Weird Rocket Rule and BB barrage questions

Thank you for the quick answer. :)

You might want to consider adding this issue to the Revised FAQ/Errata (just using the wording on the AA50 manual would do it). This issue turns up every once in a while on forums.

You don’t have to take the fighter first.  It’s perfectly legal to take the carrier and leave the fighter stranded.  In order for the fighter’s move to not be a suicide mission, the only requirement is that it have a possible place to land (assuming the defender never hits).  Once the battle actually starts, it’s up to the owning player which casualties are taken.

The rules dealing with suicide missions address movement only.  There is nothing in the rules that indicates that casualties must be taken in a certain order to preserve fighters’ landing spaces.

@ncscswitch:

To limit the Yamato Class Battlehips by reducign their defensive fire against air to a 4, then you also would need to increase them to THREE hits to sink.

Marianas Turkey Shoot.  It was 200 and what hits to sink that single BB?

The Mushashi was sunk during the Sibuyan Sea phase of the Battle of Leyte Gulf, on October 24, 1944.  It is estimated that the ship took 20 torpedo hits, 17 direct bomb hits, and 18 near-misses by bombs prior to sinking.  After Action analysis by the US Navy and the post-war report done by the US Naval Technical Mission to Japan analyzing the loss of major Japanese warships (I have my own copy and also a complete set of the reports on microfilm) indicated that one of the reasons for the survival of the ship following so many hits was the relatively even distribution of them on both the port and starboard sides, in effect counterflooding the ship and preventing it from capsizing.  Extremely heavy damage forward from both bombs and torpedoes resulted in the ship sinking by the head, and capsizing in the process of sinking.

The Yamato was sunk on April 7, 1945 during the attempt to sortie to the Okinawa invasion in an effort to attack the transport fleet. The ship was hit by an estimated 13 torpedoes, and at least 8 comfirmed bombs.  I suspect that there were more unreported bomb hits, and no count was made of near misses.  The US torpedo plane pilots had been briefed to concentrate their attacks on one side, and all but 2 torpedo hits were on the port side.  The two on the starboard side were assessed at prolonging the process of sinking.  The Yamato did capsize to port, and the after magazines exploded when she sank.

In neither case did the ships have fighter cover, so they were totally dependent on anti-aircraft fire from themselves and the rest of the task force.  In neither case did the losses of US Navy aircraft attacking the ships exceed 10%.  In comparable attacks on US battleships, Japanese attacking aircraft losses started at 50% and at times reached 90%.  That is my basis for reducing the Yamato-class defensive fire against aircraft.

I am also very familiar with the protective schemes of both the Yamato and the Iowa class.  The Yamato class did have a major flaw with its torpedo protection system that left it highly vulnerable to flooding from a shallow torpedo hit, to some extent compensated by the depth of the side protection system.  There is also a problem with the torpedo protection system on the Iowa, which required modifying the liquid-loading scheme to restore full effectiveness.  Overall, I would rate the Yamato and Iowa equal in damage resistance.

I guess that I am looking at it more from the standpoint of a naval tactical gamer where individual ship characteristics can be easily factored in, verses a strategic game, where that is hard to do so, unless you have a pronounced disparity.  Also, keeping track of Three hits verses Two is much more difficult.  I will have to come up with another way of factoring in poor Japanese AA fire.  Two hits, and 5 attack and 5 defend it is.

Great.  thank you !!

Wow!
Were bombers flying around the world?
I’d love to play a game like that.

Where’s the unguarded territory if he blocked off the Baltic? What if there are no troops or very little troops in W. Europe? You may be infinitley efficient when you can bombard a territory, but when the territory doesn’t have many or any troops to bombard, or you are blocked, you are many turns behind in amassing the necessary troops to attack.

i think this rule is needlessly confusing because it’s not that beneficial or realistic for going through the added hassle of keeping enemy units on the board as prisoners. i also think this topic should be moved to house rules forum.