RULE FOR DEFENDER WARSHIP RETREAT

Wait    waitttt forrrrr ittttt    waitttttt forrrrrr ittttttt

Wait    waitttt forrrrr ittttt     waitttttt forrrrrr ittttttt

@crusaderiv:

The battleship never retreat. (It was the heaviest but also the slowest of all the surface ship).

WWII battleships were not slow, especially the modern ones of 1930s and 1940s vintage.  The “slowest” modern battleships had a maximum speed of about 27 knots, and the fastest ones of all, the Iowa class, could do better than 33 knots, which on par with what a typical true destroyer could do and better than a destroyer escort could do.  As a rough generalization, you could say that the WWII battleships which dated from the WWI era weren’t fast enough to keep up with carrier task forces, and hence tended to be used for shore-bombardment and convoy-escort duties, so there would be some justification in giving them special treatment regarding speed…but in terms of A&A naval units, the only ones that would realistically (based on real-life average performance in WWII) be too slow to retreat would be naval transports.

It was never a problem for Battleships to retreat, just lay a smoke screen, then full ahead. Happened all the time.

And yes, destroyers were fast in calm sea. But a Battleship could sail at high speed no matter how bad the weather was, storm, high waves, wind etc.

It is correct that Carriers preferred destroyers as escort, and not Battleships. The reason is, the planes being the fist of a carrier group, but they need close support protection against subs and MTBs, and a destroyer got better ASW capabilities than a huge Battleship. So no need for a Battleship in a Carrier group. Has nothing to do with speed or range. In fact, the battleship makes for a better habitat to live in for sailors in long time operations at sea.

@CWO:

@crusaderiv:

The battleship never retreat. (It was the heaviest but also the slowest of all the surface ship).

WWII battleships were not slow, especially the modern ones of 1930s and 1940s vintage.�  The “slowest” modern battleships had a maximum speed of about 27 knots, and the fastest ones of all, the Iowa class, could do better than 33 knots, which on par with what a typical true destroyer could do and better than a destroyer escort could do.�  As a rough generalization, you could say that the WWII battleships which dated from the WWI era weren’t fast enough to keep up with carrier task forces, and hence tended to be used for shore-bombardment and convoy-escort duties, so there would be some justification in giving them special treatment regarding speed…but in terms of A&A naval units, the only ones that would realistically (based on real-life average performance in WWII) be too slow to retreat would be naval transports.

Hi Marc,

I must say you are like the devil and the angel on my A&A shoulders. I love history, better than most, but have probably less knowledge than you do.  The devil is in the details and you sir are the “HR Devil/Angel” LOL! Anyways my love of history with “what-if” always brings me to concertation when when I compare them to “real history”. Thanks for being such a good resource to the A&A community.

@crusader,

Hello sir,

I’ve always liked the idea of a defender retreat in naval, land and air battles for all units. so while we may not meet eye-to eye on spacifics i like the general idea of defender retreat.

In a another G39 game I have is where you roll 1 d6 or 1d12  for each ground troop piece you have and if they roll a certain number they are allowed to retreat after each round of combat. You could use same rule for ships or just roll 1 d6 or 1d12 for each damaged ship and on a roll of 4 or less damaged ship can retreat with rest of fleet.

@crusaderiv:

Smoke screen =
Each damaged warship has to roll a dice before to retreat.
1 to 3. = stay on the battle.
4 to 6  = can retreat.
Repeat that sequence if defender failed to retreat his warship?

Ya after each round of combat if the warship keeps surviving until he dies or retreats…

Yeah crusaderiv and SS. I have a lot of different ideas some old and some new that have been kicking around with me. I’m not so eager to post them all as I would rather present them for people to do as wish with them rather than endlessly debate them. Anyways I enjoy reading your posts.

This is all interesting, but from a gameplay perspective the question you have to resolve is “Retreat to where?”

The attacker in most cases is attacking from somewhere else, so when they retreat it makes sense for them to return to an adjacent zone that they passed through on their way to attack. But with the defender the situation is more complicated. If they retreat to the sz they currently occupy (i.e. not really a retreat, but just a way to force combat to stop before being resolved) then you’re going to basically treat all naval units like subs, where they stay in the same zone but are immune from further attack? It will result in a lot of fleets co-located with enemy fleets. If on the other hand you do allow the defender to actually retreat (ie move to an adjacent sz, then you have the issue of extra movement and drafting some rules that make clear where you can move, or what conditions might negate it.) For example, what to do when all adjacent sz are blocked with enemy units? In that case you’d probably have to remove “blocking” during the non combat phase entirely? Or defender can only retreat (move forward?) into friendly sea zones? Basically you need to create a situation where, the attacker doesn’t give the defender a movement advantage simply by attacking,  or they at least need a way to hem the enemy in right?

Anyway,  I would want clarification on all those things, beyond just what specific units can retreat or not.

My concern would be that attaching this ability to the presence or absence of air, would provide further advantage to the attacker who has air, and further priviliedge air vs naval dynamic in the battle at sea.

A brief summary of some house rules I’ve used for 1914:

A common scenario is for the UK and German fleets to face each other over the north sea behind their own minefield protection.

Neither side is encouraged to attack because even if they win, they’ll be left in “enemy” waters and separated from any new ships they build and place at the end of their own turn. However historically accurate, this does not often make for exciting naval combat.

But if we allow the attacker to withdraw (retreat from victory) even if he sinks the enemy fleet, he can make an aggressive move knowing that at the end of the battle he can still return to “home” port and be reinforced with new units. This should apply even if the enemy has retreated his own fleet; i.e. the defender cannot “lure” the attacker into a trap by retreating his fleet and then attacking him in turn with the enemy ships damaged and without protection.

To re-balance, I allow a player to “pursue” a retreating fleet, though this of course may mean running the gauntlet of enemy mines if he has retreated to a friendly port.

This game of “tit-for-tat” can go on for as many turns as the players want until one fleet is destroyed or someone declines the chance to pursue.

If the attacker wins a round outright he can withdraw some of his ships while leaving others to patrol the fought over SZ, but if someone retreats from an active battle it must be with his entire surviving force.

An attacker can even end up with ships in 3 different SZs; i.e. A attacks B; B retreats; A sends some ships to pursue, leaves some to occupy the original target SZ, and withdraws a damaged BB back to home port for repairs.

Theoretically a sea battle can go on indefinitely, with the sequence of attack-retreat-pursuit seeing rival fleets zig-zagging across the map, especially if they are on the open ocean far from friendly ports.

This does raise the issue of extra movement, but remember that either side can end the combat by declining to pursue or by fighting to the death rather than give the enemy an advantageous extra move.

Some may prefer that defending ships should be allowed to retreat only into friendly ports or to SZs with friendly ships already in them.

If we look at the modern naval history from 1870 to today, I don’t think there was any naval battle that kept on fighting until all ships on one side were sunk. In most cases, the weakest fleet would try to escape ASAP. But according to the A&A rules, the defending fleet is stuck. IMHO its a mistake to treat naval battles in the same way as combat on ground. I don’t think ships at sea could be clearly defined as attacking or defending in the same way as armies on land. Ships sail out at sea, spot the enemy, fight a duel, and then the weak part try to escape. There are no trenches at the sea, no dug-in ships, no borders, just plain water. Naval battles are pure maneuver warfare. Except port attacks. Only ships at port should be defending.

Suggestion.
On your turn, you want to attack some ships in a seazone in the middle of Atlantic, and some ships in a seazone adjacent to a territory, with or without a port.

Lets start with the naval battle in the middle of Atlantic. Maybe there should be a search roll. If the attacker win, then the naval battle start. If the defender win, he may retreat before combat.
Or without a search roll. Everybody must participate in one round of battle, but after each round are finished, both attacker and defender may choose to continue attack or retreat.

But if you attack ships in a seazone that is adjacent to a territory, that ships are considered to be at port, and in that case they are stuck and can not retreat to any place

@Narvik:

If we look at the modern naval history from 1870 to today, I don’t think there was any naval battle that kept on fighting until all ships on one side were sunk. In most cases, the weakest fleet would try to escape ASAP. But according to the A&A rules, the defending fleet is stuck. IMHO its a mistake to treat naval battles in the same way as combat on ground. I don’t think ships at sea could be clearly defined as attacking or defending in the same way as armies on land. Ships sail out at sea, spot the enemy, fight a duel, and then the weak part try to escape. There are no trenches at the sea, no dug-in ships, no borders, just plain water. Naval battles are pure maneuver warfare. Except port attacks. Only ships at port should be defending.

The Battle of Tushima came close to being a battle of annihilation, with virtually the entire Russian fleet sunk, but it was certainly unusual in that respect.  Fleets rarely fight to the last ship, just as armies rarely fight to the last man.  And it’s a good point that naval and land warfare are different in many ways.  Captain Wayne P. Hughes’ 1996 book Fleet Tactics: Theory and Practice discusses the similarities and differences between land battles and sea battles, and one point to keep in mind is that fleets do not take and hold ground the way armies do.  The open sea has no topography (as Narvik mentions), and so certain land-warfare concepts like digging into a fixed position (with a resulting gain in defensive strength) don’t apply at sea.  On the other hand, coastlines and islands do have the effect of restricting ship movements (so in that sense they do function like defilades on land), and many naval actions are fought near (or for the possession of) coastal regions and islands, so naval warfare does have some positional elements.