Battleships

[Xi]

T_6,
your gonna havta up your post rate. You are slippin’(Just above 18.0% of all posts). The last time I looked you were at 12.11 or 12.12 ppd. Now you are down to 12.10! Get on it! :wink: - Xi

“Russian Communism is the illegitimate
child of Karl Marx and Catherine the Great.”

• Clement Attlee, British Prime Minister. Speech, April 11, 1956.
  –------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Hmm! I gotta think on this. Russian
  Communism is not True Communism. :cry: - Xi

[TG Moses VI]

Nah, I’m quite happy where I’m at. Before (about a month ago), I couldn’t break 18%, but now I’m cruising at 18.12% I try to work hard at the beginning but now that I’ve accomplished what I set out to achieve (unless there’s something higher than “Super Mega” 8)), I can start to relax like a communist.

“Russian Communism is the illegitimate
child of Karl Marx and Catherine the Great.”

The Russians Tsars should’ve continued on the path of Peter and Catherine the great. They didn’t and you could see where Russia ended up. Karl Marx probably never predicted a communist uprising in Russia of all places – it was the Lenins and the Trotskys that saw through it.

Hmm! I gotta think on this. Russian
Communism is not True Communism

More like Stalinist “Communism.” At least you are smarter than some of the authors of your quotes - I’ll give you that.

[Xi]

@TG:

I can start to relax like a communist.

YOU, relax! I believe it when I see it. :roll:
@TG:

. . . At least you are smarter than some of the authors of your quotes - I’ll give you that.

I’d take that as a compliment, but I read what you wrote about those poor misguided and misinformed (mostly deceased) people.

Hey! It just dawned on me . They learned by example
(communist Russia), just like most folks learn to play A&A(learn by errors). . . too many mistakes. Communism was probably set back 100 years by what Lenin and Mao did. My apologies, T_6!
An epiphany! I peruse the writings of statesmen, mistaken in that they look through a broken prism, thus, encouraged to embark on my on journey . . . to create Xiasm :P . . . the ultimate governmental goal of mankind! :wink:
Am I your first convert?
The good student must surpass the teacher. :P - Xi
–--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“It is only the wisest and the stupidest
that cannot change.” - Confucius

[BigBlocky]

Both sides start out with 72 IPCs:

Side 1 (S1) buys 3 Battleships (BB)
Side 2 (S2) buys 6 Destroyers (DD)

So. lets run through a manual simulation of the 2 sides fighting, luckily they fight and defend the same.

Turn #1
S1 has 12 offense and should do 2 hits on average leaving S1 with 4 DDs.
S2 has 18 offense and should do 3 hits on average turning on the side all 3 BBs.

Turn #2
S1 has 12 offense and should do 2 hits on average leaving S1 with 2 DDs.
S2 has 12 offense and should do 2 hits on average leaving S1 with 1 BB.

Turn #3
S1 has 4 offense and gets lucky sinking 1 of the 2 remaining DDs.
S2 has 8 offense and gets a bit UN-lucky and only rolls 1 hit sinking the last BB.

With a slight dice advantage to the battlewagons they still lose out against the destroyers in combat. If you expect to have frequent fleet engagements where you only take 1 hit at a time then by all means purchase a battleship. However if you expect to play the US and only lose 1-2 ships per turn you will never win.

[Guest]

@cameron:

amphib assault:
destroyer
chance 2 hits = 11%
chance 1 hits = 44%
chance >0 hits = 55%
battleship
chance 2 hits = 0%
chance 1 hits = 60%
chance >0 hits = 60%
so, a slight edge for the BB but no chance of 2 hits…

It is 66% for the BB, a mentioned by Xi already.

Why not calculate the average number of hits?
Amph assault:
Two destroyers: Average 0.66 hits
One BB: = 0.66 hits

Naval Battle:
2 DDs: average 1 hit
1 BB: 0.66 hits

If you take a longer battle, with the assumption that you take a hit yourself in the first round (naval battle only), then the total average hits after these two rounds are:
DDs: average 1.5 hits, loss of 12 IPCs
BBs: 1.32 hits

So, i would say:
it depends. A mix, like in r/l navy, seems to be best. Especially when you are about to face battles that take longer than one turn a BB is important.
So, for your main fleet, i would put a BB in that. For convoy hunters, i wouldn’t.
I also would not put a solo BB to escort transports. Then instead of facing one sub, you can be sure they will wolfpack to sink it with their preshots.
Too much value for such “simple” task.

[mat]

HEY!
You’re all wrong. The most powerful thing is a combo of 2BB and 2 des if you going for BBs and des only!
The absolute most powerful minifleet is a loaded carrier with destroyers and a BB!

[Guest]

Mat, I’m afraid to say it but, you’re wrong on all fronts.

Using a battle simulator I have I got the following results:

10000 trials to smooth out randomness, rounding errors may cause sum to exceed 100

Scenario #1 Defender has 6 DD, 0 BB Win | Lose | Mutual destruction
A) Attacker has 3 BB, 0 DD 32/62/6
B) Attacker has 2 BB, 2 DD 40/54/6
C) Attacker has 1 BB, 4 DD 44/50/6
D) Attacker has 0 BB, 6 DD 47/48/5

Scenario #2 Defender has 4 DD, 1 BB
A) Attacker has 3 BB, 0 DD 33/59/9
B) Attacker has 2 BB, 2 DD 41/51/7
C) Attacker has 1 BB, 4 DD 46/47/7
D) Attacker has 0 BB, 6 DD 50/44/6

Scenario #3 Defender has 2 DD, 2 BB
A) Attacker has 3 BB, 0 DD 36/56/9
B) Attacker has 2 BB, 2 DD 46/46/8
C) Attacker has 1 BB, 4 DD 52/41/7
D) Attacker has 0 BB, 6 DD 54/41/6

Scenario #4 Defender has 0 DD, 3 BB
A) Attacker has 3 BB, 0 DD 45/45/10
B) Attacker has 2 BB, 2 DD 57/35/9
C) Attacker has 1 BB, 4 DD 60/32/8
D) Attacker has 0 BB, 6 DD 62/33/5

Since a fully loaded carrier, DD and BB costs 78 IPC or 8.333% more than 6 destroyers you are not comparing apples to oranges. Since 6 DDs defend or attack at 18 lets add 8.333% to this. Since that is 1.5 I will round it down to just 1 more attack or defense. I should have 8.3% more units, since I cannot represent a 1/2 unit I will round down, this will mean the results should be a bit better for the destroyer side then the numbers will show on 2 accounts. The extra 1 offense/defense will be represented by increasing the offense and defense of a single destroyer to 4 and obviously take this unit off last.

6 DDs attacking 1 DD, 1 BB, 1 CV and 2 FTRs results in 46/46/8 result
1 DD, 1 BB, 1 CV and 2 FTRs versus 6 DDs results in 29/65/6 result.

It clearly shows a trend in advantagous occurances as you move towards 6 destroyers from 3 battleships.

Even with your mixed fleet, destroyers come out as the clear winner. If you already have fighters, then building enough carriers to hold them is the best bet for fleet defense, so the US should build 1-2 carriers. A mixed fleet also has the advantage that fighters can be used on land better than destroyers. However, the excercise was limited in scope so you will have to weigh pros/cons as the strategy dictates.

BB

[Guest]

You guys are doing it all wrong!
By calculating Des vs BB in one big battle u miss the one big advantage the BB has: its ability to repair itself for free at end of any round. You buy BB’s to soak up damage in small battles to preserve your navy for the big ones. In small battles it dosn’t matter that the BB has less firepower because you are probebly overkilling your enemy anyway. Off cause u need to have lots of subs and destroyers in your fleet to do the killing, and only one or two BB’s. But those BB’s will be worth it because your et will be bigger when u get to that final show-down.
Actually battleships should be called “skirmishships” instead because thats why u have them. To let a big armada steamroll individual ships without any fear off causulties.
Only US should buy any though, Japan allready has 3 and UK 1.

[BigBlocky]

Why do you expect you opponent to just let you engage in small little battles where your battleship ‘soaks up that 1 hit’? The US goal is to create such a huge navy that they can steam up to the Grand Imperial fleet and withstand their best shot. The Japanese player will win the game on turn 6 or 7 via victory points. The allies don’t have time to engage in lots of little battles with battleships so they can come out ahead by 1 navel unit here and there.

If the US player does split up the fleet into lots of little battles then the small elements will be crushed with overwhelming firepower. Divide and conqour is the goal, you play right into that.

BB

[Guest]

Right on! Who needs battleships (U.S.) when you can buy a huge fleet of subs coupled with air power. Let the Japs split up their fleet instead dealing with the U.S. Mixing an occasional U.S. destroyer is also nice for countering Jap sub purchases.

The only important point in the Pacific Game boils down to holding India, while avoiding getting caught napping in Australia, and simultaneously wreaking havoc with subs throughout the Japanese convey lands and captured islands. Everything else in the game is just well seasoned gravy.

-“Pity not the nation that has no heros, but instead the nation that needs heros.”

[Guest]

I didn’t say that you should split your fleet up and take lots of small battles. You just have to pass through a single CAP or a few subs the japs has put to slow your main fleet and the BB comes out as a good buy ie. it only has to repair once before its better than anything u would have left from a 24 point buy in a fleet with no BB.
I agree lots of subs might be a better buy if you simply know Japan is going for India. they wont do much good for the battle in India, but they will insure that the japs are dead if they loose the battle due to bad luck. However if u play a 22 point wins game i still believe it is better for Japan to go for the points simply because they can lose India if they get unlucky with the AA and has a bad first round.
Also japan don’t have to decide if it goes after India untill turn 2 or 3 its first buy and if US buys all subs i would go after a vp victory.

[BigBlocky]

If 2 DDs are better then 1 BB then 3 Subs are better than 2 DDs. Of course you lose the amphib bombardment and the ability of DDs to allow air units to attack subs.

You did mention in small battles BBs are better, I agree. But why would you use your combined fleet to attack a 1 or 2 unit enemy navy? If you don’t use your entire navy to attack a small enemy navy then you do split up your fleet. So what is it, no fleet split and waste your entire fleet on a small battle or do you do multiple attacks and split your navy, which one is it?

As the Jap player I’d love you to waste your time doing that. In fact as the Jap player I spend 80% or so of my IPCs in building subs.

Anybody who actually builds a battleship is crazy. The point of this thread is to show that 24 IPC is much better spent elsewhere then purchasing a BB. The only person who can afford to build a BB is the US. Since the US is building 70 IPC/turn of equipment it doesn’t seem to make sense to plan your builds in such a way as to save 8 or 12 IPC on a meaningless small fleet engagement.

In large battles that go a few rounds a battleship actually hurts. Sure, they absorb 1 hit but at the cost of lost firepower. 2 destroyers do 50% more damage then 1 BB.

You’re band on about Japan A) needing to go for Victory points because a good allied player can fend off the India attack and B) not having to decide until turn 2-3. That means the allies might have to split the convoy money 50/50 and splitting their forces up.

Phoenix is right that the allies must use subs to wreak havoc with the convoy routes and the odd destroyer to allow allied air to attack subs.

BB

[Guest]

Big Blocky - If you are ever in AZ, my gaming group would love to challange your Japan massed fleet strategy against my sub tactics in A&A Pacific. You seem to have the best grasp of the Pacific game from the comments I’ve seen. - Regards

[BigBlocky]

AZ… Arizona? Ummmm, getting into the US of A is not possible, I was a bit wild in my youth. A pity since my sister has lived in various states for 20 years or so.

Is there a version of dicey for AAP? I’d love to play via email!

As for my massed fleet, don’t get me wrong, I will use subs and transports if required as blockers or as bait. I go for VPs but do provide a credible, but not all out threat against both australia and India to keep you honest and force purchases of land units. The key is to keep the Yanks parked at Pearl Harbour for as long as possible. The Jap has the advantage because they can use 15 fighters and 2 bombers on offense, have lots of transports and BBs to soak up hits and an ever increasing number of cheap subs. The yanks must put carriers under their fighters on defense, for 15 fighters that is lots of carriers to build!

BB

[Mr Ghoul]

BB it is possible to play A&AP in line. You just have to register to A&AP&E
gaming site and you can play. I started a game of A&AE awhile back with a guy from the, didn’t finnish ( he was kicking my booty anyway) but, hey, it can be done.

[BigBlocky]

Can you post the addy?

BB

[Guest]

Sorry if i was little overconfident about having a BB with your (US) main fleet.
I totally agree with you that A) US should never send their entire main fleet after one or two jap units simply to wipe them out B) BB’s will be outmatched by 2 destroyers in (nearly) every single possible battle and worse than 3 subs in every battle against enemy ships. I also tended to go for lots of subs and a destroyer or two plus carriers w. fighters to suply the main firepower. However the jap player also (as You) tended to use about 80% of his buys for subs which he would then send out to block my path to japan, the southwest pacific or whatever. Therefore i often had to sail into (small) battles, simply because the jap had put subs, CAP’s or whatever out there to slow me down. In adition to slowing me down (which can be fatal but is hard to avoid if they’re placed right) they also tended to cause a hit. In that situation i think a single bb is good because it can absorb the hit and save a sub or destroyer. So in the next turn when our bigfleets meet i have my 1 bb instead of one des or 2 subs out of a 24 point buy (and i think u will agree the bb i better than both).
You are totally right that US should try to avoid minor battles if they slow them down but in my expierience its just not always posible and then a bb is worthwhile to have with your main fleet.

[BigBlocky]

I’ve never used a CAP to slow down the Yank player, mind you I have considered it, but in each case it never worked out. The fighter on CAP must start out beside the sea zone to CAP in. That can only seem to work on retreat. The only reason for the Jap to retreat is if A) The Allied navy is within 2 spaces of the combined Jap Fleet B) Can withstand an attacking force of about 80-90 offense (13-15 hits on the first round and about the same on the second round since the japs could absorb 7-8 hits without affecting the offensive firepower). Even if the Japs roll a bit below average, look at your best fleet, add up the defense say 60, great you do ten hits to the Jap attacking force. 3 BBs, 5 transports absorbs 7 hits, I take of 3 subs. I just killed 13 of your pieces, what do you have left? I still have 14 fighters, 3 BBs, 2 Bmrs and say 4 DDs. I’m doing another 12 hits. It would be bloody but if the odds are in my favour and the dice are even then I buy lots of time. If the odds are against me I retreat.

BB

[Mr Ghoul]

The yanks must put carriers under their fighters on defense, for 15 fighters that is lots of carriers to build!

If the Americans use CAP then they can have a whole lot more fighters defending than that of their carrier strength alone.

I’ve never used a CAP to slow down the Yank player, mind you I have considered it, but in each case it never worked out. The fighter on CAP must start out beside the sea zone to CAP in. That can only seem to work on retreat.

I’m not sure I understand the “only on retreat thing”. You can prevent a fleet of any size from moving 2 spaces with only one fighter CAP. I think its a good thing to do.

The key is to keep the Yanks parked at Pearl Harbour for as long as possible.

I’d like to see how you do this. I mean that sincerely.

Depending on Japan’s “surpise” attacks from the first round the Americans can replace almost everything they lose at Pearl on their first turn. After the first round, the American Navy is a match for anything the Japs have and is just gets worse, for Japan, as the rounds go by.

With the money the US makes they can afford to throw their units at the Jap navy again and again replacing a huge part of it the very next turn. Japan dosen’t have that luxury.

[BigBlocky]

If the Americans use CAP then they can have a whole lot more fighters defending than that of their carrier strength alone.

While this is true, it’s only true if the fighters start off next to the fleet. If you ever intend to move you must move up, capture an island. Hope I don’t attack. Next round fly your fighters to the island. Hope I don’t attack that round too. Then the following turn you can CAP.

I’m not sure I understand the “only on retreat thing”. You can prevent a fleet of any size from moving 2 spaces with only one fighter CAP. I think its a good thing to do.

I’m sure you understand this but, you cannot fly a plane out 2 spaces and CAP. If you are moving forward then any plane on a CAP is left behind, not very usefull. You can CAP all day long at Pearl Harbout but sooner or later you must move up and you cannot cap in the spot you just moved into.

This means you move up 2 sea zones (unless I block you then it’s 1 zone per round unless the brits are there to kick the blocker out.) every 3 turns. That first round and the following round you move up, you only have twice as many fighters on defence as you have carriers.

The Japs on the other hand with their 4 carriers and ownership of island with airbases have the ability to attack with all 15 fighters and 2 bombers. Obviously US bombers aren’t much good for fleet defence. It takes a long long time for the Yank to build a fleet capable of moving up beside the combined Jap fleet and daring it to attack. This takes until round 4-5 at least.

As the Jap pulls back at this point he gets stronger as his 4-5 new subs per round get closer and closer. Moving them 3 spaces port to port helps big time. If you get too close, the Jap has six 1 in 3 chances of kamikazing your carriers. Since the Jap can Kamikazi an allied carrier on the allies turn when it moves into the marked sea zones the fighters will not be defending when it’s the Jap players turn to attack. If you come in with 3 carriers then all 3 get 1 each. On average 1 carrier is sunk, the fighters might be able to land but won’t be defending. That is a loss of 11 rather critical defence.

BB