Opening Salvo Pt. 4 - Shōkaku

[WotC Bob]

Discussion thread for Opening Salvo Pt. 4 - Shōkaku (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/aam/ah20070219c).

[Joisey]

Thanks for the extra overhead pic of the mini, Bob. The flight deck of the Shokaku is handsomely painted.

Unit stats: Shokaku and Zuikaku will have a large "bang for the buck" value. At 20 points she's carrying the same amount of planes as Enterprise, and is almost as effective.

[WotC Bob]

The gray of the hull is not as blue as it shows in the overhead picture I took, at least on my monitor.

[Der Leiter]

Thanks for the extra overhead pic of the mini, Bob. The flight deck of the Shokaku is handsomely painted.

While the stock photo is indeed closer to the actual shade of gray, Bob's pic is much better. The deck is nice and helps it to stand out on the battle.

Unit stats: Shokaku and Zuikaku will have a large "bang for the buck" value. At 20 points she's carrying the same amount of planes as Enterprise, and is almost as effective.

True, though the +5 points for the Enterprise are spend on useful abilities (survivor) and +1 flagship.

[TheJudge]

Outstanding looking ship and a nice explanation on her.

She looks very useful for just 20 points. Keep the previews coming!

[Modern Major-General]

Great pics. The overhead pic does have the ship appear blue instead of grey.

Anyhow, neat hints as to how the rules will work for the benefits of carriers instead of "land-based" aircraft.

[Muenchausen]

Just guessing but, I have to say the turn around time for land based aircraft would take more turns. If a carrier could launch and recover the same aircraft in the same turn it sounds like land based aircraft will take two or more turns to do this.

[Joisey]

Just guessing but, I have to say the turn around time for land based aircraft would take more turns. If a carrier could launch and recover the same aircraft in the same turn it sounds like land based aircraft will take two or more turns to do this.

If so, then so much for the idea that 6 stukas are as good as one Enterprise w/airgroup.

[Sean-Khan]

Yeah, maybe they are available every other turn. In addition, fighters can move some from carrier's sector, in addition to dogfighter bonus. That's a lot of bonuses.

I can't see why many stukas wouldn't be effective, though; Depending how well opponent has prepared for them. And, their defence.

[TheJudge]

It also depends on if you have like 2 different groups of 3 stukas each then it would seem you could use one airgroup each turn no?

[Modern Major-General]

It looks like Italy and Germany may be at a disavantage because they have no carriers. However, those points can be put into having more dive bombers than what you think your opponent may have. Then on the first turn, overwhelm your opponent's carrier (at most 4 planes in a sector) and try to sink it in one go. Then his planes will be at a disadvantage as well. Or go for two groups of bombers to attack in alternating turns. Or maybe spend the points on subs since they may be effective in ways we do not know.

Either way, it looks like there are different builds to make and hopefully each has advantages that can be maximised in play. Also, from this preview, we are told that there are different types of scenarios: convoy escort and major engagements. It would seem that there is only two maps (double-sided sheet) with placeable island cards, so perhaps you role a die to determine which scenario you are playing. (Which is the opposite of AAM, roll a die to determine map configuration.)

[hornet69]

very nice looking opening salvo there on the shokkau.

[Bellerophon]

The photos of the Shokaku look good!

I am glad that the Opening Salvo gave some good hints about how to use the carrier and the plus/minus of some strategies.

[Bellerophon]

It looks like Italy and Germany may be at a disavantage because they have no carriers. However, those points can be put into having more dive bombers than what you think your opponent may have. Then on the first turn, overwhelm your opponent's carrier (at most 4 planes in a sector) and try to sink it in one go. Then his planes will be at a disadvantage as well. Or go for two groups of bombers to attack in alternating turns. Or maybe spend the points on subs since they may be effective in ways we do not know.

While I admit that this is a handicap for Axis players, it IS historically accurate. ;) Germany and Italy usually relied on land-based aircraft to support naval operations, and Germany didn't even have a seperate naval air corps, let alone carriers; they had to rely on the Luftwaffe!

[unc_samurai]

1: I like the advantages air squadrons on the Shokaku get. However, after the Battle of the Phillipine Sea, are these advantages still evident? Would a veteran carrier like the Shokaku receive the best of a bad lot of replacement pilots, and even if they did would the "expert" traits accurately reflect the pilot's skill?

2: The aircraft complement of the Shokaku was 84 planes, while the Enterprise carried 90. Essex-class carriers had a complement of up to 100, while the Soryu carried only 73. Are all of these "fleet" carriers going to have a generic air complement of 3?

3: If the rules support historical tactics, you should send your bombers in waves. Take Midway, for example. The first attack wave hit Midway, while the second wave was armed with torpedoes for the projected attack on an American carrier. The American planes hit the carriers while this second attack wave was switching armament on the flight deck.

A typical carrier operation would be to divide fighters between Combat Air Patrol defense and escorting bombers in successive waves. One squadron of bombers would launch while one would be readied on the flight deck, to maximize time over target.

The question I have with this game is whether a squadron of planes has a punch to cripple a carrier, as they did at Coral Sea and Midway. If I launch one squadron of planes from each of my four Japanese carriers, I should be able to knock out an American CV - spectacular repairs by the crew aside.

Hey, I just thought of something. Are we going to see a USS Franklin where the SA reflects their repair skills?

[Modern Major-General]

While I admit that this is a handicap for Axis players, it IS historically accurate. ;)

Yes, I know this. And with this preview, we are 99% sure that the rules will reflect such a difference between land and carrier based aircraft.

[Autarch]

I was just thinking, would it be possible to base Stukas off the Shokaku? Other than as yet unseen nationality limitations which may restrict this, I haven't noticed anything that denotes land vs carrier base aircraft.

The miniature looks great, too! I am more encouraged.

[Modern Major-General]

I imagine like the AAM game, that you can mix models of countires from the Axis or Allied side. No big deal, since it does let people play right away with a starter and some boosters.

[Lynx7725]

The gray of the hull is not as blue as it shows in the overhead picture I took, at least on my monitor.
Given the harshness of the shadow behind, I'm willing to bet that you were taking this photo under flourscent lamps and with flash. Both give a bluish cast which has to be accounted for either via on-camera settings (white balance), or post-processing. Anyway, it's an easy fix:

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f257/Lynx7725/AAM/AANM/ah_aam_ah20070219c_pic1_en.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/global/images/ah_aam_ah20070219c_picMain_en.jpg

Well, not exactly a match, but close enough. :)

[horacus]

I like it. Maybie I will play the game. Only Axis side of corse.

[mikoyan]

Very cool. I like the looks of this carrier.

Hopefully Germany will have the Graf Zeppelin.

[Joisey]

The Shokaku definitely gets the benefit of a "rounding up" on it's carrier capacity. We'll have to wait and see if the Essex class carriers also get rounded up to an air capacity of 4 or rounded down. If they are rounded down, then the 100 vs. 84 plane disparity between Shokaku and Essex will be a more glaring fudge. But 90 v. 84, I think the only fair fudge is to say they are equal. A six plane difference isn't enough to say they have different air capacities.

[Muenchausen]

I think the Graf Zepplin and the Montana class battleships will be released in the reserves set.

[Richter von Manthofen]

The Shokaku definitely gets the benefit of a "rounding up" on it's carrier capacity. We'll have to wait and see if the Essex class carriers also get rounded up to an air capacity of 4 or rounded down. If they are rounded down, then the 100 vs. 84 plane disparity between Shokaku and Essex will be a more glaring fudge. But 90 v. 84, I think the only fair fudge is to say they are equal. A six plane difference isn't enough to say they have different air capacities.

If we assume that 1 unit equals 30 planes in reality then a difference of 16 is on the edge of a plane more or not.

But compared to 90 we have in one case 6 (-20%) less or 10 more
(+33,3%), giving the Essex a plane more is not justified. Maybe a special ability could compensate.

[Major Adler]

that carriers would get some huge advantage...not only via the abilities on the cards...but with the ability to launch aircraft every turn (as I mentioned in an earlier post)...as opposed to land based aircraft which it appears can launch every other turn (this is not confirmed yet , but seems rather apparent)...what is very unauthentic about the game...is that everyone will know exactly where all the ships are (the carriers in particular)...

surface combat ships obviously must close with the enemy to engage...and with scout aircraft from surface ships...in general you would have a much higher % of knowing the location of surface combat ships...

I would assume that once a carrier goes down...that it's air units are lost...unless there is space on another carrier in that fleet...

I got the feeling that we are going to see a non historical % of carriers being sunk by subs and surface combat ships...

[Sean-Khan]

I would assume that once a carrier goes down...that it's air units are lost...unless there is space on another carrier in that fleet...

Wasn't there something in the preview about planes being able to fly to land base in that case? If they survive... So that's probably D6 roll to check that.

[Major Adler]

that would be a huge advantage for those that can put carriers in their fleet...your aircraft get the carrier advantage of flying every turn...and if your carrier is lost they become land based...I hope that is not the case...way too powerful a rule...

[MarcusAurelius]

I'll be interested to see all the ideas that get posted here on how to carry out hidden movement. At the same time, I'm not sure it's a critical factor for a good historical wargame.

Commanders in the ground war rarely knew the exact composition of enemy forces or where they were deployed. But AAM and other miniature wargames work just fine without spotting rules. SAs such as Superior Camouflage are designed to add the flavor of hidden movement and ambush tactics without getting overly complicated. I think War at Sea will work much the same way.

[TheJudge]

I think planes ought to be able to fly on to a land base if the carrier is lost but it has to be within range, hence the need for islands on the map. Not to many battles occurred out in open water, at least one side or the other could fly to a friendly airfield if their carrier was damaged or destroyed.

Charlton Heston in Midway gets asked if he wants to fly one of the planes because at that point in the battle, they had more planes than pilots and he agrees and then burns to death. Bummer.

[swarbs]

The Shokaku definitely gets the benefit of a "rounding up" on it's carrier capacity. We'll have to wait and see if the Essex class carriers also get rounded up to an air capacity of 4 or rounded down. If they are rounded down, then the 100 vs. 84 plane disparity between Shokaku and Essex will be a more glaring fudge. But 90 v. 84, I think the only fair fudge is to say they are equal. A six plane difference isn't enough to say they have different air capacities.

Also, I believe I've heard that the number of planes Japanese Carriers carried was fewer than thier American counterparts because they didn't embrace the concept of deck parking, in other words they wanted below flight-deck hanger space for each aircraft. This seems to have been a style choice. Playing a Japanese Admiral in the game why not embrace deck park and figure the amount of potential aircraft storage as being equal Shokaku to Enterprise. Also, it wouldn't be too suprising to see a fourth squadron on an Essex, we don't know yet what that value will be.

[Major Adler]

range?...do aircraft have range?...I thought aircraft were placed anywhere on the board...had the range of the board...just like in A&A minis...

news too me...

[Bellerophon]

...what is very unauthentic about the game...is that everyone will know exactly where all the ships are (the carriers in particular)...



I agree that this is a un-historical bent. However, taking into account the need for the rules to be easy for novice players, I think that having revealed carriers is an acceptable trade-off. It may just mean that a historical minded player may have to adjust his or her tactics, somewhat.

Since the playing maps are different with WaS, maybe there is a line of sight rule, something like "surface ships are only visible to each other withing 'x' range..." or maybe aircraft have to make a d6 roll to 'discover' surface ship.

[Joisey]

I agree that this is a un-historical bent. However, taking into account the need for the rules to be easy for novice players, I think that having revealed carriers is an acceptable trade-off. It may just mean that a historical minded player may have to adjust his or her tactics, somewhat.

Since the playing maps are different with WaS, maybe there is a line of sight rule, something like "surface ships are only visible to each other withing 'x' range..." or maybe aircraft have to make a d6 roll to 'discover' surface ship.

There are many ways you can abstract the search and/or hidden location of carriers issue. Your suggestions are pretty good ones. I just hope there is some provision for this so that we don't have "a hundred house rules bloom".

[Autarch]

If we assume that 1 unit equals 30 planes in reality then a difference of 16 is on the edge of a plane more or not.

But compared to 90 we have in one case 6 (-20%) less or 10 more
(+33,3%), giving the Essex a plane more is not justified. Maybe a special ability could compensate.

Perhaps one of the Essex's planes can remove a destroyed marker once per game.

I'll be interested to see all the ideas that get posted here on how to carry out hidden movement. At the same time, I'm not sure it's a critical factor for a good historical wargame.



Due to the size of the map, it seems opposing fleets would be quickly sighted if each ship could search out to their gunnery range and planes could spot ships within one or two hexes of their placement.

The simplest method would be too incorporate a search step that would occur after ship movement and correspond with aircraft placement. Each player would have their own map of the board hand drawn on hex or staggered graph paper. Ship movement would be tracked secretly and players would take turns placing generic search tokens on the map representing searches from ships, subs and float planes from cruisers and battleships (this way the opposing player wouldn't know which they are). Aircraft would just be placed on the board. Anything discovered in the searched hex would be revealed. Contacts adjacent would be only revealed as a ship or plane and contacts two hexes away would simply remain as unidentified contacts. At this point, aircraft could move up to two hexes to engage a contact. The contact markers would remain on the map until the beginning of the next search phase.

Another option would be to have the actual search area larger for larger games and the map only used to resolve battles (this is how I originally envisioned the game).

Also, I believe I've heard that the number of planes Japanese Carriers carried was fewer than thier American counterparts because they didn't embrace the concept of deck parking, in other words they wanted below flight-deck hanger space for each aircraft. This seems to have been a style choice. Playing a Japanese Admiral in the game why not embrace deck park and figure the amount of potential aircraft storage as being equal Shokaku to Enterprise. Also, it wouldn't be too suprising to see a fourth squadron on an Essex, we don't know yet what that value will be.

I recall seeing pictures of Japanese aircraft and they didn't seem nearly as efficient as how they folded up for below deck stowage/servicing. US aircraft generally had wings that folded at the root (up or sideways and back). Plus, I think deck stowage may have been dependant upon having tie downs built into the deck. Japanese carriers may not have had these.

[unc_samurai]

I recall seeing pictures of Japanese aircraft and they didn't seem nearly as efficient as how they folded up for below deck stowage/servicing. US aircraft generally had wings that folded at the root (up or sideways and back). Plus, I think deck stowage may have been dependent upon having tie downs built into the deck. Japanese carriers may not have had these.

Remember the scene in Tora! Tora! Tora! where Lt. Fujida lands on the Akagi? His air staff was ecstatic to see the new Type 21 Zero with folding wings. All two feet they folded.

[Joisey]

Remember the scene in Tora! Tora! Tora! where Lt. Fujida lands on the Akagi? His air staff was ecstatic to see the new Type 21 Zero with folding wings. All two feet they folded.

Tora! Tora! Tora! remains the best movie ever made about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

[Hum_35711]

The simplest method would be too incorporate a search step that would occur after ship movement and correspond with aircraft placement. Each player would have their own map of the board hand drawn on hex or staggered graph paper. Ship movement would be tracked secretly and players would take turns placing generic search tokens on the map representing searches from ships, subs and float planes from cruisers and battleships (this way the opposing player wouldn't know which they are).

A-6... You sunk my battleship...!

[deadfish]

I was re-reading the article on the Shokaku and the suggested fleet build of two Shokaku class carriers, 4 Val, 2 Zeke and two destroyers comes to 116 points-not the recommended 100.- Was there something I missed?:rolleyes:

[XAos]

I'd guess no one spotted that at the time, because we didn't know the points for Yukikaze or a Val.
Perhaps those units cost 16 points less during playtesting than they did when they were actually printed. ? Seems doubtfull, Yukikaze is overcosted, but not by that many points.

[Diamondback]

A-6... You sunk my battleship...!

You know it! Intruders own the night... (well, owned:( , anyway)

lol

[Cinnibar]

I was re-reading the article on the Shokaku and the suggested fleet build of two Shokaku class carriers, 4 Val, 2 Zeke and two destroyers comes to 116 points-not the recommended 100.- Was there something I missed?:rolleyes:

2x Shokaku = 40
4 val = 40
2 zeke = 12 = 92 points
Leaving 8 points for two Subchasers, which are 4-point destroyers.

Nothing wrong with the article, you just had the wrong destroyer in mind.