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

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’

I would add the same about OP subs:

@Baron:

I agree with the way you define each “critical hit” for each unit.
Why did you forget the regular sub on attack?
Is it because of A2 only?
At least, when no ASW are present, on roll of “1” give the choice between TT and combat vessels (defender’s choice).

This is a very simply and effective/historical way to bring more diversity to the game and reward dice rolls of ‘1’.  :evil:

But there is a little difference with Cmdr Jen HR, it is for a fleet of attacking subs only.
It would be the specific conditions, in which a roll of “1” let the attacker choose any surface vessel.

In other circumstances, as stated “1” when no ASW is present give the choice between TT or warships, nothing more.

Have you made an opinion about this Uncrustable?

@Baron:

@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?

Follow below on dice rolls of ‘1’ in combat

––Super submarines, on offense only can choose surface target hit (TRN, CV, CA, BB) cannot choose destroyers or other subs, transports are valid targets
----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’

@Uncrustable:

well on the sub heavy battlefield…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 thought about it and now, I could tell that this rule can reduce the number of subs present and be replaced by DDs.

I explain:
If anyone wish to protect his surface fleet (ex.: 1 CV, 1 CA, 1 DD, 2TT), it cannot rely on subs as cheap fodder because Battleship on attack can no longer hit sub, they are treated as plane (when no DD is present).
A massive group of 4-6 subs makes no difference for defender to choose his casualty.

This imply BB will hit hard on the core of the fleet.
Suppose 2 escorted BBs on offense getting twice hits.
(Also, don’t forget adding Plunging Fire, give 2 other chances @1 on the first round to make more casualities.)
All the surface ships will be probably destroyed (depending on the number of defending planes).
Now subs cannot serve as cheap buffer against BB (and aircrafts, when no attacking DD).

Defender will probably think twice about DD, before purchasing almost only subs around his main fleet.

BBs are still more interesting offensive weapon now.

Is it a probable consequence according to both of you?

@Baron:

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 revised this:

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 1 cruiser get 1AA@1 preemptive defensive fire.

BB A4D4M2C20 2 hits, can bombard 1@4, Plunging fire 1@1, no ASW, combined AA fire with cruiser.

Combined AA fire with CA: when paired with CA 1 BB get 1AA@1 preemptive defensive fire.

I think now, it will promote an equal buying of both CA and BB.
It will be easier to get 2@1AA = 12+20= 32 IPCs for an average of 16 IPCs.
Previously, 2@1AA = 12+12+20= 44 IPCs for an average of 22 IPCs.

This way, a basic fleet including 1BB and 1CA  will seem able to better deal with another one with 1 carrier and 2 aircrafts.

The temptation of getting 2AA@1 to slighlty boost the defensive capacity of a fleet will be a real and better incentive than before to buy the missing companion (either BB or CA), IMO.

Now planes and carrier won’t be overattractive.
CA+BB will be an interesting byuing for both defense and offense for naval warfare.

Now, Cmdr Jen: you will find BB as an AA platform like you told before but not at the expanse of the poor CA. Both are needed to maximize defense.

Uncrustable: CA on offense will be able to directly hit planes on “1” (and it doesn’t excluded all the other critical “1” you just suggest.)

And another interesting thing about giving AA to BB+CA paired together is that in 1942 initial placement their is no such thing as a BB and CA in the same sea-zone. So it doesn’t change the first turn of the game.

However, in Global 1940,
ETO:
Italy’s BB+Cruiser in SZ97 will gain an immediate 2@1AA.
UK, will gain the same in SZ 110 and 111.

PTO:
USA in SZ 10.
Japan in SZ 6.

So, it will give a slight advantage to UK against an attacking Germany.
Not so bad considering the Axis advantage most people acknowledge.

CV: carrier vessel
CA: cruiser armored

@Cmdr:

Baron, CA is your Carrier?  or Cruiser?

I’m good with BB+AC together having 3 AA Gun Shots per pair, provided there are enough attacking aircraft to sustain said fire. (like now if you have 5 AA Guns but are attacked by 4 planes, they don’t get 15 shots, they get 4.)

Cruisers, I still say, are, or should be, a lot more used than they are getting credit for in this thread.  They are far superior to Battleships in just about every regard except early round builds for the United States and/or insane income for Australia (should that ever happen.  I did see, ONCE Australia capture Tokyo where they got an 80+ IPC treasury and still only had the 1 minor complex to spend money on.  Tokyo, of course, was liberated right after, it was a can opener thing.)

Think about it, 240 IPC gives you:  12 Battleships vs 20 Cruisers, that’s 8 extra shots a round, yes they don’t soak hits and keep going, but what good are soaked hits if the enemy gets 3 more rounds to shoot at you because you can’t kill them fast enough?

You are suggesting giving a whole AA capacity against 3 aircrafts when BB and cruisers are present?

I would prefer a third addition (since carrier was the real historical AA platform):
when BB+CA are present and a CV is added, then you get a third AA@1.

So, a complete AA preemptive strike (vs 3 planes as OOB AAA) will be obtain with BB+CA+CV.

The order is important to have the most incentive to buy BB and CA: cruiser and BB, then CV.
You buy a CV and BB? Nothing happen until the cruiser is bought.

(This last AA@1, adds another advantage of a fleet carrier vs CVL/CVE.)

This 3@1 AA can be considered historical, since:
Around 3min. 25 s.: they explain how a fleet defensive formation was organized.
From outer circles, to the most inner circles: DDs, cruisers, BBs, fleet carriers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxhzWUhBJgE