AARHE: proposed naval combat rules change

I developed a new naval combat system, and I figured I’d throw it out there. If you guys want to use some of this for AARHE, great.

Categories

Capital ships

• Battleship
• Carrier

Escort ships

• Cruiser
• Destroyer

Subs

• subs

Transports

• Transports

Planes

• Fighter
• Jet
• Strategic bomber
• Dive bomber
• Torpedo bomber

Capital ships
1. Kill capital ships
2. Kill escort ships
3. Kill planes
4. Kill transports

Order of destruction: escort ships
1. Kill escort ships
2. Kill subs
3. Kill planes
4. Kill capital ships
5. Kill transports

Order of destruction: subs
1. Shoot at transport ships before the battle begins (the presence of an enemy destroyer negates this)
2. Kill escort ships
3. Kill capital ships
4. Kill transports

Order of destruction: fighters and jets
1. Kill enemy planes
2. Kill enemy escort ships
3. Kill transports

Order of destruction: dive bombers and strategic bombers
1. Kill escorts
2. Kill capital ships
3. Kill enemy aircraft
4. Kill transports

Order of destruction: torpedo bombers
1. Kill escorts
2. Kill capital ships
3. Kill submarines
4. Kill enemy aircraft
5. Kill transports

Note that only destroyers, cruisers, and torpedo bombers can kill enemy subs.

Unit definitions

Battleship

• Anti-capital ship value: 4
• Anti-escort ship value: 4 x 2
• Anti-aircraft value: 4
• Takes 2 hits to kill
• Cost: 24

Carrier

• Anti-capital ship value: 1
• Anti-escort value: 3
• Anti-aircraft value: 3
• Takes 2 hits to kill
• Cost: 16
• Movement: 2

Destroyer

• Anti-escort value: 2
• Anti-sub value: 2
• Anti-capital ship value: 0
• Anti-air value: 2
• Cost: 6
• Movement: 2

Cruiser

• Anti-escort value: 4
• Anti-sub value: 1
• Anti-capital ship value: 2
• Anti-air value: 3

Sub

• Anti-escort value: 3
• Anti-capital ship value: 2
• Cost: 8
• Movement: 2

Transports: no combat value.

Fighter

• Dogfight value: 4
• Land combat value: 1
• Naval combat value: 1
• Cost: 10
• Movement: 4

Jet

• Dogfight value: 6
• Land combat value: 1
• Naval combat value: 2
• Cost: 10
• Movement: 4

Dive bomber

• Dogfight value: 2
• Land combat value: 3
• Naval combat value: 2
• Cost: 10
• Movement: 4
• Does 2 IPCs of damage on a strategic bombing run

Strategic bomber

• Dogfight value: 1
• Land combat value: 3
• Naval combat value: 2
• Cost: 15
• Movement: 6
• Does 4 IPCs of damage on a strategic bombing run

Torpedo bomber

• Dogfight value: 2
• Land combat value: 1
• Naval combat value: 4
• Cost: 12
• Movement: 4

Fighters, jets, dive bombers, and torpedo bombers can land on aircraft carriers. Ships use their anti-escort combat values when shooting at transports. Planes use their naval combat values when firing at ships, and their dogfight values when firing at other planes.

@Imperious:

Yea… that alot of things to remember… one of the goals was to not make the variant “out of reach” for people to try… if it had too many of those ideas… i suspect it may suffer from idleness.

I agree those rules could be a little overwhelming in the board game. But if they were in a computer game, players could focus on the paper-rock-scissors aspect of both sea and air units; while letting the computer work out the details. Expert players would of course know those details by heart, but you wouldn’t have to be an expert to grasp the general idea.

***Fighter: dogfight combat values higher than land & naval combat values

***in AARHE land & naval combat values for air units comes into play after air superiority
***is it your intention to model fighter killing other fighters easier than bombing tanks?

Yes. Fighters were designed to kill enemy aircraft. Strafing enemy land units was just a bonus.

***what happens when a Battelship and a Destroyer attacks a Carrier and a Cruiser?

Round 1: The battleship and carrier fire at each other, because they are both capital ships. The destroyer and the cruiser fire at each other, because they are both escort ships. The battleship gets a hit, damaging the carrier. The cruiser gets a hit, destroying the destroyer.

Round 2: The battleship continues to fire at the carrier, and gets one more hit. The carrier is now dead. The carrier and the cruiser fire at the battleship. Between the two of them, they manage one hit.

Round 3: The damaged battleship rolls two dice against the cruiser, getting two hits. The cruiser’s casualty shot misses.

***Do you choose a target so you know which value to use?

No. If there are any enemy capital ships present, your own capital ships MUST fire at them. The recipient of the fire gets to allocate hits among his or her own capital ships. In other words, the category of target is automatically decided by the rules set, while the specific target within the category is chosen by the recipient of the fire.

***how does it fit into the existing hit allocation scheme?

This rules variant would require a new hit allocation scheme. But I’m not wedded to this exact set of rules. Mostly, my goal was to create the following:

• Battleships are good at dealing with other capital ships, good at shooting down planes, and GREAT at dealing with escort ships. However, they’re expensive, and can’t sink subs.

• Destroyers give you a lot for your money if you’re trying to deal with planes or subs. They’re inexpensive. However, they can’t sink capital ships.

• Cruisers are mostly useful for sinking destroyers and other cruisers. They also give you good anti-air, and some ability to deal with capital ships and subs.

• Subs are useful because few unit types can sink them. They’re cheap, and reasonably good against either escorts or capital ships. No air defense though.

• Fighters are good at shooting down other airplanes, but can’t do much else.

• Dive bombers are mostly for land combat, but can also sink surface ships.

• Torpedo bombers are great at naval combat, and can sink either surface ships or subs. They’re lousy on land though.

As Imperious Leader pointed out, the rules set I developed could use a little simplification. But I think it’d be really cool if we could come up with some kind of rules set that preserves the above paper-rock-scissors.

@tekkyy:

fighters can’t do much else besides dogfighting
I am reserved about that, did they have air superiority fighters back in WWII? I was under the impression they were general war planes

During WWII, Japan used Kate torpedo bombers and Val dive bombers to attack American ships; while using Zeros as air superiority fighters. The U.S. used Devastators, Dauntlesses, and Wildcats to achieve much the same effect. Zeros and Wildcats weren’t armed with torpedoes or bombs, so the best they could do was to strafe enemy ships with their guns.

I’ve decided that Imperious Leader was right: my earlier system was too complicated and involved. Below is version 2 of the naval combat. Compared to version 1, this system preserves most of the paper-rock-scissors, while significantly reducing its complexity.

Rules about hit allocation:
1. Whoever is receiving the hits gets to allocate them, subject to certain limitations.
2. Hits must be allocated according to the following order of loss:
  (1) Escorts (cruisers and destroyers)
  (2) Capital ships (battleships and carriers)
  (3) Subs
  (4) Aircraft
3. Hit allocation is subject to restrictions on specific units. Battleships, for example, can kill anything except a submarine. Someone receiving hits from a battleship would have to lose all his or her category (1) units first, then the (2) units, then would skip to the category (4) units.
4. Planes fire using their naval combat values.

Battleship

• Naval combat value: 5

• Cost: 22

• Takes 2 hits to kill

• Can kill anything except a sub

Carrier

• Naval combat value: 2

• Cost: 16

• Takes 2 hits to kill

• Can kill anything except a battleship, carrier, or sub

Cruiser

• Naval combat value: 3

• Cost: 10

• Can kill anything

Destroyer

• Naval combat value: 2

• Cost: 7

• Can kill anything except battleships and carriers

Sub

• Naval combat value: 2

• Cost: 8

• Can kill any surface ship

Transport

• Naval combat value: 0

• Cost: 8

• Cannot be used as cannon fodder. If you win a sea battle, each of your surviving units gets a free shot at enemy transports. Anything which can hit an escort ship can hit a transport.

Dive Bomber

• Naval combat value: 2

• Cost: 10

• Can kill any surface ship

Strategic bomber

• Naval combat value: 2

• Cost: 15

• Can kill any surface ship

• Is the only type of plane that cannot land on carriers.

Torpedo bomber

• Naval combat value: 4

• Cost: 12

• Can kill surface ships and submarines

Fighter

• Naval combat value: 2

• Cost: 10

• Can only kill other aircraft

Jet

• Naval combat value: 4

• Cost: 10

• Can only kill other aircraft

@Imperious:

Our Fighter-bomber is what generically the variant treats all these types of dive bombers and torpedo bombers. Simply stated its too many types of units to deal with and Fighter-Bomber is the generic term that can encompass all these types into one UNIT. A Soviet dive bomber was used differently than a Japanese, while a Torpedo bomber is way too specific to be in such an abstracted game.

I found it rather dull to have just “fighters” and “bombers” in the game. I felt the player should be forced to make a strategic choice. The dive bomber is available to the player who wants a jack-of-all-trades plane. But I also wanted players to be able to build specialist planes for specific roles: fighters for air superiority, torpedo bombers for naval combat, and strategic bombers for strategic bombing raids.

By adding two extra plane types, I’m able to make the purchase decision far more complex and involved. Under the Revised rules set, the thought process is this: “Planes! If I build planes, they can help me in both naval battles and land battles.” I want to see that thought process replaced with the following: “I’m preparing for a big naval battle, and torpedo bombers can best help me with that particular battle. But most of my combat will be on the land, where I’d much rather have dive bombers. Then again, I could always build fighters with which to shoot down the other player’s torpedo bombers or dive bombers. Hmmm . . . tough choice.” The player will once again be presented with a difficult decision during the battle: should he or she lose torpedo bombers (which will be most useful when the battle is still raging) or dive bombers (useful for future land battles)? This type of painful decision adds a lot more to the depth and richness of the game than it adds to the game’s complexity.

With the naval fighter option, you’re already looking at three different aircraft types anyway. If you get rid of naval fighters, and add in torpedo bombers and dive bombers, you can really add some strategic depth to this game. Four plane types instead of three isn’t too bad, is it? Granted you’re giving up something with the loss of the naval fighter, but in some ways the torpedo bomber fills that niche.

To add to what Tekkyy wrote, destroyers and cruisers serve as escorts under my system as well. Anything which can hit a capital ship can also hit an escort ship. Hits are allocated to escorts before they’re allocated to capital ships; so your battleships and carriers can’t start taking hits until your destroyers and cruisers are all dead. I realize the current system is a little more realistic–ships choose their targets, then escorts interpose. But this added realism makes the system somewhat more cumbersome; especially if it were to be computer-based. In a sea battle where each side had ten sea units, the computer would have to ask each player for 10 different targeting decisions. That would be very cumbersome. The changes I’m suggesting would be much more acceptable from a GUI standpoint, while retaining most of the realism of the current system. I admit my system makes escorts a little too good at shielding capital ships, but it’s worth that price to obtain dramatic simplification of the GUI.

Imperious Leader raised a good point about the differences between a Japanese (carrier-based) Val dive bomber and a German land-based Stuka. Germany did not complete construction of any carriers during the war. But there were one or two partially completed carriers. The plan was to equip the carriers with aircraft that had been modified for carrier use. (There wouldn’t have been a huge difference between the carrier-modified version of these planes and their land-based analogues.) For simplicity, my suggestions interpret all nations’ planes as though they had been modified to land on aircraft carriers. I suppose if I wanted to be 100% realistic I could allow players to choose between land-based and carrier-based fighters, dive bombers, and maybe even torpedo bombers. The land-based versions of these planes would be either slightly cheaper or a little more powerful; but it wouldn’t be a huge distinction.

The real strategic decision that had to be made was the intended function of the planes: should they be designed to kill other planes, land units, naval units, or for strategic bombing raids? Hitler believed Germany’s economy was too weak to sustain a long war; and so built dive bombers to try to win a decisive victory in a short war. The U.S. and Britain decided the war would last a long time, and built strategic bombers to destroy Germany’s industry and cities. Japan’s Kate torpedo bombers weren’t designed either for land war or strategic bombing runs, but were good at attacking enemy ships and subs. Fighter planes couldn’t do much against most land or sea targets, but were very good at shooting down enemy airplanes. WWII’s participants had to decide which categories of targets were the most important for their own planes to kill; and they had to produce accordingly. This, I felt, was at the core of WWII airplane construction strategy.  My rules set fully captures the four major airplane construction choices, while ignoring the more minor decision of whether to go through the (mild) pain of carrier modification.