AA Guns

@Imperious:

1@1 against plane and
1@3 against any unit (attacker’s choice).

The Cruiser would either need to choose one, or obviously a stronger option is they get both.

I would choose one: either AA or 3 space, not both.

IL,
do you have any idea about which single ship is a much historical AA platform between Cruiser and Battleship? Do you still agree about Cruiser as historical AA platform as quote in the last post?

Because, if, for sure, Cruiser are faster (so giving them A3D3M3C12).
Maybe it is BB the real AA platform (to the pleasure of Cmdr Jen), so it is them which need a little AAA punch?

In summary:
A- Each Attacking and defending cruiser hit a plane ( loss is choice of owning player) on “1” on the first roll only
B- Defending cruiser get 1@1 AA preventive strike.
C- Defending cruiser get an additional 1@1 AA regular strike on first round.
D- Cruiser get 3 spaces move.
E- C+D.
F- A+B (I played 1942.2 with this HR).
G- B+D (as below)
H- Any other combination?

Yes you said it well enough, but i modified A.

I found this:

Quote
Imperious Leader:
AS you may know Cruisers were the primary naval unit that were built for AA defense and id say (to keep it simple) they should have a free roll just like an AA gun against attacking enemy planes hitting at a 1. Plus they were built for speed and should move 3 (along with Carriers). AS you also know at Midway the Japs sent their faster Carriers ahead of the main body of slower ships so they can strike quickly and leave the area. The downside is they were not protected or supported by ships such as Cruisers to help shoot down planes as they prepared to launch into torpedo attacks.

Stats:  Cruisers cost 12, attack/ defend at 3, moves at 3 takes one hit.
If you want other ships battlecruisers, light cruisers, heavy cruisers i got some info for you as well.

Good digging, as you can see this is a very old issue stemming from AA50. Many threads on this sort of discussion.

IL,
do you have any idea about which single ship is a much historical AA platform between Cruiser and Battleship? Do you still agree about Cruiser as historical AA platform as quote in the last post?

The Cruiser’s job is two fold: Long range warship capable of operating for long periods and great distance. Second, to escort fast moving ships ( carriers or fast battleships and provide AA platform for their defense)

The long range would be the 3 space idea

Cruisers typically were large hulls, but to create greater speed they didn’t have large heavy guns. Instead all that deck real estate was devoted for smaller guns including AA’s. AS a % of the total space on the superstructure and deck, the Cruiser has easily the most AA guns. Of course, Musashi and some other BB’s got outfitted with improvements but they are the exceptions. The space was devoted to the biggest guns they could carry.

Because, if, for sure, Cruiser are faster (so giving them A3D3M3C12).
Maybe it is BB the real AA platform (to the pleasure of Cmdr Jen), so it is them which need a little AAA punch?

Jennifer has argued for some years for BB’s getting AA, but as a class of ships and looking at all navy’s in this regard, the claim does not hold much water.

Cruisers by and large had the most AA guns because they needed the lighter guns to keep their great speed and protect Carriers from aerial attacks.

@Imperious:

Just think of this scenario: Give cruisers 1 AA dice, now what is going to happen during EVERY game round 1 in global 1940?

They get ONE roll at the start of combat for each cruiser. It is not the case that they get a roll against EVERY PLANE.

One freaking roll will not significantly effect plane buys. It will make cruisers worth their cost.

It will protect Italy from UK1 ( you will get 2 rolls). Also, it does not have to be preemptive. Just one extra roll for any player with cruiser

Exactly.

Still, applying to Battleships in my mind is worth it far more than cruisers.  People already purchase cruisers, or maybe it’s just people I play?  No one I know buys mass quantities of battleships.

Generally, I only see the United States buy battleships and then, only until they have 3 or 4 of them to counter the Japanese (yes, that’s +2 or 3 battleships over 10 rounds of game play!  And some of that has to do with their 3 unit limit in the Pacific!)  I see Japan, England, Australia, India, the United States, Italy and sometimes Germany buy cruisers.  It’s not a stretch for me to imagine a battle with a total of 12-15 cruisers from both sides (9 for the US + 6 for Japan perhaps?)

So if you have a battle where Japan attacks the American fleet with 15 aircraft.  If the United States has a total of 3 Battleships, that’s 3 AA Gun rolls.  Attacking a single AA Gun unit gives the defender 3 AA Gun rolls!

To Cmdr Jen,
about your BB problem,
if there is so few BB in your game, give them a little something that as some historical basis.
Instead of giving a non-historical AA, since Battleships were the big guns-carriers with the longer range over any other ships:
When fighting any ships and not just planes,
each BB get 1@1 additionnal attack & defense in first rnd against any of Sub, DD, CA, CV, BB. The player taking the hit choose his own casuality, including plane if he prefer. This hit is treated as a regular casuality.
So, it won’t give any limitation for the player’s which chose casuality.

What do you think about this?

Hmm…maybe.  An interesting thought.

I’ve played with rules that say Battleships hit on a 5 or less, damaged Battleships hit on a 2 or less.  But at the time, we also paid 1d6 IPC to repair battleships, it wasn’t free if you were located close enough to a friendly naval base (as defined as being in a sea zone adjacent to one.)

The battleships still only hit on a 4 or less on offshore bombardments, but it gave them significantly higher punch against enemy warships.  With their two hit ability, they were virtually immune to being attacked by submarines (the damage took effect after the battle, so damaged or not, for THAT battle where they got damaged, they stayed at 5 or less) and it reduced the instances of “cheap shots” where 2 fighters would attack a battleship and sink it with an average loss of 1 fighter.  Of course, this was AAR days where there were two hit battleships and I think they just auto repaired on your next turn back then.

Too many rule sets. lol.

Maybe I’ll go back to 5 or less battleships in my games.  We had some really nifty rules like that.  Japanese and German battleships took 3 hits to sink (because they were super battleships) but cost 10 IPC more (30 IPC instead of 20 IPC so it was the same cost per hit ratio) etc, but American carriers could carry 3 fighters (because you could LITERALLY balance 3 fighters on them) and cost 24 IPC - it was a way to reduce the amount of American carriers.  My friends and I are HUGE navy fanatics in these games, sometimes to the point we blind ourselves to the ground combat.

Hey, now there’s an idea for Larry!  He has a Pacific game, why not an Atlantic game but instead of land you need to grab, its control of sea lanes with virtually no land on the board (Eastern Sea Board, Western Europe and England with a Iceland, Greenland, Ireland and parts of Canada being the only land masses from which to use aircraft)

I’d buy 5 copies of that in a heartbeat!  (I buy 5 copies of games.  I have too much money, I know.  I don’t even OPEN them most of the time)

Hi Cmdr Jen,
a BB@5 and 1BB@4 + 1@1 is very different, since you can get two hits in the first round.

I’m thinking about it, and heard that many US admirals feared the Yamato and forbid a direct combat with ships against it.

Maybe this BB @1 can be 1 first strike against surface vessels only: DD,CA,CV,BB, (and even TT, if their is both scramble planes and TTs)
I think that can inspire some kind of fear of risking a direct shot without being able to be in range of the BB group.
Don’t you think it could be more historically grounded, seems you like navy battle?

Yes, but you are referring to all battleships, I was referring to only German/Japanese battleships.

I am starting to think more along the lines of each fleet having a special unit that is similar to what they could do in WWII.

ie:

• Germany/Japan have battleships that, when not damaged, attack at 5 or less
• Italy/France have fast destroyers that attack at 2, defend at 1, move 3
• America has super carriers that can carry 3 fighter/tactical bombers or 1 strategic bomber (because of that battle soon after Pearl where they launched, what was it, B17s? off an AC over Japan.)
• England/ANZAC get improved shipyards technology as it is now - it just isn’t a technology, it’s what they get.

Since Italy/France rarely have ships ANYWAY and what they do have usually ends up being coral reefs for the fishes to live in at the bottom of the ocean, I don’t see they need anything, I just didn’t want to leave them out.  Could just leave their destroyers as is, but I could see a break out Italian destroyer making a run for Brazil being an issue for the Allies.  Maybe swap it so it’s ATT 1, DEF 2 that way it can snipe at enemy shipping.  The French one would probably be  that destroyer they start with by Africa racing to Australia or up to England as the player sees fit.  Dunno, that’s what makes it interesting.

Then nothing would need AA Guns.  Battleships for the axis would, essentially, have it built into their increased damage output.  Since America was heavily focused on carriers, USS Enterprise anyone? we’d give them a bonus there instead - and a good bonus too, imho.  England would make up for not having AA Guns on their ships by having cheaper ships - reflecting the reduced cost of not putting massive anti-aircraft screens on their oats.

Do you ever read my post about carriers ?:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30262.0#new

You get some comparison between US carriers. It was based on 1942 carrier.

I don’t want to derail this post on AAA. We can discuss more about ships on that one about carriers.

Fleet discussion continued: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=31177.new#new

B25 Mitchell

@toblerone77:

B25 Mitchell

Thanks!
But it was not easy to catch at first that you were responding to this question  :?:

@Cmdr:

• America has super carriers that can carry 3 fighter/tactical bombers or 1 strategic bomber (because of that battle soon after Pearl where they launched, what was it, B17s? off an AC over Japan.)

@Baron:

@toblerone77:

B25 Mitchell

Thanks!
But it was not easy to catch at first that you were responding to this question  :?:

@Cmdr:

• America has super carriers that can carry 3 fighter/tactical bombers or 1 strategic bomber (because of that battle soon after Pearl where they launched, what was it, B17s? off an AC over Japan.)

It’s rare I get to correct a statement like that. I am totally against srat bombers on carriers however. Maybe an NO that once per turn a carrier may carry one strat bomber. US only.

The b-17s you refer to we’re extremely modified, pilots spent much time training just for the takeoff, and in no way could they have landed

They also carried extremely light in weapons I believe

@Uncrustable:

The b-17s you refer to we’re extremely modified, pilots spent much time training just for the takeoff, and in no way could they have landed

They also carried extremely light in weapons I believe

If we’re talking the Doolittle raid yes it was the twin-engine B-25 Mitchell, not the B-17 which was a four enginge bomber and far too large to ever be used in carrier flight. Almost all of thier weapons were stripped. They carried a light load, and lastly they made a fake gun port on the tail to fool Japanese interceptors that there was rear defensive aramament.

Yeah 25s I meant lol
And as far as “heavy carrier” is concerned, I don’t believe there was such a thing in WWII

@Uncrustable:

Yeah 25s I meant lol
And as far as “heavy carrier” is concerned, I don’t believe there was such a thing in WWII

Jets in post-war USA and Korea made the difference. Still you never saw or see large aircraft on carriers. our modern carriers now are built to handle the speed of jet aircraft. The size and cost eliminated most of the post war allies from owning them with few exceptions. The Harrier and various helicopters can operate on smaller Aircraft Carriers, but other than a few examples and exceptions the US dominates the large carrier business in the modern age.