AARHE: Phase 3: Naval combat system

@the_jetset:

Retreating fleets disperse and then regroup again once safe.

Not necessarily.  “Disperse then regroup” is a tactic that was used – and only as a desparate last resort – by convoys of merchant vessels under heavy enemy attack.  I’m not aware of warship fleets using this technique extensively in WWII; some naval tacticians like Wayne Hughes have argued that warships are actually in a much better position when they’re concentrated than when they’re dispersed.

The Japanese fleet at Midway didn’t disperse as a result of its defeat because it was already dispersed when the operation started.  In his book Miracle at Midway, Gordon Prange faulted Yamamoto for his dispositions in the Midway operation: the Japanese fleet was broken up into several widely-separted forces, none of which was close enough to the other to provide any meaningful assistance to each other.  This dispersion wasted the enormous numerical superiority that the Japanese had over the Americans.  In fairness, the Japanese Navy as a whole (and not just Yamamoto) had a fondness for elaborate operations involving multiple fleets; their operation at Leyte Gulf in 1944 was another example.

Hi Marc.  I was hoping for your input on this.

What you are saying is very true.    This is why I’m proposing to simulate NB’s servicing ships/fleets with a “radius”.  The ships do not ever have to enter the actual sea-zone where the NB is located.

Therefore, if you have a chain of Naval Bases, your ships can stay at sea forever, as long as they stay within range of a base.  A range of 3 sea zones would be several thousand miles.

Ships would only need to actually go to a Naval Base to get repairs.

–—

The Japanese also had their ships out on very long missions.  Example being their carrier fleet around Java back in '41.  But they were able to do that with a very nice series of Bases leading all the way back to the mainland to service them.

@barney:

wow
I thought I could just read this and not have to think :)

Sounds way cool. I wonder how it will effect naval battles? In a good way I’m thinking
Yea I 'm gonna try it :)

Well I just read the whole thing! And yea sounds better.
Have you played any games yet?

I playtested this last one:
@Baron:

So, I tried with a better success this much more stable (and simpler) values for Fighter and Tactical on defense and only Tactical Bomber get bonus on attack for specific situations:

FIGHTER
Attack 2, same in SBR
Defense 2 or 3, same in SBR
Move 4
Cost 7
1 hit
Air combat unit, Fighter as an Air Superiority aircraft:
All hits are allocated to aircraft units first, if any available.

Combined Arms Bonus:
Gives +1 Attack to any Tactical Bomber paired 1:1 with.

Fighter as part of an extended Air Defense System:
Up to 3 Fighter units receive +1 Defense if protecting a territory with an operational Air Base, (or 1 Fg for a Victory City if playing 1942.2)

TACTICAL BOMBER
Attack 2 or 3 or 4, SBR @1
Defense 3
Move 4
Cost 8
1 hit
Combined Arms bonus, Tactical Bomber as a less vulnerable “Dive” or “Torpedo” Bomber when escorted by Fighter:
**_Gain +1 Attack, when paired 1:1 with a Fighter .

Air Supremacy Bonus, Tactical Bomber as a “Dive Bomber”:
Gain +1 Attack when no ennemy’s aircraft is present.
These two bonuses can be added to raise up to Attack @4.
With these other units:

STRATEGIC BOMBER
Attack 4,  SBR @1
Defense 1
Move 6
1 hit
Cost 10

Strategical Bombing Raid (SBR*): Attack @1
SBR damage: 1D6+2 on Industrial Complex, Air Base or Naval Base

Fighter: Attack 2 Defense 2 or 3
Tactical Bomber: Attack 1 Defense 0
Strategic Bomber: Attack 1 Defense 0

DEFENSIVE MANEUVERS allowed for all 3 types of aircraft:

Aerial Retreat for attacking planes (all aircrafts can retreat while letting ground units pursuing battle),

Limited Aerial Withdrawal of 1 space in a friendly territory after first combat round for defending planes up to 2 StBs or 2 TcBs or 2 Fgs.

a limited landing in a just conquered territory: 2 planes (either Fighter or Tactical Bomber), as long as it can provide 1 extra movement point for this special landing.

FLEET CARRIER G40
Attack 0
Defense 2
Move 2
Cost 16
2 hits
Hold up to 3 planes : 3 Fgs / or 2 Fgs and 1 TcB / or 1 Fg and 2 TcBs / or 3 TcBs.
A damaged Aircraft Carrier still allowed flight operation for 1 plane unit.

FLEET CARRIER 1942.2
Attack 1
Defense 2
Move 2
Cost 14
1 hit
Hold up to 3 planes : 3 Fgs / or 2 Fgs and 1 TcB / or 1 Fg and 2 TcBs / or 3 TcBs.

ESCORT CARRIER
Attack 0
Defense 1
Move 2
Cost 9
1 hit
Hold 1 plane : 1 Fg OR 1 TcB.
ASV: Anti-Sub Vessel, same as Destroyer against Submarine.

CRUISER
Attack 3
Defense 3
Move 2
Cost 10
1 hit
1 Shore Bombardment @3.

BATTLESHIP
Attack 4
Defense 4
Move 2
Cost 18
2 hits
1 Shore Bombardment @4.

On a battlecalc, these values gives similar odds of survival to a full Carrier with 3 TcBs against itself when 1 CV and 2 Fgs attacks 1 CV and 2 Fgs. You get similar odds about 1 CV, 1 Fg, 1 TcB against itself compared to 1 CV 2 TcBs and 1 Fg against itself (as far as I can put similar numbers in the calc).

The idea is that a full Carrier is better on defense than offense.
So, to keep this principle in line, TacB has been put to a single defense value of 3.
It is slightly higher than Fighter (keeping @2), but remember that Fighters always hit planes first.

The 3-planes carrier provides more units in a SZ and Fgs A2 D2 C7 can be a good fodder instead of loosing a costlier Carrier with the same defense @2.
So during combat rounds, usually owner’s will keep Carriers and sacrifice Fighters and it doesn’t change the defense factor.
That’s the main difference with OOB Naval Combat, often Carriers with lower Def @2 are sacrifice earlier because of the high defense value of Fighters (D4).

Also, 3-planes Carrier gives more strategy and flexibility on which units (Fg or TcB) you prefer to put on board.
All 3 cheaper Fighters (A2 D2 C7) but with lesser odds A6 D6 C21.
All 3 costlier TcBs (A2-3-4 D3 C8) better on defense but not good against an opponent defending with planes (A6 D9 C24).
The mix of both Fg and TcB is far better in combat 1 Fg & 2 TcBs or 2 Fgs & 1 TcB.

I also like to put small 1 plane-Escort Carrier (A1 D1 C9) (bought from HBG) in the roster.
Their relative strength toward 3-planes Fleet Carrier is better historically depicted.
In fact, a single Escort Carrier can carry around 27-33 planes while a Fleet Carrier is around 90-100 planes.

I also experimented a Fg unit attacking @1 with First strike and defending @2 but the very low value of 1 and specific First Strike ability similar to subs was slowing down the battle process.
That’s why I prefer the A2 D2 C7 Fighter.
(Combat values wich are also similar to 1914 planes. From a A&A game franchise consistency POV.)
In each combat round, you start by rolling both attacking and defending Fighters, then picking up casualties on planes.
After, you continue with regular combat unit rolls.

One historical objections I made to myself was about that Fighters were better defending than attacking.
I answered it by giving a special +1 defense bonus to 3 Fighters when an operational Air Base is present.
This could figure the alertness of interceptors and all the Radar and Survey system against incoming planes.
Also, defenders can also have AAA unit on their side to increase the casualty rates of attacking aircrafts.
That’s why I think it can still be acceptable from an historical POV.
(Also, don’t forget how G40 OOB SBR rules doesn’t care about it, giving all planes a roll @1.)

TacBs Attack 2-3-4 Defense 3 values were more dictated by the defensive capacity required for Carriers to keep the similar balance of their OOB counterpart.

Strategic Bomber are lowered to 10 IPCs and it is required because of the dangerousness of attacking defending Fighters. Each round they could shot it down, no matter the number of ground units for fodder.

Finally, Cruiser and Battleship’s cost are reduced by 2 IPCs, 10 and 18 IPCs to level them against a more dangerous Fleet Carrier at full strength and cheaper planes.
To fully compete with this new carrier (which is a bit better than the regular OOB), it is now a must from the Battlecalc POV that Battleship and Cruiser need a reduced cost of 2 IPCs :
Cruiser A3 D3 M2 should cost 10 IPCs while Battleship A4 D4 M2, 2 hits should cost 18 IPCs.
So, Cruiser will be at the same cost than Strategic bomber (A4 D1 M6 C10),
and the Battleship (18 IPCs) still compete against the Cruiser (10 IPCs) + Destroyer (8 IPCs) combo.

Example: 12 Fgs gives A2 D2 C7, are too powerful against 7 A3 D3 C12 Cruiser.
Overall %*: A. survives: 94.8% D. survives: 4.7% No one survives: 0.5%

10 Fgs gives A2 D2 C7, are within acceptable margin against 7 A3 D3 C10 Cruiser.
Overall %*: A. survives: 75.2% D. survives: 23.2% No one survives: 1.6%

All in all, the additional money made from this savings will be needed to replace for the increased rate of aircrafts casualties.

From my little experienced with 3-planes Carriers, it works well.

Also, if you really want to increase aircrafts combat interactions in contested land territory, you should allow attacker to land a single Fg or TcB, or even up to 2 aircrafts in a just conquered territory.
(I ruled that an additional movement point to land in this zone is required.)
Otherwise, your game would mostly relied on AAA to defend against attacking planes.

I will post something on AAA issue in another thread more sooner than later.
For now, just know that I put them at 3 IPCs to get the maximum incentive to buy them.

Hope you will try and enjoy it.

One little physical inconvenient about a fully loaded Carriers unit with 3 TcBs is that there is not much place on the sculpt to put them in a row.
To overcome the lack of room for this bigger sculpt, is to put a chip on a Carrier below a TcB sculpt for additional units.
On the brighter side, any mix with a smaller Fg sculpt fit well on top of a Carrier._**

These VCs could actually be very good for fixing some one problem of the game. “Capture the capitals” is always a terrible victory condition, and because of the slow warfare in this game, the CPs basically have to get an economic advantage to stand a chance (which is virtually impossible). I don’t agree with the non-capitals having production capacity, but I could be convinced if it led to better balance. However, I would change it to 12 VCs after round 4, with one of them having to be an enemy capital, and shared or revolted Russian VCs counting as half a point for both sides. (Perhaps only for the CPs if Russia intentionally revolting itself becomes a problem) Contested VCs are still nothing for either side.

American marines dont, but these aren’t just americans don’t forget. I would never use Lv1 but it’s the only way to get Lv2 and Lv3.

@oldsalty:

Bierwagan:

How would you have played your example if it were a bomber instead of a ftr?

Moin OldSalty!

I haven’t had a lone bomber defending a territory yet.  But, it wouldn’t really change anything.  Air units only get full attack strength when coupled with ground forces on a 1-to-1 basis.

@AAHRE:

Air Supremacy
When only one side has air units at the beginning of
combat cycle, air units fight with normal combat values
when matched 1-to-1 with a friendly land unit. Excess
air units fight at combat value of 1.

So, the bomber would have Air Supremacy but would only get a parting shot at 1 (n.b., bombers don’t get to select targets it is just carpet bombing) – then it would have to withdraw due to:

@AAHRE:

Land Combat: Retreat Decision
At the end of a land combat cycle, if only one side has
land units the other side must retreat.

TTP (Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures) insight for the day!
This becomes tactically significant later on in the game when you don’t have many ground units left.  I’ve seen people attack what looks like a solid defense in Berlin by tying up all the airplanes in the sky.  Then all you have to do is blast away the few defenders on the ground and “voila!” the vaunted Luftwaffe is forced to retreat because they have no land units, giving you the country and victory!

This really causes you to re-evaluate defense on the ground.  You have to watch UK as well because normally it’s just used as a non-mobile aircraft carrier – but NO MORE!

It’s all about balance… and aircover!  IL & Tekkyy have done a wondermus job of levelling the playing field and making it a real slobberknocker of a tactical puzzle.

Enjoy the day!

thats just fine.

right lets stop with phase two untill phase one is done.