Battlecruisers?

@Tigerman77:

I’m not arguing about how to use the pieces! I’m arguing the fact that if made available there could be house rules made to fit the units in the game….global or tactical game…any game! IMHO, I think the 3 naval units I mentioned before could add to a game, obviously not as historic as adding the mechs and tacs!! Since we have 2 people willing to make pieces I think it would be good to expand unit catagories as much as possible. Just sayin!

Well, I do agree on this much… I think that perhaps that, for example, an Alaska, which really is roughly a half-step between, say, and Iowa and a Baltimore-class cruiser, would be a great 7-7 unit on a d12 system.  As to whether it gets 1 hit or 2, I’m thinking that whatever a carrier gets, it would be about the same: not as tough as a battleship, but definitely a step above a cruiser, and probably closer to a BB than to a CA.  Probably this means that if you go to a 3-hit BB, or a 1 hit CV, the armor difference between a BB and a BC could be represented, but if both the CV and the BB stay 2-hit units, then a BC would be there too.

Fast Battleships really ended the value of the BC. They got the same speed and also had larger guns and better plating.

Yeah, that’s basically the size of it.

But the battlecruiser also had a more efficient range that it could operate making them suited for commerce raiding and patrolling. Battleships sucked fuel and needed close bases to operate from.

The Battlecuiser should have the increased range which translates into ‘speed’

Well, that’s a point.  What we’re really dealing with here is actually “strategic” speed rather than “tactical” speed, given the game’s overall scale, which is why we probably can’t represent the difference between fast tanks and slow ones on this scale.  In efficiency, though, I’m not sure that this works so well as a differentiator between BB’s and BC’s.  I think it actually probably works better on an “old” vs. “new” basis.  For example, I was just reading up on the battle of Guadalcanal the other month (awesome book btw, titled Neptune’s Inferno any of y’all who are really interested in getting into the nuts and bolts of the Pacific War, that guy’s an awesome writer, I couldn’t put it down…) but anyway, the author answered a Q I’d long had: “Why didn’t the US use some of its old BB’s in the Guadalcanal Campaign?”  The answer seems to be this very effciency issue you raised: the US didn’t yet have the oiler fleet to keep the old BB’s supplied that far from base.

Interestingly, though, the new BB’s just coming on line were much more efficient, which is why the Washington and SD were on-hand to finally be sent into the fray in the decisive 2nd Naval Battle of Guadalcanal!

Given this, I’d say it makes more sense to give the movement range of 3 to all the new BB’s, BC’s, CV’s/ CVL’s, CA’s/CL’s & DD’s, but not to the old BB’s subs, transports, DE’s, and CVE’s (if we have them).

Hey guys I’m making a house rule where naval bases and airbases are used for doing things like refueling units. I need to know the cruising speed and distance for all the current naval units and maybe the ones your thinking about making. I might even edit how far a unit can move.

Well yeah I’m also making supply rules but I believe someone here mentioned that Battleships needed to stay near a base for fuel. The point is I’m making it so naval bases, and airbases become more valuable. This means that those little islands in the Pacific like the Gillbert Islands and Guam will mean something other than place to take for “fun” when you’ve destroyed your opponents fleet. Also think about this. A destroyer takes lesss fuel and ammunition then a battleship. If we assume that a oiler is always with these ships then that means the battleship’s oiler will need resupplying more often than the destroyer’s. Also these oiler’s wouldn’t go out to sea unescorted so that means no automatic refueling. I don’t want to add another use for transports and I’m assuming these are mainly transports for moving troops not supplies (even though they could be used for both  :-) ). In the end I cold just really use some help as I’m not a navy expert, not even roughly learned.

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.

@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.

Their 15" calibers may have been the same, but their performances were completely different.  The Hood’s main guns were 42 calibers in length, and could fire an 871-kg armour-piercing shell at a muzzle velocity of 750 m/sec.  Those of the Bismarck were 52 calibers in length, and could fire an 800-kg armour-piercing shell at a muzzle velocity of 820 m/sec.

And thats why the BC is less powerful than a BB. The larger ( even by 1 inch) is a substantial advantage in piercing ability. The Hood could not stand up to Bismarck, The Bismarck could have easily took out both Prince of Whales and Hood.

Okay I decided that this rule would be bad if you could only refuel at naval bases so yes transports can load resources but only at bases. Still Just for the sake of argument whats the range of those ships. Just label it as shot, medium, or long.

@Pvt.Ryan:

Okay I decided that this rule would be bad if you could only refuel at naval bases so yes transports can load resources but only at bases. Still Just for the sake of argument whats the range of those ships. Just label it as shot, medium, or long.

Here’s the thing: speed, efficiency and range are 3 different things, but on this game-scale it’s hard to represent all three.  Example: DD’s were fast (usually the fastest ships in a given fleet) and used way less fuel, but because they were small, had smaller ranges.  Often in the field, DD’s needed to be refueled by BB’s, not because they were inefficient, but because their smaller fuel-carrying capacity limited their range.  If it’s an issue of speed by itself, I’d probably make all the ships that were closer to 30 knots have a 3-space “speed” and those closer to 20 knots have a 2-space “speed.”  What we then find is that all of the BC’s and new BB’s (i.e., post Washington Treaty, i.e. 1930 on because the treaty imposed a BB-building “holiday”) would be 3-space ships.  All old BB’s would be 2-space ships.  That makes it pretty simple.

For non-capital ships, it would also be fairly straightforward: CV’s, CVL’s, CA’s, CL’s, and DD’s would be 3-space “fast” ships.

The 2-space “slow” ships would be all subs, transports, CVE’s

If destroyer-escorts are included, they are about halfway in between, and could go either way.  I say, make them cheaper but slower and that would give them a reason for existing.  (In the real world, DE’s tended to be around 25-knot ships, because they only needed to keep up with slow convoys, so cost-savings were made on their machinery.)

That system, based just on speed alone, would be relatively straightforward and easy to remember on this scale.  If we take actual “range” per se into account, however, we open up a whole new world of complexities.  I could rattle off the approximate listed speed (give or take a couple of knots) of nearly every class of ship from WW2, but I couldn’t begin to give you range stats off the top of my head.

If you throw efficiency into it, that adds yet another whole new level of complexity.  More or less efficient than what?  These are the logistic nightmares that kept poor old Admiral Ghormley (and his entire staff, holed up in that dimly lit transport in the harbor of his “home port” in New Caledonia) up at night.

However, since the newer BB’s were apparently much more efficient than the older "“gas guzzlers” of Battleship Row, you could just go with “speed” as your determiner, since the newer, faster BB’s were apparently also the more efficient ones… it’d be much simpler than trying to figure out, say, exactly how much fuel each ship needs for a given amount of time and then figuring how to get it to them…  You would also probably find that you’d be building vast fleets of support ships.  Take a look at the order of battle of the 3rd or 5th Fleet late in the war, and if its a complete one, including support ships, and you’ll find an enormous pyramidal structure of support ships under-lying the rather limited list of actual combat ships at “the tip of the spear.”  I don’t think most A&A players are going to want to have to spend the time, IPC’s, and mental exertion necessary to build and manage this entire support structure.  Given the game-scale of A&A, most players want to concentrate on that “spear-tip”, not spend too much time on the whole shaft behind that spear.

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.

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.

@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.)

@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.

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.

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.

@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.

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…)