper or a little more powerful; but it wouldn’t be a huge distinction.

    The real strategic decision that had to be made was the intended function of the planes: should they be designed to kill other planes, land units, naval units, or for strategic bombing raids? Hitler believed Germany’s economy was too weak to sustain a long war; and so built dive bombers to try to win a decisive victory in a short war. The U.S. and Britain decided the war would last a long time, and built strategic bombers to destroy Germany’s industry and cities. Japan’s Kate torpedo bombers weren’t designed either for land war or strategic bombing runs, but were good at attacking enemy ships and subs. Fighter planes couldn’t do much against most land or sea targets, but were very good at shooting down enemy airplanes. WWII’s participants had to decide which categories of targets were the most important for their own planes to kill; and they had to produce accordingly. This, I felt, was at the core of WWII airplane construction strategy.  My rules set fully captures the four major airplane construction choices, while ignoring the more minor decision of whether to go through the (mild) pain of carrier modification.


  • The German carrier never got going because Goering didn’t want a separate and distinct control of “everything that fly’s belongs to me” Becoming the responsibility of another possibly more capable military leader. He would never part with any control the the kreigmarine and thats the final word on why the Graf Zeppelin never saw action. Also, the skill set of land and sea operations are different so the divebomber and land based  fighter-bomber skills are quite different. For one landing and taking off a carrier is hard to do.


  • @KurtGodel7:

    I realize the current system is a little more realistic–ships choose their targets, then escorts interpose. But this added realism makes the system somewhat more cumbersome;

    Yes I guess the current system is cumbersome.
    Maybe it can be trimmed down.

    For starters, escort screening during “submarine warfare” and “air combat” could merge.
    QUESTION could we make escorts screen the same target during both opening-fire steps?

    current system…

    Opening-fire
    Submarine Warfare
    1. Attacker then defender screens.
    2. Attacking then defending SS (submarine) fires.
    3. Attacker then defender performs ASW.
    4. Remove casualties.
    Air Combat
    1. Attacker then defender screens.
    2. Attacking then defending ships perform Anti-air. Remove casualties.
    3. Attacking then defending air unit’s fire.
    4. Attacking then defending BB (battleship) fire.
    5. Remove casualties.
    Main-round
    1. Other attacking sea unit’s fire.
    2. Other defending sea unit’s fire.
    3. Remove casualties.
    Retreat Decision

    I suppose if I wanted to be 100% realistic I could allow players to choose between land-based and carrier-based fighters, dive bombers, and maybe even torpedo bombers. The land-based versions of these planes would be either slightly cheaper or a little more powerful; but it wouldn’t be a huge distinction.

    Yeah thats pretty much the current system.
    land-based fighter -> FTR (fighter)
    carrier-based fighter -> NAV (naval fighter)
    dive bombers -> FB (fighter bomber)

    Fighter planes couldn’t do much against most land or sea targets, but were very good at shooting down enemy airplanes.

    I am still reserved about the view that fighter planes are not able to attack ground properly.
    For example, the bombs load…

    German dive    German dive                German fighter              UK fighter    US dive
                      Ju 87A            Ju 87B                        BF-109                        Spitfire        Douglas SBD Dauntless
    bombs        1 x 250kg      1 x 259kg + 4 x 50kg    1×250 kg or 4 x 50kg    2 x 110kg    1020kg

    current system…

    attack defense dogfight move cost
    FTR  3        4          2/3      4      10
    NAV 3        2          2/2        2      8
    FB    3        2          1/2        4    8
    BMR 4        1          0/1        6    15
    TP  0        0          0/1        4    8

    QUESTION by the way should we make transport plane move 6 (just like bomber)?


  • by the way should we make transport plane move 6 (just like bomber)?

    yes i thought this was the range in the first place


  • what about the other question of making esorts screen the same target ship during boht air combat and submarine warfare?

    and any other another ideas for streamlining the combat sequence?


  • Thats what they are supposed to do. THAT should already be in the rules. They are escorts for any type of attack. The allocations are for all types of naval combat


  • @Imperious:

    Thats what they are supposed to do. THAT should already be in the rules.

    Ok thats all good then. I’ll update it.
    Read the file again when you have the time.
    Might pick out more communication errors.

    They are escorts for any type of attack. The allocations are for all types of naval combat

    I thought escorts are only during opening-fire step (because thats when attacks are selective).
    Main round step allocates according to hit allocation chart.

    Should a friendly destroyer be able to take a battleship hit for a friendly battleship?
    If not I would clarify …

    Opening-fire
    Screening
    1. Attacker then defender declare screens for submarine warfare and air combat.
    Submarine Warfare
    1. Attacking then defending SS (submarine) fires.
    2. Attacker then defender performs ASW.
    3. Remove casualties.
    Air Combat
    1. Attacking then defending ships perform Anti-air. Remove casualties.
    2. Attacking then defending air unit’s fire.
    3. Remove casualties.
    Battleship
    1. Attacking then defending BB (battleship) fires.
    2. Remove casualties.
    Main-round
    1. Other attacking sea unit’s fire.
    2. Other defending sea unit’s fire.
    3. Remove casualties.
    Retreat Decision

    The selective fire of air units (in air superiority) and submarines makes it messy if I simplify it further.


  • I think this is how it should look.

    Opening-fire naval combat sequence:

    Submarine warfare
    1. Attacker then defender declare screens for submarine warfare and air combat.
    Submarine Warfare
    1. Attacking then defending SS (submarine) fires at surface ships.
    2. Attacker then defender performs ASW.
    3. Remove casualties from targeted ships.

    Air Combat
    1. Attacking then defending ships perform Anti-air. Remove casualties.
    2. Attacking then defending air unit’s fire.
    3. Remove casualties.

    Battleship
    1. Attacking then defending BB (battleship) fires.
    2. Remove casualties.

    Main-round
    1. Other attacking sea unit’s fire.
    2. Other defending sea unit’s fire.
    3. Remove casualties.

    Retreat Decision


  • yep

Suggested Topics

  • 18
  • 5
  • 3
  • 4
  • 11
  • 12
  • 15
  • 3
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

35

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts