Cont From the AAA Thread, but about warships not AA Guns

[Jennifer]

Say the devil’s name, and he SHALL appear!  Hi IL!

In the market to try a not so complex historical edition of global (not as complex as yours for Revised!  more along the enhanced lines of thought…)

Anyway, Escort carriers, IMHO, would be lightweight one shot deals that carry 1 small aircraft unit, Fighters and maybe tactical bombers.  Though, I get the feeling all that extra armor on the dive bombers along with the bombs themselves might be too much weight.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Imperious:

The only naval unit i would willingly add (and even maybe) is the carrier escort unit
–a carrier with 3 movement and carriers one plane

**Jeep carriers were pretty slow compared to fast carriers with cruiser hulls.**SPA: 3-2-2-5

That’s why we can make 2 differents unit of carrier able to carry only 1 plane.
1 CVLA0D1M3C10-11, the fast one 3 spaces.
And the slow one at 2 spaces:
1 CVEA0D1M2C9-10
It can works for someone willing to have a wider historical sense.

But in a strategical game level, it adds very little IMO.
That’s why merging both in a CVL unit seems more interresting to play.
It creates different opportunity while pairing it with a Cruiser HR at M3.
It is a little historical twist since only 9 CVL were built by USA.
And there was almost 60 CVE in operation in Pacific and Atlantic.

However, for gaming purpose I defend a CVL unit.
It will create two different fleet dynamics with her older sister the fleet CV unit M2.
I bet that at a cost of 10 IPCs someone will likely sink them instead of plane.
It will better recreates the higher rate of casuality amongst them.

[Jennifer]

Higher rate of casualty AND mini-fleets.  I love to see little tiny fleets of units out performing tasks and you really don’t see them with the way the game is set up now.

Wasn’t it pretty standard, in the real war, to have different flotillas in different island groups at the same time?  So while someone may be fighting in the Caroline Islands others may be fighting in New Zealand and yet others in the Aleutian Islands (yes those three didn’t happen simultaneously, that’s why I chose those three!)

[Jennifer]

Also, you know, I think in my set of house rules, I’m going to house rule it that the French government does not take over Paris if France is ever liberated.  Ends he penalty for taking it away from the Axis and encourages more appropriate allied play.

Something along the lines of:

• England or America may control France
• While UK/USA control France, they may collect the IPC value for this nation
• Control of France is a global Allied NO of +5 IPC (which ever nation is in control of Paris, France gets 5 IPC)
• The industrial complex in France, if controlled by the allies, may only be used to produce units if France is controlled by the French

So basically, instead of having a useless nation get revived and in exchange for not getting to use the complex, you can get 5 IPC and the TT value.  IF you want France to be liberated, then bloody well get an infantry man there for France and walk him in!

[baron Münchhausen]

@Cmdr:

Higher rate of casualty AND mini-fleets.� � I love to see little tiny fleets of units out performing tasks and you really don’t see them with the way the game is set up now.� �

Wasn’t it pretty standard, in the real war, to have different flotillas in different island groups at the same time?� � So while someone may be fighting in the Caroline Islands others may be fighting in New Zealand and yet others in the Aleutian Islands (yes those three didn’t happen simultaneously, that’s why I chose those three!)

If all those fast cruiser moving 3 spaces are just following the main fleet moving at 2 spaces, what is the interest of this HR and why would it increases buying of cruisers?

So I’m coming back with something else to increase both buying of cruisers and BB.

Why not considered the combines arms (like many other units)?
Let’s say that when 1 cruiser is inside a fleet with 1 Battleship, this fleet gain somekind of AA fire.
I think about 1:2 ratio.
1 battleship gives up to 2 cruisers 1AA@1/each cruiser on defense (max 1 roll/plane of course).
It is more historical, since I learned that to protect carriers against planes, their was an inner circle of battleships then an outer circle of cruisers.

So in a sense it is both cruiser and battleship which provides AA screen.
A basic fleet to protect against an attacking fleet carrier of 2 aircrafts will be:
1 BB + 2 Cruiser, then each attacking planes will have to survive 1 AA fire before attacking any target.

It will create an incentive to buy BB along the first cruiser.
Anyone will like to have this AA screen I think.

[Jennifer]

I was thinking Cruisers and Destroyers going 3 to follow along escort carriers (1 fighter, move 3) so you have fast fleets and slow fleets.

Yes many will just use fast fleets to speed reinforcements up, but there’s some play in there, I think, to use your fast fleets for long range strikes and convoy raids.

[Flashman]

We’ve been floating around on the 1914 discussion @LHGD that Battlships cannot hit submarines, changing significantly the balance of naval warfare. This is certainly more historical, though it makes naval combat a little more difficult to perform; for example can BBs hit transports whiloe there are still enemy subs?

[Derek]

@Flashman:

We’ve been floating around on the 1914 discussion @LHGD that Battlships cannot hit submarines, changing significantly the balance of naval warfare. This is certainly more historical, though it makes naval combat a little more difficult to perform; for example can BBs hit transports whiloe there are still enemy subs?

I like this

It is an especially good an inventive way to fix BBs in 1914

But not sure if it would work as well in the rest of A&A

[Imperious Leader]

Yes make a new thread on that. That is a good idea actually.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Cmdr:

I was thinking Cruisers and Destroyers going 3 to follow along escort carriers (1 fighter, move 3) so you have fast fleets and slow fleets.

Yes many will just use fast fleets to speed reinforcements up, but there’s some play in there, I think, to use your fast fleets for long range strikes and convoy raids.

I didn’t agree about this for now. From my little scope on ship type of WWII, destroyers and destroyers escort didn’t have the speed and range of cruisers.  They probably can be as fast as cruiser but didn’t have the autonomy.

The challenge I implied was only to use lightcarrier as Anti-sub weapon while cruiser alongside of CVL have the punch on offense and defense.  Transport were still slow at 2 spaces and same thing for DD.
(Let aside the historical problem, creating a DD unit A2D2M3C10 will interfere with the purpose of the new CVL.)

In addition, this DD unit will be much deadlier (than CVL) to subs since Subs  won’t be able to gain initiative and attack, Subs will be comdamned to defend @1.

I think it also that OOB DD will be less interesting and many will pay the additionnal cost to gain the 3 spaces.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Cmdr:

I was thinking the destroyers had to find the submarines and then any attacking ship that was in the sea zone or over the sea zone (airship?� � Fine airplanes, better?) could fire at it.� �

Might have to include increasing destroyer base movement to 3, maybe not.� � I mean if it’s a 3, then it really shouldn’t get a bonus from being near a navy base, since it kinda always has the bonus then.

If BB are too big, we can limit the “search” to DDs, and the “destroy” to all DDs, subs and cruisers only.
So BB could defend @4 against subs but cannot attack them.
Rise the question: when their is only subs and BB, what can we do?

I found also strange that a sub first strike against a fleet, do no damage and all ships fireback since BBs always take the first hit.

I wonder if we should just introduce that special rule for subs only when a sub get 1 hit on a First/surprise strike, then any CV or BB chose as a casuality is immediatly sink.

What is your opinion?

[Jennifer]

Why are we limiting BBs from defending against submarines?

Maybe limit battleships so that they cannot ATTACK submarines, but can still DEFEND against an attack by them?  I just don’t see a battleship being sunk by a lone wolf submarine like transports can.  They’d do something, you know?

Or if they cannot defend, perhaps (similar to the rules for Submarines when attacked by units they couldn’t defend against in classic) let the attacker get one shot in, then the defender may retreat one sea zone if there exists a sea zone in which they can retreat without initiating combat or violating canal rules?  (Remember, in classic if you attacked a submarine with a fighter, if the fighter missed, the submarine could retreat a space, since it was not allowed to return fire, and submerging was not yet a rule.)

[baron Münchhausen]

@Cmdr:

Why are we limiting BBs from defending against submarines?

**Maybe limit battleships so that they cannot ATTACK submarines, but can still DEFEND against an attack by them?**�  **I just don’t see a battleship being sunk by a lone wolf submarine like transports can.**�  They’d do something, you know?� Â

Or if they cannot defend, perhaps (similar to the rules for Submarines when attacked by units they couldn’t defend against in classic) let the attacker get one shot in, then the defender may retreat one sea zone if there exists a sea zone in which they can retreat without initiating combat or violating canal rules?�  (Remember, in classic if you attacked a submarine with a fighter, if the fighter missed, the submarine could retreat a space, since it was not allowed to return fire, and submerging was not yet a rule.)

As you can read on my post I agree with you on the first point.

I don’t know for BB, but the heavy carrier Taiho was sink by 1 torpedo salvo shooted from a single USA Sub, in the Marianna’s battle near Saipan.

We can consider from a game perspective, that USA was on offense and Japan on defense.

So, it just show that some big ships can be sink by some lucky Subs which passed through a defective screen of DDs and escort ships.

Taihō (大鳳?) was an aircraft carrier of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II. With a heavily armored hull and flight deck (a first for any Japanese carrier), she represented a major departure in Japanese carrier design and was expected to not only survive multiple bomb, torpedo or shell hits but also continue fighting effectively. Her name means “Great Phoenix”.

Built by Kawasaki at Kobe, she was laid down on 10 July 1941, launched almost two years later on 7 April 1943 and finally commissioned on 7 March 1944. She sank on 19 June 1944 during the Battle of the Philippine Sea after suffering a single torpedo hit from the American submarine USS Albacore, due to explosions resulting from poor damage control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Taihō

[Jennifer]

Yes, but if we go with submarine called shots on sub only sorties, and battleships unable to attack submarine, we could have a very submarine heavy battlefield.  At least if the BBs could retreat after the first round of combat if attacked and no other defending ships are present, they’d stand a bit more of a chance.

Which, I am good with, after all, why is your BB hanging out in the wind without support?  This isn’t pearl harbor!  Get some destroyers around her and protect her hull!

[Flashman]

Only one sub was ever sunk by a BB:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM_U-29_(Germany)

In 1914 terms, this would give cruisers a definitive role in screening BBs from subs.

Yes, it would mean a lot more subs in the game but that is historical - naval commanders were in a state of panic of what to do about submarine; they seemed to make BBs obsolete.

One suggestion I’ve made is that you simply cannot have Battleships in a fleet without escorts (i.e. cruisers or destroyers if they’re available), much like you cannot have tanks without infantry.
So BBs can take a hit for the team, but they cannot be left as the last unit. Hence, you always have a chance against subs.

One question raised by the idea is:

If BBs cannot hit subs, then can they hit transports even if there are still enemy subs around? I say - yes!

BBs can’t hit subs certainly seems to create a more natural balance between the naval units in 1914; cruisers have a proper role, subs are now the deadly weapon they were instead of cheap cannon fodder, and BBs are not the overpowered monsters they so far seem to be.

I can’t speak for WWII versions; air power is the decisive element here that makes it a different ball game.

[Derek]

"SM U-29 was a Type U-27 U-boat of the Imperial German Navy. She served during the First World War.

U-29 was sunk with all hands on 18 March 1915 in Pentland Firth after being rammed by HMS Dreadnought.[3] She is the only submarine known to have been sunk by a battleship."

And it had to ram it lol

good stuff Flash

[Derek]

some more on the subject i found

…"There have been 2 battleships sunk by submarines:

HMS Royal Oak: sunk by Gunther Prien’s U-47 in Scapa Flow on 10/14/39.
HMS Barham: sunk by U-331 on 11/25/41.

There has only been one submarine sunk by a battleship:

Otto Weddigen’s U-29 sunk by HMS Dreadnought on 3/18/15 by ramming (ironically
enough)…."

On further research i found that 3 BBs were sunk by submarines; The Royal Oak, the Japanese Kongo, and the Barham

Subs 3; BB .5  lol

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

some more on the subject i found

…"There have been 2 battleships sunk by submarines:

HMS Royal Oak: sunk by Gunther Prien’s U-47 in Scapa Flow on 10/14/39.
HMS Barham: sunk by U-331 on 11/25/41.

There has only been one submarine sunk by a battleship:

Otto Weddigen’s U-29 sunk by HMS Dreadnought on 3/18/15 by ramming (ironically
enough)…."

On further research i found that 3 BBs were sunk by submarines; The Royal Oak, the Japanese Kongo, and the Barham

Subs 3; BB .5  lol

For those who likes more details:

In October 1944, Kongō departed Lingga in preparation for “Operation Sho-1”, Japan’s counterattack during the Battle of Leyte Gulf, the largest naval engagement in history.[33] On 24 October, Kongō was undamaged by several near misses from American carrier aircraft in the Battle of the Sibuyan Sea. On 25 October, during the Battle off Samar, Kongō—as part of Admiral Kurita’s Centre Force—engaged the US 7th Fleet’s “Taffy 3”, a battlegroup of escort carriers and destroyers. She succeeded in scoring numerous hits on the escort carrier Gambier Bay as well as the destroyers Hoel and Heermann. At 09:12, she sank the destroyer escort Samuel B. Roberts. After a fierce defensive action by the American ships, which sank three Japanese heavy cruisers, Admiral Kurita elected to withdraw, ending the battle.[34] While retreating, Kongō suffered damage from five near misses from attacking aircraft. The fleet arrived at Brunei on 28 October.[5]

On 16 November, following a US air raid on Brunei, Kongō departed Brunei alongside Yamato, Nagato and the rest of the First Fleet for Kure, in preparation for a major reorganization of the fleet and battle repairs. On 20 November, they entered the Formosa Strait. Shortly after midnight on 21 November, the submarine USS Sealion II made radar contact with the fleet at 44,000 yards.[35] Maneuvering into position at 03:00, Sealion II fired three stern torpedoes at Nagato and Kongō. One minute later, two torpedoes were seen to hit Kongō on the port side, while the third sank the destroyer Urakaze with all hands.[5] The torpedoes flooded two of Kongō’s boiler rooms, but she was still able to make 16 knots (18 mph). By 05:00, she had slowed to 11 kn (13 mph) and broken off from the rest of the fleet.[35] At 05:20, she lost all power. Four minutes later, the blip indicating Kongō on Sealion II’s radar disappeared.[36] Kongō sank in 350 feet (110 m) of water with the loss of 1,200 of her crew, including the commander of the Third Battleship Division and her captain. She was the only Japanese battleship sunk by submarine in the Second World War, and the last battleship sunk by submarine in history.[32]

Her sinking was only one out of three battleships sinkings in World War II caused by a submarine attack, the two others were the British Revenge class battleship HMS Royal Oak (08) and the Queen Elizabeth class battleship HMS Barham (04).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Kongō

[baron Münchhausen]

@Cmdr:

Yes, but if we go with submarine called shots on sub only sorties, and battleships unable to attack submarine, we could have a very submarine heavy battlefield.�  At least if the BBs could retreat after the first round of combat if attacked and no other defending ships are present, they’d stand a bit more of a chance.

Which, I am good with, after all, why is your BB hanging out in the wind without support?�  This isn’t pearl harbor!�  Get some destroyers around her and protect her hull!

I don’t understand what you by “sub only sortie”. Would you help me?

Otherwise, if BB cannot attack subs but can defend @4, then it is possible during a battle that an attacking BB is left with subs.

I say let finish the round and if BB still survive then she must retreat.
If Subs are defending TTs, then I say: 2 TTs are automatically destroyed then defending subs fire @1.
If BB isn’t hit, then he could take 1 hit before being sunk.
If BB survives, then it could retreat or stay if he prefers destroying TTs, then it continues until no more TTs OR the BB is sunk.

On defense, it is easy to consider such BB combat unit as being escorted by few other DDs or Cruisers, hence keep the defense @4.
But the same group of ships is not fit to patrol a sea-zone, seek and destroy subs, that’s why this HR BB didn’t give any dice on offense vs Subs.

Maybe we can say BB can attack @1 against subs while keeping @4 against other units.
But I find this idea in ruptured with other A&A rules, since they never give a different attack or defense vs different units.
1 unit keep is generic stats.

In addition, there is already some rule forbidding subs to attack any airplane unit. It is just a reverse situation from BB vs Subs.

[baron Münchhausen]

So if I summarize my HR on BB,

BB A4D4M2C20 2 hits, can bombard 1@4, Plunging fire 1@1, no ASW, combined AA fire with cruisers.

Plunging fire: gain 1 additionnal A/D@1 against surface vessel DD, CA, CV, BB only (if present) on the opening round, it is not a surprise/first strike, so the casuality can return fire.

No ASW: attacking BB cannot hit any sub unit. When their is no other defending combat unit than Subs, she may stay in the battle to destroy any TTs remaining, BB destroy 2 TTs/round of battle. However, subs defends @1, and if their is no attacking DD with the BB, then Sub defense are Surprise/First Strike as OOB rule.

Combined AA fire with cruisers: paired with cruiser, each BB can give up to 2 cruisers 1 defensive and preemptive AA@1/cruiser against up to 1 AA roll/plane.

The cost is the same OOB.
I think, it is still balance since we reduce some offensive power against subs and, to counterweight it, give more specific offensive vs other vessel / and defensive capabilities vs planes in combine arms.

I made Plunging fire an almost regular strike at 1 on first round to keep it balance and, for historical reason, because even the poor HMS Hood was able to hit the Bismarck (which was the paradigma on which we base the plunging fire effect) and force it to return home for repair.

If someone wants the First Strike, keep it only for superbattleship (at higher cost).

It  also have the effect of boosting DDs and CAs buying to protect them, gaining additionnal AA, and make Anti-Sub warfare.

From my limited historical point of view, it seems to better reflect their purpose in naval warfare.

Is it an interesting and enough historically grounded House Rule or not?

I should also add my revised HR for cruiser (for my next game):

CA A3D3M3C12 1 hit, can bombard 1@3, AA platform, combined AA fire with BB.

AA platform: any “1” hit must be allocated to 1 aircraft (owner’s choice) if present.

Combined AA fire with BB: when paired with BB up to 2 cruisers get 1AA@1 preemptive defensive fire.
 
As OOB, it can hit Subs on attack and defense but doesn’t block Surprise strike and all subs capacity.