Hey im still dijesting your post… in CVE’s they were much slower than the “cruiser hull” front line jobs… they should not move fast at all… they are just cheap “jeep” carriers… cannon fodder for any cruiser.
Light Carrier - Impy, Cleveland class CVLs were just as quick as an Essex weren’t they? Why do you have them slower?
in that case your correct… 32-34 knots but i will look at UK and Jap carriers as well…I must have gotten this somewhere based on research because thats were all the numbers came from.
Impy re PT boats (let’s not forget also UK MTBs, Italian MAS, German E or S Boots…… )
+++++++++++my intent was to use those ideas in a pacific war game… so no E boats and Italian ships… The name “PT boat” and its value is really including all those “little” ships that have any firepower… Plus under the combat system that was not included in the post… certain ship types cannot damage others… PT boats are in the lowest class which allows them to only damage DE, DD and possibly CL… this idea was left off my original post.
Interesting, but really did they ever DO anything during the war? Off hand I think I can remember one UK cruiser going down to “PT boat” attack; maybe some others. The biography of a successful commander of the largest “PT boat” of them all shows he was worried about converted trawlers and armed landing craft! At the very least surely you can’t allow them to move 3 since they were very, very short ranged; maybe like fighters they can just defend the area adjaent to their home port, and only otherwise move non-combat. They really should be weak as water IMHO.
++++++++ i think they are exactly that and if i actually finalize this unit it borders on slim anyway.
Escort - Cost 6, Attack 1 (3 A/S), Defend 2, move 2. Anti-Sub, minesweep @
Represents corvettes, frigates, minesweepers, converted trawlers. The backbone of the convoy defenders, but too slow to move with a fleet.
Troopship – Cost 20, Attack 0, Defend 2, Move 3 (or 4)? Carries 4 infantry.
++++++++i feel this brings too many specialized units that may bog the game.
Large liners like the Queen Elizabeth. These were among the most important of all units in the war, and perhaps the fastest of all over long distances (long range at high speed).
Transport – Cost 4, Attack 0, Defend 1, Move 2 Carries ground units & logistics (8I.P.)
Becomes cheaper to allow for the fact that UK etc need lots of them (see convoy rules below) and the fact that they cannot be used in amphibious attacks against DEFENDED zones.
Landing Craft – Cost 8, Attack 0, Defend 1, Move 2 Carries ground units and logistics
This is good but basically covered…Id only like to see one additional transport craft ( landing craft)
Note- I’m still trying to work out a logistics system for ground warfare! Any help?
+++++++++goto harris and look up combat system proposal for advanced.
Fleet Train – Cost 5, Attack 0, Defend 1, Move 2 Repairs and supplies ships.
too many new ships… yikes
All combat craft must be within 2 SZ of Fleet Train or friendly territory, or add 1 to all rolls.
Note- this is another example of the old “captains think tactics, majors think strategy, generals think logistics” idea. Ships spent something like 20% of their time undergoing refit and without that they were slowed by dirty hulls, engines broke down, radars died. Oh, and without fuel they don’t go very well anyway! So the game must reflect that in some way. This may allow ships to get realistic range without dominating. This doesn’t reflect the long range of cruisers, though…must work that one out.
This also does not apply to transports as these had long range, or to long range subs.
++++++++ on this i have fixed subs… in the pacific campaign i am aware that long range subs and local coastal subs had very different ranges before new supplies were needed… a similiar system will be adopted for europe.
I’m warming to this…it could accumulate so if you were 3 SZ from a base, you add 2 to all rolls; moves away. Note - DOES NOT APPLY to SZ 12 and under, to allow for the distortion in the map which would otherwise make life very hard for the Germans.
If it works, ships could be allowed to go even faster; perhaps they could go faster only in non-combat moves? More realism, more flexibility!
Submarine – Cost 6, Attack 2* Defend 2, move 3 (or 1 when submerged).
Long-range subs are interesting and a very good idea IMHO, Impy, but there is little doubt that they were INFERIOR in defence as they took longer to submerge and were less manouvrable. I don’t think they were actually any better in attack either. See Doenitz’s memoirs, John Terraine and many other sources.
++++++++++Yes, yes im aware of this… but i cant make a 1,000 page manifesto of rules for every exception… it has to be playable to a degree… and that idea would be another bucket of ideas that have to be considered. BY long range subs we are only addressing the distinction that they should cost more, have unlimited travel restrictions, and have better defense in the sence of other ideas that you did not bring up: namely Japanese long range subs had planes that could aid in recon for defense or attack, plus they had larger deck guns… in some cases they were faster… again this applies more to pacific rather than atlantic which is the basis of the rules covering that campaign.
Maybe leave the cost high, have the same attack and defence, but don’t require Long Range subs to be near a home port?
Q Ships. Still wondering about this, just for fun. Not so much a Q Ship (it’s just a cool name) but an armed merchant raider of the Kormoran type. I wonder if it would be kept off the board, and the player running it could just write down the SZ it was in and then (assuming there was no combat) hand that over to the other player for checking later? Could a similar system make subs more powerful? Attack 1, Defend 1, speed 2, cost ??. Also act as “fleet train” for 1 ship (which is what happened when they were used as supply ships for PBs etc IIRC)
Q Ships are equipped for long voyages so the rule requiring ships to be near a home port doesn’t apply. The same could be applied to German “pocket battleships” which are otherwise CLs (which is what the germans late reclassified them as they were not as powerful as claimed). This gives the PBs some unique and realistic abilities.
++++ i have another friend who maintains this but again its another filter to block the enjoyment of the game… i have allready extended the choices to the ones that have the most meaning… Q ships was a atlantic thing mostly anyway… the damage they did was not so great.
Convoys - Nice system but saying you only lose points if the subs are off your IPC robs subs of a lot of their interest and power. Doenitz would sometimes send some subs into the St Lawrence and others to Cape Town at the same time. This flexibility was one of the interesting things about ASW.
++++++Correct… how would you change this?
I’ve tried various mechanisms and I’m turning towards a situation where UK, USA and Japan must keep freighters afloat in certain sea zones or lose IPs. It’s basically the Larry convoy route system, (which i didn’t know about at the time) but instead of one box, you have a whole zone to move around in. This allows you to dodge convoys and subs around like Wynn, Horton and Doenitz did in real life.
Zones are;
UK- SZ 1, 2, 7, 8,9,10,11 (have at least 1 transport at sea here or lose 8? IP). The main transatlantic route.
- SZ 28-35 (have at least 1 transport at sea here or lose 5? IP).
- SZ 11,12,17,18,19, 22-26 (have at least 1 transport at sea here or lose 5? IP)
US - SZ 10, 19 (simulating the Carribbean tanker traffic and the shipping along the E Coast) or lose 5.
- 1 transport at sea somewhere else or lose 5?
Russia (Yep, Russia). One US or UK transport in 30-35 OR in 3 and 4, or loses 5? IP (simulating the lend lease convoys through Murmansk or Persia…obviously both those must be held!)
Germany - Transport in Baltic OR ADJACENT PORT (to simulate the amount of fighter cover available) or loses 5 IPC (no iron ore etc from Norway and Sweden)
Japan - 1 transport at sea in 36,37, 49,59,58, or loses 8 IPC (vital oil traffic from NEI and Borneo)
1 other transport somewhere at sea in “japanese” SZ OTHER than 60-61 or loses 5 IPC
1 other transport at sea in 59,60,61, or loses 8 IPC.
So that’s a few ideas. Sorry to ramble on so much.
Add some retreat–on-land rules (I’m totally with you on that one Impy) and logistics and life could be interesting. Oh, and some rules to allow for fast movement inside sophisticated countries (ie Germany and Central US don’t count for movement of their forces), stop ships running through the Straits of Gib and into the Baltic; change the IPs to represent the fact that places like Ukraine and Caucasus created 60% of Russian supplies etc; and add some “terrain” (it’s very hard to attack India from Burma, it’s slow to attack through Italy/Southern Europe, give the poor Russians some more winter and maybe a monsoon for Asia, add in those interesting optional rules somewhere else for China, changing arty rules, introduce AT and mech infty…and we’ve got a totally new game.
++++++ this is another can to open for another day… Im currently looking at retreat rules for defender which work perfectly in ALL my other games, while i get the worst flak when i try to apply it to revised… I have to appeal to the general public who may not want a huge departure from “beer and pretzels” how defender retreats plays out remains to be seen.
BTW join our group if you can in house section ( the varient thread)
Oh well!
back to Antiaircraft guns…
Artifical limit of 1 AA/territory should be removed, antiair density should be modelled —> allow up to 3
Abstract firepower of AA should be removed, overwhelming air power should be modelled —> allow up to 3 targets per AA
AA shouldn’t shuffle around —> can’t shoot before deployment, can’t move after deployment
hows that?
WEll i have to place my older post in context with that game concept. Your concept is great, except I am still unsettled with the 3 rolls thing… it brings a threshold of greater than 10% losses over the course of the game. I love the rolling 2 seperate dice thing. thats good.
The rate isn’t really a problem. We can adjust it easily. :lol:
At the moment if you attack with 5 or more planes its 10% chance or less. (Against 1 AA)
If its a problem we just use a D12 dice or something.
The 3 rolls too can be adjusted. NOT to fit a target rate, but according to targetting ability of WWII flak.
My position is just to model saturation and antiaircraft density.
OK so what you mean is like for every “3 planes you get one AA roll?” so 9 planes get 3 rolls? i love this! now thats a great concept!
Eh, no.
If you get one roll for every 3 planes then thats is back to the old “chance of hits is proportional to number of planes” of OOB which gives AA unlimited damage.
I am saying up to 3 rolls for every AA. It doesn’t matter how many rolls. What matters is that every AA can only target up to 3 planes.
OH ok got it.
Now you got me worried.
So what do you think of it?
Well its the very same rule i have in at least one of my games… it cant be that bad! Remember we are working with others and all these proposals will be considered. You have my vote unless something better comes along. Also, I only favor the AA action from a “built in” platform I dont want stand alone AA guns. SO the rule i like was where you roll:
roll one d6 if you roll a 1 , then you roll again if you roll a 1 the plane is destroyed, if you roll a two the plane has to return to base ( damaged and cant drop its payload) results of 3-6 no effect.
Max rolls are one roll for every 2 planes, total max is 3 total rolls ( so 9 planes get 3 rolls).
Also jet fighters/bombers cant be hit by AA guns
AA guns are built into IC and or VC territories ( maybe only capitals and IC).
again some of this is from you…
