AARHE: proposed naval combat rules change

Imperious Leader >
Oops, I wasn’t asking for explanation of exisitng rules. I was referring to LurtGodel7’s ideas.

by choice of the attacker he will still allocate the hit on the battleship
I didn’t interpret it that way before
once screening is chosen I didn’t consider the reallocating of hits to be optional

damaged BB and preemptive strike ability
I don’t know about removing preemptive strike
like regardless of armor damage battleship guns are still massive range

KurtGodel7 >
destroyer can’t hurt capital ships
probably need a rule to handle whether the optional cruisers unit is used
(a rule like how we handle naval fighter, if optional unit naval fighter is used fighter can’t land on carrier, otherwise fighters can land on carrier)

fighters can’t do much else besides dogfighting
I am reserved about that, did they have air superiority fighters back in WWII? I was under the impression they were general war planes

Our Fighter-bomber is what generically the variant treats all these types of dive bombers and torpedo bombers. Simply stated its too many types of units to deal with and Fighter-Bomber is the generic term that can encompass all these types into one UNIT. A Soviet dive bomber was used differently than a Japanese, while a Torpedo bomber is way too specific to be in such an abstracted game.

WE already got 5 types of planes:

fighter
naval fighter
fighter-bomber
strategic bomber
transport plane

2 of these are optional air units…

if you think that a fighter-bomber cannot also be a dive bomber  then i don’t know what to say. Thats exactly what it is in AARHE. A naval fighter is basically a torpedo bomber and a fighter. The differences in combat with a kate and Zero and a hellcat and mustang do not warrant a separate category in the variant. Its bad enough when you all like 8 new units trying to get people to play something new. To keep adding more and more pieces adds to the notion: “This is too much of a change i just want to play revised….forget this…”

secondly, the transport plane essentially takes some of the other duties from the level bomber like airborne and air transport.

Under your system it would make alot more sense to use the “cost or less” principle in addressing combat loss allocations. So the defender must remove first a unit in the same price range or less before they can select a higher priced unit.  But these systems lose alot of historical flavor and are largely being done anyway by this method except when the defender selects the free hit on the BB.

It also does not take into account the purpose of some ships as naval escort. Under AARHE the “escorts” Cruisers and destroyer can deflect one hit allocation at a 1/1 basis: thus they serve as true escorts. Also transports can not longer be allocated unless they are the last ship

So you two are almost on the same track. Just different names. Fighter bomber vs. dive bomber.

AARHE’s figher bomber is pretty much KurtGodel7’s “jack-of-all-trades plane” dive bomber.
In fact it can perform a limited SBR attack.

@Imperious:

the transport plane essentially takes some of the other duties from the level bomber like airborne and air transport.

Come to think of it we need to add in rules to handle the optional unit like naval fighter.
(If optional unit naval fighter is selected, only naval fighter can land on carrier.)
So if optional unit transport plane is not selected, the bomber can carry 1 paratrooper. (Transport plane can carry two.)

Also transports can not longer be allocated unless they are the last ship

Yeah KurtGodel7’s system also disallows using transports as fodder.

Another issue i didn’t bring up is this: IN the case of Germany and Russia a dive bomber was a totally land based plane to direct targeted attacks on tanks and armored cars. A Japanese dive bomber has the connotation of a purely naval based plane.

This is another reason why we just have fighter-bomber because the name includes both types and nobody can complain. a stuka and a kate are both fighter-bombers.

The German carrier never got going because Goering didn’t want a separate and distinct control of “everything that fly’s belongs to me” Becoming the responsibility of another possibly more capable military leader. He would never part with any control the the kreigmarine and thats the final word on why the Graf Zeppelin never saw action. Also, the skill set of land and sea operations are different so the divebomber and land based  fighter-bomber skills are quite different. For one landing and taking off a carrier is hard to do.

@KurtGodel7:

I realize the current system is a little more realistic–ships choose their targets, then escorts interpose. But this added realism makes the system somewhat more cumbersome;

Yes I guess the current system is cumbersome.
Maybe it can be trimmed down.

For starters, escort screening during “submarine warfare” and “air combat” could merge.
QUESTION could we make escorts screen the same target during both opening-fire steps?

current system…

Opening-fire
Submarine Warfare
1. Attacker then defender screens.
2. Attacking then defending SS (submarine) fires.
3. Attacker then defender performs ASW.
4. Remove casualties.
Air Combat
1. Attacker then defender screens.
2. Attacking then defending ships perform Anti-air. Remove casualties.
3. Attacking then defending air unit’s fire.
4. Attacking then defending BB (battleship) fire.
5. Remove casualties.
Main-round
1. Other attacking sea unit’s fire.
2. Other defending sea unit’s fire.
3. Remove casualties.
Retreat Decision

I suppose if I wanted to be 100% realistic I could allow players to choose between land-based and carrier-based fighters, dive bombers, and maybe even torpedo bombers. The land-based versions of these planes would be either slightly cheaper or a little more powerful; but it wouldn’t be a huge distinction.

Yeah thats pretty much the current system.
land-based fighter -> FTR (fighter)
carrier-based fighter -> NAV (naval fighter)
dive bombers -> FB (fighter bomber)

Fighter planes couldn’t do much against most land or sea targets, but were very good at shooting down enemy airplanes.

I am still reserved about the view that fighter planes are not able to attack ground properly.
For example, the bombs load…

German dive    German dive                German fighter              UK fighter    US dive
                  Ju 87A            Ju 87B                        BF-109                        Spitfire        Douglas SBD Dauntless
bombs        1 x 250kg      1 x 259kg + 4 x 50kg    1×250 kg or 4 x 50kg    2 x 110kg    1020kg

current system…

attack defense dogfight move cost
FTR  3        4          2/3      4      10
NAV 3        2          2/2        2      8
FB    3        2          1/2        4    8
BMR 4        1          0/1        6    15
TP  0        0          0/1        4    8

QUESTION by the way should we make transport plane move 6 (just like bomber)?

by the way should we make transport plane move 6 (just like bomber)?

yes i thought this was the range in the first place

what about the other question of making esorts screen the same target ship during boht air combat and submarine warfare?

and any other another ideas for streamlining the combat sequence?

Thats what they are supposed to do. THAT should already be in the rules. They are escorts for any type of attack. The allocations are for all types of naval combat

@Imperious:

Thats what they are supposed to do. THAT should already be in the rules.

Ok thats all good then. I’ll update it.
Read the file again when you have the time.
Might pick out more communication errors.

They are escorts for any type of attack. The allocations are for all types of naval combat

I thought escorts are only during opening-fire step (because thats when attacks are selective).
Main round step allocates according to hit allocation chart.

Should a friendly destroyer be able to take a battleship hit for a friendly battleship?
If not I would clarify …

Opening-fire
Screening
1. Attacker then defender declare screens for submarine warfare and air combat.
Submarine Warfare
1. Attacking then defending SS (submarine) fires.
2. Attacker then defender performs ASW.
3. Remove casualties.
Air Combat
1. Attacking then defending ships perform Anti-air. Remove casualties.
2. Attacking then defending air unit’s fire.
3. Remove casualties.
Battleship
1. Attacking then defending BB (battleship) fires.
2. Remove casualties.
Main-round
1. Other attacking sea unit’s fire.
2. Other defending sea unit’s fire.
3. Remove casualties.
Retreat Decision

The selective fire of air units (in air superiority) and submarines makes it messy if I simplify it further.

I think this is how it should look.

Opening-fire naval combat sequence:

Submarine warfare
1. Attacker then defender declare screens for submarine warfare and air combat.
Submarine Warfare
1. Attacking then defending SS (submarine) fires at surface ships.
2. Attacker then defender performs ASW.
3. Remove casualties from targeted ships.

Air Combat
1. Attacking then defending ships perform Anti-air. Remove casualties.
2. Attacking then defending air unit’s fire.
3. Remove casualties.

Battleship
1. Attacking then defending BB (battleship) fires.
2. Remove casualties.

Main-round
1. Other attacking sea unit’s fire.
2. Other defending sea unit’s fire.
3. Remove casualties.

Retreat Decision

yep