AARHE: Phase 2: Naval Combat

yeah the argument given by someone at Harris’s forum was good

Revised added Destroyers
“Deluxe” and AARHE and other house rules added Cruisers

so the little esorts implicitly represented by the AP and CV piece are totally outclassed by combat ships

but maybe not the funny situation of AP automatically die as proposed over there
they can just retreat if only them left…simulating them avoding combat and run as soon as things look bad, rather than suddenly die

so just

AP (transport) 0/0
CV (aircraft carrier) 1/1

and

naval combat ends at the end of cycle when both side only have AP left
hostile AP in sea zone do not prevent amphibious landing (like submerged submarines)

Regarding the problem of your enemy building a ship to “kick you out” of the sea zone…

building naval units in hostile sea zones should stay as it in from LHTR (allowed)

lets do a small fix … staying in a hostile sea zone does not count as attacking, combat is not forced to not occur

you can’t avoid combat completely
naval units (besides submarines) are still not allowed to enter a hostile sea zone without attacking

in the case of building units in a hostile sea zone
it does not apply to open sea zones at all

in OOB there are no other situations where you can start in a hostile sea zone (1. enemy built naval unit in your sea zone 2. submarines submerged)
in AARHE there is one more situation to cater for, “retreat via break-off” in naval combat

what I dont like is how the enemy can build a naval unit in your sea zone and not start combat
and then when its your turn you must get out or start combat

(for the strategic advantages such as waiting for reinforcement or simply the defence values being better than attack values, of course this partially eroded under AARHE, its mainly the air units left that are better on defense)

@Imperious:

If japan parks her fleet off of the west USA coast… in OOB you can still place new naval in this SZ and combat is required.

Up to the point of “combat is required” is good.
But then why should it be the Japan fleet that is the attacker? Why not the US fleet that is the attacker?

Should the revelant higher combat values of defender over attacker be given to the Japan fleet which is doing “naval blockade” style camping?

The situation is a bit more strange with the English Channel, North Sea or the Sea of Japan…where there could be two opposing ICs building navy into the same SZ.

@Imperious:

1)The only thing that could work is mandatory combat for any SZ where you place new ships. So in the example Japan will have to either move away or face mandatory combat.

2)In open SZ both can remain w/o combat, unless one side has some Islands or territory which goes back to case #1.

1. What do you mean? Is that different to now? Place New Units phase is after Combat phase though.

2. In open sea zones (no connected territory), opposing units can remain (not enter) in the same space without 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”  :-)