AARHE: Phase 2: Naval Combat

That system is only ship to ship combat. air units should target like subs the ships they want… except each DD and CA again screens out one capital ship 1/1 basis. also each ship fires first at some modified aa value and hits are preemtive. so any planes left over get to fire at which ships they want. CA is a aa gun platform so id make them the strongest against planes. next should be the bb and last carriers and DD. Transports have no defense at all.

idea:

CA roll 1-4
BB rolls 1-3
CA rolls 1-2
DD rolls 1

each ship only gets one roll preemtive EACH ROUND.

Ships protecting other ships from air attacks?
Its realistic right?

++++ thats totally realistic… the entire reason why specific ships sail together the escort ships form a ring around the carrier or battleship, sometimes the battleships are in the lead but mostly that was in ww1 because naval tactics of the day were regulated to crossing the “T”… a holdover tactic from Napoleonic times

So for land combat statistically about 10% of fighters were downed by antiaircraft.
What were the figures for naval combat?

++++very good question: i dont have an answer. However i know Cruisers were built in ww2 as anti aircraft platforms and served as fleet escort to protect carriers and battleships. OF course BB had sufficient AA protection as a general rule.

Air units fighting without carriers

For land combat we decided, for now, to make air units without supporting land units fire for one cycle and then retreat.
For naval combat, we would have something like this?

++++++NO entirely different. The only yoke is the parent carrier… one idea i was tinkering was to install some uber tactical idea of planes spending one turn to attack and another turn to refuel and rearm. that way like at Midway the carrier can be caught with its pants down and sunk with its planes?

“At the end of a combat cycle you must retreat air units excess to your carrier capacity.”

This happens to stop air units from land performing multiple combat cycle against enemy ships.

++++ OH that … yes land and carrier based planes must be seperate. the scale is very abstracted but truely its totally unrealistic to continue this process from OOB… Planes attacking from carriers and landing on land for use on the players following turn is horrible.

Refuel and rearm….that would be like my equivalent sugguest for land combat.
We can argue this is not neccessary as planes fly really fast and can refuel/rearm during the one cycle.
Remember you said its about one month per combat cycle.

+++++++  yep your correct it was just an idea… nothing major.

Quote
This happens to stop air units from land performing multiple combat cycle against enemy ships.
++++ OH that … yes land and carrier based planes must be seperate. the scale is very abstracted but truely its totally unrealistic to continue this process from OOB… Planes attacking from carriers and landing on land for use on the players following turn is horrible.

Some land planes simply can’t be upgraded to work as a carrier plane.

“Air units taken off a territory must land on a territory.”

“After the first cycle of combat, air units taken off a territory must retreat.”

However little reason why a carrier plane cannot land on land.

Optionally rule is new piece/unit, separating land and sea fighters.

Standard rule is sea planes becomes land planes once they land on a territory.

++++ yes i think we need a naval fighter unit under those older new units thread… and not allow land based planes to integrate with carriers anymore.

yes… the German player will announce his subs are on station at the time when the allies move into his zones containing the sub. otherwise he will just allow him to pass. remember only movement and combat is done together… the other stages can be done as each allied players decides… only when everybody is ready they conduct movement folowed by combat.

Ok so you are happy with the effects.

Now, with naval retreats.

Is there a parting shot?
++++ no parting shot…

on surface ships? submarines and air units retreat immediately without parting shot right?

++++right

Where can you retreat to?
++++ in attacks with subs they remain in the same sea zone. In attacks with surface ships i suppose they just retreat like in land combat.

Just any friendly sea zones including those that wasn’t friendly at the beginng of the turn?

++++ sea zones that are open… probably not SZ that contain enemy controlled islands however.

That is…
As defender, can you retreat one sea zones the attacker came from and left nothing behind?

++++ like in land combat after each combat round either side can retreat partially or in whole. The attacker must not be allowed to retreat “forward”, while the defender should retreat to if possible the nearest controlled territory.

As attacker, can you retreat to newly acquired sea zones?

+++++ you can take the sz where combat took place or retreat to adjacent seazones  again not “forward”

forward= toward any other enemy ships or occupied zones/ territories. SZ will need to be marked with tokens of your nation.

we dont need ships “hopping over” but by the same token to keep things simple if their is any choice at all, the retreating ships must move back or at the very least sideways toward any path that is closer to its own controlled territories than before. If we install every case and exemption we complicate a simple idea. Lets just keep it simple and semi-realistic. An obvious method of determining this is to answer the following question:  " does your retreat bring you closer to enemy ships or enemy territories?"

Also I would like to bring up an old question.

Is it realistic for one DD to provide early warning for an unlimitedly large fleet?

Recall how each DD can “screen” one friendly surface ship.
Maybe the DD can also “esort” two friendly surface ships.

++++ Well its possible certainly… but how many capital ships ( CV and BB) is a player gonna have?  if a DD can now protect 2 such ships then you will need buy too many of them. or will you? Or will this effect the number of BB or CV you buy? the answer can only really be borne out of playtesting.

Ahh well… usually BB traveled with DD and CV traveled mostly with CA . Say at Layte gulf you had like 1-2 battleships along with 8-12 destroyers  ( about a 6 to one).

The carriers were escorted by a ring of ships: below is what Nagumo had at midway…

FIRST CARRIER STRIKING FORCE (1st Air Fleet), VADM Chuichi Nagumo
Carrier Group, VADM Nagumo
CarDiv 1
CV Akagi  (flagship, Akagi) 21 Zero fighters, 21 dive bombers, 21 torpedo bombers (Sunk)
CV Kaga (Kaga) 21 Zero fighters, 21 dive bombers, 30 torpedo bombers (Sunk)
CarDiv 2 – RADM Tamon Yamaguchi
CV Hiryu (flagship, Hiryu) 21 Zero fighters, 21 dive bombers, 21 torpedo bombers (Sunk)
CV Soryu (Hiryu) 21 Zero fighters, 21 dive bombers, 21 torpedo bombers (Sunk)
Support Group – RADM Hiroaki Abe CruDiv 8
CA Tone (flagship, Tone)
CA Chikuma (Tone)
2nd Section, BatDiv 3 –
BB Haruna (Kongo)
BB Kirishima (Kongo)
Screen (DesRon 10) – RADM Susumu Kimura
CL Nagara (flagship, Nagara)
DesDiv 4 – 4 DDs
DesDiv 10 – 3 DDs
DesDiv 17 – 4 DDs
Supply Group – 5 oilers, 1 DD

At Leyte gulf the japanese had:
5 BB (Yamato, Musashi (S), Nagato, Kongo, Haruna)
10 CA  (Atago (S), Takao, Chokai (S), Maya (S), Myoko, Haguro, Kumano,
Suzuya (S), Chikuma (S), Tone)
2 CL (Noshiro (S), Yahagi)
15 DD (Shimakaze, Hayashimo (S), Akashimo, Kishinami, Okinami, Naganami, Asashimo,
Fujinami (S), Hamanami, Kiyoshimo, Nowaki (S), Urakaze, Isokaze, Hamakaze, Yukikaze)

It may be hard to extrapolate some idea about your question but its clear that the ratio of suporting ships was allways in excess of the primary warships. perhaps you have a good idea with this… propose some idea lets take a look.

so we need to determine what is a good number required to form a ring around all your primary warships

+++++ Its not only that… it was the idea that a sub could not get a clear shot and also to have a forward, rearguard and laterel defense to search for U-boats.
Thats why if a cruiser or destroyer is present the subs premtive strike is negated.

maybe the OOB rule of letting your submarine-attack casualities fire back is not realistic

in fact, should submarines fire in opening-fire?

++++ yes if you have no supporting ASW warships.

if so, should an early warning from friendly DD actually let you fire back?

++++ for who? the player with the subs? or the player who owns the ships?

destroyers are guranteed a chance to hit back…is that realistic?

++++ well the subs can still sink a ship… only that it now gets a parting shot… ok i think i see what you mean… you want to allow the sub to still maintain its premtive shot, but then also allow any destroyer/ cruiser the ability to then search and attack the sub under ASW ideas?