At last! someone is paying attention.

arms, b_k
–---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not omniscient, omnipresent, nor omnipotent. - Xi

So, Xi, what is your final verdict? Which one is better? I’m sort of biased since I believe in a BIG ship navy. 8)

Destroyers as Japan,
Battleships as US,
May the best planes win,
or was it plans?
–---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All’s fair in war and kickin’ ass! - Xi

Sure thing. No subs?

My bb v des post of Aug 25 is corrected

and my opinion of bbs is henceforth changed to

DESs for everyone,
and a few SSs,
US CAs and FTRs, then
BMRs, TRNs and INF.

Eew-kay?

–---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think I hear my mommy calling. :P - Xi

Awww… no BB’s :x

Protect what you got and use them to save a ship if you think the other nut will quit after this round.
–-------------------------------
I’m sure the decadent US will build plenty of BBs just to flaunt them!
Evil Imperialists! - Xi

Good. Those Iowa Class battleships will be the death of Imperial Japan yet! :)

Oh, yee-aah! Or better yet, YEEEE-HAW! - Xi
–--------------------------------------------------
BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOM! BOOM!

“Let’s not talk about Communism.
Communism was just an idea,
just pie in the sky.”

• Boris Yeltsin, Russian President.
  Remark during a visit to the U.S.,
  quoted in Independent (London, Sept. 13, 1989).

BB’s should be able to shell during amphibious assualts each turn.

“Let’s not talk about Communism.
Communism was just an idea,
just pie in the sky.”

• Boris Yeltsin, Russian President.

Oh Please, don’t start me with Boris. He was nothing more than a Menshevik in guise.

:D :P :lol: - Xi

“The resemblance between the two movements covers far more than the
speed and extent of their conquests. It can be argued that in some
measure both are great Christian heresies. And like Communism, the
Moslem faith in its relations with Europe has tended to follow the
pattern of relentless pressure on all weak points and undefended
frontiers and to advance its banners wherever there were found to
be no defenders at the gate…Islam derived its power to attract
educated and intellectual groups from the use it made of ideas
deeply congenial to the Oriental mind. Its rejection of the Greek
and Christian heritage of humanism and incarnation in favor of a
purely transcendent deity accorded well with the other-worldly
tradition of Oriental religious thought. At the same time, the
Moslem appeal to the people at large lay in the social evils
which it promised to redress. Mohammedanism was in part a harking
back to traditional intellectual and religious ideas, in part an
outburst of social protest against an unjust and unstable social
order. Modern Communism has something of the same character.”

• Barbara Ward, author. Faith and Freedom, ch. 15, Norton (1954).

I gotta find this book, 8) - Xi

T_6,
your gonna havta up your post rate. You are slippin’(Just above 18.0% of all posts). The last time I looked you were at 12.11 or 12.12 ppd. Now you are down to 12.10! Get on it! :wink: - Xi

“Russian Communism is the illegitimate
child of Karl Marx and Catherine the Great.”

• Clement Attlee, British Prime Minister. Speech, April 11, 1956.
  –------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Hmm! I gotta think on this. Russian
  Communism is not True Communism. :cry: - Xi

Nah, I’m quite happy where I’m at. Before (about a month ago), I couldn’t break 18%, but now I’m cruising at 18.12% I try to work hard at the beginning but now that I’ve accomplished what I set out to achieve (unless there’s something higher than “Super Mega” 8)), I can start to relax like a communist.

“Russian Communism is the illegitimate
child of Karl Marx and Catherine the Great.”

The Russians Tsars should’ve continued on the path of Peter and Catherine the great. They didn’t and you could see where Russia ended up. Karl Marx probably never predicted a communist uprising in Russia of all places – it was the Lenins and the Trotskys that saw through it.

Hmm! I gotta think on this. Russian
Communism is not True Communism

More like Stalinist “Communism.” At least you are smarter than some of the authors of your quotes - I’ll give you that.

@TG:

I can start to relax like a communist.

YOU, relax! I believe it when I see it. :roll:
@TG:

. . . At least you are smarter than some of the authors of your quotes - I’ll give you that.

I’d take that as a compliment, but I read what you wrote about those poor misguided and misinformed (mostly deceased) people.

Hey! It just dawned on me . They learned by example
(communist Russia), just like most folks learn to play A&A(learn by errors). . . too many mistakes. Communism was probably set back 100 years by what Lenin and Mao did. My apologies, T_6!
An epiphany! I peruse the writings of statesmen, mistaken in that they look through a broken prism, thus, encouraged to embark on my on journey . . . to create Xiasm :P . . . the ultimate governmental goal of mankind! :wink:
Am I your first convert?
The good student must surpass the teacher. :P - Xi
–--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“It is only the wisest and the stupidest
that cannot change.” - Confucius

Both sides start out with 72 IPCs:

Side 1 (S1) buys 3 Battleships (BB)
Side 2 (S2) buys 6 Destroyers (DD)

So. lets run through a manual simulation of the 2 sides fighting, luckily they fight and defend the same.

Turn #1
S1 has 12 offense and should do 2 hits on average leaving S1 with 4 DDs.
S2 has 18 offense and should do 3 hits on average turning on the side all 3 BBs.

Turn #2
S1 has 12 offense and should do 2 hits on average leaving S1 with 2 DDs.
S2 has 12 offense and should do 2 hits on average leaving S1 with 1 BB.

Turn #3
S1 has 4 offense and gets lucky sinking 1 of the 2 remaining DDs.
S2 has 8 offense and gets a bit UN-lucky and only rolls 1 hit sinking the last BB.

With a slight dice advantage to the battlewagons they still lose out against the destroyers in combat. If you expect to have frequent fleet engagements where you only take 1 hit at a time then by all means purchase a battleship. However if you expect to play the US and only lose 1-2 ships per turn you will never win.

@cameron:

amphib assault:
destroyer
chance 2 hits = 11%
chance 1 hits = 44%
chance >0 hits = 55%
battleship
chance 2 hits = 0%
chance 1 hits = 60%
chance >0 hits = 60%
so, a slight edge for the BB but no chance of 2 hits…

It is 66% for the BB, a mentioned by Xi already.

Why not calculate the average number of hits?
Amph assault:
Two destroyers: Average 0.66 hits
One BB: = 0.66 hits

Naval Battle:
2 DDs: average 1 hit
1 BB: 0.66 hits

If you take a longer battle, with the assumption that you take a hit yourself in the first round (naval battle only), then the total average hits after these two rounds are:
DDs: average 1.5 hits, loss of 12 IPCs
BBs: 1.32 hits

So, i would say:
it depends. A mix, like in r/l navy, seems to be best. Especially when you are about to face battles that take longer than one turn a BB is important.
So, for your main fleet, i would put a BB in that. For convoy hunters, i wouldn’t.
I also would not put a solo BB to escort transports. Then instead of facing one sub, you can be sure they will wolfpack to sink it with their preshots.
Too much value for such “simple” task.

HEY!
You’re all wrong. The most powerful thing is a combo of 2BB and 2 des if you going for BBs and des only!
The absolute most powerful minifleet is a loaded carrier with destroyers and a BB!

Mat, I’m afraid to say it but, you’re wrong on all fronts.

Using a battle simulator I have I got the following results:

10000 trials to smooth out randomness, rounding errors may cause sum to exceed 100

Scenario #1 Defender has 6 DD, 0 BB Win | Lose | Mutual destruction
A) Attacker has 3 BB, 0 DD 32/62/6
B) Attacker has 2 BB, 2 DD 40/54/6
C) Attacker has 1 BB, 4 DD 44/50/6
D) Attacker has 0 BB, 6 DD 47/48/5

Scenario #2 Defender has 4 DD, 1 BB
A) Attacker has 3 BB, 0 DD 33/59/9
B) Attacker has 2 BB, 2 DD 41/51/7
C) Attacker has 1 BB, 4 DD 46/47/7
D) Attacker has 0 BB, 6 DD 50/44/6

Scenario #3 Defender has 2 DD, 2 BB
A) Attacker has 3 BB, 0 DD 36/56/9
B) Attacker has 2 BB, 2 DD 46/46/8
C) Attacker has 1 BB, 4 DD 52/41/7
D) Attacker has 0 BB, 6 DD 54/41/6

Scenario #4 Defender has 0 DD, 3 BB
A) Attacker has 3 BB, 0 DD 45/45/10
B) Attacker has 2 BB, 2 DD 57/35/9
C) Attacker has 1 BB, 4 DD 60/32/8
D) Attacker has 0 BB, 6 DD 62/33/5

Since a fully loaded carrier, DD and BB costs 78 IPC or 8.333% more than 6 destroyers you are not comparing apples to oranges. Since 6 DDs defend or attack at 18 lets add 8.333% to this. Since that is 1.5 I will round it down to just 1 more attack or defense. I should have 8.3% more units, since I cannot represent a 1/2 unit I will round down, this will mean the results should be a bit better for the destroyer side then the numbers will show on 2 accounts. The extra 1 offense/defense will be represented by increasing the offense and defense of a single destroyer to 4 and obviously take this unit off last.

6 DDs attacking 1 DD, 1 BB, 1 CV and 2 FTRs results in 46/46/8 result
1 DD, 1 BB, 1 CV and 2 FTRs versus 6 DDs results in 29/65/6 result.

It clearly shows a trend in advantagous occurances as you move towards 6 destroyers from 3 battleships.

Even with your mixed fleet, destroyers come out as the clear winner. If you already have fighters, then building enough carriers to hold them is the best bet for fleet defense, so the US should build 1-2 carriers. A mixed fleet also has the advantage that fighters can be used on land better than destroyers. However, the excercise was limited in scope so you will have to weigh pros/cons as the strategy dictates.

BB

You guys are doing it all wrong!
By calculating Des vs BB in one big battle u miss the one big advantage the BB has: its ability to repair itself for free at end of any round. You buy BB’s to soak up damage in small battles to preserve your navy for the big ones. In small battles it dosn’t matter that the BB has less firepower because you are probebly overkilling your enemy anyway. Off cause u need to have lots of subs and destroyers in your fleet to do the killing, and only one or two BB’s. But those BB’s will be worth it because your et will be bigger when u get to that final show-down.
Actually battleships should be called “skirmishships” instead because thats why u have them. To let a big armada steamroll individual ships without any fear off causulties.
Only US should buy any though, Japan allready has 3 and UK 1.

Why do you expect you opponent to just let you engage in small little battles where your battleship ‘soaks up that 1 hit’? The US goal is to create such a huge navy that they can steam up to the Grand Imperial fleet and withstand their best shot. The Japanese player will win the game on turn 6 or 7 via victory points. The allies don’t have time to engage in lots of little battles with battleships so they can come out ahead by 1 navel unit here and there.

If the US player does split up the fleet into lots of little battles then the small elements will be crushed with overwhelming firepower. Divide and conqour is the goal, you play right into that.

BB