Klop is not a dog. bbbbbbbbbbbbbbooooooooooooommmmmmmmmmm!!!
2 Destroyers OR 1 Battleship?
-
I would go with 1 Battleship. The shore bombard capabilities of the battleship make it a terrific offensive weapon when deploying troops into hostile territory. Also unless it is a massive naval battle or the BB is left alone to be attacked it will generally survive the fight. If your navy has plenty of fodder i.e. subs and TRAN then your rolling a 4 every round. I play by the rule book so I guess I just don’t understand the DES argument of changing its capabilities. Any piece in the came can become invaluable if you change its function. If you play strictly by the rule than the BB is superior IMO.
Well, you seems to be a newbie here. If anyone can tell about the impact of changed values for a certain kind of unit, it is me! This rule actually makes shore bombardment more reasonable, cannot you see the problem or are youone of those who buys everything Mr Selinker or Larry feeds you with. These guys are humans not gods! They are not even genius IMHO! I like Larry a lot but he is too stucked with all those guys who want a too advanced game. Make it simple and not too many units! Artillery and destroyers was a nice add, but AA-guns are superfluous! Air power is still not perfectly balanced and many other rules are contradictory like the shore bombardment. I try to keep it simple here.
Just read Mr Selinkers arguments for not giving DDs the shore bombardment ability. The areas are too big, so it would be unrealistic and too effective (a game braker) to let DDs shore bombard the inner part of Canada with no true coastline. That is true for both BBs and DDs in my opinion, don’t you agree!? I believe that this is the biggest problem with shore bombardment. If one has a few BBs then one can put a shore one infantry and blow away a stack of infantry with shorebombardment without suffering a casualty. If DDs were allowed as well to perform shore bombardment this unrealistic problem will become even more obvious. So the true problem lies in the shore bombardment rule as it is designed today, if allowed at all it needs to be restricted some how.
The second argument is that each unit should only have one additional special ability like shore bombardment. Once again BBs do have the 2 hit ability and shore bombardment, why not allow this shore bombardment to DDs as well??? It does not make sense!!! So this is something that has to be solved for the next edition to A&A Revised. My suggestion for a new shore bombardment rule could be added as an optional for the more advanced player. Other players do best in not allow shore bombardment at all for BBs or DDs!
-
I’ve recently been thinking that a more realistic approach to shore bombardment would be reduced effectiveness of the units which were bombarded.
For example, if Japan attacked the 2 U.S. Infantry on Hawaii with a BB shot during an amphibious invasion, the Battleship would, upon a hit, reduce the defensive capability of one of the Infantry to a 1 rather than a 2 for the duration of the battle. Two successful Battleship bombardments would mean two units would be affected, etc. Or… it could completely remove the defensive capability of one unit, but the unit could still be taken as a casualty…
In this case the ability of a Destroyer to shore bombard would be mitigated enough to allow it without significantly altering the game. I do understand that Battleships would lose some effectiveness with this rule, and Destroyers would be a better purchase, but I’ve never personally bought a BB in the revised game anyhow, nor has any experienced player that I’ve ever played against.
There is no case in WWII of naval bombardment completely eroding the ability of an entire Infantry Army to effectively engage in combat. Zero evidence. On the contrary, on Iwo Jima the Japanese garrison actually improved its defensive position under withering naval and air bombardment. The case could be made for the effects of shore bombardment upon the outcome on the Normandy invasion, but a closer look reveals that the true deciding factors included the lack of ability to move Panzer divisions without Hitler’s express approval, combined with the fact that the Allies had complete air superiority over France at the time, making large-scale daytime movements of reinforcements to the coast deadly at best.
-
As shown in another thread (and a game in the Games section) massed BB’s are easily and cheaply countered. A single naval unit build prevents a bombard AND also limits any TRN’s in the same SZ to COMBAT offloading only… no non-combat reinforcement possible.
As far as bombarding with DST’s… that would make them Cruisers, not Destroyers. DST’s are small, fast, sub hunting escort ships with a relatively small number of small weapons. The Tech roll ups them to Cruisers if you get Consolidated Bombard.
Otherwise they are (and should remain) small, fast, escort ships for defending convoys and killing SUBs.
-
@ncscswitch:
…As far as bombarding with DST’s… that would make them Cruisers, not Destroyers. DST’s are small, fast, sub hunting escort ships with a relatively small number of small weapons. The Tech roll ups them to Cruisers if you get Consolidated Bombard.
Otherwise they are (and should remain) small, fast, escort ships for defending convoys and killing SUBs.
Well, you have not made your homework! In World War II, destroyers were truly all-purpose ships, ready to fight off attacks from the air, the surface and under the surface. They handled a variety of duties such as picket ship, escorting larger ships and convoys, shore bombardment, rescuing pilots who were forced down at sea and even acting as mailman for the fleet. You are talking about destroyer escorts, strictly used for convoy duties. I am talking about the bigger and more general destroyer (reflected by a 3 attack and 3 defense capability), used for fleet and coastal protection duties. These destroyers were frequently used for shore bombardment in all theaters. It is a fact! Cruisers are in my opinion not needed since a destroyer unit reflects a squadron of destroyers or some destroyers and some crusiers if you like!
-
@88:
I’ve recently been thinking that a more realistic approach to shore bombardment would be reduced effectiveness of the units which were bombarded…
I have played around with the idea before but ended up in a problem. The problem is that people are used to think of shore bombardment as a true attack like heavy artillery that softening up the defense before the invasion and hence an attack value in the opening fire step of combat. More over I think the rule makes it more intressting/powerful and easier (playability) to have it that way rather than reducing defense values. How ever I like the idea, but it is too far from the original rules in A&A. It is definitely a try to think outside the box rules! :-)
-
OK, so you are going to tell me that four 5" guns are 50% as effective as nine 16" guns for shore bombard?
Benson Class destroyers only had 4 “large” guns, if you want to call 5" guns “large.” And they were the workhorse of the US DST’s in WWII. Even the Porter Class DST’s had half of their eight 5" guns removed during the war since the ships were top-heavy and needed better AA protection.
The Atlanta Class Cruisers though had 16 such guns, as well as their depth charge batteries, etc. THESE ships would be a fitting and probable equivalent to a technology improved Consolidated Bombard “Destroyer”
In all honesty, I simply do NOT see how you can even begin to think that giving a ship with ONLY FOUR 5"/38 guns 50% of the shore bombard that a BB has, when the BB has not only the NINE 16" big guns, but also has more than double the number of 5"/38 (20 total on 10 twin mounts, half on each side of the ship).
Just not happening in my book.
And that my friend is the result of a bit of research to confirm what I posted previously :-)
Also, there are these quotes about the “role” of a DST:
With time, the destroyers received the very weapon they were committed to destroy: the torpedo. Little by little, their role expanded until it encompass all secondary tasks in a fleet: fight against submarines, attack of the enemy fleet with torpedoes, …. During World War 2 they also became anti-aircraft platforms.
http://users.swing.be/navbat/edito/navires/typesnavires.htm
nothing there about shore bombard… -
@ncscswitch:
OK, so you are going to tell me that four 5" guns are 50% as effective as nine 16" guns for shore bombard?…
Don’t tell me about math here! Do you really think that one piece corresponds to one ship!!!
I am telling you that some 120 5 inches guns are at least 50% as effective as 10 16 inches guns for shore bombardment. I explain:
A typical destroyer weighted about 3000 tons, with about 6 guns around 5 inches and torpedoe tubes. And between 1939 and 1945, a battleships weighted from 30 000 tons to 70 000 tons. She carried about 10 guns from 11 inches (German Scharnhorst) up to 18 inches (Japanese Yamato). In counting tons we can say that it takes about 20 destroyers for each battleship. That means 20 destroyers times 6 5 inches guns (destroyer unit) counting against 10 16 inches guns (battleship unit)! 8-)
By the way, if you have not herd about destoyers carried out shore bombardment then try Google and look for “destroyers WWII shore bombardment”.
-
Ah, but the one piece, one ship rule applies to BB’s as well as DST’s…
-
@ncscswitch:
Ah, but the one piece, one ship rule applies to BB’s as well as DST’s…
He, he, he hard to find out that one was wrong and someone else was right …. isn’t it!
The statistics I gave you before was a comparation ratio that says that a DD piece consist of 15-20 times as many units as a battleship piece. If the battleship piece coresponds to 1 or 100 units I did not say anything about, just a way to look at the statistics! Ok!!!
So if your are smart enough to take it, then I would like to ask you if you think the shore bombarment should be a 2 or 3 for destroyers and what, if any, restrictions should be done to the shore bombardment rule. Did you like mine, and why?
-
Also, I am NOT denying that 5" guns would be effective for IMMEDIATE coastal bombardment (such as is described at one of the links using your search parameters… http://pages.cthome.net/boyd544/Diary03.htm.
BUT… there is no denying that a single BB ship is equivalent, JUST in 5" guns, to 5 DST’s, and adding in the 16", the BB is so vastly superior in both range and effect as to provide no viable comparison.
Lastly, while you state above that a single piece in A&A does not equate to a single ship (which I agree with), the truth is that a DST in A&A does NOT represent THAT many more ships than is represented by a BB so as to allow for the massive upgrade in a DST’s abilities.
There were only THIRTY Benson class Destroyers (you already have conceeded that the more numerous Escort Destroyers do not have a viable bombard capability). If we add EVERY DST in the US fleet during the early 40’s (66 Gleaves Class, 30 Benson Class, 175 Fletcher Class, 58 Sumner Class, and a pittance of the Gearing Class (modified Sumners most of which were finished after WWII ended), you get a total of about 350 DST’s.
Meanwhile the US had 42 Battleships… So I’ll grant about 8 DST’s per BB.
HOWEVER, a BB unit in A&A is NOT just the Battleship or ships. It is the entire Battleship task force, which includes the supporting ships (such as DST’s) that would and DID always accompany a BB wherever it went (the same is true of AC’s, otherwise without those cruisers and AA DST’s, an AC would NEVER merit a 3 on defense). Thus many of the DST’s ARE accounted for, as assumed auxiliaries, with their more prominent ships on the game board.
So in a way, you are correct. The DST’s ARE firing in support shots as part of that 4 for the BB task force. But the seperate DST units, which presumably are those on ASW and AA patrol, do not in and of themselves merit a Bombard shot.
Remember, in Revised we are dealing with a GLOBAL game, and unit representations are overly simplified (no mechanized infantry, no sub tenders, no refueling ships, no PBY’s, etc., etc… these units are all assumed to be a part of the larger primary unit to which they were attached.) And thus the shore bombard aspect of DST’s is assumed by the BB task force, and the “individual” DST’s are considered to be the ASW and AA patrols of DST’s.
At least, that is how I view it.
-
@ncscswitch:
…
Lastly, while you state above that a single piece in A&A does not equate to a single ship (which I agree with), the truth is that a DST in A&A does NOT represent THAT many more ships than is represented by a BB so as to allow for the massive upgrade in a DST’s abilities.Says who???
@ncscswitch:
…HOWEVER, a BB unit in A&A is NOT just the Battleship or ships. It is the entire Battleship task force, which includes the supporting ships (such as DST’s) that would and DID always accompany a BB wherever it went (the same is true of AC’s, otherwise without those cruisers and AA DST’s, an AC would NEVER merit a 3 on defense). Thus many of the DST’s ARE accounted for, as assumed auxiliaries, with their more prominent ships on the game board.
So in a way, you are correct. The DST’s ARE firing in support shots as part of that 4 for the BB task force. But the seperate DST units, which presumably are those on ASW and AA patrol, do not in and of themselves merit a Bombard shot.
Remember, in Revised we are dealing with a GLOBAL game, and unit representations are overly simplified (no mechanized infantry, no sub tenders, no refueling ships, no PBY’s, etc., etc… these units are all assumed to be a part of the larger primary unit to which they were attached.)Â And thus the shore bombard aspect of DST’s is assumed by the BB task force, and the “individual” DST’s are considered to be the ASW and AA patrols of DST’s.
At least, that is how I view it.
Now we are talking the same language! A DD piece is in fact a “half battleship” or a smaller task force, not just some escort destroyers (wich is absolutely clear according to the combat capability and cost)! Hence the DD should have a shore bombardment capability, dont you think!!! And what about the Q I asked you about? Should it be shore bombardment on a 2 or a 3? And should there be any restrictions to the shore bombardment rule?
-
I don;t think it merits a change, unless tech is developed to increase the abilities of DST’s to be on par with Heavy Cruisers.
The DST bombard is already covered with the fact that they are assumed to be present with the BB unit.
Also, again this is a GLOBAL game, and DST’s were limitted to VERY coastal use on their bombard (immediate costal defenses and dock facilities for the most part). If the coastal territories were smaller and more isolated from the larger territory behind, tehn great, allow them to bombard (such as blasting Wake or Oki in the Pacific). But to allow them to nail FRANCE?
Nah, leave it as is. The DST bombard is covered as part of teh BB task force. Those “lone” DST’s are the escort DST’s, and the ASW DST’s. Unless you want to allow torpedoes that can fire into land, in which case I want my subs able to nail Paris too :-P
-
@ncscswitch:
I don;t think it merits a change…The DST bombard is already covered with the fact that they are assumed to be present with the BB unit…
Hmmm… What you say here is a contradictory. Destroyers can make shore bombardment along with battleships, but at the same time a single piece of destroyer unit cannot, even if in company with a single piece of battleship???
@ncscswitch:
Also, again this is a GLOBAL game, and DST’s were limitted to VERY coastal use on their bombard
And battleships were not??? Wake up!
@ncscswitch:
… The DST bombard is covered as part of teh BB task force. Those “lone” DST’s are the escort DST’s, and the ASW DST’s…
So one should consider a destroyer piece to be just some destroyer escorts, were as every other piece is considered to be a task force. Transports are just what they are supposed to be or??? Transports defending on a 1? I think you got your destoyers escorts in that defense value of 1! You must ask your self about the realism in a 3/3 combat ratio and a cost of 12 IPCs. Does it corresponds to some destroyer escorts! Nope, it does not. No need to argue about it. To me it rather sounds like a “half battleship” or simply a smaller task force that consist of some destroyers and some cruisers. Good bye!
-
I think I did rather well in terms of being a gentleman… I gave links, gave figures, and offered logical reasons for supporting the status quo.
In Pacific, with smaller territories, and a heavier emphasis on naval units, a DST bombard makes sense. On a global scale with larger territories, it simply does not.
The 3x3 of DST’s simpply reflects the nature of the DST… strong against AF and SUBs, which is what they were DESIGNED for.
But I just do not think that those 5" guns that were used for things like ‘targeting a crane and dock facilities in the Solomons’ can be considered to be equivalent to lobbing 16" shells a score of miles inland.
Now, if you want to expand the game, add things like Meachanized INF, Armored merchant marine, torpedo planes, etc., etc. on a board that is at least 4’x8’ and has seperate coastal and inland divisions that divide territories like Western Europe into about 10 smaller territories, then yes, by all means, add the DST bombard.
-
How exactly does a squadron of destroyers or 3-4 battleships actually destroy a corps sixed ( 3-5 divisions) of infantry? Shore bombardment should only be able to supress the counter attack for one round and not actually be responsible for killing 40,000 men. That clearly didnt happen anywhere… What happened in terms of extrapolatiing the abstract benifit was to prevent the defender the ability to make good an immediate counterattack… To translate this means for every hit the defender should not be able to attack with a unit selected by the attacker for one round.
Possible solution:
- Defender fires shore bombardment: Total = number of selected units the defender cannot defend with on the first round
- Atacking air units fire preemtive on defending units ( not possible if the defender has air… which results in a roun d of air combat instead)
- defending artillery fire preemtively
- attacking land units (not armor) fire
- defending units remaining ( not selected by shore bombardment) fire
round two:
- attacking air preemtive hits ( if they clear sky)
- attacking armor and infantry
- all defending units
-
@ncscswitch:
…In Pacific, with smaller territories, and a heavier emphasis on naval units, a DST bombard makes sense. On a global scale with larger territories, it simply does not.
…But I just do not think that those 5" guns that were used for things like ‘targeting a crane and dock facilities in the Solomons’ can be considered to be equivalent to lobbing 16" shells a score of miles inland.
Well, to keep it short! First, shore bombardment were mainly used to soften up or take out enemy shore installations before an amphibious assault, hence no need to lobbing shells miles inland! Second, if one use the retorics of a game on a global scale with larger territories, then no shore bombardment should be allowed at all. Maybe an exception for islands. Have you ever herd of a battleship during WWII that could hit Berlin or Paris??? You are smart enough to find out that you just trying to justify a rule that is not consistent.
-
OK, not to quibble but…
With the range of 16" guns, that theoretically would put an entire coastal division within range of those guns. With 5" guns, only the immediate coastal troops, those squads and platoons on the immediate coastline, would be effected.
-
@ncscswitch:
OK, not to quibble but…
With the range of 16" guns, that theoretically would put an entire coastal division within range of those guns. With 5" guns, only the immediate coastal troops, those squads and platoons on the immediate coastline, would be effected.
You really must be a hard opponent to the weapons development “Combined Bombardment”!!! Me too, but for other reasons than yours!
-
I’m not going to offer an opinion on realism, since I find that a pretty pointless argument. But from the standpoint of game balance, allowing the DD a shore bombardment value of 2 as a basic ability is a good idea, as long as it’s paired with the suggested rule that each sea unit participating in shore bombardment must be accompanied by one amphibious land unit. This restriction should be extended to BBs as well.
Adding the capability to DDs will give a little omph to an overpriced and rarely purchased unit.
The one-for-one restriction on bombardments will stop the silly tactic of sending one Inf in an amphibious assault with 5 BB bombards.
While we are on the topic on shore bombards, I also think there should be a rule (discussed on another thread) that allows the attacker to choose which BBs (and DDs if they can bombard) will engage in sea combat and which will engage in shore bombardment, instead of the current rules which say they all need to engage in sea combat in there are enemy sea units to engage. This will stop the silly tactic of one sub stopping 5 BBs from bombarding.
-
…
While we are on the topic on shore bombards, I also think there should be a rule (discussed on another thread) that allows the attacker to choose which BBs (and DDs if they can bombard) will engage in sea combat and which will engage in shore bombardment, instead of the current rules which say they all need to engage in sea combat in there are enemy sea units to engage. This will stop the silly tactic of one sub stopping 5 BBs from bombarding.
I don’t find the tactic silly, were one sub can be used to prevent a combat force of BBs (and DDs) from engage in shore bombardment. So called midget submarines were actually used for coast defense, to attack an advancing enemy fleet.
Suggested Topics
