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

[baron Münchhausen]

I would add the same about OP subs:

@Baron:

I agree with the way you define each “critical hit” for each unit.
Why did you forget the regular sub on attack?
Is it because of A2 only?
At least, when no ASW are present, on roll of “1” give the choice between TT and combat vessels (defender’s choice).

This is a very simply and effective/historical way to bring more diversity to the game and reward dice rolls of ‘1’.  :evil:

But there is a little difference with Cmdr Jen HR, it is for a fleet of attacking subs only.
It would be the specific conditions, in which a roll of “1” let the attacker choose any surface vessel.

In other circumstances, as stated “1” when no ASW is present give the choice between TT or warships, nothing more.

[baron Münchhausen]

Have you made an opinion about this Uncrustable?

@Baron:

@Uncrustable:

well on the sub heavy battlefeild…dont we already have that? very few BBs are purchased and cruisers even less so

purchases are mostly aircraft carriers/planes and subs and destroyers

simply because what you get per dollar is better in those 3 units than either cruisers or BBs

BBs that cant hit subs would be a very nice historical house rule

I’m wondering about this special house rule for Cruiser to upgrade the value and incentive of buying them.

Since BB can no more attack Subs.
I suggest Cruiser (which were able to fight subs) become a better attacking unit vs subs.
Historically, I’m not sure to what extend they also fight subs. But anyway, at least I formulate it.
Why not make them some kind of a Lesser effective Anti-Sub Weapon than destroyer:

When 1 cruiser is present on offense or defense, it prevents subs from submerging.
Subs keep their Surprise First Strike, but they cannot flee at will.
Cruiser can neither help planes attacking subs, planes still need DD.

So any cruiser could attack subs, the sub(s) can still defend @1 First Strike but cannot submerge and escape the attacking cruiser(s) roll(s). It will become a dangerous fight to death for both part, or until cruiser retreat.

When subs are attacking a fleet with cruiser but without destroyers, subs cannot submerge during the first stage, still keeping their First Strike. But they can only retreat as the other vessels units.

Can it be a decisive capacity to buy more Cruiser unit now?

Does this Lesser Anti Sub Weapon is historically accurate to your knowledge?

Does cruiser A3D3M3C12 1 hit, bombard @3, AA platform, combined AA fire with BB,
becomes too overpowered?

Now Cruiser will be a real jack-of-all trade of the sea.

If it is the case, which aspect can we keep to make it balance unit and attractive at 12 IPCs?

[Derek]

Follow below on dice rolls of ‘1’ in combat

––Super submarines, on offense only can choose surface target hit (TRN, CV, CA, BB) cannot choose destroyers or other subs, transports are valid targets
----Destroyers on offense and defense can choose a submarine hit (SS)
----Cruisers on offense and defense can choose an aircraft hit (FG, TAC, STRT)
----Battleships on offense and defense can choose a surface target hit (TRN, DD, CV, CA, BB) transports are valid targets, may not choose submarines

----Tanks on defense and offense can choose ground hit (INF, MECH, ART, ARM, AAA)
----Fighters on defense and offense can choose air hit (FG, TAC, STRT), does not apply to SBR escort/intercept
----Tactical bombers on offense and defense can choose ground target (INF, MECH, ART, ARM, AAA) Land combat only, cannot choose naval targets
----Strategic bombers on offense only; the defender will choose 2 hits instead of one (Bomber killed 2 guys instead of 1) Land combat only, does not apply to naval combat or any SBR

NOTE: BBs cannot choose subs, Cruisers choose aircraft, subs and BBs can choose transports, DDs become even more sub hunter/killers
Also NOTE: the units we already see purchased alot of (INF/ART/MECH/DD/CV) receive little to no boost

Submarines on the other hand may become very powerfull on offense, which is why i seriously consider restricting it to super subs only, and on offense only

This is a very simply and effective/historical way to bring more diversity to the game and reward dice rolls of ‘1’

[Jennifer]

I am not sure about overpowered, I did increase the cost of the submarine back up to the classic 8 IPC each.  Not to mention, the submarines cannot call shots all day long, they have to go in without any air power and without any surface warships and they only get the one round to fire and get out.  And, if the defender has a destroyer, they still get to return fire on that one round.  I think that pretty much balances things out and I really only see it helping the Germans on round 1 and maybe the Japanese or Americans late in the game.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

well on the sub heavy battlefield…dont we already have that? very few BBs are purchased and cruisers even less so

purchases are mostly aircraft carriers/planes and subs and destroyers

simply because what you get per dollar is better in those 3 units than either cruisers or BBs

BBs that cant hit subs would be a very nice historical house rule

I thought about it and now, I could tell that this rule can reduce the number of subs present and be replaced by DDs.

I explain:
If anyone wish to protect his surface fleet (ex.: 1 CV, 1 CA, 1 DD, 2TT), it cannot rely on subs as cheap fodder because Battleship on attack can no longer hit sub, they are treated as plane (when no DD is present).
A massive group of 4-6 subs makes no difference for defender to choose his casualty.

This imply BB will hit hard on the core of the fleet.
Suppose 2 escorted BBs on offense getting twice hits.
(Also, don’t forget adding Plunging Fire, give 2 other chances @1 on the first round to make more casualities.)
All the surface ships will be probably destroyed (depending on the number of defending planes).
Now subs cannot serve as cheap buffer against BB (and aircrafts, when no attacking DD).

Defender will probably think twice about DD, before purchasing almost only subs around his main fleet.

BBs are still more interesting offensive weapon now.

Is it a probable consequence according to both of you?

[baron Münchhausen]

@Baron:

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.

I revised this:

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 1 cruiser get 1AA@1 preemptive defensive fire.

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

Combined AA fire with CA: when paired with CA 1 BB get 1AA@1 preemptive defensive fire.

I think now, it will promote an equal buying of both CA and BB.
It will be easier to get 2@1AA = 12+20= 32 IPCs for an average of 16 IPCs.
Previously, 2@1AA = 12+12+20= 44 IPCs for an average of 22 IPCs.

This way, a basic fleet including 1BB and 1CA  will seem able to better deal with another one with 1 carrier and 2 aircrafts.

The temptation of getting 2AA@1 to slighlty boost the defensive capacity of a fleet will be a real and better incentive than before to buy the missing companion (either BB or CA), IMO.

Now planes and carrier won’t be overattractive.
CA+BB will be an interesting byuing for both defense and offense for naval warfare.

Now, Cmdr Jen: you will find BB as an AA platform like you told before but not at the expanse of the poor CA. Both are needed to maximize defense.

Uncrustable: CA on offense will be able to directly hit planes on “1” (and it doesn’t excluded all the other critical “1” you just suggest.)

[baron Münchhausen]

And another interesting thing about giving AA to BB+CA paired together is that in 1942 initial placement their is no such thing as a BB and CA in the same sea-zone. So it doesn’t change the first turn of the game.

However, in Global 1940,
ETO:
Italy’s BB+Cruiser in SZ97 will gain an immediate 2@1AA.
UK, will gain the same in SZ 110 and 111.

PTO:
USA in SZ 10.
Japan in SZ 6.

So, it will give a slight advantage to UK against an attacking Germany.
Not so bad considering the Axis advantage most people acknowledge.

[Jennifer]

Baron, CA is your Carrier?  or Cruiser?

I’m good with BB+AC together having 3 AA Gun Shots per pair, provided there are enough attacking aircraft to sustain said fire. (like now if you have 5 AA Guns but are attacked by 4 planes, they don’t get 15 shots, they get 4.)

Cruisers, I still say, are, or should be, a lot more used than they are getting credit for in this thread.  They are far superior to Battleships in just about every regard except early round builds for the United States and/or insane income for Australia (should that ever happen.  I did see, ONCE Australia capture Tokyo where they got an 80+ IPC treasury and still only had the 1 minor complex to spend money on.  Tokyo, of course, was liberated right after, it was a can opener thing.)

Think about it, 240 IPC gives you:  12 Battleships vs 20 Cruisers, that’s 8 extra shots a round, yes they don’t soak hits and keep going, but what good are soaked hits if the enemy gets 3 more rounds to shoot at you because you can’t kill them fast enough?

[baron Münchhausen]

CV: carrier vessel
CA: cruiser armored

[baron Münchhausen]

@Cmdr:

Baron, CA is your Carrier?  or Cruiser?

I’m good with BB+AC together having 3 AA Gun Shots per pair, provided there are enough attacking aircraft to sustain said fire. (like now if you have 5 AA Guns but are attacked by 4 planes, they don’t get 15 shots, they get 4.)

Cruisers, I still say, are, or should be, a lot more used than they are getting credit for in this thread.  They are far superior to Battleships in just about every regard except early round builds for the United States and/or insane income for Australia (should that ever happen.  I did see, ONCE Australia capture Tokyo where they got an 80+ IPC treasury and still only had the 1 minor complex to spend money on.  Tokyo, of course, was liberated right after, it was a can opener thing.)

Think about it, 240 IPC gives you:  12 Battleships vs 20 Cruisers, that’s 8 extra shots a round, yes they don’t soak hits and keep going, but what good are soaked hits if the enemy gets 3 more rounds to shoot at you because you can’t kill them fast enough?

You are suggesting giving a whole AA capacity against 3 aircrafts when BB and cruisers are present?

I would prefer a third addition (since carrier was the real historical AA platform):
when BB+CA are present and a CV is added, then you get a third AA@1.

So, a complete AA preemptive strike (vs 3 planes as OOB AAA) will be obtain with BB+CA+CV.

The order is important to have the most incentive to buy BB and CA: cruiser and BB, then CV.
You buy a CV and BB? Nothing happen until the cruiser is bought.

(This last AA@1, adds another advantage of a fleet carrier vs CVL/CVE.)

This 3@1 AA can be considered historical, since:
Around 3min. 25 s.: they explain how a fleet defensive formation was organized.
From outer circles, to the most inner circles: DDs, cruisers, BBs, fleet carriers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxhzWUhBJgE

[baron Münchhausen]

Such a rule, limited to 1 roll/plane whichever is lower:
CA+BB= 2 AA@1
CA+BB+CV= 3 AA@1

Adding AA, change the odds of survival for an identical fleet
1Sub+ 1DD + 1CA + 1 CV (A1D2 1 hit) + 2 Fg + 1 BB  A18D20   (1942)

(in which an additional AA@1 change nothing since there is only 2 figs) from:

offense 30% vs defense 65% no survivor 5%

to: offense 28% vs defense 68% no survivor 4%.

adding 1 bomber with the offensive naval group vs OOB: offense 64% defense 32% no survivor 4%.

against 3@1AAA: offense 56% vs defense 39% no survivor 5%.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Cmdr:

Baron, CA is your Carrier?  or Cruiser?

I’m good with BB+AC together having 3 AA Gun Shots per pair, provided there are enough attacking aircraft to sustain said fire. (like now if you have 5 AA Guns but are attacked by 4 planes, they don’t get 15 shots, they get 4.)

Cruisers, I still say, are, or should be, a lot more used than they are getting credit for in this thread.  They are far superior to Battleships in just about every regard except early round builds for the United States and/or insane income for Australia (should that ever happen.  I did see, ONCE Australia capture Tokyo where they got an 80+ IPC treasury and still only had the 1 minor complex to spend money on.  Tokyo, of course, was liberated right after, it was a can opener thing.)

Think about it, 240 IPC gives you:  12 Battleships vs 20 Cruisers, that’s 8 extra shots a round, yes they don’t soak hits and keep going, but what good are soaked hits if the enemy gets 3 more rounds to shoot at you because you can’t kill them fast enough?

About cruisers (to the contrary of your intuitive thinking):

On a more playable level: 5 cruisers vs 3 battleships, 28% vs 66% survival.

More you add cruisers, more you let BB wins.
In your scenario, the battlecalculator give these odds:
20 cruisers:     13%  survival
12 battleships: 86% survival
http://www.campusactivism.org/aacalc/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=&aCru=20&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=12&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=

[Derek]

If all that mattered was #of dice rolls, then it would just be an infantry/submarine spam with the occasional destroyer and transport

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

If all that mattered was #of dice rolls, then it would just be an infantry/submarine spam with the occasional destroyer and transport

True, but the matter at stake here is to compare 2 similar units with the same OOB capacity and function: Cruiser and BB are used in the same situation, since they are as good in offense and defense 3/3 vs 4/4 and both can bombard.

So these 2 ships serve the same tactical and strategical use.
Then the question of there combat value rise by itself:
Which one give the most for each IPC investment?

I said earlier that the competitive match on small scale buying vs BB is Cruiser paired with DD.
Because you have both ASW and bombard while keeping a high A5D5 for 2 hits.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable,
you are quite silence about the combine arms aspect of this HR on BB and Cruiser
(and even fleet carrier to gain a third @1AA) to increase buying of BB and Cruiser.

What is your impression? Will it create this incentive or not?

@Baron:

Such a rule, limited to 1 roll/plane whichever is lower:
CA+BB= 2 AA@1
CA+BB+CV= 3 AA@1

Adding AA, change the odds of survival for an identical fleet
1Sub+ 1DD + 1CA + 1 CV (A1D2 1 hit) + 2 Fg + 1 BB  A18D20   (1942)

And about this prediction on BB unable to attack subs, do you have an opinion?

@Baron:

@Uncrustable:

well on the sub heavy battlefield…dont we already have that? very few BBs are purchased and cruisers even less so

purchases are mostly aircraft carriers/planes and subs and destroyers

simply because what you get per dollar is better in those 3 units than either cruisers or BBs

BBs that cant hit subs would be a very nice historical house rule

I thought about it and now, I could tell that this rule can reduce the number of subs present and be replaced by DDs.

I explain:
If anyone wish to protect his surface fleet (ex.: 1 CV, 1 CA, 1 DD, 2TT), it cannot rely on subs as cheap fodder because Battleship on attack can no longer hit sub, they are treated as plane (when no DD is present).
A massive group of 4-6 subs makes no difference for defender to choose his casualty.

This imply BB will hit hard on the core of the fleet.
Suppose 2 escorted BBs on offense getting twice hits.
(Also, don’t forget adding Plunging Fire, give 2 other chances @1 on the first round to make more casualities.)
All the surface ships will be probably destroyed (depending on the number of defending planes).
Now subs cannot serve as cheap buffer against BB (and aircrafts, when no attacking DD).

Defender will probably think twice about DD, before purchasing almost only subs around his main fleet.

BBs are still more interesting offensive weapon now.

Is it a probable consequence according to both of you?

[Jennifer]

@Uncrustable:

If all that mattered was #of dice rolls, then it would just be an infantry/submarine spam with the occasional destroyer and transport

Infantry Push Mechanic was very strong on # of units not necessarily their damage per round (dpr) ability.  That’s why I like cruisers probably, a hold over notion from classic.

I don’t know, I’m still pro Battleships for the United States, but only until they catch up to Japan and only if going Contain Japan First.  For the United Kingdom I am very, VERY bullish on Cruisers.  They’re cheaper, you can put more of them out in a shorter time frame, they really help to soften the beaches of Normandy and they can be split up.  Battleships are too much, FOR ME, all eggs in one basket.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Cmdr:

Yea, we tried posting same time.

Good with it, but it’s convoluted to me.  2 for special combat, 2 for each combat “point” (attack value + defense value) and 3 for each cargo unit seems to work just fine. I don’t mind dropping the price of carriers because they are useless without their cargo.

I was thinking about the cost of non-combat unit.
Probably the 7 IPCs for TT A0D0M2 can be determined that way:
Carrying 1 infantry = 3 IPCs
Carrying any ground unit = 4 IPCs

So a TT at 6 IPCs could only transport 2 Infantry units.

This way, if someone wants to develop a Japanese like Tokyo Express DD transport:

Destroyer A2D2M2C11  ASW, can carry 1 Inf unit only. Can not do both while on offense.*

[baron Münchhausen]

@Cmdr:

Hmm, I’d rather apply it to all ships and adjust their cost accordingly. � So maybe

• Destroyers as a basis, so 2x (2ATT + 2 DEF) +2 Special = 10 IPC
• Cruiser would be 2x (3 ATT + 3 DEF) +2 Special (Off Shore Bombardment) = 14 IPC
• Carriers would be (2x (0 ATT + 2 DEF))x2 for double hits to sink + 3 Special first fighter + 3 Special second fighter = 14 IPC
• Battleships would be 2x(4 ATT + 4 DEF)+ 2 Plunging Fire +2 for 2nd hit to damage + 2 for 3rd hit to sink +2 Off Shore Bombardment = 24 IPC
• Submarines would be 2x(2 ATT + 1 DEF) + 2 Sneak Shot = 8 IPC
• Transports would be 2x(0 ATT + 0 DEF) + 3 First Unit Carried + 3 Second Unit Carried = 6 IPC

In this way the price of carriers and transports go down, but the other units go up slightly, which I think evens out over the long haul. �  � We could apply a 2 IPC Credit towards any warship with a base cost over 10 IPC which would make the prices work out to:

• DD = 8 IPC = Attack 2, Defend 2, Detect Submarines, Move 2
• CA = 12 IPC = Attack 3, Defend 3, Shore Bombard 3, Move 2
• AC = 12 IPC = Attack 0, Defend 2, Carry 2 Fighters, Move 2
• BB = 22 IPC = Attack 4, Defend 4, Plunging Fire, 3 Hits to sink, Move 2
• SS = 8 IPC = Attack 2, Defend 1, Sneak Shot, Move 2
• TRN = 6 IPC = Cargo two ground units, Move 2

So with the credit, only the BB, AC and SS have price changes but they all have some basis in mathematics to justify their cost! � Just a note, I made all cargo units +3 each to get the price of transports back up. �

I’m Just trying to find another rule to obtain the real OOB cost:

Carriers would be (2x (0 ATT + 2 DEF))x2 for double hits to sink + 3 Special first fighter + 3 Special second fighter = 14 IPC

D2 x2 = 4 pts x2 double hit = 8 IPCs + (2 fgt A6D8x2= 28) = 36 IPCs - 20 IPCs (2 fgs) = 16 IPCs
OOB 1940 Carrier cost!

A1D2 x2 = 6 pts x 1 hit = 6 IPCs + (2 fgt A6D8x2= 28) = 34 IPCs - 20 IPCs (2 fgs) = 14 IPCs
OOB 1942 Carrier cost!

But, following this rule for double hit, don’t work with Battleship:
A4D4 x 2 = 16 pts x 2 hit = 32 IPCs, way too much…

I think double hit is a straight 4 IPCs of basic cost for big ship.
So a 1942 Carrier will cost 18 IPCs.

Maybe for special HR armored cruiser it could be  reduce to 3 IPCs for 1 additionnal hit.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Cmdr:

I started with the destroyer being 8 IPC and worked out a divisor for the attack and defense values.  It worked out, there are very minor changes, mainly the submarine is 2 IPC more expensive as is the cruiser, but the aircraft carrier is 2 ipc cheaper and the battleship with its added benefit of an extra hit and plunging fire is where it was in classic in cost.

If we took off shore bombardments off, the cruiser is the same as it was, and the bb is 22 ipc where you suggested.

Your cost for subs is high because you arbitrarily reduce all cost units by 2 IPCs except subs.

I think the cost for special ability is the main problem.
The OOB is probably 1 special capacity at no cost for each unit.
Getting one special ability is helping defines all units.

That’s why BB cost 20 IPCs, 2 hits cost 4 IPCs but bombard is a special free capacity.
And a Superarmored BB cost would rather be 24 IPCs for the third hit soaker.

Giving Plunging fire, but restraining at A0 attack vs subs is a way to make this addition free.

Submerge and Surprise First Strike are 2 abilities but combine as 1 free special capacity.

Chosen last is the special ability for transport.

[baron Münchhausen]

Following this calculus for CVE:
CVE A0D1M2 (1x2) =2 pts + (A3D4 x2= 14 pts) 16 IPCs- 10 IPCs = 6 IPCs for 1 regular CVE,
but we give CVL A0D1M3 ASW.  1 additionnal move =+2 IPCs / 1 ASW = 2 IPCs

CVL A0D1M3 1 hit, ASW, carry 1 plane, cost 10 IPCs.