@Baron - I considered but then decided against giving transports AAA. I didn’t want to add unintended complexity or balance issues to the game. This is already a pretty big rule change. I felt it would be better not to tweak how transport strategies are conducted, as flawed as they may be. I think i might give it a play test as is (or even somewhat more simplified if posible) to see if it has any unintended compound consequences. If it works out OK, it might be neat to add AAA to the transports …. However, I can see people making historical arguments for and against doing this.
@YG - I know what you mean about complexity. It seems somewhat complex in writing. But I’ve rolled out several “test battles” … Not actual game testing … Just isolated test battles by myself. When broken down, it should only add one additional step to a battle, that is the ship AAA rolls against attacking aircraft. Everything else is handled pretty much the same.
When you get a chance, please do a couple of test-battles to get ahold of the dynamics and let me know what you think. Maybe there are some ways to make it smoother.
I really like the idea of separating ships and air-units as well. Actually, this would also address many of the issues you mentioned in your dark skies post. … Also, I think it is going to place a greater value on the small islands and atoll’s in the Pacific Theater. Players are going to want to control the islands and have their carrier fleets in the same sea zone. That way, if a carrier gets damaged by an air-strike, your air units have a place to land.
I’m totally amazed by this Liberty ship AA armament:
SS John W. Brown
Armament:
As built:1 5-inch (127-mm)/38-caliber stern gun 7 Oerlikon 20 mm cannon in single mounts
October 1942:1 3-inch (76.2-mm)/ 50-caliber bow gun added 1 Oerlikon 20 mm cannon removed
June 1943: 2 Oerlikon 20 mm cannon added
March 1943: 2 3-inch (76.2-mm)/ 50-caliber stern guns added
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_John_W._Brown
I updated the Rules Set in the original post to reflect the great opinions and suggestions so far in this thread.
I also added a “Credits and Special Thanks” section at the bottom of the rules set.
Thanks a lot! Looking very forward to play testing this on May 8th.
I updated the Rules Set in the original post to reflect the great opinions and suggestions so far in this thread.
I also added a “Credits and Special Thanks” section at the bottom of the rules set.
Thanks a lot! Looking very forward to play testing this on May 8th.
TAC Bombers
Applies to NAVAL BATTLES ONLY: During attack and defense, if a TAC bomber roles a 1, the DIE ROLLER may choose which ship to apply the hit to.
All other roles other than 1 are treated as normal.
The Die Roller applies their TAC @1 hits first.
Then, the regular hits are applied as normal by the person receiving them.
Die Roller may choose to hit ANY enemy ship in the battle, including Transport.
If you apply the TacB hit first, you may damage some Carrier but it is not very effective.
You should make some dice play tests while allowing all TcBs hit to be chosen by TcB owner.
That way, I believe you will prevent warships stacking.
Otherwise, I don’t see much impact from TcBs snake eyes.
At most, you may select Cruiser to be sure to sink a bigger fish.
Hello Baron. I am afraid that by giving the TACs the hit selection with EVERY HIT, it is going to swing the game out of balance. I did test-battles by giving TACs the capability select all of their hits. The result was that the amount IPCs lost swung very far in favor of the attacker. … Basically, if TACs can select all of their hits, they are going to cause 11+ IPCs of damage with every hit … or even more if they hit Loaded Transports!
Also, the focus of Naval Air Attacks isn’t so much to prevent Capital Ship Stacking (although it helps against this) … it is also to give more value to the small islands and atoll’s in the Pacific.
This is because if a TAC just scores a SINGLE hit on a loaded CV, the planes on the CV will not have anywhere to land unless the fleet is positioned around a friendly island.
The 2nd goal was to force players to put more emphasis on providing sufficent air cover for their fleets … be it with air bases or carriers.
In the end, the power of air units at sea is already greatly improved!!! Ships can ONLY hit air units now with their AAA abilities!
I would propose the following: We do some “Test Games” with TACs selecting their hits @1. If we come to the conclusion that there is not enough punch in the TAC Naval Air Attacks, then we increase it to 2 or less.
Very convincing.
The “1” roll mechanic is just not OOB.
If, big if, their is a better mechanic I would rather chose it.
For now, I have no clear idea.
I will try to find something which stay inside odds you are looking for.
Two additional items to discuss:
When this rule is combined with the “High Luck” rule from YG. (The version where hits of @3 can be placed in the 3 column, @4 in the 4 column etc…) The TACs now get a nice bonus in naval combat. They can choose their target when rolling @1. And, they can potentially hit @4 targets with their modifier and a roll of 4. I rolled out several test battles the other night and didn’t notice any unbalance issues. … as long as both sides had decent air-cover that is!!! … A navy fleet without air-cover is doomed. (as they should be in WWII) I think this addresses the concerns that BM had with making the TAC bonus too weak. When combined they seem to preform very nice, but not too powerful.
I am thinking about adding the following text to the Navy Rules: “All planes participating in a naval battle must have an available landing target between combat rounds. Otherwise, they are immediately destroyed. Does not apply for combat conducted in a sea-zone adjacent to a friendly land-zone or around a friendly island.”
This would prevent planes from fighting on while their carrier has been destroyed from under them. Comments?
Thanks jetset, gonna go over your revised first post tonight when I get away from work.
Hello Baron. I am afraid that by giving the TACs the hit selection with EVERY HIT, it is going to swing the game out of balance. I did test-battles by giving TACs the capability select all of their hits. The result was that the amount IPCs lost swung very far in favor of the attacker. … Basically, if TACs can select all of their hits, they are going to cause 11+ IPCs of damage with every hit … or even more if they hit Loaded Transports!
Also, the focus of Naval Air Attacks isn’t so much to prevent Capital Ship Stacking (although it helps against this) … it is also to give more value to the small islands and atoll’s in the Pacific.
This is because if a TAC just scores a SINGLE hit on a loaded CV, the planes on the CV will not have anywhere to land unless the fleet is positioned around a friendly island.
The 2nd goal was to force players to put more emphasis on providing sufficent air cover for their fleets … be it with air bases or carriers.
In the end, the power of air units at sea is already greatly improved!!! Ships can ONLY hit air units now with their AAA abilities!
I would propose the following: We do some “Test Games” with TACs selecting their hits @1. If we come to the conclusion that there is not enough punch in the TAC Naval Air Attacks, then we increase it to 2 or less.
What do you think about giving TcBs whether a direct attack on Warships (Sub, DD or Cruiser), or on Capital warships and TPs?
The owner still choose amongst units the specific casualty.
You let Fg and Bomber make their hits first, then after, TcBs hits are directed on warships or Capital warships & TPs.
talked this over with my group and they don’t want any changes to the resolve combat phase. I’m more inclined to develop rules that my group might play, things like national objective modifications, turn order modifications, research & development modifications… etc. So I’ll be focusing my energy on refining the game for my group before jumping into concepts like the High Luck system. let me know how this works out for you guys.
Thanks YG. Please keep the ideas coming. I’m grabbing bits and pieces and mashing it together with some of my own ideas to make a nice set of rules that works out for my group too.
