I think that would make for some serious limitations to German Subs
“Surface Ships”. :wink:
[Edit]. Subs can go and see the lights of New York, or enjoy the warm waters of the Caribbean Sea. …. Japanese subs can prowl the Panama canal or peak at the sights of San Francisco … Or maybe even take a trip to Madagascar. :)
I like the limits for naval bases with damage…
Operational naval bases receive up to 3@1 defence during amphibious assaults to be rolled after a sea battle, but before the landing. The defender must remove a 1@1 defense roll per damage marker on the naval base, therefore, 3 or more damage would negate all 3 rolls. The attacker may remove any participating land, sea, or air units as a causality resulting from this naval base coastal defence system.
I don’t like the movement ability, I think it has the potential for a lot of “that’s an unfair rule, well dems da rules” type of conversations. Plus, many ships sail around the board all game never once parking at a naval base, so the fuel and supplies angle is abstract at best.
Ok. I know it would have a profound change in the game on the Strat level. … But it wouldn’t just be a rule for the sake of having a rule. It would better model the game within the existing rules … I think.
Japan tried to take Midway and the Allutien Islands with the idea of using them as a Naval and Air bases for later taking Hawaii and parts of Alaska … Then, if things went well, they could use Alaska and Hawaii to threaten the West Coast.
It’s a “Step by Step”, Island hoping approach. … More of a realistic simulation than simply loading a bunch of transports in LA and moving directly into Japan … Or vice-versa.
And … More than anything … It definitely complies with Adding Value to Naval Bases.
Chew it over. I am hosting a game on Saturday and was just planning to implement the new “3-Turn” set of rules … But I think I’m going to also include this Naval Base rule … Definitely the Up To 3@1 part … But I would like to also make Naval Bases more historically accurate and fulfill their role as a hand-in-hand necessity for Naval Fleets
Actually, I’m gonna remove the damage limits to just operational. Reason being it is to wordy, 3 plane scrambles don’t have the same limits, and it’s only 3@1 with attacker choosing pretty much anything as a casualty.
Each operational naval base will receive 3@1 defense rolls during an amphibious assault to be made after a sea battle, but before the landing. Due to the nature of these defense rolls (AA guns, coastal guns, mines, and shore obstacles), the attacker may remove any participating land, sea, and/or air units as causalities.
@Jetset
Can you explain the movement idea to me again using as few sentences as possible?… thanks.
@ Naval Base Defense Rolls: I like that YG. It keeps it more simple. Operational, 3@1. Non-Operational, 0 rolls. Rolls are made after Naval portion of Amphibious Assault and Preemptive to the Land-Portion. Attacker can select, air, land or sea units for casualties.
@ Naval Base Purpose: … Programing Language Style
Surface Ships (ie… Anything except Subs) have an operating range. Range is provided by Friendly Operational Naval Bases.
Naval Base Range is 3 Sea Zones.
If a Surface Ship starts their turn inside the range of a Naval Base, it may still move 2 spaces and conduct a strike or patrol OUTSIDE of the Naval Base range. … This would result in the ship being up to 5 spaces from the Naval Base at the end of the turn.
If a Surface Ship starts their turn >3 Sea Zones from Friendly, Operational Naval Base, it must attempt to get back into the Naval Base Range. (i.e. All movements must be in the direction of an Operational Naval Base on that turn)
Therefore: –-> Sustained Patrols may be conducted for an unlimited amount of turns within 3 sea zones of a Naval Base.
And Also: –-> Strikes, or Probes, may be conducted up to 5 sea zones away from a Naval Base.
**@ Naval Base Defense Rolls:** I like that YG. It keeps it more simple. Operational, 3@1. Non-Operational, 0 rolls. Rolls are made after Naval portion of Amphibious Assault and Preemptive to the Land-Portion. Attacker can select, air, land or sea units for casualties.
**@ Naval Base Purpose: … Programing Language Style**Â
Surface Ships (ie… Anything except Subs) have an operating range. Range is provided by Friendly Operational Naval Bases.
Naval Base Range is 3 Sea Zones.
If a Surface Ship starts their turn inside the range of a Naval Base, it may still move 2 spaces and conduct a strike or patrol OUTSIDE of the Naval Base range. … This would result in the ship being up to 5 spaces from the Naval Base at the end of the turn.
If a Surface Ship starts their turn >3 Sea Zones from Friendly, Operational Naval Base, it must attempt to get back into the Naval Base Range. (i.e. All movements must be in the direction of an Operational Naval Base on that turn)
Therefore:Â –->Â Â Sustained Patrols may be conducted for an unlimited amount of turns within 3 sea zones of a Naval Base.
And Also: –->Â Â Strikes, or Probes, may be conducted up to 5 sea zones away from a Naval Base.
Sorry, I’m still confused, ships can move 3 from a base, than an additional 2 within the same turn?
[Edit]. YG. No changes are made to how ships move. It is still 3 spaces when launching from a NB and 2 spaces when not. Naval Bases only provide an Operating Radius to Surface Ships … This works as follows:
Ships can stay for an indefinite amount of time inside of operating radius of a Friendly Naval Base. And move OOB inside that Radius. The Operating Radius of a Naval Base is 3 Sea Zones.
If a ship starts it’s turn inside of the Operating Radius of a Navy Base, it may move 2 sea zones in any direction. Therefore, leaving the Operating Radius if desired and going to a MAXIMUM of 5 sea zones away from the nearest Operational Naval Base. (3+2)
If, at the beginning of a turn, a ship finds itself OUTSIDE of the Operating Radius of an operational Friendly Naval Base, it must use it’s movement allowance to move towards an Operational Friendly Naval Base.
------ Let’s look at what this does / / / /
Japan starts the game having a Naval Base in Carolina Islands. This base (as it did in real life), extended the sustained operating range of the Japanese Imperial Navy. They could, in theory, conduct strikes along the coast of Australia from this base. … They could also dominate the seas around New Guinea.
The US had a Naval Base in the Philippines for the same reason. It gave them an Operating Radius along the China Coast and in the West Pacific.
If Japan where to lose their base in Carolina Islands, they would lose their ability to threaten Australia and New Guinea. If USA where to lose their base in Philippines, they would lose their ability to threaten Japan and the money islands in the south.
This is why Japan took the Philippines. … This is also why USA launched attacks on the Carolina Islands after the Battle of Midway.
By making Naval Bases do what they are actually supposed to do in real life, Provide a base of operation for Navy Fleets and to Extend the Range of your Naval Fleets, you make a much more accurate model of the War in the Pacific … and you also stay within the OOB rules of Axis and Allies. …
In SUPER SHORT … You “tie” your Surface Ships to Naval Bases. They literally have an elastic leash. The leash starts to pull back once a ship goes beyond 3 sea zones. The leash hits it stopping point at 5 sea zones.
Want to extend the range of your Naval Fleets?? Build (or capture) additional Naval Bases further out.
I will have to look at it when I’m at home around my map, I’m doing everything on my phone today and don’t have access to one.
Or this…
Cruisers and Battleships may now transport 1 infantry unit each during either their combat or non-combat movement phase. However, these infantry units must be loaded from a territory with an operational naval base, and ships may make shore bombardments or amphibious landings, but not both in the same turn.
YG. I hosted a G40 game this past weekend and we implemented the 3@1 die-rolls for Naval Bases. (This rule was added into the current version of the 3-Turn Playing System rule set) Rolls where done directly after the Naval Portion and Preemptive to the Land Portion of an amphibious assault. Hits could be applied to any unit participating in any part of the amphibious assault.
We liked it. The people I played with also liked how Naval bases also represented Coastal Defenses in an abstract way. Definitely a value added.
We also implemented the 3-zone radius for Naval Bases. …. To be honest, it didn’t have any impact at all on the Atlantic side … because even the Gibraltar sea zone can be serviced from London if Gibraltar falls to the Axis. (Which it did, and which the Allied posted a large fleet just off shore on the Atlantic side)
On the Pacific side it did make for some added importance to Carlina Islands though. And Japan did end up setting up an additional base in New Guinea. … that base was fought over and more heavily re-enforced by the Japanese. But overall, it didn’t effect game-balance and was quite a fun set of objectives to worry about in the Pacific.
Thanks for the update Jetset, sounds like a promising addition to naval bases.
I’ve been also thinking about the original idea of raising ships…
If a cruiser and/or a battleship has been destroyed in a sea zone adjacent to an operational naval base, immediately place a black chip per battleship, and a yellow chip per cruiser under the naval base counter.
During the purchase new units phase, nations may pay to raise ships previously destroyed at half their original cost. Once purchased, move the corresponding chip/s from under the naval base, and into any adjacent sea zone/s. During the place new units phase, mobilize any ships that were raised in the purchase new units phase.
Note: only ships belonging to the controller of the naval base may be raised.
Raising a sunken battleship, then repairing it and returning it to service, is neither fast nor cheap. Just as one example: USS Nevada, sunk at Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941, was only raised on May 17, 1942, and only returned to service in July 1944. Moreover, this sort of thing is only possible if: a) the damage which cause the ship to sink in the first place wasn’t too severe, and b) if the ship was sunk in shallow water. Arizona was never raised because she was blown apart. Bismarck was never raised because she sank in deep water. And the British firm which famously raised part of the scuttled German fleet at Scapa Flow after WWII ended up, as I recall, barely breaking even (let alone turning a profit) because of the huge costs involved.
@CWO:
Raising a sunken battleship, then repairing it and returning it to service, is neither fast nor cheap. Just as one example: USS Nevada, sunk at Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941, was only raised on May 17, 1942, and only returned to service in July 1944. Moreover, this sort of thing is only possible if: a) the damage which cause the ship to sink in the first place wasn’t too severe, and b) if the ship was sunk in shallow water. Arizona was never raised because she was blown apart. Bismarck was never raised because she sank in deep water. And the British firm which famously raised part of the scuttled German fleet at Scapa Flow after WWII ended up, as I recall, barely breaking even (let alone turning a profit) because of the huge costs involved.
Thanks Marc, makes sense and now I can stop thinking about this as I realized there were too many variables in wording a rule for raising ships.
I like your original idea, but what about carriers? They were the most important ships to keep afloat during the war, and a great deal of repair was done for them as well.
@Tamer:
I like your original idea, but what about carriers? They were the most important ships to keep afloat during the war, and a great deal of repair was done for them as well.
I feel that they are already priced to well, resulting in many players buy a lot of them for what they can do.
@Tamer:
I like your original idea, but what about carriers? They were the most important ships to keep afloat during the war, and a great deal of repair was done for them as well.
I do not recall any instance off-hand during the war in which a carrier was re-floated after having been sunk and then returned to active service.
The Amagi and Graf Zeppelin were both sunk and re-floated, but neither saw active service during the war and Graf Zeppelin wasn’t even complete.
The re-floating idea is kind of cool, but it may need to be reduced somehow to make it a more rare occurrence. As Marc said, it was a long and expensive process and not every ship that was sunk qualified for such a salvage operation. Unfortunately with A&A, we do not have the granularity in gameplay to determine how badly ships are damaged.
I suppose that you could modify the rule so that after combat you need to roll for each ship lost to determine IF it can be salvaged. Say you need a 2 or less to float a given ship. If you roll that, then you can decide to pay half to re-float.
It complicates things, but definitely makes it so you can’t just regenerate 2 battleships and 3 cruisers if you want.
I will offer another limitation that sounds logical to me, but you can consider:
Example: Gibraltar is amphib assaulted by Italy. All UK warships are destroyed. Italy has no warships present in sea zone, only transports. Italy takes Gibraltar. US player lands and liberates Gibraltar on their turn, returning it to UK control. The UK player cannot then re-float ships lost in previous turn combat with Italy because they did not retain full control of Gibraltar.
Somewhat complicated perhaps, but I think some of these limitations need to be placed, otherwise I see this as being a huge advantage for the Axis. Germany and Italy in particular, because they tend to hole up their navies in home water areas and can potentially get double the naval power at half the cost. It will further incentivize them to stock up and stay in port knowing they can effectively respawn capital ships on the cheap. An element of chance and tactical consideration should be added so that it isn’t just automatic.
