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

"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.

With a battleship unable to attack subs, it change this previous evaluation:
And now, Cruiser+destroyer is a first choice to attack subs.
And even against 3 offensive subs (18 IPCs) the DD and CA have a slight better chance of survival than a single BB.
23% survival for DD&CA vs 20%, for BB.

@oztea:

Cruiser + Destroyer = 2 shots, 2 hits, 5/6 combat power, Anti-sub, bombarment at 3
Battleship = 1 shot, 2 hits, 4/6 combat power, bombardment at 4

Both are 20 IPCs
Both are a good purchase

Another interesting critics about cruisers:

HolKann:
Owkey, I really shouldn’t do this, but… Cruisers suck. And even Larry and his crew turned to “I still think it is balanced” when I presented them the irrationality behind cruisers.

Let’s go for a warship round up and usability. I’ll start of with the uncontroversial ones:
Sub: cheap hit, good for sneaking, can’t attack air => very useful for disrupting enemy waters

DD: counter of sub, cheap hit, can attack air => basic sea unit

Carrier: expensive, but allows excess of fighters to fight sea battles => flexible and certainly useful with fighters already purchased

I think everyone agrees with the above.

Battleship: expensive, has double hit, high attack, and, most importantly, auto-repair.

Auto-repair is the reason why a Cru and DD aren’t the equal of a BB. After taking a hit in sea battle, with DD + Cru, you end up with only Cru.

With BB, you end up with a fully repaired BB. Net gain: 8 ipc’s. Which one is better now?

Shore bombard is a nice extra, but without it, the BB would still be a decent buy.

I remember Caspian Sub used to describe a strategy with the USA to kill Japan: Build IC in Alaska, build a fleet of BB’s. Use the BB’s to hit-and-run the Japanese navy, using auto-repair to soak up losses, while Japan keeps sacrificing subs. This was back in the days when a BB was 24 (!) IPC’s, and was an interesting idea. In 1942, the idea gets only more interesting, maybe to the point it is a viable strategy  :evil: So in short: BB’s have their use thanks to auto-repair. Think about it ;)

Now, why are Cru’s bad?
Cru: expensive, no double hit, only plus is their shore bombardment => overpriced.

Shore bombardment isn’t what it used to be (you have to send an inf every time, and the opponent still gets to shoot back!).

Compared to other units, a Cru sucks. Which would you like best, a bmr or a Cru?
A bmr is the better offensive piece: much greater range, better attack, can strategically bombard (which is at least as good as shore bombard).

One can argue that the Cru is better at sea defense than a bmr.
Which is true, but a Cru is MUCH worse than a DD at sea defense: at sea defense, the number of hits one can take is essential. A DD takes a hit at 8 IPC’s, a Cru at 12 IPC’s. An increase of 50%!

The meager shore bombardment doesn’t equalise, and the damage/IPC count is equal between Cru and DD, which also has sub detection.
Not to mention you can buy two sea hits (=two subs) for the price of one Cru.
So at defense, Cru is also not a good choice.

But is it an “all round” unit then, not particularly good at anything, but decent at everything? Maybe, I say.

If they were priced at 10, they would be. Or if they had the sub detection instead of DD.
Or an AA to counter those overpowered bombers at sea. But alas, a rational mind is hard to find. So any time my opponent purchases a Cru, I silently smile, because he just flushed 2 IPC’s down the drain. Litteraly 8-)

@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?

@Cmdr:

I think Battleships should be able to use their Plunging Fire to hit transports in any round they want too.  The entire mission for the Bismarck was to sink enemy shipping, not enemy warships!

It implies to discuss also about subs picking their target: TTs instead of Warships.

However, do not forget TTs are not merchant marines.
It is convoys interruption which stand for Bismark mission in Atlantic ocean.
A battleship can roll 1D6. Maybe, you could adjust for superBB.
But, if Bismarck is the example of BB’s efficiency on this point, it did nothing against convoys.

What is a “Strawberry flight”?

You are very generous toward submarines.

If you had also introduce the idea that your BB cannot attack subs then you are overgenerous toward them.

I don’t like either that BB can shoot TTs when their is escorting warships.
It doesn’t sound historical IMO.
TTs are more precious than merchant’s cargo boat for an invading fleet.
TTs are a military unit. It takes time for USA to feel the urgency of escorting convoys (those ships wasn’t their own.) The didn’t feel the same responsability toward them than TTs units. Loosing them compromise all amphibious assault.

Attacking TTs is not a convoy disruption.

The Leyte Gulf Battle  (Battle off Samar) shows that even the Yamato wasn’t able to reach his target: the TTs while escorting ship were around.

Worse, he turned back because of the brave and fierce defense of DDs, DEs and planes.
CVE’s escorting TTs was the most he can destroy, he fired at his direct ennemy.
He wasn’t trying to triangulate a trajectory for a long shot fire from his heavy guns against the poor little ones. Warships and planes were already enough trouble to deal with for Kurita.

Beginning at 7th minutes:
Battle 360 E9 Battle of Leyte Gulf Part 5/6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4ypSdy9wXg

From the start to the 6th minutes.
Battle 360 E9 Battle of Leyte Gulf Part 6/6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY4ZxxoQ8Vs

So, neither Bismarck, Yamato nor Musashi were able to destroy troop transports.

@Cmdr:

Look up the battle of Midway.

Basically, reconnaissance planes would be unable to warn of submarines in the area, so the submarines would get a first strike and choose their targets, especially if they chose to fire at night.  It’s only if the battle is all submarines vs defender, no aircraft, no surface ships, not even a transport.  If your defending fleet has a destroyer, you’d slaughter the submarines probably.

It’s an incentive to have destroyers in your fleet to protect battleships.  Otherwise, the enemy is going to send in 12 submarines, take out all your capitol ships and retreat before you can return fire.  Also encourages you to have destroyers on your ships sailing in to reinforce for the same reason.

The mecanics of this Sub HR seems good but it will make them overpower.

The casuality choice should be reduce at least to the hit which rolled “1” for attacking subs only fleet.

When an attacking sub roll “1” then it can choose his casuality.

well talking about letting subs choose on 1s and cruisers hit air on 1s, then why not use the below?
No single unit is OP because they all have an ability one dice rolls of ‘1’

Follow below on dice rolls of ‘1’ in combat

––Super Submarines (or maybe regular subs?) on offense only can choose surface target hit (TRN, CV, CA, BB) cannot choose destroyers or other subs, transports are valid targets (maybe regular subs can only choose on offense but super subs can choose on both offense and defense?)
----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’