IMG_20200508_195523_hdr.jpg
Chaos in the Balkans:
Hungary and Romania are at war, Germany has annexed Austria, Yugoslavia suffered an unfortunate die role and has been forced to disintegrate into a Pro-Fascist Croatian state and a smaller Serbia. Italy managed to seize Albania without loss, and Czechoslovakia is reinforcing its border with the Nazis.
The UK has pledged to declare war on any power invading Greece.
IMG_20200508_200336_hdr.jpg
Swedish Disaster:
The Swedes attempted to peacefully take over Norway to prevent any major nations from entering Scandinavia, but the plan backfired. Not only did another unfortunate die role cause the Norwegians to resist, but the German and British players were offended by the assault, and Germany turned a blind eye to a British force that liberated the Norwegians and devastated Sweden’s hopes of a powerful, neutral, United Scandinavian state.
IMG_20200508_200349_hdr.jpg
Spain in Flames:
The civil war rages on in Spain, just as a deadly naval encounter ended in mutual annihilation for the Nationalists and Republicans. The free world does not want a Fascist Spain, and the U.S. Player has sent generous air aid to the Republicans. With Franco’s Army of Africa having headed for the mainland, I, as France, took advantage and seized their Moroccan colony. Unfortunately, I earned a -1 diplomacy points for this “aggressive” act.
AARHE: Phase 2: Naval Combat
-
1 US DD at SZ 11.
1 US CV at SZ 17.
1 German SS at SZ 12.US declares DD at SZ 11 move into SZ 13 through SZ 12.
Before US (or other Allies powers) finishes declaring their movement, (which could involve US CV move from SZ 17 to SZ 13) Germany must declare whether to submerge SS?1 US BMR at Gibraltar.
1 US CV at SZ 11.
1 German SS at SZ 12.However, here US can’t do the same trick, the BMR is not gonna help open the path for the CV to go from SZ 11 to SZ 13.
All this is due to abstraction of time in OOB?
-
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? on surface ships? submarines and air units retreat immediately without parting shot right?
Where can you retreat to? Just any friendly sea zones including those that wasn’t friendly at the beginng of the turn?
That is…
As defender, can you retreat one sea zones the attacker came from and left nothing behind?
As attacker, can you retreat to newly acquired sea zones? -
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.
-
oh crap I ended up wiping out your reply…
for the record you’ve agree to not use the token, submarines can still submerge or retreat like surface ships@Imperious:
That island part we’ve gotta look into. Are you modelling coastal batteries or something?
++++ not at all… just putting the shortest method to describe the idea of not allowing the retreat to become an ‘opportunity’ to get closer to the enemy for a better strike… that is allways a problem in the oob.Then you might as well make it you gotta retreat back the direction you came from like land combat.
Otherwise you have a side effect with your enemy island rule.
Japan holds Solomon Islands.
US fleet at SZ 45 (Solomon Islands) attacks Japan fleet at SZ 44.
US fleet can’t retreat back to SZ 45? :?+++ i have to look at the map… but the retreat is basically toward your own territories/ units… it quite obvious when its just a retreat say to get at japanese transports and gain a free movement toward them.
Another example.
Japan holds Solomon Islands.
US fleet at SZ 45 (Solomon Islands) attacks Japanese fleet at SZ 44.
US feelt at SZ 43 also attacks the same Japanese fleet.Is this case can the US fleet retreat back to SZ 45?
Its “towards enemy territory” but then they did come from that direction…
Can both US fleets retreat to SZ 45, joing up?A sea zone is large and naval combat are more fluid.
But we might have to make it like land combat if you don’t want people hopping over the enemy. -
to show I’ve replied
-
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?"
-
The rule can be simple. But the situation can be complex. I just worry about side effects.
I think not able to retreat to get closer to enemy territories is realistic. But not neccessary the case with getting closer to enemy ships.
for example
7 8 9
4 5 6
1 2 32 Japanese DD at SZ7.
2 US DD at SZ8.
6 US DD at SZ2.
When Japanese fleet at SZ7 attacks US fleet at SZ8, I think US is happy to maneuver so Japanese fleet can retreat to SZ5…closer to large fleet at SZ2.If we do it like our AARHE land combat attacker retreat rule its probably too restrictive. (individual land units can only retreat the direction they came from).
If we do it like OOB land combat attacker retreat rule its a little better. (land units can retreat to any of the direction where one or more land units came from).
Actually, when Allies breached the Altantic Wall they didn’t have to defeat all the German U-Boats in the area did they? Maybe hopping over the enemy is not too unrealistic.
-
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. -
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.
-
I wasn’t intending to change buying pattern is a major way.
I guess instead of 2 it should be more like 4.
Actually, historically what is the typical ratio of DD (Destroyer, Crusier, etc) vs. CV (Carrier) in a fleet?
-
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 DDAt 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
maybe the OOB rule of letting your submarine-attack casualities fire back is not realistic
in fact, should submarines fire in opening-fire?
if so, should an early warning from friendly DD actually let you fire back?destroyers are guranteed a chance to hit back…is that realistic?
-
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?
-
@Imperious:
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?
yeah sort of
so ASW by destroyer/crusier would be in in opening-fire now(probably more realistic than saying destroyer fire at enemy destroyers (in main round fire), meanwhile throws a few depth charges and chases enemy submarines too)
ships killed by submarines in opening-fire are removed and do not fire in main round fire, whether there was a friendly DD around, whether the submarine was detected at all, whatever ship it is
-
Ok great … sorry to ask this but can you compile what we got at this point for phase two? We have to reword my horrible linguistic interpretation of the new combat system.
Plus i feel some new people will join us soon and it would be good for them to see where we are in a single thread for phase one and two…
the question remains: where is Duke?
-
you don’t have duke’s contact right?
yeah people come and go
maybe he has a life and forgot about us already :evil:yeah I’ll compile the current standing of phase 2
this one is gonna be long -
That would be great! that way others can see where we are currently… often we are discussing very specific details and dont step back to look at the larger framework of the project. Its important to do this like painting a picture really.WE will also know where we are and what we still have left to do.
-
@Imperious:
Ok great … sorry to ask this but can you compile what we got at this point for phase two? We have to reword my horrible linguistic interpretation of the new combat system.
Plus i feel some new people will join us soon and it would be good for them to see where we are in a single thread for phase one and two…
the question remains: where is Duke?
Please do! I didn’t really get to understanding the gibberish you guys had on Phase 1 so I got lost in the general ideas for combat… It would help to understand it in Rule form…
GG
-
LOL
Suggested Topics
