2 Destroyers OR 1 Battleship?

[B.AnderssonGameMaster]

@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.

[Guest]

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.

[B.AnderssonGameMaster]

@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!

[JamesG]

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.

[B.AnderssonGameMaster]

@JamesG:

…

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.

[B.AnderssonGameMaster]

@JamesG:

… 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… Adding the capability to DDs will give a little omph to an overpriced and rarely purchased unit.

Yes, yes, yes!!! That is exactly what I think and the hole purpose of giving destroyers the special ability to shore bombard on a 2 or less, of course with the restriction of matching one-for-one. I cannot really see why anyone would argue about it, unless one what to keep it as realistic as possible, like Impy! I partly agree with Impy about a reduction in defense rather than a preemtive attack, but it is too deviant from the original and too complicated.

[Axel Allie]

IF DD would have a shore bombardment, who would buy BB’s then?

the main problem is: both ships are way to expensive!
oh, and the other ships as well!
and so are the AF!

I would like to see some mass naval battles in a game,
but this is only possible when AF and ships are less expensive…

as for the BB? I occasionally buy one for the only naval battle we have sometimes: Japan versus USA…

[B.AnderssonGameMaster]

@Axel:

IF DD would have a shore bombardment, who would buy BB’s then?

the main problem is: both ships are way to expensive!
oh, and the other ships as well!
and so are the AF!

I would like to see some mass naval battles in a game,
but this is only possible when AF and ships are less expensive…

as for the BB? I occasionally buy one for the only naval battle we have sometimes: Japan versus USA…

A special ability for destroyers to shore bombard on a 2 or less would not make battleships worthless. If you have red all replies here you would know why. Hit and run engagements for battlships are very attractive, it takes to 2 hits to destroy a battleship. However you are right about that battleships and destroyers are too expensive IMHO!

Destroyers

Description: Small, fast warships that hunt submarines.

Cost: 10
Attack: 2
Defense: 3
Move: 2

Special Abilities
Submarine Disruption: A destroyer cancels the special abilities of submarines. Enemy submarines cannot move freely through a sea zone containing your destroyer. If you have destroyers in a combat involving enemy submarines, they attack on a 2 and defend on a 3. Any casualties of enemy submarines can return fire. Also, enemy submarines cannot submerge while your destroyer is present.

Shore Bombardment: revised rules.

Battleships

Description: Powerful and nearly indestructible monarchs of the sea.

Cost: 20
Attack: 4
Defense: 4
Move: 2

Special Abilities
Two Hits to destroy: Just like the box rules.

Shore Bombardment: revised rules.

[Guest]

Ah yes, but lower the cost of those units would remove an historical accuracy from the game… the decline of surface ships in favor of the Carrier…

[B.AnderssonGameMaster]

@ncscswitch:

Ah yes, but lower the cost of those units would remove an historical accuracy from the game… the decline of surface ships in favor of the Carrier…

What??? :?

Please be more precise here!!!

[Axel Allie]

@ncscswitch:

Ah yes, but lower the cost of those units would remove an historical accuracy from the game… the decline of surface ships in favor of the Carrier…

who cares about historal accuracy in this case?
it’s still a game, right?
and you have to have LOT’s of fantasy to see the realism as it is now!
If the game should be historical accurate?
then armor could not defend when you make a landing in Western Europe for example :-P
and most of all: axis would never win the battle or even the war…
:roll:

what I mean: I still prefer a NICE and FUN game, rather then being subject to a historical accurate -but not compelling- replay of history where ships cost a lot more etc…

[Guest]

By historical accuracy, I was refering to the fact that WWII was the war that put an end to the dreadnaughts.  By the time Midway was complete, BB’s were passe, and Carriers would become the lords of the seas for the next 60+ years.

With the current set-up of IPC costs in Revised (lower AC and FIG costs), Revised moves toward that naval air power dominance instead of the WWI subs and BB’s.

[DarthMaximus]

Yes!

Every nation starts with a couple ftrs, so for 16 IPCs you get a defense of 3 + 4 + 4, no other ship can compare or even come close, even if you beaf up DD and drop their cost to 8 that is still only two 3’s for 16 and a BB can give you basically two 4’s but for 24 IPC’s.  And if you are attacked by enough units you only get one roll.

As for offense a ftr costs 10 and out classes (or is cheaper then any naval unit), plus they can’t even be hit by subs, and a bom has just as much punch as a BB and cost 9 IPC less.  Plus planes have greater range and are reusuable and can also serve in land combat.

[Guest]

Exactly Darth…

By the time of WWII, General Mitchell’s prediction had come true…
The BEST navy has WINGS…

“It is probable that future war will be conducted by a special class, the Air Force, as it was by the armored knights of the middle ages.”
Brig. Gen. William “Billy” Mitchell, Winged Defense, 1924

[DarthMaximus]

This is why I said Navies were irrelevent in my initial obs thread.

They aren’t really irrelevant, but with an AC loaded, plus planes near by and a bunch of trans that is all you should need.  Defensive power and a way to troops where they need to go.

[B.AnderssonGameMaster]

@DarthMaximus:

This is why I said Navies were irrelevent in my initial obs thread.

They aren’t really irrelevant, but with an AC loaded, plus planes near by and a bunch of trans that is all you should need.  Defensive power and a way to troops where they need to go.

So you think that BBs and DDs are more or less worthless in comparation to CAs. I agree, but don’t think it is a “gamebreaker” as it is now! Almost noone buy BBs and DDs (except for one DD). Why have a piece like BB that is more or less useless? I think the design of the BB and DD are not balanced as is now and need to be revised. First of all I think my airsupremacy rule clarifies the importance of wings and should be used as a standard rule in all games (if no enemy fighters, then your fighters attack or defend in the opening fire step of combat)! Then wings are more important and historical correct. How ever BBs and DDs are still and even more lousy pieces compared to a fully loaded CA! My suggestion is that BBs should cost 20 IPCs and DDs 10 IPCs with a 2/3 combat ratio and shore bombardment capability!

[DarthMaximus]

I think lowering the costs as you have suggested would help, perhaps you’d have to raise Carriers back to 18 IPC or even put them at 20 with a BB, or drop the BB down to 18, AC at 18 and DD at 2/2/2 (with 2 bombard if you want) for 8 IPC,  or if you want a little more potent DD keep either att or def at 3 and price it at 10.

Lets say you go with:

AC - 18
BB - 18
DD - 10 (2/3/2 - with 2 bombard)

It still seems worth while to get a DD, But the added investment of a BB or AC is certainly worth it, b/c they’d be cheaper then 2 DD’s.  Kind of like buying in bulk, you get a better deal if you spend more in one turn.

The problem still remains with ftrs at 10 IPC with a 3/4/4.  This out classes a DD and even comes close to a BB.  Same with a bom at 15 IPC at 4/1/6.

I think overall though the game dynamic makes navies (no matter what the cost) secondary.  The easiest objectives are still Moscow and Berlin.

There is just no way around that.  This make a German Naval focus secondary as well, and if Ger doesn’t have a big navy the Allies don’t really need one.  Likewise if Germany gets too carried away Russia (who doesn’t even need to worry about a navy) may be able to overrun them.

My thoughts would be, in addition to playing with the Values and Att/Def of units change two VC.
Move the 2nd UK VC city to Aus instead of Ind, and the US from Wus to Hi.
Beaf up Aus with an inf or two from Ind.

Now you give Jap a reason to go Pacific, 2 VC cities right there and 1 to defend in the Phil, and this certainly means the Allies cannot just ignore the Pacific.  The Axis can be at 8 VCs in no time and 9 with Kar.  Now the Allies really have to shift focus.  Similar to an M84 defense in Classic with a high Afr bid.

Oh!  Maybe bump up the cost of Trannies to 10.  Really make it costly to lose them and really make te allies commit to defending them.
Afterall Trannies are great for fodder and they acomplish the main goal of the navy, get troops from A to B.  Also since Ger doesn really need trannies this can give them a bit of a boost.

So forget changing the VC’s how about this:

AC (1/3/2) - 18
BB (4/4/2) - 18 (with 4 bombard, does not need 1-1 ratio [bb to tran] for bombard)
DD (2/3/2) - 10 (with 2 bombard, needs 1-1 ratio [dd to tran] for bombard)
Tran (0/1/2) - 10
Subs (2/2/2) - 8

Ftrs (3/4/4) - 12
Bom (4/1/6) - 16

I think you can even get away with making trans 12 IPC.  Really make them have to be defended, instead of making them the easy choice for fodder.

[Guest]

Not sure I agree with upping the FIGs to 12 again.  Lowering the price to 10 has resulted in more FIGs being bought in Revised than in Classic (raising the price makes sense from a “naval” persepctive, but makes FIGs a really BAD deal for Land use, where most FIGs see their main use anyway.

If you just up the AC price back to 18, you make a loaded AC a 38 IPC commitment (unless you steal existing FIGs), which is more than 3 of the 5 nations can pull off in a single turn… and 2 of the “naval” powers can;t afford to buy loaded ACs withiout increasing their income.  Even stealing FIGs, it makes Japan and UK have to comit nearly 2/3 of their income to buy an AC.

As for increasing the price of a TRN…  That just serves to re-secure US and UK and push the fight back to Germany/Russia even more.  Keeping TRNs cheap, and allowing ANY of the nations to drop 3-4 in a single turn makes all of the nations pay a bit MORE attention to enemy naval activity, not less.

[B.AnderssonGameMaster]

@ncscswitch:

Not sure I agree with upping the FIGs to 12 again.  Lowering the price to 10 has resulted in more FIGs being bought in Revised than in Classic (raising the price makes sense from a “naval” persepctive, but makes FIGs a really BAD deal for Land use, where most FIGs see their main use anyway.

You are so right! FIGs should be the best piece for naval battles, no question about it! I think thecost of 10 IPCs even might be too much. Perhaps 8 IPCs in a land based perspective!

@ncscswitch:

As for increasing the price of a TRN…  That just serves to re-secure US and UK and push the fight back to Germany/Russia even more.  Keeping TRNs cheap, and allowing ANY of the nations to drop 3-4 in a single turn makes all of the nations pay a bit MORE attention to enemy naval activity, not less.

Yes!!! That is correct. The price and load capabilities of TRNs are the main factors that will affect the degree of naval activity.

[DarthMaximus]

Bingo!  Which is why they should be increased in price, if you want people to buy DD’s that is.

If you are going to keep ftrs cheap then you must accept that both DD and BB are obsolete and shouldn’t be bought at all, no matter how much they cost.  They simply aren’t integral to the game, because the only purpose of a navy is to get troops from A to B, ie Trans.
Thus, the only way to make Navies significant is to punish those countries that use trans as fodder, ie the UK and US.

I don’t know how many times as the UK or US I’ll leave a lone tran undefended just to get a drop off in Afr or some other somewhat remote spot only to have it shot down.  Big deal it was only one tran.  Well, I should be punished for that and the only way is to make the tran more costly.  Otherwise navies will never be a focus.  If they Allies don’t need to protect there ships there is no need to buy Capital Ships at all.  In the Atlantic the UK starts with a BB, the US with 2 DD’s and a BB that can be there from Wus in 2 turns, 3 to UK.  So spend 16 on a UK AC and that is it, if that.

I’ll take 10 trans (80 IPC) over a mix of 2 BB’s, 2 DD, and 1 trn (80 IPC).  Provided, I have a starting capital ship nearby.

As long as trans remain the cheapest option for fodder there is ne real need to buy anything else.  Ftrs and bombers are better for bombardment anyway, and you can use them for mulitple rounds.  This is why “retreat” from an Amphib assualt in 3rd Ed and now in Revised is huge.

Plus, the Germans shouldn’t be buying boats to begin with, certainly not for the Baltic (or Atlantic).  I could make a case for a tran (possible a DD with trn) in the Med, but anywhere else and it is a waste of money.