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

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?

@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

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

@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.

@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?

@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

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.

"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

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

@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

@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.

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 didn’t look on the initial placement of 1940, but I may suggest that anyone which have an initial BB alone in 1 sea-zone and has the possibility to attack some subs, can have the option of reverting the BB to 1 cruiser and 1 destroyer.

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

@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

Have you something special in your mind about this point?
what you get per dollar is better in those 3 units than either cruisers or BBs

You don’t like the AA combined arms with cruiser, isn’t it?

Plunging fire and AA combined arms with CA wouldn’t increase cruiser (already moving at 3) or BB buying?

I should 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.

Here is my main influence about my cruiser HR:
@Imperious:

OK.

Cruisers when they shoot and roll a 1 can force the defender to remove a plane
Cruisers move 3 spaces even if they didn’t come out of port.

Now they are worth the extra 2 IPC.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=29818.30

@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

You would probably agree about most of this:

MrMalachiCrunch:
Well, I never once said a cruiser or any other piece was useless first of all, so let’s be crystal clear on that.  All pieces have utility, some a bit more than others.  I also stated earlier that a mix of pieces is ideal.

For fleet offense, 3 DDs beats 2 CCs

For fleet defense, 3 DDs beats 2 CCs

Using as a blocker piece saves you 4 IPC versus using a cruiser and can’t be sub shot killed like a cruiser, nice when using as a blocker because you always have a 1/3 chance of killing something (other than a BB).

I will account for the fact 1/3 of an enemy sub equals 2 IPCs when my destroyer kills 1/3 of it… on average or better if I take out an air unit.

On the other hand, if a sub is not used to kill the blocking CC then yeah, you have a 1/6 greater chance of hitting back.

If you think my accounting is wearing you down, wait until Japan turn 15…… then the averages start to work out in the long run.

A destroyer obviously has the advantage of sub warfare over a cruiser, so the ONLY thing a CC has going for it over a DD was the shore bombardment.

That utility was the crux if my thinking.
IF you are buying CCs over DDs because you have lots and lots of opportunity to use shore bombardment against targets with AA guns (else a plane is way way better than a cruiser shot) and large stacks of pieces ‘just to whittle them down’ then maybe a cruiser.  Honestly, you dropping off lots of pieces in futile battles turn after turn to ‘wittle them down’ then you play a different game then me.

As for my thinking being all theory……  :-)  Ever read the Art of War by Sun Tze or something like that spelling.  Great book.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=17038.75;wap2

For reference, here is treads about cruiser only:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=29818.0

How useful are cruisers??
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=17038.0;wap2

Are Cruisers ever worth it?
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=17699.0

Here is a comparison between cruiser and fighter, most will agree:

Corbeau Blanc:
It’s all great but in my experience, nothing beats air power.

• Air power can pull out anytime in an amphibious battle. If you know what you are doing, they are as safe as that cruiser doing a strafe.

• A cruiser does 1 bombardment at 3, a fighter does it every round at same.

• A cruiser have a defense value of 3, a fighter defend at 4 both on land and sea.

• A cruiser has a range of 2 VS  r**ange of 4 ( which can be complemented by AC ) for fighters when it comes to power projection.  **

• A cruiser can move in water vs fighters which can move over land and sea.

• A cruiser finish it’s move where it attacked. Air power retreat to safe territory.

• Last, but not the least: Cruiser cost 12, fighters cost 10…

If you only looking for the ‘‘bombard’’ ability, buy a bomber for the same price which is even better than the fighter.
The way I see it from the allies view UK/US, there is 2 boats and a half in this game.

• Transports
• AC for transport defense + fighters ( build only what you need for defense, period)
• 1 DD, and only 1. If there is really a sub threat to your fleet, ajust in consequence, normally the DD should be able to block the path to your fleet in worst case/ ill planning.
• The rest should be all bombers using the best AC there is, an unsinkable UK island.

When I play germany, I buy infantry / fighters, more fighters and then bombers as soon I get the upper hand. Japan can actually go all the way with infantry and bombers as they already got whatever they need for sea defense ( in doubt, an AC and fighters ).

So yea, cruisers are useless. There is no way any boats in this game can compare to fighters for versatility and even less to bombers when it comes to attack value.

I’ve played lots of game and air units are simply the best buy coupled with the best versatility roles ( sea and land ), best range and being the only units that can actually retreat after an attack is completed. All you need is the infantry fodder, which is the same for cruisers bombard and pretty much any serious strats.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=17038.45;wap2

Here is the interesting stats about AA fire:

@Nexus:

I think multiple AA shots might work if the maximum kills were limited in some way.  A few triple-roll AA cruisers might be too much – say max the kill-rate at one plane/cruiser regardless of the number of AA dice rolled?  But I think there are more issues that need some thought…

Cruisers were only more effective than destroyers for AA kills.  Cruisers certainly had less AA than carriers (CVEs excluded) or battleships but far more than destroyers.  Late-war US Navy stats (non-suicide) show a fairly consistent 17% - 24% of plane attacks were shot down by AA regardless of ship type.  Although one fast-carrier group shot down as many as 33% (but that is a high).  Generally, battleships, carriers and cruisers shot down the same percentage of aircraft while destroyers averaged a little better than half that rate.  These are late-war stats with increased AA mounts, improved directors, radar, mechanical computers and VT fuses against a desperate, poorly trained enemy.  AA rules allowing more than 33% AA kill rate might be pushing the envelope.  Three dice is a lot.

I’d believe it if AA shots were given to carriers and battleships but that doesn’t do much for cruisers.  Cruisers were far easier and faster to build than capital ships.  Battleships were exponentially more powerful (attack and defense) and also exponentially more expensive and difficult to build than cruisers and there-in lies the problem.  Thus the 6 cruisers to 1 battleship production rate mentioned earlier.

2 cruisers will statistically beat 1 battleship in both Global 1940 combat rules and IPC cost BUT tonnage-wise 3 heavy cruisers = one battleship (15,000 CA vs 45000 BB).  And Light cruisers were half the tonnage of heavy cruisers (7000 CL vs 15000 CA) so that makes things even worse when averaging things (I’m using general numbers here, there are extreme examples on either side).

In the real world 3 cruisers would only blind a battleship on a good day, possibly sinking it if they had torpedoes and got lucky.  The Battle of the River Plate shows just how dangerous even one small Battle Cruiser can be versus cruisers at 1 to 3 odds.  I think Battleships need more power but with limited production rules.  Give them double dice rolls to hit with both dice counting but force production over two turns while increasing their cost.  That might be more realistic (can I say that in Axis and Allies?   :wink:) AND perhaps give cruisers a proper place.

No ship, no pair of ships could dare equal the mighty Battleship – it took an airplane to beat it.  Well…, excepting a pair of submarines but that’s another story.   :-D

I think there needs to be an adjustment to make the cruiser useful in this game or simply drop it.  Just my thoughts.