you don’t feel like putting DD back to move of 3?
Destroyers should really be at 2 move they were not as fast as crusers and carriers. Besides battleships will not have a ‘little buddy’ if we make 3 ships going 3.
Are you sure?
At a glance (wikipedia examples) Fletcher class destroyer, Alaska class cruiser and Essex/Midway class aircraft carrier all travelled 30-35knots.
I think we went through this already when we first made DD (destroyer), CA (cruiser) and CV (aircraft carrier) move 3…and left BB (battleship) and SS (submarine) at 2.
ok fine let them move 3 with carriers.
someone could double check though
*check more classes
*check speed + range
Research: :wink:
A destroyer weight from 1000 to 3000 tons. She sails fast, up to 40 knots. She is the fastest ship in the fleet. Her weak point is the range. Whereas a battleship or a cruiser can sail 10 000 miles upward, the destroyer can hardly put more than 1000 or 2000 miles, a couple of days of sailing. That forced the task forces during the war to perform lengthy and dangerous fueling operations, where either fleet tankers or bigger ships (carriers, battleships) gave away part of their fuel to the guzzling destroyers.
(source: http://users.swing.be/navbat/edito/navires/typesnavires.htm )
This means they where really fast, but lacked the range… So what will it be? 3 or 2
Yes but you did read the note about their limited range?
They used alot of fuel and they were not used on long range combat missions. I think they can go at 3 but they have to be with carriers or cruisers. They have to be escorting the larger ships. I dont want groups of them hunting around the world in packs. Just make the rules say they move at 3 with carriers and cruisers only.
If too many ships move 3 it will make the other ships become useless. IN fact i would only make the carriers move 3 alone…but i know that is not a majority opinion.
I vote for a range of 2! CV’s can be protected by expensive CA’s, and BB’s by “cheap” DD’s then.
OK 2 it is.
Tekkyy lets add this new stuff to the file.
Ok 2 it is.
Transport attack 0 defend 1
We a have naval combat hit allocation system.
We say AP (transports, and their esorts and auxiliaries) are outclassed by combat ships like DD (destroyer) and BB (battleship).
So for naval combat hit allocation…
AP hits go on AP only.
Now its a bit weird when
3 DD + 1 AP –-attacks—> 1 DD + 2 AP
and defender AP scores hits on attacker AP…which in reality would be avoiding combat
So I make it
AP(transport) hits are invalid when enemy has non-AP surface naval unit; and must be allocated on AP.
What do you think?
OK but what about the idea from Harris on the transport issue…
the latest is… transports have no value…if unprotected they are just eliminated if enemy subs, ships, planes attack. of course they can retreat after the first round…
ideas?
yeah the argument given by someone at Harris’s forum was good
Revised added Destroyers
“Deluxe” and AARHE and other house rules added Cruisers
so the little esorts implicitly represented by the AP and CV piece are totally outclassed by combat ships
but maybe not the funny situation of AP automatically die as proposed over there
they can just retreat if only them left…simulating them avoding combat and run as soon as things look bad, rather than suddenly die
so just
AP (transport) 0/0
CV (aircraft carrier) 1/1
and
naval combat ends at the end of cycle when both side only have AP left
hostile AP in sea zone do not prevent amphibious landing (like submerged submarines)
Yes over at Harris they seem not to believe in defender retreats…In a few cases they want purist useless small changes do they dont have to alter their strategy sheets for a ‘different game’ LH is gonna set the score. I really think he will make alot of changes and that is good for business. Revised needs alot of house cleaning and we are the cleaning crew.
this situation will soon change…closer to what we understand to be true.
Regarding the problem of your enemy building a ship to “kick you out” of the sea zone…
building naval units in hostile sea zones should stay as it in from LHTR (allowed)
lets do a small fix … staying in a hostile sea zone does not count as attacking, combat is not forced to not occur
This can be used to avoid combat completely. I think it may work for open sea zones with no land, but in cases were its your coastline and you got ships protecting it i don’t think its a good idea to allow either side the opportunity to avoid a battle.
you can’t avoid combat completely
naval units (besides submarines) are still not allowed to enter a hostile sea zone without attacking
in the case of building units in a hostile sea zone
it does not apply to open sea zones at all
in OOB there are no other situations where you can start in a hostile sea zone (1. enemy built naval unit in your sea zone 2. submarines submerged)
in AARHE there is one more situation to cater for, “retreat via break-off” in naval combat
what I dont like is how the enemy can build a naval unit in your sea zone and not start combat
and then when its your turn you must get out or start combat
(for the strategic advantages such as waiting for reinforcement or simply the defence values being better than attack values, of course this partially eroded under AARHE, its mainly the air units left that are better on defense)
OK make an example using the map. Im not sure how this is a bad thing.
If japan parks her fleet off of the west USA coast… in OOB you can still place new naval in this SZ and combat is required. Why should it be different? I can see in a open SZ ( no land at all) that its plausible to have opposing fleets remain in the same sea zone and not have any combat… as a new idea that could possibly work… any other cases im not thinking they should be possible. An enemy fleet adjacent from your own controlled land territories/islands should be a required combat situation.
@Imperious:
If japan parks her fleet off of the west USA coast… in OOB you can still place new naval in this SZ and combat is required.
Up to the point of “combat is required” is good.
But then why should it be the Japan fleet that is the attacker? Why not the US fleet that is the attacker?
Should the revelant higher combat values of defender over attacker be given to the Japan fleet which is doing “naval blockade” style camping?
The situation is a bit more strange with the English Channel, North Sea or the Sea of Japan…where there could be two opposing ICs building navy into the same SZ.
1)The only thing that could work is mandatory combat for any SZ where you place new ships. So in the example Japan will have to either move away or face mandatory combat.
2)In open SZ both can remain w/o combat, unless one side has some Islands or territory which goes back to case #1.
