Posts made by B.AnderssonGameMaster

@DarthMaximus:

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.

So you think that BBs and DDs are more or less worthless in comparation to CAs. I agree, but don’t think it is a “gamebreaker” as it is now! Almost noone buy BBs and DDs (except for one DD). Why have a piece like BB that is more or less useless? I think the design of the BB and DD are not balanced as is now and need to be revised. First of all I think my airsupremacy rule clarifies the importance of wings and should be used as a standard rule in all games (if no enemy fighters, then your fighters attack or defend in the opening fire step of combat)! Then wings are more important and historical correct. How ever BBs and DDs are still and even more lousy pieces compared to a fully loaded CA! My suggestion is that BBs should cost 20 IPCs and DDs 10 IPCs with a 2/3 combat ratio and shore bombardment capability!

@Micoom:

Germany had Already Radar in place to defend the “Atlantic wall” in Early 1941, long before “Barbarossa” would begin… So Radar shouldn’t be a UK advantage at all in a 1942 scenario. Only in a 1939…

We are working here on a Historical edition for A&A, so for this game timelines are essential and therefore more important then game flexibility, IMO.

Germany had short wave radar only, hence did not pick up a signal on airplanes being long away and the warning was too late sometimes!

The game becomes more rigid with certain timelines and restrictions to those. I am on the other side here, lareger variations and game flexibility!

@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!!!

@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.

@tekkyy:

Whats frogmen used in battles or more like small tactical operations?

In the latter case it would happen more like rockets rather than a combat bonus.

Should the number of frogmen be proportional to submarines, surface ships, or infantry in the Mediterranean?
Probably a range of 1? Since we don’t expect the frogmen to swim too far.

Human torpedoes were launched to attack enemy ships in harbour. Speed 3-4 knots and manned by two frogmen. These attacks were mostly launched from submarines. That is why I restricted it to one sub per turn. these attacks were very successful and hence the increased attack ratio! These attacks were henced copied by UK and Germany due to the effectivness, hence no restriction to Mediterranean! Maybe one could say that the enemy ship must be in a sea zone next to land to be a fair game!

I think this variant will work as well!
Commando Frogmen
Italy was the first nation to use frogmen and human torpedoes. This secret naval weapon did a great deal of damage to the Royal Navy in the Mediterranean.
Each turn one of your submarines may target specific enemy ships, attack only. This submarine hit on a die roll of 3 or less.

@tekkyy:

On the technical side of things, WWII torpedoes has no tracking equipment right?

I wonder how does these long range torpedoes actually hit when fired from max. range of 40km?

Would that be like saturation style long range artillery bombardment?

There were acoustic torpedoes, armed with magnetic exploder which would cause the torpedoes to detonate beneath a ship even if it was not a direct hit!

@Imperious:

Thats great … but where are those NA’s for our project? post what you got at this time so we can get moving on this.

Ok, here is one for Italy,a perfectiion of your Frogmen!

Commando Frogmen
Italy was the first nation to use frogmen and human torpedoes. This secret naval weapon did a great deal of damage to the Royal Navy in the Mediterranean.
Your submarines may target specific enemy ships.

I have revised the NA “Long Lance Torpedo”. So far we have used this NA for submarines only. Perhaps it would be a better play to go for a modifier for destroyers, attack and defend  during opening fire step of combat during the first cycle of combat only! Subs were armed with a smaller versions of the Type 93 (Long Lance) torpedo that had a shorter range (5,000 to 12,000 meters), called Type 95 and 97. Hence I dont think the +1 modifier for submarines is right in a historical point of view. Neither do I think it is too powerful, not even in combination with the NA “Tokyo Express”.

3.  Long Lance Torpedoes (replace Kaiten Torpedoes)
The Japanese Navy possessed superior torpedoes in comparison with its Western counterparts, possessing an unequaled combination of speed, range, and hitting power.
During the first cycle of combat only (both attack and defense qualify) your destroyers fire in the opening fire step of combat.Any cassualties destroyed are removed from play, with no chance to counter-attack. In succeeding cycles of combat, your destroyers fire in the attacking units fire or defending units fire step of combat. This special ability is cancelled if enemy fighters are present.

The Japanese Navy outfitted many of its destroyers and cruisers with the Type 93 torpedo. The long range, speed, and heavy warhead of the Type 93 gave these warships a formidable punch. The Type 93 had a maximum range of 40,000 meters with a 1,080 lb (490 kg) warhead. In comparison the 16 inch /L45 guns mounted on the then-current US Colorado-class battleships fired a 2,110 lb (957 kg) shell to an absolute maximum range of 39,600 yards (36,210 m). Practical ranges for both weapons were much shorter, but still fairly comparable overall. In early battles, Japanese destroyers and cruisers were able to launch their torpedoes from over 20,000 metres out at unsuspecting Allied ships that were attempting to close to gun range, expecting torpedoes to be fired at less than 10,000 metres, the typical range of that era. This weapon, coupled with the flexible night battle tactics practiced by Japan’s cruisers and destroyers, led to victory after victory in the early stages of the war. Only as American radar and gunfire control became increasingly sophisticated would the Japanese advantage in night battles begin to disappear, and even then a Long Lance-armed Japanese destroyer was still a thing to be feared.

Long Lance Torpedoes (replace Kaiten Torpedoes)
The Japanese Navy possessed superior torpedoes in comparison with its Western counterparts, possessing an unequaled combination of speed, range, and hitting power.
During the first cycle of combat only (both attack and defense qualify) your destroyers fire in the opening fire step of combat. Any cassualties destroyed are removed from play, with no chance to counter-attack. In succeeding cycles of combat, your destroyers fire in the attacking units fire or defending units fire step of combat. This special ability is cancelled if enemy fighters are present.

Impy I know you wrote this somewhere else:

"Japan (Lance Torpedo) = FTR gets +1 attack modifier in naval combat, DD fire in the opening-fire instead of main-round for first cycle of naval combat. "

So far we have used this NA for submarines only. Perhaps it would be a better play to go for a modifier for destroyers, attack during opening fire step of combat during the first cycle of combat only! Subs were armed with a smaller versions of the Type 93 torpedo that had a shorter range (5,000 to 12,000 meters), called Type 95 and 97. I dont think the Long Lance were airborn so a +1 modifier for fighters isn’t right in a historical point of view.

The Japanese Navy outfitted many of its destroyers and cruisers with the Type 93 torpedo (Long Lance). The long range, speed, and heavy warhead of the Type 93 gave these warships a formidable punch. The Type 93 had a maximum range of 40,000 meters with a 1,080 lb (490 kg) warhead. In comparison the 16 inch /L45 guns mounted on the then-current US Colorado-class battleships fired a 2,110 lb (957 kg) shell to an absolute maximum range of 39,600 yards (36,210 m). Practical ranges for both weapons were much shorter, but still fairly comparable overall. In early battles, Japanese destroyers and cruisers were able to launch their torpedoes from over 20,000 metres out at unsuspecting Allied ships that were attempting to close to gun range, expecting torpedoes to be fired at less than 10,000 metres, the typical range of that era. This weapon, coupled with the flexible night battle tactics practiced by Japan’s cruisers and destroyers, led to victory after victory in the early stages of the war. Only as American radar and gunfire control became increasingly sophisticated would the Japanese advantage in night battles begin to disappear, and even then a Long Lance-armed Japanese destroyer was still a thing to be feared.

@JamesG:

… 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.

@JamesG:

…

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.

@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!

@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.

@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!

@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.)  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?

@ncscswitch:

Ah, but the one piece, one ship rule applies to BB’s as well as DST’s…

He, he, he hard to find out that one was wrong and someone else was right …. isn’t it!

The statistics I gave you before was a comparation ratio that says that a DD piece consist of 15-20 times as many units as a battleship piece. If the battleship piece coresponds to 1 or 100 units I did not say anything about, just a way to look at the statistics! Ok!!!

So if your are smart enough to take it, then I would like to ask you if you think the shore bombarment should be a 2 or 3 for destroyers and what, if any, restrictions should be done to the shore bombardment rule. Did you like mine, and why?

@ncscswitch:

OK, so you are going to tell me that four 5" guns are 50% as effective as nine 16" guns for shore bombard?…

Don’t tell me about math here! Do you really think that one piece corresponds to one ship!!!

I am telling you that some 120 5 inches guns are at least 50% as effective as 10 16 inches guns for shore bombardment. I explain:

A typical destroyer weighted about 3000 tons, with about 6 guns around 5 inches and torpedoe tubes. And between 1939 and 1945, a battleships weighted from 30 000 tons to 70 000 tons. She carried about 10 guns from 11 inches (German Scharnhorst) up to 18 inches (Japanese Yamato). In counting tons we can say that it takes about 20 destroyers for each battleship. That means 20 destroyers times 6 5 inches guns (destroyer unit) counting against 10 16 inches guns (battleship unit)!  8-)

By the way, if you have not herd about destoyers carried out shore bombardment then try Google and look for “destroyers WWII shore bombardment”.