@ncscswitch:
…
Lastly, while you state above that a single piece in A&A does not equate to a single ship (which I agree with), the truth is that a DST in A&A does NOT represent THAT many more ships than is represented by a BB so as to allow for the massive upgrade in a DST’s abilities.
Says who???
@ncscswitch:
…HOWEVER, a BB unit in A&A is NOT just the Battleship or ships. It is the entire Battleship task force, which includes the supporting ships (such as DST’s) that would and DID always accompany a BB wherever it went (the same is true of AC’s, otherwise without those cruisers and AA DST’s, an AC would NEVER merit a 3 on defense). Thus many of the DST’s ARE accounted for, as assumed auxiliaries, with their more prominent ships on the game board.
So in a way, you are correct. The DST’s ARE firing in support shots as part of that 4 for the BB task force. But the seperate DST units, which presumably are those on ASW and AA patrol, do not in and of themselves merit a Bombard shot.
Remember, in Revised we are dealing with a GLOBAL game, and unit representations are overly simplified (no mechanized infantry, no sub tenders, no refueling ships, no PBY’s, etc., etc… these units are all assumed to be a part of the larger primary unit to which they were attached.)Â And thus the shore bombard aspect of DST’s is assumed by the BB task force, and the “individual” DST’s are considered to be the ASW and AA patrols of DST’s.
At least, that is how I view it.
Now we are talking the same language! A DD piece is in fact a “half battleship” or a smaller task force, not just some escort destroyers (wich is absolutely clear according to the combat capability and cost)! Hence the DD should have a shore bombardment capability, dont you think!!! And what about the Q I asked you about? Should it be shore bombardment on a 2 or a 3? And should there be any restrictions to the shore bombardment rule?
I don;t think it merits a change, unless tech is developed to increase the abilities of DST’s to be on par with Heavy Cruisers.
The DST bombard is already covered with the fact that they are assumed to be present with the BB unit.
Also, again this is a GLOBAL game, and DST’s were limitted to VERY coastal use on their bombard (immediate costal defenses and dock facilities for the most part). If the coastal territories were smaller and more isolated from the larger territory behind, tehn great, allow them to bombard (such as blasting Wake or Oki in the Pacific). But to allow them to nail FRANCE?
Nah, leave it as is. The DST bombard is covered as part of teh BB task force. Those “lone” DST’s are the escort DST’s, and the ASW DST’s. Unless you want to allow torpedoes that can fire into land, in which case I want my subs able to nail Paris too :-P
@ncscswitch:
I don;t think it merits a change…The DST bombard is already covered with the fact that they are assumed to be present with the BB unit…
Hmmm… What you say here is a contradictory. Destroyers can make shore bombardment along with battleships, but at the same time a single piece of destroyer unit cannot, even if in company with a single piece of battleship???
@ncscswitch:
Also, again this is a GLOBAL game, and DST’s were limitted to VERY coastal use on their bombard
And battleships were not??? Wake up!
@ncscswitch:
… The DST bombard is covered as part of teh BB task force. Those “lone” DST’s are the escort DST’s, and the ASW DST’s…
So one should consider a destroyer piece to be just some destroyer escorts, were as every other piece is considered to be a task force. Transports are just what they are supposed to be or??? Transports defending on a 1? I think you got your destoyers escorts in that defense value of 1! You must ask your self about the realism in a 3/3 combat ratio and a cost of 12 IPCs. Does it corresponds to some destroyer escorts! Nope, it does not. No need to argue about it. To me it rather sounds like a “half battleship” or simply a smaller task force that consist of some destroyers and some cruisers. Good bye!
I think I did rather well in terms of being a gentleman… I gave links, gave figures, and offered logical reasons for supporting the status quo.
In Pacific, with smaller territories, and a heavier emphasis on naval units, a DST bombard makes sense. On a global scale with larger territories, it simply does not.
The 3x3 of DST’s simpply reflects the nature of the DST… strong against AF and SUBs, which is what they were DESIGNED for.
But I just do not think that those 5" guns that were used for things like ‘targeting a crane and dock facilities in the Solomons’ can be considered to be equivalent to lobbing 16" shells a score of miles inland.
Now, if you want to expand the game, add things like Meachanized INF, Armored merchant marine, torpedo planes, etc., etc. on a board that is at least 4’x8’ and has seperate coastal and inland divisions that divide territories like Western Europe into about 10 smaller territories, then yes, by all means, add the DST bombard.
How exactly does a squadron of destroyers or 3-4 battleships actually destroy a corps sixed ( 3-5 divisions) of infantry? Shore bombardment should only be able to supress the counter attack for one round and not actually be responsible for killing 40,000 men. That clearly didnt happen anywhere… What happened in terms of extrapolatiing the abstract benifit was to prevent the defender the ability to make good an immediate counterattack… To translate this means for every hit the defender should not be able to attack with a unit selected by the attacker for one round.
Possible solution:
round two:
@ncscswitch:
…In Pacific, with smaller territories, and a heavier emphasis on naval units, a DST bombard makes sense. On a global scale with larger territories, it simply does not.
…But I just do not think that those 5" guns that were used for things like ‘targeting a crane and dock facilities in the Solomons’ can be considered to be equivalent to lobbing 16" shells a score of miles inland.
Well, to keep it short! First, shore bombardment were mainly used to soften up or take out enemy shore installations before an amphibious assault, hence no need to lobbing shells miles inland! Second, if one use the retorics of a game on a global scale with larger territories, then no shore bombardment should be allowed at all. Maybe an exception for islands. Have you ever herd of a battleship during WWII that could hit Berlin or Paris??? You are smart enough to find out that you just trying to justify a rule that is not consistent.
OK, not to quibble but…
With the range of 16" guns, that theoretically would put an entire coastal division within range of those guns. With 5" guns, only the immediate coastal troops, those squads and platoons on the immediate coastline, would be effected.
@ncscswitch:
OK, not to quibble but…
With the range of 16" guns, that theoretically would put an entire coastal division within range of those guns. With 5" guns, only the immediate coastal troops, those squads and platoons on the immediate coastline, would be effected.
You really must be a hard opponent to the weapons development “Combined Bombardment”!!! Me too, but for other reasons than yours!
I’m not going to offer an opinion on realism, since I find that a pretty pointless argument. But from the standpoint of game balance, allowing the DD a shore bombardment value of 2 as a basic ability is a good idea, as long as it’s paired with the suggested rule that each sea unit participating in shore bombardment must be accompanied by one amphibious land unit. This restriction should be extended to BBs as well.
Adding the capability to DDs will give a little omph to an overpriced and rarely purchased unit.
The one-for-one restriction on bombardments will stop the silly tactic of sending one Inf in an amphibious assault with 5 BB bombards.
While we are on the topic on shore bombards, I also think there should be a rule (discussed on another thread) that allows the attacker to choose which BBs (and DDs if they can bombard) will engage in sea combat and which will engage in shore bombardment, instead of the current rules which say they all need to engage in sea combat in there are enemy sea units to engage. This will stop the silly tactic of one sub stopping 5 BBs from bombarding.
…
While we are on the topic on shore bombards, I also think there should be a rule (discussed on another thread) that allows the attacker to choose which BBs (and DDs if they can bombard) will engage in sea combat and which will engage in shore bombardment, instead of the current rules which say they all need to engage in sea combat in there are enemy sea units to engage. This will stop the silly tactic of one sub stopping 5 BBs from bombarding.
I don’t find the tactic silly, were one sub can be used to prevent a combat force of BBs (and DDs) from engage in shore bombardment. So called midget submarines were actually used for coast defense, to attack an advancing enemy fleet.
…Â from the standpoint of game balance, allowing the DD a shore bombardment value of 2 as a basic ability is a good idea, as long as it’s paired with the suggested rule that each sea unit participating in shore bombardment must be accompanied by one amphibious land unit… Adding the capability to DDs will give a little omph to an overpriced and rarely purchased unit.
Yes, yes, yes!!! That is exactly what I think and the hole purpose of giving destroyers the special ability to shore bombard on a 2 or less, of course with the restriction of matching one-for-one. I cannot really see why anyone would argue about it, unless one what to keep it as realistic as possible, like Impy! I partly agree with Impy about a reduction in defense rather than a preemtive attack, but it is too deviant from the original and too complicated.
IF DD would have a shore bombardment, who would buy BB’s then?
the main problem is: both ships are way to expensive!
oh, and the other ships as well!
and so are the AF!
I would like to see some mass naval battles in a game,
but this is only possible when AF and ships are less expensive…
as for the BB? I occasionally buy one for the only naval battle we have sometimes: Japan versus USA…
@Axel:
IF DD would have a shore bombardment, who would buy BB’s then?
the main problem is: both ships are way to expensive!
oh, and the other ships as well!
and so are the AF!I would like to see some mass naval battles in a game,
but this is only possible when AF and ships are less expensive…as for the BB? I occasionally buy one for the only naval battle we have sometimes: Japan versus USA…
A special ability for destroyers to shore bombard on a 2 or less would not make battleships worthless. If you have red all replies here you would know why. Hit and run engagements for battlships are very attractive, it takes to 2 hits to destroy a battleship. However you are right about that battleships and destroyers are too expensive IMHO!
Destroyers
Description: Small, fast warships that hunt submarines.
Cost: 10
Attack: 2
Defense: 3
Move: 2
Special Abilities
Submarine Disruption: A destroyer cancels the special abilities of submarines. Enemy submarines cannot move freely through a sea zone containing your destroyer. If you have destroyers in a combat involving enemy submarines, they attack on a 2 and defend on a 3. Any casualties of enemy submarines can return fire. Also, enemy submarines cannot submerge while your destroyer is present.
Shore Bombardment: revised rules.
Battleships
Description: Powerful and nearly indestructible monarchs of the sea.
Cost: 20
Attack: 4
Defense: 4
Move: 2
Special Abilities
Two Hits to destroy: Just like the box rules.
Shore Bombardment: revised rules.
Ah yes, but lower the cost of those units would remove an historical accuracy from the game… the decline of surface ships in favor of the Carrier…
@ncscswitch:
Ah yes, but lower the cost of those units would remove an historical accuracy from the game… the decline of surface ships in favor of the Carrier…
What??? :?
Please be more precise here!!!
@ncscswitch:
Ah yes, but lower the cost of those units would remove an historical accuracy from the game… the decline of surface ships in favor of the Carrier…
who cares about historal accuracy in this case?
it’s still a game, right?
and you have to have LOT’s of fantasy to see the realism as it is now!
If the game should be historical accurate?
then armor could not defend when you make a landing in Western Europe for example :-P
and most of all: axis would never win the battle or even the war…
:roll:
what I mean: I still prefer a NICE and FUN game, rather then being subject to a historical accurate -but not compelling- replay of history where ships cost a lot more etc…
By historical accuracy, I was refering to the fact that WWII was the war that put an end to the dreadnaughts. By the time Midway was complete, BB’s were passe, and Carriers would become the lords of the seas for the next 60+ years.
With the current set-up of IPC costs in Revised (lower AC and FIG costs), Revised moves toward that naval air power dominance instead of the WWI subs and BB’s.
Yes!
Every nation starts with a couple ftrs, so for 16 IPCs you get a defense of 3 + 4 + 4, no other ship can compare or even come close, even if you beaf up DD and drop their cost to 8 that is still only two 3’s for 16 and a BB can give you basically two 4’s but for 24 IPC’s. And if you are attacked by enough units you only get one roll.
As for offense a ftr costs 10 and out classes (or is cheaper then any naval unit), plus they can’t even be hit by subs, and a bom has just as much punch as a BB and cost 9 IPC less. Plus planes have greater range and are reusuable and can also serve in land combat.
Exactly Darth…
By the time of WWII, General Mitchell’s prediction had come true…
The BEST navy has WINGS…
“It is probable that future war will be conducted by a special class, the Air Force, as it was by the armored knights of the middle ages.”
Brig. Gen. William “Billy” Mitchell, Winged Defense, 1924
This is why I said Navies were irrelevent in my initial obs thread.
They aren’t really irrelevant, but with an AC loaded, plus planes near by and a bunch of trans that is all you should need. Defensive power and a way to troops where they need to go.
