@Panther Thanks for the speedy answer… feels like a strategy that might make me unpopular but if it’s legitimate then I suppose it’s fair game.
Are Boats useless against planes?
-
I used to think the same thing and neglected to build a navy with the US thinking I could just bomb the Japanese navy out of the water. Boy was I wrong when my 7 bombers faced 2 carriers (with 4 fighters) and a battleship. I got toasted.
Best sea defenders are 2 fighters and a carrier which will be able to hold off an air attack just fine.
Destroyers are also a good bargain and can hold their own.
Battleships are best for attacking and are lethal when you combine them with other cheaper sea units. That “free hit” is a great deal.
Every sea unit has its purpose.
-
the odds on that is about 50% either way and u save 4 bucks building the bombers and boats are still stuck in the water while your planes can do bomb raids attack land do so much more then boats.
-
Combat sims show that the BB is greater than all units except subs on the attack in any equal and realistic cost per equal value study
The ranking is as follows:
Subs on attack
BB all around
Destroyers
CV with 2 fighters
Cruisers
Subs on defenseThe main attraction is the hit and run capacity of the BB and the cost reduction of 4 IPC compared to the cost of the Carrier only going down by 2 IPC is a great deal, plus the Shore shot capability.
In sims with BB with all other ships and the CV with other ships in equal values the BB wins
-
the problem is that fighters in numbers will just destroy your BB’s, say 6 fighters vs 3 BB’s your getting 6 hits even know BB’s can take a hit they still can only dish out one attack and thats the problem when going against a huge air force.
-
the problem is that fighters in numbers will just destroy your BB’s, say 6 fighters vs 3 BB’s your getting 6 hits even know BB’s can take a hit they still can only dish out one attack and thats the problem when going against a huge air force.
Um math??
6 fighters on average will get -3- not 6 hits round one. 3 BB will get 2 hits.
Round 2 - 4 fighters left will ger 2 hits 3 damaged BB will get 2 hits.
Round 3 - 2 fighters will egt 1 hit 1 BB will get .66
were you just talking about total hits over the course of the fight?
-
and its not much of a big deal that the battleship can take a hit when 10 planes come in to attack
I’m pretty sure that any type of ship (except SS) is pretty much doomed when a flight of 10 FIG attacks UNLESS you have your own Air Force ready to intercept. History has proven pretty well that Airpower rearranged the the way war is fought.
I’m down with all the comparison of equal values of units; I understand it and all and see that to play at your best it is part of what you need to know. And partly because of that, I’m not going to attack 3 BB with 6 FIG, I’m going to throw as much at them as I can (naval and air) so that I have an advantage and have a decisive win. If I can’t and attack anyway, then I’m hoping that my loaded dice weren’t noticed when I slipped them on the table.
Unknown Soldier is right, CV’s with FIG and DD screen will stop “realistic” attacks.
-
Interesting debates going on here guys. IMO A small rule amendment allowing air units to hit subs would improve things. The subs would still have the ability to dive (unless a DDs present) before aircrafts fire or they could stay and be chosen as casulties. In that way you could trade subs for fighters as mentioned earlier here. That would be expensive for an attacker using only air units. A defending fleet consisting of CVs with fighters backed with some subs and possibly also a BB would be a hard nut to crack for an airforce.
As for realism, air units were are serious threat to uboat warfare, it’s a very strange rule as it is now that they can’t hit them at all.
-
/Imperious leader
What has to be factored in though is the versatility of carriers with fighters, they can attack and defend on both sea and land whereas other ships will be sitting watching your land battles. Even shore bombard is only one round, fighter are all there to the end.
/Mezza
Now I’m angry! :x When they actually FIX subs you propose to turn things back to where it was, just incomprehensible.
-
Now I’m angry! When they actually FIX subs you propose to turn things back to where it was, just incomprehensible.
I couldn’t agree more.
-
I must say that I am puzzled over the strong reactions on my proposal. Especially the part about it being incomprehensible. Subs can be hit by aircraft. period. All other sub rules stays unchanged. I think they have done a good job fixing sub rules, making them more clear regadring submerging, when they fire etc. Making subs being able to take aircraft hits doesn’t ruin all that. How did you reach that conclusion Lynxes?
What do we accomplish by this? We give fleets a better chance versus air which will make it more viable to buy. Take Germany for example. Buy a CV in BAL, land 2 FTrs, coupled it with some fodder-subs. The allies will hesitate to attack them with only air units, AND they will hesitate to bring their fleet into a seazone in reach of the german wolfpack, which together with the luftwaffe would pose a serious threat to the allied fleets. A normandy landing would be more difficult to accomplish. What we possibly could have here is a real “war of the atlantic” with larger possibilites for Germany to buy fleet. That could give us more fun IMO.
For sure, this would need to be playtested properly before we could conclude. In any case I hope to see some amendment that could balance out sea vs air a bit
-
careful, you’ll turn this into a house rules discussion, when it didn’t start that way…
-
True enough, it should possibly be put under another thread.
There might be a need for a updated official rule set for AA anniversary, say if there’s no solution for plane vs air balance in the frame of todays rules.
Add only fighters can attack sea units and we could really have some great naval battles…
-
Subs would be too powerful at only $6 if they were allowed to choose when to soak hits or when to crash dive.
I have 2 words for the original poster:
Combined Arms
eg 6 ftr @ $60 vs 2 ftr 1 CV 3 DD @$58 is only 51% to the attacker
Make it an even $70 each and you get an extra ftr for the attacker and a Cru for the defender
Attacker wins drops below 50%
Battleships are definitely a poor option in a naval arms race, since statistically a DD + Cru always performs better in stacks.
However the coastal shot @4 and the ability to soak hits in the little battles (like when your opponent block with a DD, you can soak that hit he scores 1/3) mean that BB’s have their purposes.
I rarely see a BB built though, usually one on either UK1 or UK2. Occasionally the USA will build one if going KGF.
-
How did you reach that conclusion Lynxes?
I’m still not completely happy about the sub rules and still think they are a bit too hampered in their use. I think subs should be able to ignore even DDs when moving. In that way, it won’t be able to block German subs based in the Baltic Sea from attacking an invading fleet in the English channel just by placing one DD in the North Sea. As it is now you have to use Italian air to attack the DD block, and if USA sends in a blocking DD you’re screwed, unless you play the '42 scenario and use Japanese air!
But letting aircraft hit subs without destroyers will make subs utterly useless. At least now your subs can avoid combat in some instances and you can also use subs to make the opponent make choices of losses to take, i.e. if I take my last DD as a hit I will be facing surprise strikes. Your idea of using subs as fodder is misguided since that’s the role that destroyers are there for in this game, now that their cost is reduced!
-
I think the air units and boat units are fine the way it is, not saying the balance is perfect but it never will. The only change from AAR, related to air vs naval, is the reduced cost of bombers, and thats a good change, imo.
How about using strats to cope with the changes from AAR instead of making house rules?
And if bombers are more favorable for allies, then its about total game balance, which can be fixed by a bid, if either axis or allies have advantage.
-
DY! This is to you! i don;t use just fighters i mainly use bombers! now you go back and do your math with 5 bombers 1 fighter and see what your little number crunch brings. boats never can keep up to the building of planes. you see my little friend Planes as built are taking alot of land per turn and when the other players fleet is ready then just use that turn wipe his fleet out everything that poor sucker has spent and all those turns down the toilet. You will never see UK witha boat in the sea or Germany for that matter. Planes just take them all out.
-
DY! This is to you! i don;t use just fighters i mainly use bombers! now you go back and do your math with 5 bombers 1 fighter and see what your little number crunch brings. boats never can keep up to the building of planes. you see my little friend Planes as built are taking alot of land per turn and when the other players fleet is ready then just use that turn wipe his fleet out everything that poor sucker has spent and all those turns down the toilet. You will never see UK witha boat in the sea or Germany for that matter. Planes just take them all out.
5 bombers 1 ftr win 44.018%
7 ftr win 49.592%
So the bombers actually fare worse!
Anyway this whole thread is ridiculous as it doesn’t consider the meta-game at all.
The fact is you need ships to cover your transports (which are required to move your troops from the UK and USA into the action).
The Allies cant just sit back and build millions of planes in case the Axis attack their shipping.
A good player isn’t going to throw his boats out there in range of your air force if you have good odds to sink it.
-
DDs + AC or BB will always win against planes, always.
10 bombers at 120 IPC vs 2 BB (40) + 10 DDs (80) = attacker wins 11% of the time.
5 bombers at 60 IPC vs 1 loaded AC (34) + 3 DDs (24) = attacker wins 32% of the time.The reason is while your losing your 4s i’m loosing my 2s. Same reason why inf rock.
The key is to build a small core (BBs and ACs) keep enough fodder (DDs and subs) and use as many shore bombards as you can (cruisers) afford.
All boats have a use and are better than just planes in the water.
Now yes, your bombers can ignore my fleet, but my DDs are serving there purpose in letting me land troops.
-
Obviously 5 bombers is a retarded purchase if you want to kill fleet. As previously mentioned though, 6 ftrs actually beats the full CV + 3 DDs. It’s at least clearing the sea zone 57%.
Obviously bombers have flexibility in added range and SBR.
This still seems to be an academic exercise, seeing as the Allies need to do a little more than just buy endless waves of aircraft.
I mean you can only bomb Berlin/Rome for a maximum of $20/$12 a turn, so you have to get at least some troops into Europe/Africa.
-
Whoa, so the ‘overpowered’ bombers FAIL compared to the weak fighter against boats. Interesting.
The weird thing about fighters though is 8 figs vs 10 DDs only win 38% of the time. I really think on a dollar for dollar value destroyers trump planes, but not by much.
10 bombers vs 15 destroyers also comes out to them only winning 6% of the time.
Suggested Topics
