The issue isn’t battleships vs aircraft carriers: the issue is control of the air.
Surface ships without air protection were vulnerable to air attack: the Japanese gave a very convincing demonstration of this early in the war, sinking two armored British warships (Repulse and Prince of Wales). And unlike Pearl Harbor, The British ships were at sea and underway, capable of maneuver and prepared for air defense. And yet they were sunk … quickly.
Carriers themselves were vulnerable to air attack – though they proved more durable than many expected. But they could also deliver offensive blows from hundreds of miles away, long before heavy ships had closed to within range of island objectives. So one of the primary tasks assigned to the fast carrier forces was the destruction and suppression of enemy air forces. The fast carriers would sweep in ahead of the landing and bombardment forces, seize control of the air, and maintain control of the air until local ground-based forces could take over. This kind of offensive strike was the best possible defense, both for the carriers and the heavy ships.
Carriers and battleships were fundamentally different weapons. A heavy ship could only throw its ordnance a few miles; a carrier could strike targets hundreds of miles away. A heavy ship had to stay in close proximity to its objective. A carrier 200 or 250 miles out had thousands of square miles of sea to disappear into, and would still be in striking range of its targets. The fleet carriers held the edge in terms of raw speed and maneuverability. And they were more difficult to put out of action than anticipated. A ship that’s hard to find, hard to hit, and capable of delivering heavy blows from hundreds of miles away is a formidable weapon.
The quick fix for these facts is the optiional rule “Air Supremacy”:
Air Supremacy
Fighters attack or defend in the opening fire step of combat if no enemy fighters are present or remain in combat.
Hey you! are you gonna help us? (re: house section…me and Duke)
@Imperious:
Hey you! are you gonna help us? (re: house section…me and Duke)
I do, but please read all in this topic before you change any values for BBs or DDs!
I would say battleship are an underrated buy. Sure destroyers win in that ONE big battle that happens once in about 3 games. However, for me battleships are getting used practically every round. They bombard, and in small engagements you don’t have to replace them.
ME too,
I can be devastating when it comes on using BB’s :-P
the only way I use DD is to make sure subs can’t use their special abilities…
@Axel:
ME too,
I can be devastating when it comes on using BB’s :-P
the only way I use DD is to make sure subs can’t use their special abilities…
What if DDs were able to shore bombard on a 2?
@B.:
[What if DDs were able to shore bombard on a 2?
[/quote]you mean like in a tech, a national advantage or is it a house rule?
We never play with techs, national advantages or house rules, so this is a question that is irrelevant for me.
but I think DD would be of more interest then :-)There are so many ways you can upgrade the one or the other:
I can state it the other way around:
what if a BB can defend on a 5?:-P
If you get Consolidated Bombard, then multiple DST’s might be worthwhile. DSTs are also valuable as a cheap way to defend TRN fleets against AF.
But one in an average fleet is enough (stops sub abilities). And a DST navy makes sense IF you have enemy navy to kill or if you can;t afford BB’s.
But… the BB is worth the cost if you have the $24 to spend… the free hit, the 4 attack and defense, the bombard…
As someone said, in most battle,s the BB lives to fight again even after being hit, DSTs do not. And, except for that Big Gulp move in the Pacific… that means more than additional units (and even then, if you have enough fodder, the BB is still the better buy)
If ever I am going to buy a battleship, I plan ahead. I’ll save $12 on the round before I want to produce the BB, then buy the BB on the following round.
Using this method, you are able to keep a relatively steady flow of units coming out on both turns. This is especially helpful as USA if you already have a shuck in place and don’t want to lose momentum.
I just wonder what is wrong with the shore bombarment capability on a 2 or less for DDs, that worked out so fine in A&A:E and A&A:P! It would make DDs a better buy for sure and in my opinion make DDs a better balanced piece compared to BBs. I think it is fair and balanced as well as historical correct to give DDs a shore bombardment capability. The reason that this special ability was not included as standard in the A&A:R was according to Mike Selinker (the lead game designer):
" That was a lot to burden a piece with in the base game. We wanted pieces to have only one main special ability (e.g., tanks can blitz, and that’s it). The destroyer from Pacific was too complicated…
…The territories were too big to allow destroyers to bombard all the time (“I can hit Saskatchewan!”) but we put destroyer bombardment into weapons development for those who wished to pay for it."
How ever the solution to such a problem is just to revise the rule for shore bombardment, not excluding DDs from doing it. My suggestion is to allow DDs make a shore bombardment on 2 and change the rule for shore bombarment as follow:
Shore Bombardment
In an amphibious assault, battleships and destroyers may make a support shot on amphibious assaults on a 4 and a 2 respectively. For each support shot one must put ashore one land unit, apply to both battleships and destroyers. Battleships and destroyers that conduct shore bombardment fires once during the Conduct Opening Fire step against enemy land units in the territory being attacked (the enemy units do not fire back). A battleship or a destroyer cannot conduct shore bombardment if it was involved in a sea combat prior the amphibious assault.
LHTR 1.4 anyone???
@ncscswitch:
LHTR 1.4 anyone???
What do you mean? Never heard of LHTR v 1.4!!! However my revised rule for shore bombardment that includes DDs is perfected :-D, it solves the true problem! Combine this rule of shore bombardment with air supremacy and you got an even better game 8-)
I repeat:
The reason that destroyers were not given the special ability to shore bombard as a standard rule in the A&A:R was according to Mike Selinker (the lead game designer):
" That was a lot to burden a piece with in the base game. We wanted pieces to have only one main special ability (e.g., tanks can blitz, and that’s it). The destroyer from Pacific was too complicated…
…The territories were too big to allow destroyers to bombard all the time (“I can hit Saskatchewan!”) but we put destroyer bombardment into weapons development for those who wished to pay for it."
If one thinks that a piece only should have one main ability, than the two hits to destroy should be enough for battleships as well. The shore bombardment should than be an optional rule for the more advanced players or one should include it as standrad and accept a little more complicated rules. As the rules are now they are simply not consistent!Â
If battleships are allowed to shore bombard, one can still hit Saskatchewan! Consistently if battleships are allowed to shore bombard destroyers shoulb be able to do too. If it will be too powerful one should consider to revise the rule for shore bombardment, not to act inconsistently. The Combined Bombardment is not a true weapon development, but simply an emergancy solution. There are many errors in Mr Selinkers argumentation in the design of A&A Revised, it does not take a genius to find out! Another one was tol not include Heavy Artillery as a weapons development, also due to wrong reasons. If you want to take a look at the articles named Axis & Allies Countdown that Mr Selinker wrote before the release of A&A:R go to http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/article/ah20031205a
I would go with 1 Battleship. The shore bombard capabilities of the battleship make it a terrific offensive weapon when deploying troops into hostile territory. Also unless it is a massive naval battle or the BB is left alone to be attacked it will generally survive the fight. If your navy has plenty of fodder i.e. subs and TRAN then your rolling a 4 every round. I play by the rule book so I guess I just don’t understand the DES argument of changing its capabilities. Any piece in the came can become invaluable if you change its function. If you play strictly by the rule than the BB is superior IMO.
B. Anderson,
The reason you have not heard of Larry Harris Tournament Rules version 1.4 is that the current version (updated about 2 months ago) is version 1.3 :-)
If you would like a broader acceptance of your idea, may I siggest that you go to the Harris Game Design website and lobby Larry Harris, Blackwatch, and the other participants there, for inclusion of the DST shore bombard rules in the next update of LHTR :-)
And the reason I recommend this, LHTR does appear to be the most commonly accepted rule set for online play (definitely hell and gone from the Operations Manual that comes with the game that includes a ton of errata and errors, as well as general ambiguities and sources of arguments.
And just FYI: Just because a rule is a certain way in another version of the game (such as Pacific) does not mean it will go into Revised. This was most recently proven with the corrections/clarifications of forces of one nation attacking enemy units in a sea zone that contains both enemy and allied naval units (Pacific the rules go one way, Revised they are opposite)
I would go with 1 Battleship. The shore bombard capabilities of the battleship make it a terrific offensive weapon when deploying troops into hostile territory. Also unless it is a massive naval battle or the BB is left alone to be attacked it will generally survive the fight. If your navy has plenty of fodder i.e. subs and TRAN then your rolling a 4 every round. I play by the rule book so I guess I just don’t understand the DES argument of changing its capabilities. Any piece in the came can become invaluable if you change its function. If you play strictly by the rule than the BB is superior IMO.
Well, you seems to be a newbie here. If anyone can tell about the impact of changed values for a certain kind of unit, it is me! This rule actually makes shore bombardment more reasonable, cannot you see the problem or are youone of those who buys everything Mr Selinker or Larry feeds you with. These guys are humans not gods! They are not even genius IMHO! I like Larry a lot but he is too stucked with all those guys who want a too advanced game. Make it simple and not too many units! Artillery and destroyers was a nice add, but AA-guns are superfluous! Air power is still not perfectly balanced and many other rules are contradictory like the shore bombardment. I try to keep it simple here.
Just read Mr Selinkers arguments for not giving DDs the shore bombardment ability. The areas are too big, so it would be unrealistic and too effective (a game braker) to let DDs shore bombard the inner part of Canada with no true coastline. That is true for both BBs and DDs in my opinion, don’t you agree!? I believe that this is the biggest problem with shore bombardment. If one has a few BBs then one can put a shore one infantry and blow away a stack of infantry with shorebombardment without suffering a casualty. If DDs were allowed as well to perform shore bombardment this unrealistic problem will become even more obvious. So the true problem lies in the shore bombardment rule as it is designed today, if allowed at all it needs to be restricted some how.
The second argument is that each unit should only have one additional special ability like shore bombardment. Once again BBs do have the 2 hit ability and shore bombardment, why not allow this shore bombardment to DDs as well??? It does not make sense!!! So this is something that has to be solved for the next edition to A&A Revised. My suggestion for a new shore bombardment rule could be added as an optional for the more advanced player. Other players do best in not allow shore bombardment at all for BBs or DDs!
I’ve recently been thinking that a more realistic approach to shore bombardment would be reduced effectiveness of the units which were bombarded.
For example, if Japan attacked the 2 U.S. Infantry on Hawaii with a BB shot during an amphibious invasion, the Battleship would, upon a hit, reduce the defensive capability of one of the Infantry to a 1 rather than a 2 for the duration of the battle. Two successful Battleship bombardments would mean two units would be affected, etc. Or… it could completely remove the defensive capability of one unit, but the unit could still be taken as a casualty…
In this case the ability of a Destroyer to shore bombard would be mitigated enough to allow it without significantly altering the game. I do understand that Battleships would lose some effectiveness with this rule, and Destroyers would be a better purchase, but I’ve never personally bought a BB in the revised game anyhow, nor has any experienced player that I’ve ever played against.
There is no case in WWII of naval bombardment completely eroding the ability of an entire Infantry Army to effectively engage in combat. Zero evidence. On the contrary, on Iwo Jima the Japanese garrison actually improved its defensive position under withering naval and air bombardment. The case could be made for the effects of shore bombardment upon the outcome on the Normandy invasion, but a closer look reveals that the true deciding factors included the lack of ability to move Panzer divisions without Hitler’s express approval, combined with the fact that the Allies had complete air superiority over France at the time, making large-scale daytime movements of reinforcements to the coast deadly at best.
As shown in another thread (and a game in the Games section) massed BB’s are easily and cheaply countered. A single naval unit build prevents a bombard AND also limits any TRN’s in the same SZ to COMBAT offloading only… no non-combat reinforcement possible.
As far as bombarding with DST’s… that would make them Cruisers, not Destroyers. DST’s are small, fast, sub hunting escort ships with a relatively small number of small weapons. The Tech roll ups them to Cruisers if you get Consolidated Bombard.
Otherwise they are (and should remain) small, fast, escort ships for defending convoys and killing SUBs.
@ncscswitch:
…As far as bombarding with DST’s… that would make them Cruisers, not Destroyers. DST’s are small, fast, sub hunting escort ships with a relatively small number of small weapons. The Tech roll ups them to Cruisers if you get Consolidated Bombard.
Otherwise they are (and should remain) small, fast, escort ships for defending convoys and killing SUBs.
Well, you have not made your homework! In World War II, destroyers were truly all-purpose ships, ready to fight off attacks from the air, the surface and under the surface. They handled a variety of duties such as picket ship, escorting larger ships and convoys, shore bombardment, rescuing pilots who were forced down at sea and even acting as mailman for the fleet. You are talking about destroyer escorts, strictly used for convoy duties. I am talking about the bigger and more general destroyer (reflected by a 3 attack and 3 defense capability), used for fleet and coastal protection duties. These destroyers were frequently used for shore bombardment in all theaters. It is a fact! Cruisers are in my opinion not needed since a destroyer unit reflects a squadron of destroyers or some destroyers and some crusiers if you like!
@88:
I’ve recently been thinking that a more realistic approach to shore bombardment would be reduced effectiveness of the units which were bombarded…
I have played around with the idea before but ended up in a problem. The problem is that people are used to think of shore bombardment as a true attack like heavy artillery that softening up the defense before the invasion and hence an attack value in the opening fire step of combat. More over I think the rule makes it more intressting/powerful and easier (playability) to have it that way rather than reducing defense values. How ever I like the idea, but it is too far from the original rules in A&A. It is definitely a try to think outside the box rules! :-)
