Battlecruisers?

[Pvt.Ryan]

Hmm well I’m instead making a different set of House Rules for Bases to make islands more valuable but I like your thinking. What if we made it so that these ships can move so many spaces away from a port but if going deep into enemy waters they need a support ship or maybe a BB could support a DD.

[DrLarsen]

@WARRIOR888:

Gents, In this discussion on Battle Cruisers did anyone figure the fire power of the HMS Hood was 8 x 15 inch guns the same fire power of the DKM Bizmarck?  Yes Bizmarck’s guns were a new design but they fired the same broadside of the Hood.  I like the idea of Battle Cruisers and I propose these classes below if this develops further into actual playing pieces.  For hits make your CCs 2 Hits and all CVs 2 Hits, increase BBs to 3 Hits and you will have a serious game.  If you want to penalize UK for armoured deck than limit them to 1 Tac or 1 Fighter no both.  I like the idea of CVEs 1 hit to sink and speed of transports. CVEs carry only 1 Fighter zero Tac.

USN Alaska Class 3 ea 2 other scraped before launching
IJN B-64 Class 2 ea IJN PROPOSED BATTLE CRUISER
UK Hood HAD 3 SISTERS NEVER COMPLETED
USSR Borodino ACTUAL LAUNCHED IN 1915 NEVER COMPLETED WITH HER 3 SISTERS
Germany Scharnhorst OR Z-PLAN O, P OR Q
French Dunkerque 1 SISTER STRASBOURG
Italian We would have to create one can’t find a ref were one was even porposed.

If you’re looking for proposed BC’s, forget the Borodino; it was a rather obsolete fast-BB/ slow-BC that barely approximated the standards of, say, Britain’s “Queen Elizabeth class,” in speed, power, etc.  Check out the Kronstadt, which was much more in the same class as an Alaska or a Gneisenau.  (Yes, it was never actually built, but neither was the Borodino, so…)  For Italy, check out the 1928 or 1930 proposed BC’s.  Like the French Dunkerque, they were more-or-less designed as Pocket-BB-killer BC’s/ junior BB’s…

Hood is an outlier, not a good BC rep; she was huge!  On paper she should have been a better match-up with the Bismark than the events turned out and the reason why she failed so catastrophically are still controversial and by no means as obvious as IL makes it sound.  (If, however, those reasons really do reflect fundamental design flaws, they have more to do with the technological advancements between the early 20’s and late 30’s, and/or specific deck-armor flaws, not because her guns were slightly shorter or her side armor was all that thin.  Keep in mind that the two ships were very close to the same total weight and had the same number of 15" guns.)  To use an analogy from boxing, the Bismark vs. Hood fight was not a mis-match between a heavyweight and a middleweight.  It was a match-up between two heavy weights in which either one got in a lucky right crosss or the other had a “glass jaw”… or maybe both.  Try the Renown class, which makes a good match-up with an Alaska or a Gneisenau or a Dunkerque (or a Kronstadt or a B65 or an Italian 1928-Design if we’re talking proposed designs.)

[DrLarsen]

@Imperious:

The speed thing would only be for NCM. No warship can travel at full speed unless it wanted to substantially reduce its range.

Only consideration for a 3 move ship is for NCM. Otherwise it changes too much of the game since the distances were configured for 2 space movers. IN combat this is a huge advantage, while in NCM its basically like having a port for NCM only.

The only value for a 4-4 one hit ship might be a 3 space move or an ability to move 2 spaces and 1 more in NCM so warships can perform more like surface raiders by escaping after sinking a helpless ship.

Your proposal for limiting the speed advantage to NCM might be a good idea.  I haven’t play-tested it yet either way.  Keep in mind two things though:

1. I’m talking about on the GLobal 1939 Map, which has more spaces, doesn’t it?
2. The need to keep fleets together for “concentration of force” would give some limitation to the speed rule-change.  Your “blue-water” fast fleet might be able to race around the board, but it would leave its transports, subs, CVE’s, DE “cannon fodder” behind to do so, and thus be limited in which missions it undertook.  To actually project that power onto land, you’d need a slower “brown-water fleet” which would be more limited in speed and perhaps the two could split up once your naval power is overwhelming, but unless it is, getting too bold with your “blue-water fleet” could place your “brown-water fleet” in serious jeopardy… Just as Halsey did when he went racing off after the Japanese carriers with his entire 3rd (“blue-water”) Fleet and left Kinkaid’s 7th (“brown water”) fleet in the lurch, potentially easy meat for Japan’s powerful Center Force.  (Where they were only saved by the cowardice of Admiral Kurita!)

Also, if we do something like what Pvt Ryan is suggesting and have to have a transport or oiler accompanying a fleet in order to have it away from port for a given amount of time (to represent the vast fleet train) that would also limit this rule somewhat.

[Pvt.Ryan]

Okay lets say you can refuel for free and it takes so much fuel to fuel a ship. Now the ammount of fuel needed and how much a transport can carry depends on the whole situation, like how much fuel these ships use. Now we could make a cheap 4 or 3 IPC ship called a “support ship” or “oiler” but thats up to you guys. I don’t know where were gonna get all these ships, I might make mine  :-D.

[Imperious Leader]

Your proposal for limiting the speed advantage to NCM might be a good idea.  I haven’t play-tested it yet either way.  Keep in mind two things though:

1. I’m talking about on the GLobal 1939 Map, which has more spaces, doesn’t it?

Only Global versions of the game. The rules with ports which allow movement already of 3 spaces should have the sea zones configured for the issues of a 3 move ship.

2. The need to keep fleets together for “concentration of force” would give some limitation to the speed rule-change.  Your “blue-water” fast fleet might be able to race around the board, but it would leave its transports, subs, CVE’s, DE “cannon fodder” behind to do so, and thus be limited in which missions it undertook.  To actually project that power onto land, you’d need a slower “brown-water fleet” which would be more limited in speed and perhaps the two could split up once your naval power is overwhelming, but unless it is, getting too bold with your “blue-water fleet” could place your “brown-water fleet” in serious jeopardy… Just as Halsey did when he went racing off after the Japanese carriers with his entire 3rd (“blue-water”) Fleet and left Kinkaid’s 7th (“brown water”) fleet in the lurch, potentially easy meat for Japan’s powerful Center Force.  (Where they were only saved by the cowardice of Admiral Kurita!)

Well carrier fleets usually traveled in their own groups to utilize their speed over battleships.

Probably BC, CA, CV and CVL  could be 3 movers.

The game should probably not include DE. Its really not adding anything and just diminishing returns. DE would have to be a 2-1 unit costing 7, if it was 6 nobody would buy DD’s anymore

I just don’t see any utility in this. Id rather just have a BC and CVL/ CVE as the only new naval units.

CVL would be a 0-1 and 1 plane capacity, takes one hit, costs 8-10 IPC
BC 4-4 one hit, cost 14-15, perhaps +1 move

Also, if we do something like what Pvt Ryan is suggesting and have to have a transport or oiler accompanying a fleet in order to have it away from port for a given amount of time (to represent the vast fleet train) that would also limit this rule somewhat.

Oiler might be an alternative to DE. If you have one your ships can move 3 spaces but only: CV, BC, CA are capable. But Oilers didn’t travel with warships going into battle. Not sure about this idea.

[DrLarsen]

@Imperious:

Well carrier fleets usually traveled in their own groups to utilize their speed over battleships.

Probably BC, CA, CV and CVL  could be 3 movers.

Pre-war they did.  Mid-war they were also grouped with fast BB’s; Iowa’s & Alaska’s, with their 33-knot+ speed were ideal for (indeed, actually designed specifically for) escorting carriers.  Since there weren’t enough Iowa’s, though, in practice they usually grouped together with all the new BB’s, including the 27-knot NC’s and SD’s, and kept close at hand when the 3rd/5th Fleet was on a mission.  So “fast-BB’s” could mean either all of the US new BB’s (27 is closer to 30 than to 20, after all) or just the Iowa’s that were designed for uncompromised speed.  In actual practice, it was more the former than the latter.  Yes, the new-BB’s were sometimes in their own separate task force within the 3rd/ 5th fleet, but so were the carriers.  Usually a task force would include 2-3 CV’s, 1 CVL, 1 BB + an assortment of CA’s, CL’s, and DD’s.

Meanwhile the old-BB’s were relegated to the 7th Fleet mid-war, precisely because they couldn’t keep up with carriers.

Also, keep in mind that CVL’s and CVE’s are not the same thing.  CVL’s were a little bigger, but more importantly, CVL’s, being cruiser-based, could keep up with the CV’s and so were supplements to them.  CVE, being transport-based, were much slower, which is why the 7th fleet was filled with CVE task groups, but the 3rd/5th Fleet had CVL’s integrated right into its CV Task Forces.

[DrLarsen]

The game should probably not include DE. Its really not adding anything and just diminishing returns. DE would have to be a 2-1 unit costing 7, if it was 6 nobody would buy DD’s anymore

Well, they might if they needed something that could keep up with the carriers; thus making the DE’s slower might make them a useful alternative without completely supplanting DD’s (which is more-or-less why both types continued to be built in such #'s: They still needed plenty of fast fleet escorts, so DD’s kept getting bigger, faster, stronger… but they could save money if a proportion of their escorts were built to a slower, weaker standard and specialized in escorting slower vessels… so the DE was invented to fill this new niche.)

Oh, and here’s another situation where a d12 system makes having more options a more doable possibility.  On a d12, DE’s could be a 3-3 unit, and you could also have a category in-between a DD and a CA (say, a CLA*) that would be a 5-5 and a category in-between CA and BB (Say, a CB) that would be a 7-7… and even something a half-step above a BB (say, an SBB) that would be a 9-9 with 3 hits.

I know, I know, it’s not KISS.  I guess I just enjoy ramping up the complexity one notch.  (not 2 notches… I’m not one of those miniatures players…)

*Note: by CLA I mean those cruisers that really were significantly lighter than a typical CA.  This includes all Japanese and German light cruisers, most British light cruisers (with some exceptions, i.e. the Town class & Crown Colony class) and the US Omaha and Atlanta classes; Atlanta’s & Omaha’s were labelled “CL’s” during the war, but the rest of the US CL’s (Brooklyn’s, Cleveland’s, etc.) were just as large and powerful as a typical CA.  After the war, this distinction was recognized when the Atlanta class (and the sub-classes, Junneau/Oakland) were re-designated as “CLAA” for “Light Cruiser, Anti-Aircraft,” hence my novel “CLA” abbreviation to include all of the “truly lighter light cruisers,” as distinct from the “light in name only cruisers…” or as I like to call them “LINO cruisers.”  (By then the obsolete Omaha’s were out of service, but they were fairly comparable to the smaller, Japanese-style light cruisers…)

[Imperious Leader]

DE was much slower than DD and could not keep up with Carriers. DE’s were only used for escort of merchant ships and only needed to be faster than subs.

Heck, the DE would be one of the slowest units in a navy and totally unsuited for fleet operations.

All they can do was patrol coastlines and perform escort duty for slow moving transports.

This is why they are not needed, since Destroyers got this job.

Their is no value is generating another unit where you got a 2-2-2-8 Destroyer.

At least with a D6 system.

A CL  “Light Cruiser” would be a 3-2 unit and again prove not needed in a D6 system. Just not enough value in a “between” unit of CA and DD.

[DrLarsen]

@Imperious:

DE was much slower than DD and could not keep up with Carriers. DE’s were only used for escort of merchant ships and only needed to be faster than subs.

Heck, the DE would be one of the slowest units in a navy and totally unsuited for fleet operations.

All they can do was patrol coastlines and perform escort duty for slow moving transports.

This is why they are not needed, since Destroyers got this job.

Their is no value is generating another unit where you got a 2-2-2-8 Destroyer.

At least with a D6 system.

A CL  “Light Cruiser” would be a 3-2 unit and again prove not needed in a D6 system. Just not enough value in a “between” unit of CA and DD.

Well, faster than an old BB and much faster than a CVE: they averaged around 25-26 knots, which was fast by 1920 standards, but not by 1940 standards.  This is why you see so many of them in the 7th Fleet.  But my point here is that you probably need some destroyers to escort your slow forces, and if you can save 2 IPC’s by buying slower ships for this, it can make sense.  I currently use old MB units mixed with “Enemy on the Horizon” for the “slow” fleet and newer WotC units for my “fast fleet”  (i.e., MB BB’s= old BB’s, MB carriers for CVE’s, EotH “destroyers” for “DE’s”…)

[Imperious Leader]

Well, faster than an old BB and much faster than a CVE: they averaged around 25-26 knots

Not even. More like 20 knots. If that.

http://uboat.net/allies/warships/types.html?type=Destroyer+Escort

The destroyer escort was not nearly as expensive as the fleet destroyer (DD) and much better suited for convoy escort duties. They were slower than the DD’s (21 knots against 35 knots), well armed and most important of all, they could be built much faster. These vessels became the most common U-boat hunters from middle of 1943 on wards.

Since they could not travel with normal warships they were not used for any duty except escort, so in AA it does not make any sence to have them unless you want to cut into the value of a destroyer or take value from submarines. You basically cant cut the numbers for such a unit in any appreciable way that would make such a unit viable to the scale of the game.

[Johnson73]

We have been playing with a d12 system for years as well as battlecrusiers/light crusiers.  We use the crusiers from Xeno as our Light Cruisers/Battlecrusiers.

We also give Japan a Light Aircraft Carrier using Milton Bradleys AC.  It can only hold (1) Aircraft but is cheaper than the normal AC.

[DrLarsen]

@Imperious:

Well, faster than an old BB and much faster than a CVE: they averaged around 25-26 knots

Not even. More like 20 knots. If that.

http://uboat.net/allies/warships/types.html?type=Destroyer+Escort

The destroyer escort was not nearly as expensive as the fleet destroyer (DD) and much better suited for convoy escort duties. They were slower than the DD’s (21 knots against 35 knots), well armed and most important of all, they could be built much faster. These vessels became the most common U-boat hunters from middle of 1943 on wards.

Since they could not travel with normal warships they were not used for any duty except escort, so in AA it does not make any sence to have them unless you want to cut into the value of a destroyer or take value from submarines. You basically cant cut the numbers for such a unit in any appreciable way that would make such a unit viable to the scale of the game.

Well, OK, I double-checked and some classes of them were that slow.  Most of them were faster than that, at 24-25 knots.  Check, for example, the Buckley, Butler, Rudderow, & Dealey classes: all wre in the 24-26 knot range and just these four classes account for 230 ships between them.