OK we have been playing pretty hard core and were finding that boats are pretty much usless, when the other team is building 2 fighters to your 1 battleship, u make an army of planes against boats and the planes get to roll 2 against a battleships 1 dice. and its not much of a big deal that the battleship can take a hit when 10 planes come in to attack were pretty much sure were going to make a house rule of battleships get a AA gun on them but even with that not sure if boats are really worth it against planes. what you guys think?
Fight fire with fire.
Protect your fleets with fighters, not battleships. A couple loaded CVs with some DDs for fodder will pretty much decimate any realistic air raid your opponent can manage.
OK we have been playing pretty hard core and were finding that boats are pretty much usless, when the other team is building 2 fighters to your 1 battleship, u make an army of planes against boats and the planes get to roll 2 against a battleships 1 dice. and its not much of a big deal that the battleship can take a hit when 10 planes come in to attack were pretty much sure were going to make a house rule of battleships get a AA gun on them but even with that not sure if boats are really worth it against planes. what you guys think?
That is actually realistic. Airplanes are lethal to ships at sea. The best defense a ship has against an airplane is a friendly airplane trying to shoot it down. Without carriers (and their planes) you ships are mostly helpless against land based air. You need carriers protecting your planes, and subs protecting your carriers and their planes. Subs “protect” you carriers and planes by being taken as casualties. They are the “infantry of the sea”. If your fleet consists of, for example, 1xCV (2xFighter), 1xCA, 2xDD, 4xSub then they will be trading fighters and bombers for subs and they won’t attack your fleet. Bringing a fleet within range of large numbers of planes is an expensive proposition. You need a well designed fleet that will make it a bad trade for the enemy to attack. The more carriers (planes) you have the better, it’s those big defending 4’s that make them decide not to attack in the first place.
I like your idea about giving BBs an AA gun a lot. I don’t build BBs in AA50 because they just aren’t worth it compared to a CA and DD instead. I think it is kind of cool that you are discouraged from buying new BBs, but it would also be cool to give them an AA gun and make them worth buying. With an AA gun I would want at least 1 BB in each fleet (there should only be the effect of 1 AA gun no matter how many BBs are present). They might actually want to adopt your house rule as an official one.
they will be trading fighters and bombers for subs
Except they won’t, because aircraft can’t hit subs w/o a DD present. So unless they are stupid enough to bring one, those subs will be watching your capital ships go down from the sidelines…
ya it will be the same as land AA guns only 1 no matter how many you have together. but then i can see actually buying battleships. cause right now it’s not worth 20 bucks.
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 defense
The 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.
