AARHE: Phase 2: Naval Combat

For sea zones with no connected territory, I am fine is it in this discussion at 2).
I am wondering if it might actually be reasonable to extend that to all sea zones.

If amphibious assault if your worry, you still need to secure sea zone before landing anyway.

EXAMPLE 1

Round 3 Axis
Japan has CV (carrier) at SZ 55.
Round 3 Allies
US builds CV at Western.US.
Combat do not occur yet.

Round 4 Axis
Japan must move CV out of SZ 55 or combat occurs…which gives US defender advantage.
Should US get the advantage? Why not Japan (who’s camping at SZ 55)?

EXAMPLE 2

Round 1 Axis
Germany builds IC at Western Europe.

Round 2 Axis
Germany builds Carrier at SZ 7.
Round 2 Allies
UK builds Carrier at SZ 7.

Round 3 Axis
Germany must move Carrier out of SZ 7 or combat occurs…which gives UK defender advantage.
Even though UK Carrier is the late-comer and the German Carrier is well established already.

my eyes are on solution 3

I’ll PM Jennifer to see what Jennifer thinks
Jennifer was posting about this problem before I think

Solution 4: 
Roll a die, 1-3 the current player is attacker, 4-6 the enemy units in the water is the attacker

Solution 5:
Which ever side wants wants to engage (assuming one side does not want to engage) uses attack values giving the defender the edge.

Solution 6:
Use Classic rules.  You cannot build naval units in blockaded sea zones.  We have a lot more sea zones in revised editions then in classic.

What’s the right one?  I think it’d depend on the players the most, I think number 2.  You build your ships in a harbor, not on the open seas.  That means if the enemy wants to sink your new boats, he’d have to attack your harbors, thus, you would get defense bonus.

@Jennifer:

Solution 5:
Which ever side wants wants to engage (assuming one side does not want to engage) uses attack values giving the defender the edge.

If we won’t break the game basics of active/passive turn…then defender obviously can’t choose/attack.

That in turns makes no. 5 basically no. 3.

You build your ships in a harbor, not on the open seas.  That means if the enemy wants to sink your new boats, he’d have to attack your harbors, thus, you would get defense bonus.

yeah but the siuation we are modelling is that the enemy blockaded a seazone rather than attacking your new ships in your harbours

Another look at anti-air.

Land anti-air
*unit is ID (infrastructure defense)
*D6 roll on 1, then D6 roll on 1 to destroy or 2 to force retreat
*multiple allowed per territory

IPC    1-hit    1-retreat    1-hit+1-retreat    2-hit      2-hit+1-retreat
1 ID      5      2.8%    2.8%        -                        -            -
2 ID      10    4.6%    4.6%        0.0%                  0.0%      -
3 ID      15    5.8%    5.8%        0.4%                  0.4%      0.0%
4 ID      20    6.4%    6.4%        0.3%                  0.3%      0.0%

Comment: Percentages do double with radar tech. Need to consider hit+retreat %. IC (industrial complex) comes with 2 IDs. VC (victory city) comes with 1 ID. So Germany has 4 IDs. Knock back power of 13%, 26% with radar per cycle.

Naval anti-air
*a number of D6 rolls hitting on 1
*CA 4, BB 3, CV+DD 2

IPC      1-hit      2-hit      3-hit
CA            15      38.5%    11.6%    1.5%
BB              20      34.7%    13.9%    0.5%
CV            16      27.8%    2.8%      -
DD            10      27.8%    2.8%      -

scenario: 2 FTR (fighter) attack 1 BB (battleship)
attacker: 50% chance 1-hit, 25% 2-hit
defender: 34.7% chance 1-hit, 13.9% 2-hit

Comment: BB has 49% chance of hitting at least one FTR. Damaged BB still fire anti-air. 2 FTR has little chance against 1 BB.

scenario: 1 FTR (fighter) attack 1 DD (destroyer)
attacker: 25% chance 1-hit
defender: 27.8% chance 1-hit + 2.8% 2-hit

Comment: Even a destroyer is so “tough”. DD has 31% chance of hitting the FTR at least once. 1 FTR can’t even deal with 1 DD.

Suggestions:
Would it be realistic…
*Naval anti-air not preemptive to air units
*reduct anti-air dice to CA 3 BB 2 CV+DD 1

so we’ll reduce the Anti-air values by 1

what about making naval anti-air not preemptive?
like “double KO” kind of engagement?

are there difference between WWII land and naval antiaircraft guns?

and its not a “draft” anymore, its a “release” or “release candidate”  :-)

@Imperious:

“draft” was a slip. sorry.

lol I am just saying it for fun
well, its good to imply the level of progress with a new term over “draft”

by the way I notice you capitalise your “WE” often
I used to think you were really putting emphasis
but now it seems quite common  :wink: so you probably don’t mean it

CURRENTLY:

SS (Submarine) 8IPC Move2 Attack2 Defense2 = 33%

before ASW tech
DD (Destroyer) 10IPC Move3 Search3 Attack2 = 17%

after ASW tech
DD (Destroyer) Search4 Attack3 = 33%
Air Search3 Attack2 = 17%

Without ASW tech submarines are very powerful.
UK starts with 1 of 3 progress boxes.
UK can put 2 develop weapons rolls on ASW per turn. (1 free + 1 purchasable.)
Thats 6 turns on average.

IDEA1:

before ASW tech
DD (Destroyer) Search3 Attack3 = 25%

Destroyer slightly improved. Now its 8IPC 33% vs. 10IPC 25%. Submarine’s edge is still perserved.

IDEA2:

before ASW tech
Air Search0 Attack2

Air units still may not attack submarines on their own until ASW tech.
Before ASW tech (bouy, seach lights) planes can still bomb submarines right?

@Imperious:

Subs should not be able to attacks subs until ASW is achieved.

Subs have no ASW search nor ASW attack value currently.
I am guessing you meant to say “air units should not be able to attacks subs until ASW is achieved”.

Until then they can only scout.

Actually air units cannot perform ASW at all currently, until ASW tech.
But fair enough considering Leigh Light was from June 1942, which is pretty much straight after the game start.

If I extropolate from existing system of….
*air unit ASW weaker then destroyer ASW
*BMR cannot hit naval units
*ASW tech gives +1 to both search and attack rolls

then the system would be…

before ASW tech
DD Search3 Attack2 17% -> Search3 Attack3 25%
Air Search0 Attack0 -> Search2 Attack0
BMR Search0 Attack0

after ASW tech
DD Search4 Attack3 33% -> Search4 Attack4 44%
Air Search3 Attack2 17% ->Search3 Attack3 25%
BMR Search0 Attack0

before SS tech
SS Attack2 33%

after SS tech
SS Attack3 50%

ok I would adjust it to…

before ASW tech
DD/CA search 3 attack 3
BMR search 2

after ASW tech
DD/CA search 4 attack 4
FTR/NAV search 3 attack 3
BMR search 3

before SS tech
SS attack 2

after SS tech
SS attack +1, ASW search -1 attack -1

now for the naval combat simplification…

*as mentioned I wanted to make it you always dogfight if both side has planes, so no more CAP.
For air units allocation you now only choose between 2 things (normal combat and ASW) rather than 3 (those +CAP)

*let Anti-Air work against all enemy air units (because making CAP air units immune to enemy AA fire is only realistic is naval engagements were mostly standing-off assaults)

*last simplification, wonder if damaged Battleships could fire in opening-fire too…could say

existing summary

Pre-Combat
1. ASW search rolls (1st cycle only).
2. Air units are allocated to naval attack, CAP, or ASW.
Opening-fire
1. Undetected Submarines fire, selectively (1st cycle only).
2. Other naval units perform Anti-Air against naval attack air units.
3. Remove casualties.
Mid-Combat
1. Undamged battleship fires. Remove casualties.
2. Naval units are allocated to normal combat or ASW.
Main Round
1. Detected Submarines fire.
2. ASW naval and air perform ASW attack against Submarines.
3. Other naval units fire.
4. Naval attack and CAP air units fire.
5. Remove casualties.
Retreat Decision
1. Defender
2. Attacker

new summary

Pre-Combat
1. ASW search (1st cycle only).
Opening-fire
1. Undetected Submarines fire, selectively (1st cycle only).
2. Naval units perform Anti-Air.
3. Remove casualties.
Mid-Combat
1. Battleship fires. Remove casualties.
2. Units are allocated to normal combat or ASW attack.
Main Round
1. Detected Submarines fire.
2. ASW attack.
3. Other naval units fire.
4. Other air units fire.
5. Remove casualties.
Retreat Decision
1. Defender
2. Attacker