Are Boats useless against planes?

I must say that I am puzzled over the strong reactions on my proposal. Especially the part about it being incomprehensible. Subs can be hit by aircraft. period. All other sub rules stays unchanged. I think they have done a good job fixing sub rules, making them more clear regadring submerging, when they fire etc. Making subs being able to take aircraft hits doesn’t ruin all that. How did you reach that conclusion Lynxes?

What do we accomplish by this? We give fleets a better chance versus air which will make it more viable to buy. Take Germany for example. Buy a CV in BAL, land 2 FTrs, coupled it with some fodder-subs. The allies will hesitate to attack them with only air units, AND they will hesitate to bring their fleet into a seazone in reach of the german wolfpack, which together with the luftwaffe would pose a serious threat to the allied fleets. A normandy landing would be more difficult to accomplish. What we possibly could have here is a real “war of the atlantic” with larger possibilites for Germany to buy fleet. That could give us more fun IMO.

For sure, this would need to be playtested properly before we could conclude. In any case I hope to see some amendment that could balance out sea vs air a bit

careful, you’ll turn this into a house rules discussion, when it didn’t start that way…

True enough, it should possibly be put under another thread.

There might be a need for a updated official rule set for AA anniversary, say if there’s no solution for plane vs air balance in the frame of todays rules.

Add only fighters can attack sea units and we could really have some great naval battles…

Subs would be too powerful at only $6 if they were allowed to choose when to soak hits or when to crash dive.

I have 2 words for the original poster:

Combined Arms

eg 6 ftr @ $60 vs 2 ftr 1 CV 3 DD @$58 is only 51% to the attacker

Make it an even $70 each and you get an extra ftr for the attacker and a Cru for the defender

Attacker wins drops below 50%

Battleships are definitely a poor option in a naval arms race, since statistically a DD + Cru always performs better in stacks.

However the coastal shot @4 and the ability to soak hits in the little battles (like when your opponent block with a DD, you can soak that hit he scores 1/3) mean that BB’s have their purposes.

I rarely see a BB built though, usually one on either UK1 or UK2. Occasionally the USA will build one if going KGF.

How did you reach that conclusion Lynxes?

I’m still not completely happy about the sub rules and still think they are a bit too hampered in their use. I think subs should be able to ignore even DDs when moving. In that way, it won’t be able to block German subs based in the Baltic Sea from attacking an invading fleet in the English channel just by placing one DD in the North Sea. As it is now you have to use Italian air to attack the DD block, and if USA sends in a blocking DD you’re screwed, unless you play the '42 scenario and use Japanese air!

But letting aircraft hit subs without destroyers will make subs utterly useless. At least now your subs can avoid combat in some instances and you can also use subs to make the opponent make choices of losses to take, i.e. if I take my last DD as a hit I will be facing surprise strikes. Your idea of using subs as fodder is misguided since that’s the role that destroyers are there for in this game, now that their cost is reduced!

I think the air units and boat units are fine the way it is, not saying the balance is perfect but it never will. The only change from AAR, related to air vs naval, is the reduced cost of bombers, and thats a good change, imo.

How about using strats to cope with the changes from AAR instead of making house rules?

And if bombers are more favorable for allies, then its about total game balance, which can be fixed by a bid, if either axis or allies have advantage.

@packrat76:

DY! This is to you! i don;t use just fighters i mainly use bombers! now you go back and do your math with 5 bombers 1 fighter and see what your little number crunch brings. boats never can keep up to the building of planes. you see my little friend Planes as built are taking alot of land per turn and when  the other players fleet is ready then just use that turn wipe his fleet out everything that poor sucker has spent and all those turns down the toilet. You will never see UK witha  boat in the sea or Germany for that matter. Planes just take them all out.

5 bombers 1 ftr win 44.018%

7 ftr win 49.592%

So the bombers actually fare worse!

Anyway this whole thread is ridiculous as it doesn’t consider the meta-game at all.

The fact is you need ships to cover your transports (which are required to move your troops from the UK and USA into the action).

The Allies cant just sit back and build millions of planes in case the Axis attack their shipping.

A good player isn’t going to throw his boats out there in range of your air force if you have good odds to sink it.

DDs + AC or BB will always win against planes, always.

10 bombers at 120 IPC vs 2 BB (40) + 10 DDs (80) = attacker wins 11% of the time.
5 bombers at 60 IPC vs 1 loaded AC (34) + 3 DDs (24) = attacker wins 32% of the time.

The reason is while your losing your 4s i’m loosing my 2s.  Same reason why inf rock.

The key is to build a small core (BBs and ACs) keep enough fodder (DDs and subs) and use as many shore bombards as you can (cruisers) afford.

All boats have a use and are better than just planes in the water.

Now yes, your bombers can ignore my fleet, but my DDs are serving there purpose in letting me land troops.

Obviously 5 bombers is a retarded purchase if you want to kill fleet. As previously mentioned though, 6 ftrs actually beats the full CV + 3 DDs. It’s at least clearing the sea zone  57%.

Obviously bombers have flexibility in added range and SBR.

This still seems to be an academic exercise, seeing as the Allies need to do a little more than just buy endless waves of aircraft.

I mean you can only bomb Berlin/Rome for a maximum of $20/$12 a turn, so you have to get at least some troops into Europe/Africa.

Whoa, so the ‘overpowered’ bombers FAIL compared to the weak fighter against boats.  Interesting.

The weird thing about fighters though is 8 figs vs 10 DDs only win 38% of the time.  I really think on a dollar for dollar value destroyers trump planes, but not by much.

10 bombers vs 15 destroyers also comes out to them only winning 6% of the time.

@Lynxes:

How did you reach that conclusion Lynxes?

I’m still not completely happy about the sub rules and still think they are a bit too hampered in their use. I think subs should be able to ignore even DDs when moving. In that way, it won’t be able to block German subs based in the Baltic Sea from attacking an invading fleet in the English channel just by placing one DD in the North Sea. As it is now you have to use Italian air to attack the DD block, and if USA sends in a blocking DD you’re screwed, unless you play the '42 scenario and use Japanese air!

But letting aircraft hit subs without destroyers will make subs utterly useless. At least now your subs can avoid combat in some instances and you can also use subs to make the opponent make choices of losses to take, i.e. if I take my last DD as a hit I will be facing surprise strikes. Your idea of using subs as fodder is misguided since that’s the role that destroyers are there for in this game, now that their cost is reduced!

I catch your point here, but keep in mind that air could only attack subs with DDs since without them the sub could submerge before air units fire. Subs as fodder would not be useless IMO, but I can see that it’s covered well by the DDs. I also agree that it’s frustrating that a single DD can block all your subs movement. What if one implemented a 50% chance of being undetected? Rolling one die pr sub passing a destroyer: 1-3 undetected, move ok. 4-6 detected, move blocked… This could go for both CM and NCM. I mean a destroyer couldn’t prevent a sub from moving but it could certainly detect and kill it… Would be interesting to play test this. Wouldn’t let the allies so boldly block a sea zone with a DD…

In all this math calculating air vs boats one must also consider that ftrs/bmbs are much more versatile than CVs and DDs. Having the latter in the Baltic will not do good on the Eastern front, whereas the air units could be relocated to africa, eastern front or attacking europe supporting amphibious landings.

That’s way air beats boats IMO. Of course the allies (+ japan) needs escorts for the transports, but germany doesn’t need transports and therefore has no incentive really to buy navy, other than it being fun to try to win with an implemented naval strategy. I certainly would love to try.

Well one stratagy that my friend keeps employing against me (he is usually the allies) is to (with the UK and US) build nothing but BBs for several turns with a destroyer, sub and aircraft carrier here and there.  This poses a problem for me.  What I usually do is hit with everything I’ve got before his fleet gets to big.  It gives me a headace because the BBs are taking a hit then pounding away at me.  Just my two cents worth!  :-D