@Imperious:
Say the subs are placed as follows: all three on the CV… hoping to hit three times!
Oh yeah. How can I forgot about that. Submarines can “focus fire”.
it reflects a balance of what the subs themselves add to the game. If ships can kill at 3+ or only 1, then subs will have little effect , or ships will have little effect against subs.
Thats alright then. I don’t know the historic information about sumbarine combat.
Like who should do better when a destroyer combats with a submarine?
When 2 SS attack 2 DD…the SS is likely to kill both DD without getting hurt.
++++ this is not correct interpretation… The DD STOPS the preemtive attack of subs… the dd still gets to roll for search and if succesful again rolls for attacks.
But I am talking about the odds of hitting. 33% for submarines. 11% for destroyers.
Again this could be ok…I don’t know historically how well destroyers fights submarines.
Thats alright then. I don’t know the historic information about sumbarine combat.
Like who should do better when a destroyer combats with a submarine?
++++ ok say one sub went after a DD… The DD has to jump thru more hoops because it need to roll twice at 1-2 to sink the sub, while the sub only has one roll. The Sub automatically locates the DD, while the DD has to search first. plus if the sub is near any sea zone off you nation it can perform an economic attack costing you money. The sub however cant attack planes and it cant be involved in surface combat with other ships. thats done seperately. I belive each has something to offer, plus after sufficient tech occurs the DD has a better roll on the subs, while in the case of german type XX1 uboats (a tech letter in the war) Germany can turn the tide once more.
Quote
When 2 SS attack 2 DD…the SS is likely to kill both DD without getting hurt.
++++ this is not correct interpretation… The DD STOPS the preemtive attack of subs… the dd still gets to roll for search and if succesful again rolls for attacks.
But I am talking about the odds of hitting. 33% for submarines. 11% for destroyers.
Again this could be ok…I don’t know historically how well destroyers fights submarines.
++++ As stated before its true that a DD has to roll twice at 1-2 to sink a sub. this is historical. Its much harder to sink subs then it is to send torpedos while in stealth underwater.Latter with technology… this begins to change
How does air units fit in the naval hit allocation system?
Group1: BB CV
Group2: DD
Group3: TR
Group4: FTR and BMR
I am thinking of making TR hits can only be allocated against TR.
That system is only ship to ship combat. air units should target like subs the ships they want… except each DD and CA again screens out one capital ship 1/1 basis. also each ship fires first at some modified aa value and hits are preemtive. so any planes left over get to fire at which ships they want. CA is a aa gun platform so id make them the strongest against planes. next should be the bb and last carriers and DD. Transports have no defense at all.
idea:
CA roll 1-4
BB rolls 1-3
CA rolls 1-2
DD rolls 1
each ship only gets one roll preemtive EACH ROUND.
Ships protecting other ships from air attacks?
Its realistic right?
So for land combat statistically about 10% of fighters were downed by antiaircraft.
What were the figures for naval combat?
Air units fighting without carriers
For land combat we decided, for now, to make air units without supporting land units fire for one cycle and then retreat.
For naval combat, we would have something like this?
“At the end of a combat cycle you must retreat air units excess to your carrier capacity.”
This happens to stop air units from land performing multiple combat cycle against enemy ships.
Ships protecting other ships from air attacks?
Its realistic right?
++++ thats totally realistic… the entire reason why specific ships sail together the escort ships form a ring around the carrier or battleship, sometimes the battleships are in the lead but mostly that was in ww1 because naval tactics of the day were regulated to crossing the “T”… a holdover tactic from Napoleonic times
So for land combat statistically about 10% of fighters were downed by antiaircraft.
What were the figures for naval combat?
++++very good question: i dont have an answer. However i know Cruisers were built in ww2 as anti aircraft platforms and served as fleet escort to protect carriers and battleships. OF course BB had sufficient AA protection as a general rule.
Air units fighting without carriers
For land combat we decided, for now, to make air units without supporting land units fire for one cycle and then retreat.
For naval combat, we would have something like this?
++++++NO entirely different. The only yoke is the parent carrier… one idea i was tinkering was to install some uber tactical idea of planes spending one turn to attack and another turn to refuel and rearm. that way like at Midway the carrier can be caught with its pants down and sunk with its planes?
“At the end of a combat cycle you must retreat air units excess to your carrier capacity.”
This happens to stop air units from land performing multiple combat cycle against enemy ships.
++++ OH that … yes land and carrier based planes must be seperate. the scale is very abstracted but truely its totally unrealistic to continue this process from OOB… Planes attacking from carriers and landing on land for use on the players following turn is horrible.
++++ thats totally realistic… the entire reason why specific ships sail together the escort ships form a ring around the carrier or battleship
Ok we’ll reword and include it under screening/protecting or a better word.
What were the figures for naval combat?
++++very good question: i dont have an answer.
We’ll have to grab some stats before we can tune the numbers.
++++++NO entirely different. The only yoke is the parent carrier…
So something like this instead…
“At the end of a combat cycle you must retreat air units whose parent carrier is lost or retreating.”
We’ll have to formalise the “ownership” of planes to carriers.
Then again its quite restrictive…and we’ll have to allow for cases where group A lost its carrier and group B lost its fighters…we’ll have to let them regroup…so in the end maybe we’ll just use the carrier capacity rule eh? :-D
one idea i was tinkering was to install some uber tactical idea of planes spending one turn to attack and another turn to refuel and rearm. that way like at Midway the carrier can be caught with its pants down and sunk with its planes?
Refuel and rearm….that would be like my equivalent sugguest for land combat.
We can argue this is not neccessary as planes fly really fast and can refuel/rearm during the one cycle.
Remember you said its about one month per combat cycle.
This happens to stop air units from land performing multiple combat cycle against enemy ships.
++++ OH that … yes land and carrier based planes must be seperate. the scale is very abstracted but truely its totally unrealistic to continue this process from OOB… Planes attacking from carriers and landing on land for use on the players following turn is horrible.
Some land planes simply can’t be upgraded to work as a carrier plane.
“Air units taken off a territory must land on a territory.”
“After the first cycle of combat, air units taken off a territory must retreat.”
However little reason why a carrier plane cannot land on land.
Optionally rule is new piece/unit, separating land and sea fighters.
Standard rule is sea planes becomes land planes once they land on a territory.
Refuel and rearm….that would be like my equivalent sugguest for land combat.
We can argue this is not neccessary as planes fly really fast and can refuel/rearm during the one cycle.
Remember you said its about one month per combat cycle.
+++++++ yep your correct it was just an idea… nothing major.
Quote
This happens to stop air units from land performing multiple combat cycle against enemy ships.
++++ OH that … yes land and carrier based planes must be seperate. the scale is very abstracted but truely its totally unrealistic to continue this process from OOB… Planes attacking from carriers and landing on land for use on the players following turn is horrible.
Some land planes simply can’t be upgraded to work as a carrier plane.
“Air units taken off a territory must land on a territory.”
“After the first cycle of combat, air units taken off a territory must retreat.”
However little reason why a carrier plane cannot land on land.
Optionally rule is new piece/unit, separating land and sea fighters.
Standard rule is sea planes becomes land planes once they land on a territory.
++++ yes i think we need a naval fighter unit under those older new units thread… and not allow land based planes to integrate with carriers anymore.
so any comments for modelling carrier planes “belonging” to their mother carrier?
@Imperious:
++++ yes i think we need a naval fighter unit under those older new units thread… and not allow land based planes to integrate with carriers anymore.
What about the case with no new units?
How about just not land air units land on carrier,
and make naval air units “convert” to land air units when landing on land and not able to convert back to naval air units?
1 US DD at SZ 11.
1 US CV at SZ 17.
1 German SS at SZ 12.
US declares DD at SZ 11 move into SZ 13 through SZ 12.
Before US (or other Allies powers) finishes declaring their movement, (which could involve US CV move from SZ 17 to SZ 13) Germany must declare whether to submerge SS?
1 US BMR at Gibraltar.
1 US CV at SZ 11.
1 German SS at SZ 12.
However, here US can’t do the same trick, the BMR is not gonna help open the path for the CV to go from SZ 11 to SZ 13.
All this is due to abstraction of time in OOB?
yes… the German player will announce his subs are on station at the time when the allies move into his zones containing the sub. otherwise he will just allow him to pass. remember only movement and combat is done together… the other stages can be done as each allied players decides… only when everybody is ready they conduct movement folowed by combat.
Ok so you are happy with the effects.
Now, with naval retreats.
Is there a parting shot? on surface ships? submarines and air units retreat immediately without parting shot right?
Where can you retreat to? Just any friendly sea zones including those that wasn’t friendly at the beginng of the turn?
That is…
As defender, can you retreat one sea zones the attacker came from and left nothing behind?
As attacker, can you retreat to newly acquired sea zones?
Ok so you are happy with the effects.
Now, with naval retreats.
Is there a parting shot?
++++ no parting shot…
on surface ships? submarines and air units retreat immediately without parting shot right?
++++right
Where can you retreat to?
++++ in attacks with subs they remain in the same sea zone. In attacks with surface ships i suppose they just retreat like in land combat.
Just any friendly sea zones including those that wasn’t friendly at the beginng of the turn?
++++ sea zones that are open… probably not SZ that contain enemy controlled islands however.
That is…
As defender, can you retreat one sea zones the attacker came from and left nothing behind?
++++ like in land combat after each combat round either side can retreat partially or in whole. The attacker must not be allowed to retreat “forward”, while the defender should retreat to if possible the nearest controlled territory.
As attacker, can you retreat to newly acquired sea zones?
+++++ you can take the sz where combat took place or retreat to adjacent seazones again not “forward”
forward= toward any other enemy ships or occupied zones/ territories. SZ will need to be marked with tokens of your nation.
oh crap I ended up wiping out your reply…
for the record you’ve agree to not use the token, submarines can still submerge or retreat like surface ships
@Imperious:
That island part we’ve gotta look into. Are you modelling coastal batteries or something?
++++ not at all… just putting the shortest method to describe the idea of not allowing the retreat to become an ‘opportunity’ to get closer to the enemy for a better strike… that is allways a problem in the oob.
Then you might as well make it you gotta retreat back the direction you came from like land combat.
Otherwise you have a side effect with your enemy island rule.
Japan holds Solomon Islands.
US fleet at SZ 45 (Solomon Islands) attacks Japan fleet at SZ 44.
US fleet can’t retreat back to SZ 45? :?
+++ i have to look at the map… but the retreat is basically toward your own territories/ units… it quite obvious when its just a retreat say to get at japanese transports and gain a free movement toward them.
Another example.
Japan holds Solomon Islands.
US fleet at SZ 45 (Solomon Islands) attacks Japanese fleet at SZ 44.
US feelt at SZ 43 also attacks the same Japanese fleet.
Is this case can the US fleet retreat back to SZ 45?
Its “towards enemy territory” but then they did come from that direction…
Can both US fleets retreat to SZ 45, joing up?
A sea zone is large and naval combat are more fluid.
But we might have to make it like land combat if you don’t want people hopping over the enemy.
to show I’ve replied
we dont need ships “hopping over” but by the same token to keep things simple if their is any choice at all, the retreating ships must move back or at the very least sideways toward any path that is closer to its own controlled territories than before. If we install every case and exemption we complicate a simple idea. Lets just keep it simple and semi-realistic. An obvious method of determining this is to answer the following question: " does your retreat bring you closer to enemy ships or enemy territories?"
The rule can be simple. But the situation can be complex. I just worry about side effects.
I think not able to retreat to get closer to enemy territories is realistic. But not neccessary the case with getting closer to enemy ships.
for example
7 8 9
4 5 6
1 2 3
2 Japanese DD at SZ7.
2 US DD at SZ8.
6 US DD at SZ2.
When Japanese fleet at SZ7 attacks US fleet at SZ8, I think US is happy to maneuver so Japanese fleet can retreat to SZ5…closer to large fleet at SZ2.
If we do it like our AARHE land combat attacker retreat rule its probably too restrictive. (individual land units can only retreat the direction they came from).
If we do it like OOB land combat attacker retreat rule its a little better. (land units can retreat to any of the direction where one or more land units came from).
Actually, when Allies breached the Altantic Wall they didn’t have to defeat all the German U-Boats in the area did they? Maybe hopping over the enemy is not too unrealistic.
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.
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?
