Experimental/Advanced Rules Suggestions

[RichardBaker]

Edited to present "advanced rules" designed to increase simulation value. These wouldn't be considered for general adaptation in an official rules change, but you might like them for your home games.


Strafing
When you place a fighter in the Air Mission phase, you can place a "strafing" marker with it. In order to use its Gunnery value later in the turn, you *must* have a Strafing marker on your fighter.

- Fighters with Strafing markers take -2 to Armor and -2 to Vital Armor.
- Fighters with Strafing markers can't make Antiair attacks and can't use their Escort special ability.
- You must have a Strafing marker on your fighter to make a Gunnery attack during the Air Attack phase.
- Remove Strafing markers during the Air Return phase.


Harassed Subs
After your Aircraft or Ship makes an ASW attack against a submarine, place a “Harassed” marker next to the sub that was attacked.
You can place a bonus “Harassed” marker if:
- a second unit makes an ASW attack against that same sub; or
- another friendly Ship with an ASW value is in or adjacent to the harassed sub’s sector.

You can place a maximum of 2 Harassed markers on a sub.
In the Torpedo Attack phase, each Harassed marker reduces the harassed sub’s torpedo attack value by 1 die, to a minimum of 1 die. Apply this special modifier before applying any other bonuses or penalties (so wolfpacked U-boats get +1 die back, the Ambra gets +1 die against destroyers, and so on).
Remove Harassed markers from submarines at the end of the turn.

This rule substantially weakens subs, and increases the importance of including ASW vessels in your fleets. Your ASW vessels will be able to more effectively screen your big ships by getting into the same sector as a sub and harassing it, thereby reducing it to a 1- or 2-die torpedo attack under most circumstances. This rule also rewards using teamwork to suppress subs; a pair of ASW ships working together are likely to double-harass a sub.
Subs may be significantly overcosted in this variant, or destroyers may be undercosted--they will certainly suppress subs much better.

Facing
When you finish moving a Ship or Submarine in the Movement Phase, you must choose a facing for it. Point the bow at one adjacent sector. (This simulates hexside facing.)
For large models, we recommend actually pushing the bow into the sector the ship’s facing. Many of the large models overlap the sectors a bit anyway. For small models, set the bow touching the sector border on the sector the ship’s facing toward.

Maneuvering
Ships and Submarines must observe the following rules when moving:

Auxiliaries, Battleships, Carriers, Cruisers
* You can change facing for free after you enter a new sector.
* Otherwise, you can change facing to any new heading for 1 MP.
* At the end of your movement, choose any new facing you like.

Destroyers, Torpedo Boats, Submarines
* You can change facing for free at any point in your movement.
* At the end of your movement, choose any new facing you like.

In other words, larger ships must begin their movement by moving into the sector their bow’s pointing at, or immediately pay 1 movement point to come to a new heading of their choice before moving. Smaller ships and submarines can simply spin in place and start moving on a new heading with no cost in movement points. However, they still must choose a facing at the end of their turn.

This rule makes it more difficult for large ships to deftly maneuver around objectives in constricted waters, and may result in a serious impingement in their ability to claim or deny objectives. We’re not sure how that will affect gameplay, but it seems likely that there will be occasions when a big ship can’t maneuver to an objective it could have claimed under the basic movement rules.

Arcs of Fire
The only arcs of fire you care about are dead ahead and dead astern. Those are the “hexrows” or rows of sectors projected straight out from your bow and your stern. We assume that your captains can sail a little bit “off course” and unmask their batteries for just about everything else other than the hex rows directly in front and directly behind you.
Effects on Gunnery: Gunnery attacks against targets dead ahead or dead astern take a -1 penalty on each die (hit only on 5 or 6) to represent reduction in firepower as compared to your normal broadside.
Effects on Torpedo Attacks: None. We assume you unmask, fire, and resume your course.

This variant makes initiative much more important, since the Second Player can see where he needs to move his ships in order to “cross the T.” Taking a –1 penalty to gunnery is not really as stringent a penalty as it could be—it only reduces hits by 25%, and most ships firing dead ahead or dead astern were usually reduced in firepower by about 50%. But we don’t want to over-reward going second, which is good enough already.

Ships with Unorthodox Battery Arrangements
Several ships in the set have battery arrangements that deserve special abilities if you use the Arcs of Fire variant.

Richelieu: The Richelieu suffers no attack penalty to main battery attacks against targets dead ahead of her, or secondary battery attacks dead astern. She cannot make main battery attacks dead astern, or secondary battery attacks dead ahead.

HMS Rodney: The Rodney cannot make main battery attacks dead astern, or secondary battery attacks dead ahead.

St. Lo: The St. Lo cannot make main battery attacks dead ahead.

Akagi: The Akagi cannot make main battery attacks dead ahead or dead astern.

Tone: The Tone cannot make main battery attacks dead astern.


DARKNESS
Many surface engagements in all theaters took place at night. Fighting at night drastically changed the shape of naval warfare, presenting fleet commanders with a variety of difficult challenges. Airplanes remained grounded. Gunnery ranges dropped to a few thousand yards, and ships of all sides could fall prey to crucial misidentifications of their targets and mistakenly fire on friendly ships.

Fleet Construction
Decide whether you’re fighting in Darkness conditions before you construct your fleets. Airpower is absolutely useless, so we’ll assume that you keep your carriers well away from the threat of enemy contact and send in surface forces to seize the objective.

Air Mission Phase
All Aircraft cannot fly missions in Darkness conditions. They remain at their base.

Illumination Phase
Add this step immediately before the Surface Attack Phase. You decide whether your ships will turn on their searchlights to illuminate nearby targets. The First Player places all of his illumination markers first, and then the Second Player places all of his illumination markers.
Searchlights have a range of 2. All destroyers, cruisers, and battleships have searchlights (but carriers, auxiliaries, and torpedo boats don’t).
Each ship can illuminate one enemy ship. If you decide that your ship is illuminating a target, place an “Illuminated” marker on both the illuminating ship and the illuminated target.

Surface Attack Phase
Darkness affects Gunnery attacks as follows:
* Gunnery attacks of range 3 or greater are prohibited.
* Gunnery attacks against non-local targets take a –1 penalty per die (so 4 is a miss, 5 counts as one hit, and 6 counts as 2 hits).

Special Exceptions
Several conditions or special abilities counteract the normal Darkness penalties on Gunnery attacks:
Illuminated/Illuminating: Any ship firing against a ship that is either illuminated or illuminating suffers no attack penalty (but the range limitation still applies).
Damaged Ships: Any ship firing against a ship that was damaged in a previous turn suffers no attack penalty (but the range limitation still applies).
Night Fighter: Ships with the Night Fighter special ability ignore the attack penalty (but the range limitation still applies). This advantage replaces the effect of Night Fighter, so ignore the normal effect of the special ability.
Radar Fire Control: All US ships in 1943 or later scenarios ignore the range limitation (but the attack penalty still applies).

End of Turn
Remove all Illuminated markers.


There you go! I hope some of these ideas help out your "simulation value" and gameplay without adding too much complexity.

[Cruizin2000]

Hmmmm, you're trying to get me, aren't you. We'll see.;)

C2000

[EricM 2404]

You win, I suppose thats why you have a job there though...

[Slaynar]

HMM
Richard,
I have been hounding the boards since the release, and I dont think I have seen anything about manuver or arc of fire problems. More the need for DD speed and BB not using thier main batteries against such small ships. I like the game for it's simplicity and ease of play. The rules changes you made here will greatly impact that end.

Robert

[shadowhooch]

Impressive and simple.

[Uncle_Joe]

Nice additions. I think its fantastic that you are taking an active hand in the rules options at this point!

If I could make a suggestion, remove the ability for Aircraft ASW to 'harrass' submarines. Boosting DDs is a good idea IMO but allowing aircraft to do it to weakens submarines without giving any recourse for other ships to support them (ie, vs DDs you can bring CAs or DDs of your own to attack the ASW DDs...vs planes, you can only bring more planes which doesnt do much to encourage further usage of the smaller surface combatants).

BBs are still going to be hideously dangerous with these rules so there still should be a good hard counter to them in Subs. Allowing DDs to counter Subs better is fine because DDs are currently very weak anyway. Just dont extend that capability to aircraft or else it makes 'countering' BBs that much harder.

As a second suggestion, toss Cruisers in the more maneuverable ship category. They can really use the help, as minor as it may be.

Just my $.02. And thanks again for the active participation. I think it really means a lot to current and prospective players!

[NorthernRommel]

Turning into a Torpedo attack should also be permitted for ships that have initiative. This should reduce the effectiveness of the torpedo strike.

[Sean-Khan]

Well this is a thread I'll keep following! :) Personally, I don't need facing/arc of fire -rules, I think they slow the game too much - I like how fast the games are currently! Still, I like it that there's an option for this!

Destroyers are already more effective due to fighter & sub rule - but something against battleships wouldn't be bad, as they seem to be so overpowered currently.

The problem with the new fighter rule is that as fighters are almost impossible to destroy, why would a fighter attacking an easy target (destroyer) choose to shoot defending fighter instead? There's no advantage in aborting defending fighter. Would it work better if attacking fighter would have to abort defending fighter before it could attack?

[Uncle_Joe]

The problem with the new fighter rule is that as fighters are almost impossible to destroy, why would a fighter attacking an easy target (destroyer) choose to shoot defending fighter instead? There's no advantage in aborting defending fighter. Would it work better if attacking fighter would have to abort defending fighter before it could attack?

Very good idea. I think this is a great idea.

[lamme102]

I like almost all of that. I still need to get used to the current rules a bit more before I add anything else but these seem much simpler and quite effective compared to the complex rules mod I've seen else where. I think they should consider releasing a new rule but with the next set. If they have any modifications to specific ships I've seen other games that include a clear sticker with the new SA or whatever that can be stuck right on the card.

[Joisey]

It's all good stuff that moves the game in the right direction. According to my playtesting, DD's are STILL going to take 50% losses getting to an enemy sub's sector, but at least they'll have a better shot at surviving if they miss with their depth charges in the first round.

The new fighter harrassment rules help to keep the opposing fighters nullifying each other and allowing ship vs. bomber action. This will help DD survivability because now the air player has to choose between going after the enemy's capital ship or his escort, but he can't have both.

[RichardBaker]

The facing-maneuver-arc of fire rules are intended purely for the purpose of increasing simulation value for those players who might want to play with 'em. I'm not really addressing a problem per se -- just pointing out a (hopefully) simple rules set addition you could bolt on to the game if you want more crunch.

And, as I said before: These are in no way official, and you shouldn't really consider them rule changes. I'm just making some suggestions on things that folks might be inclined to house rule anyway.


HMM
Richard,
I have been hounding the boards since the release, and I dont think I have seen anything about manuver or arc of fire problems. More the need for DD speed and BB not using thier main batteries against such small ships. I like the game for it's simplicity and ease of play. The rules changes you made here will greatly impact that end.

Robert

[RichardBaker]

Something really crazy I've flirted with, but don't really trust yet:


Torpedo Evasion
When your Ship is targeted by a torpedo attack, you must immediately decide whether or not to evade. If you choose to evade, put an "Evading Torpedoes" marker on your ship, and resolve the attack normally. In your next Movement Phase, ships with Evading Torpedoes markers take a -1 penalty to speed. Remove the marker at the end of the Movement Phase.

If you choose not to evade, the attacking torpedoes hit on a roll of 5 or 6 instead of just 6.



This would be another "simulation value" rule designed to reflect a historical effect of torpedo attacks (real or imagined) -- ships often turned away from battles at crucial times and tried like heck to avoid torpedoes. The most famous example is the Yamato at the Battle off Samar, but there are plenty of others. This would be one small way to "make up" for the sub suppression rule, and it would still help out destroyers. On the other hand, I have no idea how much harder it would make seizing objectives if you had the ability to "slow" your enemy's ships by launching torpedo attacks. I suspect there is a tremendous amount of cheese potential in a rules variant like that. But it would make destroyer torpedo attacks against battleships more useful and effective, no doubt.



Well this is a thread I'll keep following! :) Personally, I don't need facing/arc of fire -rules, I think they slow the game too much - I like how fast the games are currently! Still, I like it that there's an option for this!

Destroyers are already more effective due to fighter & sub rule - but something against battleships wouldn't be bad, as they seem to be so overpowered currently.

The problem with the new fighter rule is that as fighters are almost impossible to destroy, why would a fighter attacking an easy target (destroyer) choose to shoot defending fighter instead? There's no advantage in aborting defending fighter. Would it work better if attacking fighter would have to abort defending fighter before it could attack?

[Joisey]

How about calling them "Official Optional Rules"? :D

[Lotus]

First you got me w/ the Dauntless's "Dangerous to Attack" SA which we will likely houserule in at Fatcats...and now these. Bravo. I like all these rules so far. Subs will be balanced better...heck, all of it will be IMO.

I like the limit on fighter attacks esp. Kinda like when people had to stop double-dipping fighters in the old board game many years ago.

We'll test these, possibly tomorrow.

[ThunderT1]

Richard,

Thanks for posting these un-official optional rules! Someone else made a reference to some other similar rules. Is there a single repository somewhere of all these? Perhaps in printable form?

I also appreciate your italicized comments about the effect on game play.

Peace

[Bigblue2]

Richard,

Thanks for the wonderful game. I have enjoyed many hours playing and planning out forces. :D

I was thinking about your optional rule for torpedo evasion. You Could have it only apply to destroyer/PT boat torpedo attacks as they were much more visible (destroyer charges into torpedo range and launches a spread of torpedoes), as opposed to the subs torpedo attack which is seen a lot later as it nears the target ship, almost to late to avoid (at least in the movies).

[Gladewind]

I liked the Engaged Fighters and Harassed Subs... I don't really care for the facing, fire arc, and torpedo evasion ones.
On the harassed subs, I don't really have a problem with their torpedo value being allowed to fall below 0 and cancel special abilities. As written, a japanise sub will still fire two torpedos at range 3 vs a damaged ship regardless how many harassed markers it has.

[DarkMercy]

I'll give these rules a try. Thanks a lot for taking the time to think these up and post them. It's great to have a designer involved with the community.:)

[NorthernRommel]

How about this then Richard.......

"When any vessel uses an ability with the term "Evade" or "Evasion" in it then that vessel loses 2 ATKD for the rest of the turn (-4 ATKD for Extended Range attacks)."

"Any ship under attack my more then one aircraft lose -1 ATKD per aircraft attacking it".

It would help use aircraft or subs to harrass the big ships as an optional means to deal with the heavy punch BBs seem to have. It seems a wise balancing rule -- and simple.

[IXJac]

Thanks Richard! I think these are pretty cool, and could add a bit of variety. I particularly like the facing rules, especially the character they add to ships like the Rodney and Richelieu (one of my favs already).

Am I right in thinking these were more complicated rules you were considering during game creation but dropped to keep the game streamlined?

In any event, really appreciate the input, and I'll post here on the outcome of any games we play with these rules.

[Sean-Khan]

Torpedo evasion sounds good, it's a simple mechanic to add what people have been asking for to the game. but in practice, I believe it would affect mainly torpedo bombers & subs. All subs -builds would become even stronger against battleship builds, even if battleships would put the rest ~30 points to to ASW. This has to be tested, how it really affects the game. At least it would make carrier builds with torpedo bombers stronger.

About my fighters vs. destroyer comments - I'm using XAos's calculations to help here; Zeke's chance (with surprise or expert dogfighter) to kill Wildcat is 7%, without bonuses it's 3%. Wildcat vs. Zeke it's 8% or 15%. Aborting defender has no effect here. Zeke with no bonuses will damage Samuel B. Roberts or PT. boat (but not Flethcer) with 75% chance, Wildcat will damage average destroyer with 62,5% chance. Looking at these numbers, I'd probably never use engage dogfight when attacking destroyers. Even zeke has 2x chances to damage Fletcher compared to killing Wildcat - WITH dogfight bonus.

[Count_Ciano]

These are not remotely official, nor have they been extensively playtested. But I know that some of you are playing around with house rules and variants to address some of these questions, so I thought I'd share a few ideas I'm playing around with myself.


Rich


Engaged Fighters
When your fighter attacks another airplane in the Air Defense phase, put a “Fighter Engaged” marker on your fighter. A fighter with a Fighter Engaged marker can’t attack in the Air Attack phase. Remove the marker in the Air Return phase.

This rule means that fighters no longer get to shoot at an enemy airplane in the Air Defense phase and then “strafe” an enemy Ship in the same sector in the Air Attack phase. This should slightly cut down the number of “free” attacks fighters get to make against enemy Ships.
This rule makes fighters just a little less valuable.

Harassed Subs
After your Aircraft or Ship makes an ASW attack against a submarine, place a “Harassed” marker next to the sub that was attacked.
You can place a bonus “Harassed” marker if:
- a second unit makes an ASW attack against that same sub; or
- another friendly Ship with an ASW value is in or adjacent to the harassed sub’s sector.

You can place a maximum of 2 Harassed markers on a sub.
In the Torpedo Attack phase, each Harassed marker reduces the harassed sub’s torpedo attack value by 1 die, to a minimum of 1 die. Apply this special modifier before applying any other bonuses or penalties (so wolfpacked U-boats get +1 die back, the Ambra gets +1 die against destroyers, and so on).
Remove Harassed markers from submarines at the end of the turn.

This rule substantially weakens subs, and increases the importance of including ASW vessels in your fleets. Your ASW vessels will be able to more effectively screen your big ships by getting into the same sector as a sub and harassing it, thereby reducing it to a 1- or 2-die torpedo attack under most circumstances. This rule also rewards using teamwork to suppress subs; a pair of ASW ships working together are likely to double-harass a sub.
Subs may be significantly overcosted in this variant, or destroyers may be undercosted--they will certainly suppress subs much better.

Facing
When you finish moving a Ship or Submarine in the Movement Phase, you must choose a facing for it. Point the bow at one adjacent sector. (This simulates hexside facing.)
For large models, we recommend actually pushing the bow into the sector the ship’s facing. Many of the large models overlap the sectors a bit anyway. For small models, set the bow touching the sector border on the sector the ship’s facing toward.

Maneuvering
Ships and Submarines must observe the following rules when moving:

Auxiliaries, Battleships, Carriers, Cruisers
* You can change facing for free after you enter a new sector.
* Otherwise, you can change facing to any new heading for 1 MP.
* At the end of your movement, choose any new facing you like.

Destroyers, Torpedo Boats, Submarines
* You can change facing for free at any point in your movement.
* At the end of your movement, choose any new facing you like.

In other words, larger ships must begin their movement by moving into the sector their bow’s pointing at, or immediately pay 1 movement point to come to a new heading of their choice before moving. Smaller ships and submarines can simply spin in place and start moving on a new heading with no cost in movement points. However, they still must choose a facing at the end of their turn.

This rule makes it more difficult for large ships to deftly maneuver around objectives in constricted waters, and may result in a serious impingement in their ability to claim or deny objectives. We’re not sure how that will affect gameplay, but it seems likely that there will be occasions when a big ship can’t maneuver to an objective it could have claimed under the basic movement rules.

Arcs of Fire
The only arcs of fire you care about are dead ahead and dead astern. Those are the “hexrows” or rows of sectors projected straight out from your bow and your stern. We assume that your captains can sail a little bit “off course” and unmask their batteries for just about everything else other than the hex rows directly in front and directly behind you.
Effects on Gunnery: Gunnery attacks against targets dead ahead or dead astern take a -1 penalty on each die (hit only on 5 or 6) to represent reduction in firepower as compared to your normal broadside.
Effects on Torpedo Attacks: None. We assume you unmask, fire, and resume your course.

This variant makes initiative much more important, since the Second Player can see where he needs to move his ships in order to “cross the T.” Taking a –1 penalty to gunnery is not really as stringent a penalty as it could be—it only reduces hits by 25%, and most ships firing dead ahead or dead astern were usually reduced in firepower by about 50%. But we don’t want to over-reward going second, which is good enough already.

Ships with Unorthodox Battery Arrangements
Several ships in the set have battery arrangements that deserve special abilities if you use the Arcs of Fire variant.

Richelieu: The Richelieu suffers no attack penalty to main battery attacks against targets dead ahead of her, or secondary battery attacks dead astern. She cannot make main battery attacks dead astern, or secondary battery attacks dead ahead.

HMS Rodney: The Rodney cannot make main battery attacks dead astern, or secondary battery attacks dead ahead.

St. Lo: The St. Lo cannot make main battery attacks dead ahead.

Akagi: The Akagi cannot make main battery attacks dead ahead or dead astern.

Tone: The Tone cannot make main battery attacks dead astern.



There you go! I hope some of these ideas help out your "simulation value" and gameplay without adding too much complexity.

I'm sure they will! :cool: I especially like the idea of "encouraging teamwork" to attack subs; another way to do that might be to allow ASW successes from more than one SHIP (not aircraft) to stack. If 2 ships attack a sub, one rolls 2 successes, the other rolls 1, allow them to combine for 3 successes. Heck, the lowly Japanese sub chaser might actually be good for something now! ;)

[brentski]

Nice rules suggestions, how about this one to add to bombers :

Whittled Away:

Unaborted bombers roll one less die for each hit received.

One of the problems in the few games I have played is the difficulty in aborting dive bombers. There is no penalty for flying through two wings of fighters, AA fire, etc. I have had BB's escorted by fighters score only one or two hits apiece - not enought to get through the armor - only to have the bomber drop an entire load of bombs and cripple or sink the BB! It seems that this type of action would reduce the effectiveness of a wing.

Good/Bad?

[zaarin7]

Like these ideas too. Got an addition for arcs of fire.

"Secondaries dice are halved when firing dead ahead or dead astern."

[Tibour]

I would also like to say thanks to Richard for this excellent game and taking the time to support it on the forum.

As to the rule additions I think that they are a great idea/work in progress. I especially like the idea of the Harrasses sub marker/topr. evaision and engaged fighters.

[MidnMike]

HMM
Richard,
I have been hounding the boards since the release, and I dont think I have seen anything about manuver or arc of fire problems. More the need for DD speed and BB not using thier main batteries against such small ships. I like the game for it's simplicity and ease of play. The rules changes you made here will greatly impact that end.

Robert

I've actually brought up the need to simulate tactics like "crossing the T..." I think these changes would insert it nicely.

[MidnMike]

in fact, I'd even go so far as to make the penalty for firing main batteries dead ahead or astern be to halve the dice (12 dice becomes 6, etc) to represent only half the battery being unmasked. This would give smaller, more maneuverable ships the ability to get out of the way of BB broadsides when coupled with the movement rule changes.

[Uncle_Joe]

The only thing I dont really like about the Firing Arcs and the new movement rules is that it is putting an AWFUL lot of weight onto a single random initiative roll every turn. Its already quite important and I'm not sure I'd like to see it become even more so. One of the really good mechanics in A&AM is that there are advantages to going first and advantages to going last.

For something this important, I prefer to have more give and take rather such a heavily lopsided penalty for losing initiative in WaS. Perhaps alternate moving ships/subs with the initiative loser going first? This also rewards having more combatants which wouldnt be a bad thing either IMO.

[IXJac]

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Alternate movement is pretty much a must once you start making fire-arcs count.

[Mpedersen84]

Thank you Robert!!! This is great, I love the new optional rule idea's, I also love the fact that an offical interest is going on on these boards. I wish they did this for AAM regular game. Keep it comming!!:)

[Uncle_Joe]

When are they going to put you on the WotC payroll

Hey, if you can convinvce 'em, I'll all for it. ;)

[J.L.Robert]

My opinions:

Engaged Fighters...excellent.

Harassed Subs...I would suggest an alternative:
Evasive Subs: If an ASW attack on a sub fails to score a hit by 1 success, the sub's controller may elect to take Evasive Maneuvers. Place an Aborted marker on the sub; that sub may no longer be attacked by ASW attacks for the rest of the turn. That sub may not participate in the Torpedo Attack phase this turn.

Facing...the square grid will doubtless lead to a lot of confusion. A hex grid will be needed.

Maneuvering...Light Cruisers, at the very least, should not be penalized for maneuvering. An argument can be made for Heavy Cruisers, too. Battlecruisers, Battleships and Carriers are good with their maneuvering penalty, although it should be minimal due to the ability to pick facing after entering the last sector the previous turn.

Arcs of Fire...decent, simple solution.

Unorthodox Battery Arrangements...again, a simple enough solution to add a little flavor to the game.

Torpedo Evasion...perhaps a bit too powerful. Perhaps -1 die when evading instead of the +1 to hit when not evading would be a more simple solution.

I have another Sub vs. Destroyer rule option, which I will post as a separate thread.

[zaarin7]

I have to agree with the above post on arcs that a hex grid will be needed. And I agree that with facing coming into the game you would need to move ships alternating with the losing player first.

[NorthernRommel]

Offset Square based systems are ok for strategic games, or even theatre based games where scale is in the 20 mile per square kind of battlefield. However most tactical games rely on Hex based play. Why the designers when with Offset Squares I dunno.

As I stated before I have 4 inch and 3 inch ocean hex maps if folks are interested.

[Cruizin2000]

C2K, unless I miss my guess, the first time I bring over me' boats and you lay eyes on them, you'll be hooked!:D

Let me know when.

C2000

[bismarckbadger]

I love all of the new "rules." I think the harassed subs are really going to help knock down their threat to ASW ships, and the facing arcs are a thing of beauty. One other rule I would like to see would involve preventing ships from doing both AA and tertiary (or secondary) attacks in the same turn as most of the time these weapons were dual-purpose. Also, I still fear that aircraft are not a significant enough threat to the battleships. They may not need to be better at sinking or damaging them, per se, but they are almost always aborted (or outright destroyed) by battleship AA fire, which seems unrealistic for a squadron of 30+ planes.

Keep up the great work Richard! Amazing game you've got here!

[TheFoeHammer]

These will be nice optional additions to use depending on the type of game I am up for playing at the time as well as my opponent.

Nice added realism all around.

[RichardBaker]

Yeah, you're probably right about side initiative and maneuvering. We already have an I-go-you-go sequence for aircraft placement, it might not be that big of a leap to use it for ship movement too. I'd imagine you could still gang up the fire resolution.

I penciled cruisers in as "less maneuverable" because most WW2 cruisers had two shafts and a single rudder, and thus a comparatively large tactical diameter. But cruisers can use a modest bit of extra help, so maybe they could use the easier rules and maneuver like destroyers. (Of course, if you let the cruisers off the hook, you ought to let the CVLs off the hook too since they're roughly cruiser-sized and some were even built on cruiser hulls... but maybe no one will notice.)

It would make cruisers interesting as "objective takers" because they'd be better than battleships at getting to the exact sector you need them to be in when you're dealing with the fine maneuvering around the objectives.

I'll keep thinking.


The only thing I dont really like about the Firing Arcs and the new movement rules is that it is putting an AWFUL lot of weight onto a single random initiative roll every turn. Its already quite important and I'm not sure I'd like to see it become even more so. One of the really good mechanics in A&AM is that there are advantages to going first and advantages to going last.

For something this important, I prefer to have more give and take rather such a heavily lopsided penalty for losing initiative in WaS. Perhaps alternate moving ships/subs with the initiative loser going first? This also rewards having more combatants which wouldnt be a bad thing either IMO.

[zaarin7]

In another thread it was asked if ships could combine attacks. Why can't they. This would be a simple fix the 50+ point BB issues I think.

[Uncle_Joe]

It would make it too easy to get vital hits on almost anything. Take, for example, 2x Baltimore clase CAs...at long range they could combine to toss 16dice! That is more than the Yamato or the Iowa can put out for only 36 points.

No, while I definately intensely dislike the larger BBs dominating the way they do, I dont think this is a viable answer.

[zaarin7]

Okay then only allow DD, DE, SS and aircraft to do it and say they all have to be in the same sector.

[Joisey]

Combining the attack rolls of any units would represent a technology that did not exist in WWII. If we were talking about navies today, then I'd say yes, with integrated computer networks controlling targeting based on satellite data. But I think that would ruin the existing game dynamic for WWII combat.

[Flyboy]

I like these rules they make he game more realistic. Ill have to try them out:)

[NorthernRommel]

Actually I was reading that having more then one ship firing on a single target at long ranges was a bad thing, as in the days of WW1 and WW2 targeting was based on watching where shells splashed, and adjusting range accordingly. Radar was primitive, and weapons direction was just as crude.

When you have two separate ships firing then you have the problem of whose shells are the spotters seeing, making the splash effect confusing.

So combining fire in WAS may actually be a historical disadvantage.

[RichardBaker]

That's what the French "Excellent Spotting" ability represents. The French Navy was apparently way in the lead in using dye markers in their shells so that different ships shooting at the same target could figure out whose splashes were whose. Rather than have everyone else penalized for *not* doing this and then allowing the French to negate the penalty, we decided to just give the French a bonus.


Actually I was reading that having more then one ship firing on a single target at long ranges was a bad thing, as in the days of WW1 and WW2 targeting was based on watching where shells splashed, and adjusting range accordingly. Radar was primitive, and weapons direction was just as crude.

When you have two separate ships firing then you have the problem of whose shells are the spotters seeing, making the splash effect confusing.

So combining fire in WAS may actually be a historical disadvantage.

[Uncle_Joe]

Rather than have everyone else penalized for *not* doing this and then allowing the French to negate the penalty, we decided to just give the French a bonus.

Good solution to the issue here. :)

If I can offer a quick summary of ideas/suggestions/comments:

1) Engaged Fighters: I really like the effect, but I think it should it also apply to Fighters that were engaged by opposing Fighters.

2) DD vulnerability: Perhaps limit the damage that a Fighter 'gunnery' can do to ships to 'crippled'...ie, they can never push a ship beyond crippled. This might help with DDs being scrubbed away so quickly to Fighters.

3) DD vulnerability: Perhaps dont allow them to be targeted by Extended Range shots. Again, this could cut down on their vulnerability and might let them live long enough to do something. I would accord the same immunity to MTBs.

4) Firing Arc: As indicated, accompanying this with alternating ship movements would probably work well. If Cruisers are given the benefit of the doubt on maneuver class, it could help them out a bit.

5) Surface Torpedo fire: Torpedo attacks from ships (not subs) could perhaps resolve simultaneously with gunfire. This might make the DDs and the Japanese surface ships worth their points a bit. It would certainly make them a bigger threat than they are now (ie, none) and might encourage escorts for the capital ships to keep the small fry at bay (particularly if coupled with immunity to ER shots). I would love to have an actual reason to field CLs and the like (other than the Atlanta). Capital ships did need escorts and this might really help bring that home.

6) ASW Harassing: As indicated above, perhaps limit it to ASW ships, not aircraft. This would encourage more DDs and give more reason to use them for ASW instead of aircraft. I wouldnt want to see this without some of the other changes though as the ONLY thing currently holding the big BBs in check at all are swarms of subs.

I think if some combination of the above effects were added we could be looking at some very favorable shifts in the game dynamics. I dont quite think it would completely break the stranglehold that BBs/SSs have on the builds at the moment but it would be a LOT closer IMO. At the very least the large BBs might actually BE vulnerable to a swarm of DDs and/or MTBs and the like.

Thanks again for your commitment to the game. Its very refreshing.

[Old Fart]

I penciled cruisers in as "less maneuverable" because most WW2 cruisers had two shafts and a single rudder, and thus a comparatively large tactical diameter. But cruisers can use a modest bit of extra help, so maybe they could use the easier rules and maneuver like destroyers. (Of course, if you let the cruisers off the hook, you ought to let the CVLs off the hook too since they're roughly cruiser-sized and some were even built on cruiser hulls... but maybe no one will notice.)
I'll keep thinking.


Speaking only of the US cruisers ...the only cruisers with two shafts
were the Atlanta-Oakland class ... even the ancient Omaha class had
four shafts. Also, USS Independence class CVLs were all converted
Cleveland class hulls.

So, which landlubber came up with Extended Range 5, and gave us the
DANCING BATTLESHIP? I realize you people have developed highly
successful magic type games and made WOTC a major player in the
game industry. However, your attempts at historical WWII games
have met with considerable criticism ... PLEASE ... if you ever decide
to do another historical game ... recruit some old grognards who can
provide you with some guidance.

Sometimes it pays to think outside the box. Instead of using the old
every-unit(card)-must-have-an-ability to justify the rare/uncommon/
common status of this type of game ... just go with it's harder to get
some units than others to justify the rare/uncommon/common ... that
way we don't end up with dancing battleships, super subs, rusting
cruisers, and castrated destroyers.

Old Fart

[RichardBaker]

I stand corrected; you're right, 4 shafts is the norm for the cruisers.

BTW... I am a qualified Surface Warfare Officer and Officer of the Deck Underway, and strongly object to being called a "landlubber!"



Speaking only of the US cruisers ...the only cruisers with two shafts
were the Atlanta-Oakland class ... even the ancient Omaha class had
four shafts. Also, USS Independence class CVLs were all converted
Cleveland class hulls.

So, which landlubber came up with Extended Range 5, and gave us the
DANCING BATTLESHIP? I realize you people have developed highly
successful magic type games and made WOTC a major player in the
game industry. However, your attempts at historical WWII games
have met with considerable criticism ... PLEASE ... if you ever decide
to do another historical game ... recruit some old grognards who can
provide you with some guidance.

Sometimes it pays to think outside the box. Instead of using the old
every-unit(card)-must-have-an-ability to justify the rare/uncommon/
common status of this type of game ... just go with it's harder to get
some units than others to justify the rare/uncommon/common ... that
way we don't end up with dancing battleships, super subs, rusting
cruisers, and castrated destroyers.

Old Fart

[NorthernRommel]

That's what the French "Excellent Spotting" ability represents. The French Navy was apparently way in the lead in using dye markers in their shells so that different ships shooting at the same target could figure out whose splashes were whose. Rather than have everyone else penalized for *not* doing this and then allowing the French to negate the penalty, we decided to just give the French a bonus.

Ah - But I dont have the game, so was not aware of that. Smart idea. Makes sense.

Applying a simple -1 ATKD per attack dice for big guns might also help deal with the overwhelming firepower of the big guns on big ships.

[MidnMike]

^^ what he said

[PaulG]

Engaged Fighters

Love it. Improves historicity and removes some of the over maximisation that gamers tend towards.

Harassed Subs

Love it. Improves historicity and improves the role of DDs and DEs in the game.


Facing
Maneuvering
Arcs of Fire
Ships with Unorthodox Battery Arrangements


No, no no a thousand times no. If I want to play a tactical simulation I'll play General Quarters or Command at Sea and they will do a much better job of that type of game than what A&ANM can do.

This game works at the grand tactical level perfectly. You've got captains on the ships, assume that they are competent enough to look after the Arcs of Fire, pointing the ship in the right direction etc. and let the player assume the role of Admiral. An admiral will say "I want the Ajax to move to map reference xyz and engage the Scharnhorst", not give detailed tactical directives to the captains fo the individual ships under his command (well not if he's competent anyway)

I also endorse the Surface torpedo fire as suggested by Uncle_Joe. A lot of surface actions started with one side or the other loosing torpedos then starting with the gunnery after they had seen the effects of their torpedo runs.
For game balance, with some degree of historical backing, you cuold probably have ships (i.e. not MTBs or SSs) launch torpedos in the surface gunnery step but in order to do this they have to give up their gunnery in order to allow this to happen.

[Uncle_Joe]

I'm pretty undecided on whether to bother with playing with Firing Arcs and maneuver. The rules seem pretty simple for but I'm not sure the game really needs it unless it helps make the large BBs less dominant but after piddling around with it in singleplayer, I dont see that it does much in that department.

[lamme102]

I definatly agree with PaulG, the facing, arcs of fire etc. takes it too far for my liking. It's also going to add a lot of time onto the game length. The fighter and sub mods are very good. But I think Paul is right that it is kind of an admirals viewpoint and we assume that the ships can orient themselves correctly. Besides that's why we roll dice, to account for unforseen changes ie. the ship wasn't able to bring all her guns to bear so I rolled a crappy roll! If you take that out who am I supposed to blam my lose on? Myself? I think not!

[Khayman7]

I must comment here that it is very refreshing to see your thoughts and comments regarding the game on here. It reminds me of the old AH days and the General magazine. It is also one of the major factors that keeps me coming back for more. I may not always agree with everything I see in the game(s), but it is more than enough to know that the game designer is interested enough in chiming in on these forums from time to time. I also thinks it's great that the company makes it possible for this to be allowed to happen.

I have invested roughly $1700.00-$1800.00 in your game pieces up to this point in time, and it gives me tremendous confidence in spending more just knowing that this type of company support exists. For me, it gives the impression that everything is being done both before and after the sale with the intent of producing a good, quality product. Things aren't always perfect, but it is nice to see this kind of involvement in an attempt to make things better, after my money has been spent.

Sorry for being so wordy and off topic, now back to the matters at hand.:)

I think its a great point (not too off topic)... I have a couple of friends that were leaning toward not getting the game, but when I told them about how the Designer is supporting the game they are now seriously considering it and talking about cases...not a starter and a booster but just jumping in with cases. This kind of support and involvement makes a HUGE differance to people. I greatly appreciate it as do many others. Thanks!

[lamme102]

agreed. Thanks for the involvement.

[Sillion]

I have to agree with the above post on arcs that a hex grid will be needed. And I agree that with facing coming into the game you would need to move ships alternating with the losing player first.

But the map is a exact hexgrid

[XAos]

I like the Facing/Arc of fire rules.
And the Sub-suppression rule.

But I'm with Sean-Khan on the actual implimentation of the fighter rule.

The problem with the new fighter rule is that as fighters are almost impossible to destroy, why would a fighter attacking an easy target (destroyer) choose to shoot defending fighter instead? There's no advantage in aborting defending fighter. Would it work better if attacking fighter would have to abort defending fighter before it could attack?
I've been considering a similar house rule & hit the same problem.
The Fighters just ignore the enemy aircraft & uses it's guns on the destroyer. Which is a comparativly easy kill. Also under this rule a fighter using the SA-"Escourt" could still straffe a destroyer.
I'd suggest the following solution;
A fighter can only attack a ship if there are no enemy aircraft in the sector during the air-attack phase.
i.e. It's assumed to be too busy doing it's primary job of dog-fighting aircraft if there are any. This has the advantage of requireing no additional record keeping or status markers for the fighters.
Obviously aborted enemy aircraft don't count for this rule.

Torpedo Evasion
... I have no idea how much harder it would make seizing objectives if you had the ability to "slow" your enemy's ships by launching torpedo attacks. I suspect there is a tremendous amount of cheese potential in a rules variant like that.
You say that as if adding an additional set of tactics to the game was a bad thing.:D
I suspect this would be a good rule for making ships with Long Lance playable. Currently they just cost too much.
Only "cheese" I can see is that it might be a lot harder for destroyers to close with a sub-swarm. Because all the lead destroyers are slowed dodgeing the previous turns torpedos.

[zaarin7]

That's what the French "Excellent Spotting" ability represents. The French Navy was apparently way in the lead in using dye markers in their shells so that different ships shooting at the same target could figure out whose splashes were whose. Rather than have everyone else penalized for *not* doing this and then allowing the French to negate the penalty, we decided to just give the French a bonus.

By the way everybody did this going back to Tushima for that very reason. Dosen't help much at night of course.

I second, or is it fourth or fith? the kudos to you for being involved.

[MidnMike]

But the map is a exact hexgrid

no it's not, I think you're thinking of AAM

[MarcusAurelius]

Harassed Subs
After your Aircraft or Ship makes an ASW attack against a submarine, place a “Harassed” marker next to the sub that was attacked.
You can place a bonus “Harassed” marker if:
- a second unit makes an ASW attack against that same sub; or
- another friendly Ship with an ASW value is in or adjacent to the harassed sub’s sector.

You can place a maximum of 2 Harassed markers on a sub.
In the Torpedo Attack phase, each Harassed marker reduces the harassed sub’s torpedo attack value by 1 die, to a minimum of 1 die. Apply this special modifier before applying any other bonuses or penalties (so wolfpacked U-boats get +1 die back, the Ambra gets +1 die against destroyers, and so on).
Remove Harassed markers from submarines at the end of the turn.

This rule substantially weakens subs, and increases the importance of including ASW vessels in your fleets. Your ASW vessels will be able to more effectively screen your big ships by getting into the same sector as a sub and harassing it, thereby reducing it to a 1- or 2-die torpedo attack under most circumstances. This rule also rewards using teamwork to suppress subs; a pair of ASW ships working together are likely to double-harass a sub.
Subs may be significantly overcosted in this variant, or destroyers may be undercosted--they will certainly suppress subs much better.


Has anyone playtested this rule variant yet? We ran a 200-point convoy battle last night under the standard rules and the attackers had a field day — sinking 7 of the 10 Allied merchant ships and 2 destroyers in just 4 turns. Game over. German losses were 2 U-boats sunk and 3 crippled, along with 2 Kondors and 1 squadron of Stukas destroyed.

This was our first convoy scenario, and the Allied commander's tactics could have been better. But the odds seem heavily in favor of the attackers. I'll be interested to see what kind of impact harassment has.

Another issue that influenced the results: unit limits. The Allies have a lot of great units to choose from for hunting subs — Catalina, Swordfish, Javelin, Fletcher, St. Lo, the list goes on and on. But you can only field so many of these before you run into the 20-unit limit for a 200-point force.

I'd also consider relaxing the stacking limits for a convoy scenario, allowing up to 3 surface ships per sector if one of them is a merchant ship.

[XAos]

the odds seem heavily in favor of the attackers.
Game balence in 100pt W@S games seems to be heavily dependant on a rock-paper-scissors choice of units. e.g. in the online game between Kaz & Joisey, Joisey has 3 subs & Kaz has no ASW. So inspite of some really impressive attacks by Kaz's Vals the odds still favour Joisey.
In the convoy scenario the attacker knows for certain that his target is 5xFreighters, so is certain to be on the winning end of the rock-paper-scissors thing. And speed-1 freighters take longer to cross the map than a normal game would last. The convoy escourt needs a compensating advantage or that scenario is a trivial win for the attacker.
Possibly both sides should "bid points" for who gets to be convoy escourt. The player bidding the least points gets to play as the escourt with that number of extra points of ships.

[Sillion]

no it's not, I think you're thinking of AAM

No, lol

Every square is bordering six other squares in the exact same pattern as on a hex map. Draw a line from the center of every square to all adjacent squares and you do the same on a hex map.

Squares is just another way to draw the map.

[MidnMike]

No, lol

Every square is bordering six other squares in the exact same pattern as on a hex map. Draw a line from the center of every square to all adjacent squares and you do the same on a hex map.

Squares is just another way to draw the map.

Except that with squares, you only have four directions for facing. If you start turning ships diagonal in squares, now which way can they travel? Diagonally? But that allows them to cover more ground in their move than normal. Or do you just allow diagonally facing ships to take their pick of a square in the x direction or a square in the y direction? Well that gives diagonal facing ships more movement options than normal. Remember, the big ships under this rule change have to move in the direction they were facing at the beginning of the turn. Simply bordering 6 other squares does not accomplish the same thing as hexes.

[Count_Ciano]

Okay then only allow DD, DE, SS and aircraft to do it and say they all have to be in the same sector.

I have been experimenting with something like that for ASW, based on Richard's "team harassing" mechanic. Allowing ASW successes to stack from ships only has given the Axis weak ASW a much needed boost, but seems over-powered on the Allied end, since theirs is so good. But, Old Fart's 3+ crash dive save seems to balance that out well enough. So far.

[RichardBaker]

My pleasure, K! And thanks for your interest in the game, I'm delighted to see folks out there playing the heck out of it. (Likewise for you other guys who ditto'd Kaufschtick's sentiments.)

As you've probably guessed by now, I'm a fan of this stuff too, and I love to talk about it.


I must comment here that it is very refreshing to see your thoughts and comments regarding the game on here. It reminds me of the old AH days and the General magazine. It is also one of the major factors that keeps me coming back for more. I may not always agree with everything I see in the game(s), but it is more than enough to know that the game designer is interested enough in chiming in on these forums from time to time. I also thinks it's great that the company makes it possible for this to be allowed to happen.

I have invested roughly $1700.00-$1800.00 in your game pieces up to this point in time, and it gives me tremendous confidence in spending more just knowing that this type of company support exists. For me, it gives the impression that everything is being done both before and after the sale with the intent of producing a good, quality product. Things aren't always perfect, but it is nice to see this kind of involvement in an attempt to make things better, after my money has been spent.

Sorry for being so wordy and off topic, now back to the matters at hand.:)

[Cruizin2000]

My pleasure, K! And thanks for your interest in the game, I'm delighted to see folks out there playing the heck out of it. (Likewise for you other guys who ditto'd Kaufschtick's sentiments.)

As you've probably guessed by now, I'm a fan of this stuff too, and I love to talk about it.

Check you out, Kaufy!! That's just like the "old days" with Don Greenwood, S. Craig Taylor, and the rest of the AH gang. :cool:

C2000

[Sillion]

Except that with squares, you only have four directions for facing. If you start turning ships diagonal in squares, now which way can they travel? Diagonally? But that allows them to cover more ground in their move than normal. Or do you just allow diagonally facing ships to take their pick of a square in the x direction or a square in the y direction? Well that gives diagonal facing ships more movement options than normal. Remember, the big ships under this rule change have to move in the direction they were facing at the beginning of the turn. Simply bordering 6 other squares does not accomplish the same thing as hexes.

I was thinking of letting the bow touch the border to the square they are heading for. Or if you put them diagonally the are not heading to the square that are alongside this one. Always the top left or right. And if you put them flat in the square they are heading to square next to this one.

When you finish moving a Ship or Submarine in the Movement Phase, you must choose a facing for it. Point the bow at one adjacent sector. (This simulates hexside facing.)
For large models, we recommend actually pushing the bow into the sector the ship’s facing. Many of the large models overlap the sectors a bit anyway. For small models, set the bow touching the sector border on the sector the ship’s facing toward.

[Photoner Hawkwind]

No, no no a thousand times no. If I want to play a tactical simulation I'll play General Quarters or Command at Sea and they will do a much better job of that type of game than what A&ANM can do.

This game works at the grand tactical level perfectly. You've got captains on the ships, assume that they are competent enough to look after the Arcs of Fire, pointing the ship in the right direction etc. and let the player assume the role of Admiral. An admiral will say "I want the Ajax to move to map reference xyz and engage the Scharnhorst", not give detailed tactical directives to the captains fo the individual ships under his command (well not if he's competent anyway)


I think part of the fun of a naval war game is that you can play a part as the admiral and a part as the captain too.;)

[Cruizin2000]

C2K, yeah it is! I sure do miss those good ole' days but you know, things aren't too bad right here and now. :)

I sure do like where events have taken things. I won't forget the past, but I like where things are at present.:)

Yes, I like presents too!! Does this mean that you're going to give me that extra Akagi that you have? Think of it as a late birthday present.;)

C2000

[RichardBaker]

OK, here's a new one for you scurvy dogs: Darkness rules!

Interestingly enough, I think the much-maligned destroyer becomes MUCH better when you play under these scenario rules... maybe the night fight is what destroyers are really for in this game!



Darkness
Many surface engagements in all theaters took place at night. Fighting at night drastically changed the shape of naval warfare, presenting fleet commanders with a variety of difficult challenges. Airplanes remained grounded. Gunnery ranges dropped to a few thousand yards, and ships of all sides could fall prey to crucial misidentifications of their targets and mistakenly fire on friendly ships.

Fleet Construction
Decide whether you’re fighting in Darkness conditions before you construct your fleets. Airpower is absolutely useless, so we’ll assume that you keep your carriers well away from the threat of enemy contact and send in surface forces to seize the objective.

Air Mission Phase
All Aircraft cannot fly missions in Darkness conditions. They remain at their base.

Illumination Phase
Add this step immediately before the Surface Attack Phase. You decide whether your ships will turn on their searchlights to illuminate nearby targets. The First Player places all of his illumination markers first, and then the Second Player places all of his illumination markers.
Searchlights have a range of 2. All destroyers, cruisers, and battleships have searchlights (but carriers, auxiliaries, and torpedo boats don’t).
Each ship can illuminate one enemy ship. If you decide that your ship is illuminating a target, place an “Illuminated” marker on both the illuminating ship and the illuminated target.

Surface Attack Phase
Darkness affects Gunnery attacks as follows:
* Gunnery attacks of range 3 or greater are prohibited.
* Gunnery attacks against non-local targets take a –1 penalty per die (so 4 is a miss, 5 counts as one hit, and 6 counts as 2 hits).

Special Exceptions
Several conditions or special abilities counteract the normal Darkness penalties on Gunnery attacks:
Illuminated/Illuminating: Any ship firing against a ship that is either illuminated or illuminating suffers no attack penalty (but the range limitation still applies).
Damaged Ships: Any ship firing against a ship that was damaged in a previous turn suffers no attack penalty (but the range limitation still applies).
Night Fighter: Ships with the Night Fighter special ability ignore the attack penalty (but the range limitation still applies). This advantage replaces the effect of Night Fighter, so ignore the normal effect of the special ability.
Radar Fire Control: All US ships in 1943 or later scenarios ignore the range limitation (but the attack penalty still applies).

End of Turn
Remove all Illuminated markers.

[Uncle_Joe]

Interesting set of rules. It will definately make things a little more up close and personal. :)

Hopefully though, the 'standard' rules will continue to be refined such that there is more balance between the ship types.

Thanks for the options rules! They certainly give more scope to enjoy the game.

[Diamondback]

Interesting work, Richard. Permission to incorporate this into the "A&ANM: Hardcore Historical Rules" I'm designing?

BTW, some US squadrons and air-groups specialized in night fighting, like the Black Cat PBY's and Enterprise's air group late-war (both fighters and torpedo-bombers), so could we add a mechanic for that, maybe an extra point-cost and marker for each plane with "advanced nightfighting training"?

[Joisey]

Talk about Fog of War, heh heh! :D

[Autarch]

Here's a few thoughts:

Engaged Fighters
Good! I agree with Xaos that fighters can't engage surface units if other fighters were present in the same sector.

Harassed Subs
I'd limit ASW harrassment to ships/planes in same sector.

Facing

Arcs of Fire

Ships with Unorthodox Battery Arrangements

I agree with others and think with these additions players should alternate moving one ship at a time, though this will slow down the game considerably and undermine the use of "feints" that come form all or nothing initiative rolls.

Torpedo Evasion
I think the penalty for torpedo evasion should be greater but so should the benefit. Perhaps nullifying all torpedo attacks for that turn, but the evading ship cannot move during the next Sea Movement Phase or make attacks during the next Surface or Torpedo Attack Phases. A ship can only make one evasion per turn (either during Air Attack or Torpedo Attack phase). Crippled ships cannot evade.

[Autarch]

That's what the French "Excellent Spotting" ability represents. The French Navy was apparently way in the lead in using dye markers in their shells so that different ships shooting at the same target could figure out whose splashes were whose. Rather than have everyone else penalized for *not* doing this and then allowing the French to negate the penalty, we decided to just give the French a bonus.

The Japanese used these as well. I recall reading a narrative from the US point of view of one battle that they thought the Japanese were firing "practice shells" at them that they had mistakenly left in their guns.

[Uncle_Joe]

Harassed Subs
I'd limit ASW harrassment to ships/planes in same sector.

It actually plays pretty well as written. Submarine were way too deadly to DDs and the rule as written gives you a little more flexibility. It also encourages the submarines to spread out a bit which I think improves the feel a bit.

I think these harassment rules are about the only way an Axis force has much chance against a heavy Allied sub force.

[Autarch]

OK, here's a new one for you scurvy dogs: Darkness rules!

Interestingly enough, I think the much-maligned destroyer becomes MUCH better when you play under these scenario rules... maybe the night fight is what destroyers are really for in this game!



Darkness
Many surface engagements in all theaters took place at night. Fighting at night drastically changed the shape of naval warfare, presenting fleet commanders with a variety of difficult challenges. Airplanes remained grounded. Gunnery ranges dropped to a few thousand yards, and ships of all sides could fall prey to crucial misidentifications of their targets and mistakenly fire on friendly ships.

Fleet Construction
Decide whether you’re fighting in Darkness conditions before you construct your fleets. Airpower is absolutely useless, so we’ll assume that you keep your carriers well away from the threat of enemy contact and send in surface forces to seize the objective.

Air Mission Phase
All Aircraft cannot fly missions in Darkness conditions. They remain at their base.

Illumination Phase
Add this step immediately before the Surface Attack Phase. You decide whether your ships will turn on their searchlights to illuminate nearby targets. The First Player places all of his illumination markers first, and then the Second Player places all of his illumination markers.
Searchlights have a range of 2. All destroyers, cruisers, and battleships have searchlights (but carriers, auxiliaries, and torpedo boats don’t).
Each ship can illuminate one enemy ship. If you decide that your ship is illuminating a target, place an “Illuminated” marker on both the illuminating ship and the illuminated target.

Surface Attack Phase
Darkness affects Gunnery attacks as follows:
* Gunnery attacks of range 3 or greater are prohibited.
* Gunnery attacks against non-local targets take a –1 penalty per die (so 4 is a miss, 5 counts as one hit, and 6 counts as 2 hits).

Special Exceptions
Several conditions or special abilities counteract the normal Darkness penalties on Gunnery attacks:
Illuminated/Illuminating: Any ship firing against a ship that is either illuminated or illuminating suffers no attack penalty (but the range limitation still applies).
Damaged Ships: Any ship firing against a ship that was damaged in a previous turn suffers no attack penalty (but the range limitation still applies).
Night Fighter: Ships with the Night Fighter special ability ignore the attack penalty (but the range limitation still applies). This advantage replaces the effect of Night Fighter, so ignore the normal effect of the special ability.
Radar Fire Control: All US ships in 1943 or later scenarios ignore the range limitation (but the attack penalty still applies).

End of Turn
Remove all Illuminated markers.

Thanks, a much needed addition. I'd make a few changes though:

Air Mission Phase: Only Patrol Bombers may be used. They cannot attack nor be attacked.

Star shells: CL and DD can use their main guns to illuminate another ship within two sectors during the illumination phase. Guns used for illumination are not available during Surface attack phase. CL and DD using star shells do not self-illuminate.

Flares: Patrol Bombers and Scout Cruiser SA can illuminate one ship with flares. Aircraft cannot attack or be subject to AA fire.

Night Fighter/Long Lance: As above except these ships have range of 3 as long as they are not illuminated.

Friendly Fire: Ships firing at enemy ships in a sector where friendly ships are present run the risk of hitting those ships. Roll a die, on a 1 or 2 that attack (gunnery or torpedo) hits a randomly determined friendly ship.

[XAos]

It actually plays pretty well as written. Submarine were way too deadly to DDs and the rule as written gives you a little more flexibility. It also encourages the submarines to spread out a bit which I think improves the feel a bit.

I think these harassment rules are about the only way an Axis force has much chance against a heavy Allied sub force.
I tested the harassment rule (Javalins V's U-boats+I-19's)
With the modification suggested by Autarch. Actually that was an accident I miss-read the orrigional & didn't notice the "Adjascent ASW" option.
Played as Autarch suggests it came out about even. The Javalins won 2 out of 3 battles. I didn't try with Axis ASW, which would obviously not be as good. The Javalins were usually both criplleing the sub and getting -1 from the harrassment. So the subs were usually a total of -2 to their torpedo attack. And I doubt Axis ASW will get many hits on Truculents. I suspect "run silent" is so effective against axis ASW that the axis can't actually "Win" a fight against Truculents. The best they can do is live long enough to take the objectives. And Nordmarks do that already, if you can tolerate that much cheese.:rolleyes:

Any suggestions for a descent Axis-ASW fleet to test this with.?

[zaarin7]

The Enterprise air wing was optimised for the anti intruder role for fleet defence in 1944-45. Don't forget that the Wasp air group was also trained in that role in 1941-42. This ould be an SA I would imagine.

[Count_Ciano]

OK, here's a new one for you scurvy dogs: Darkness rules!

Interestingly enough, I think the much-maligned destroyer becomes MUCH better when you play under these scenario rules... maybe the night fight is what destroyers are really for in this game!



Darkness
Many surface engagements in all theaters took place at night. Fighting at night drastically changed the shape of naval warfare, presenting fleet commanders with a variety of difficult challenges. Airplanes remained grounded. Gunnery ranges dropped to a few thousand yards, and ships of all sides could fall prey to crucial misidentifications of their targets and mistakenly fire on friendly ships.

Fleet Construction
Decide whether you’re fighting in Darkness conditions before you construct your fleets. Airpower is absolutely useless, so we’ll assume that you keep your carriers well away from the threat of enemy contact and send in surface forces to seize the objective.

Air Mission Phase
All Aircraft cannot fly missions in Darkness conditions. They remain at their base.

Illumination Phase
Add this step immediately before the Surface Attack Phase. You decide whether your ships will turn on their searchlights to illuminate nearby targets. The First Player places all of his illumination markers first, and then the Second Player places all of his illumination markers.
Searchlights have a range of 2. All destroyers, cruisers, and battleships have searchlights (but carriers, auxiliaries, and torpedo boats don’t).
Each ship can illuminate one enemy ship. If you decide that your ship is illuminating a target, place an “Illuminated” marker on both the illuminating ship and the illuminated target.

Surface Attack Phase
Darkness affects Gunnery attacks as follows:
* Gunnery attacks of range 3 or greater are prohibited.
* Gunnery attacks against non-local targets take a –1 penalty per die (so 4 is a miss, 5 counts as one hit, and 6 counts as 2 hits).

Special Exceptions
Several conditions or special abilities counteract the normal Darkness penalties on Gunnery attacks:
Illuminated/Illuminating: Any ship firing against a ship that is either illuminated or illuminating suffers no attack penalty (but the range limitation still applies).
Damaged Ships: Any ship firing against a ship that was damaged in a previous turn suffers no attack penalty (but the range limitation still applies).
Night Fighter: Ships with the Night Fighter special ability ignore the attack penalty (but the range limitation still applies). This advantage replaces the effect of Night Fighter, so ignore the normal effect of the special ability.
Radar Fire Control: All US ships in 1943 or later scenarios ignore the range limitation (but the attack penalty still applies).

End of Turn
Remove all Illuminated markers.

This is some really interesting timing as I was working on some night fighting ideas myself! I started off with a really simplistic model of concealment rolls beyond range 2, but there are some excellent ideas here that provide more detail without much extra complexity. I'm looking forward to playtesting these! :cool:

[viperm4a3]

Funny, I was just writing about darkness improving DD effectiveness last night on the surface torpedo thread. I wish I would have seen this first.

I really think this system is screaming for an operational game over the top of this one. I am currently experimenting with one hour turns and 20 mile hexes. That should be about half a map sheet per hex and allow ships to move a number of hexes equal to their movement rate. At about 1000 to 1500 points per side I could see a lot of scenarios coming out of these engagements. Now chasing task forces around will generate those varied scenarios that could be resolved on the battle maps. Night turns would make a real difference for surface engagements and DDs would really shine under circumstances where they really came through.

Thanks for the great game. Keep up the good work.

[Uncle_Joe]

Any suggestions for a descent Axis-ASW fleet to test this with.?

With the rules as written, I've had some success with Yukikazes and Bettys in tandem (even vs Truculent). In fact, vs the Betty, that SA doesnt play a big role anyways since a 6 is required on 1 die, the only real change is that 5+ is needed instead of a 4+ on the other die...basically changing it from about and 8% chance to a 6%...in other words, its still blind luck anyways. :D

But the Harassment as written means that at best, the subs are only firing 2 torpedoes back and you can pin down multiple subs with 1 DD if they are close by which I think really helps the DDs (and is necessary for the Axis).

Note that at this point, I'm testing the game with the rules changes that Extended Range shots cant hit DDs and the Engaged Fighters rules as well. Taken together, DDs sometimes actually even live long enough to conduct ASW operations... ;) Without rules like that, just use Axis subs for your ASW and be done with it. They have FAR FAR better odds of survival against anything and they even have a better chance of a kill vs the subs (although they are simultaneous vulnerable to the return shot).

[moonglum01]

Game Designer Richard Baker’s collection of optional rules for A&A: War at Sea
Compiled from designers responses at avalonhill.com forum

1. Darkness
2. Engaged Fighters
3. Harassed Subs
4. Torpedo Evasion
5. Facing
6. Arcs of Fire




1. Darkness
Many surface engagements in all theaters took place at night. Fighting at night drastically changed the shape of naval warfare, presenting fleet commanders with a variety of difficult challenges. Airplanes remained grounded. Gunnery ranges dropped to a few thousand yards, and ships of all sides could fall prey to crucial misidentifications of their targets and mistakenly fire on friendly ships.

Fleet Construction
Decide whether you’re fighting in Darkness conditions before you construct your fleets. Airpower is absolutely useless, so we’ll assume that you keep your carriers well away from the threat of enemy contact and send in surface forces to seize the objective.

Air Mission Phase
All Aircraft cannot fly missions in Darkness conditions. They remain at their base.

Illumination Phase
Add this step immediately before the Surface Attack Phase. You decide whether your ships will turn on their searchlights to illuminate nearby targets. The First Player places all of his illumination markers first, and then the Second Player places all of his illumination markers.
Searchlights have a range of 2. All destroyers, cruisers, and battleships have searchlights (but carriers, auxiliaries, and torpedo boats don’t).
Each ship can illuminate one enemy ship. If you decide that your ship is illuminating a target, place an “Illuminated” marker on both the illuminating ship and the illuminated target.

Surface Attack Phase
Darkness affects Gunnery attacks as follows:
* Gunnery attacks of range 3 or greater are prohibited.
* Gunnery attacks against non-local targets take a –1 penalty per die (so 4 is a miss, 5 counts as one hit, and 6 counts as 2 hits).

Special Exceptions
Several conditions or special abilities counteract the normal Darkness penalties on Gunnery attacks:
Illuminated/Illuminating: Any ship firing against a ship that is either illuminated or illuminating suffers no attack penalty (but the range limitation still applies).
Damaged Ships: Any ship firing against a ship that was damaged in a previous turn suffers no attack penalty (but the range limitation still applies).
Night Fighter: Ships with the Night Fighter special ability ignore the attack penalty (but the range limitation still applies). This advantage replaces the effect of Night Fighter, so ignore the normal effect of the special ability.
Radar Fire Control: All US ships in 1943 or later scenarios ignore the range limitation (but the attack penalty still applies).

End of Turn
Remove all Illuminated markers.

----------------

2. Engaged Fighters
When your fighter attacks another airplane in the Air Defense phase, put a “Fighter Engaged” marker on your fighter. A fighter with a Fighter Engaged marker can’t attack in the Air Attack phase. Remove the marker in the Air Return phase.

This rule means that fighters no longer get to shoot at an enemy airplane in the Air Defense phase and then “strafe” an enemy Ship in the same sector in the Air Attack phase. This should slightly cut down the number of “free” attacks fighters get to make against enemy Ships.
This rule makes fighters just a little less valuable.

-----------

3. Harassed Subs
After your Aircraft or Ship makes an ASW attack against a submarine, place a “Harassed” marker next to the sub that was attacked.
You can place a bonus “Harassed” marker if:- a second unit makes an ASW attack against that same sub; or- another friendly Ship with an ASW value is in or adjacent to the harassed sub’s sector.

You can place a maximum of 2 Harassed markers on a sub.
In the Torpedo Attack phase, each Harassed marker reduces the harassed sub’s torpedo attack value by 1 die, to a minimum of 1 die. Apply this special modifier before applying any other bonuses or penalties (so wolfpacked U-boats get +1 die back, the Ambra gets +1 die against destroyers, and so on).
Remove Harassed markers from submarines at the end of the turn.

This rule substantially weakens subs, and increases the importance of including ASW vessels in your fleets. Your ASW vessels will be able to more effectively screen your big ships by getting into the same sector as a sub and harassing it, thereby reducing it to a 1- or 2-die torpedo attack under most circumstances. This rule also rewards using teamwork to suppress subs; a pair of ASW ships working together are likely to double-harass a sub.
Subs may be significantly overcosted in this variant, or destroyers may be undercosted--they will certainly suppress subs much better.

------------

4. Torpedo Evasion
When your Ship is targeted by a torpedo attack, you must immediately decide whether or not to evade. If you choose to evade, put an "Evading Torpedoes" marker on your ship, and resolve the attack normally. In your next Movement Phase, ships with Evading Torpedoes markers take a -1 penalty to speed. Remove the marker at the end of the Movement Phase.

If you choose not to evade, the attacking torpedoes hit on a roll of 5 or 6 instead of just 6.

This would be another "simulation value" rule designed to reflect a historical effect of torpedo attacks (real or imagined) -- ships often turned away from battles at crucial times and tried like heck to avoid torpedoes. The most famous example is the Yamato at the Battle off Samar, but there are plenty of others. This would be one small way to "make up" for the sub suppression rule, and it would still help out destroyers. On the other hand, I have no idea how much harder it would make seizing objectives if you had the ability to "slow" your enemy's ships by launching torpedo attacks. I suspect there is a tremendous amount of cheese potential in a rules variant like that. But it would make destroyer torpedo attacks against battleships more useful and effective, no doubt.

---------

5. Facing
When you finish moving a Ship or Submarine in the Movement Phase, you must choose a facing for it. Point the bow at one adjacent sector. (This simulates hexside facing.)
For large models, we recommend actually pushing the bow into the sector the ship’s facing. Many of the large models overlap the sectors a bit anyway. For small models, set the bow touching the sector border on the sector the ship’s facing toward.

Maneuvering
Ships and Submarines must observe the following rules when moving:

Auxiliaries, Battleships, Carriers, Cruisers
* You can change facing for free after you enter a new sector.
* Otherwise, you can change facing to any new heading for 1 MP.
* At the end of your movement, choose any new facing you like.

Destroyers, Torpedo Boats, Submarines
* You can change facing for free at any point in your movement.
* At the end of your movement, choose any new facing you like.

In other words, larger ships must begin their movement by moving into the sector their bow’s pointing at, or immediately pay 1 movement point to come to a new heading of their choice before moving. Smaller ships and submarines can simply spin in place and start moving on a new heading with no cost in movement points. However, they still must choose a facing at the end of their turn.

This rule makes it more difficult for large ships to deftly maneuver around objectives in constricted waters, and may result in a serious impingement in their ability to claim or deny objectives. We’re not sure how that will affect gameplay, but it seems likely that there will be occasions when a big ship can’t maneuver to an objective it could have claimed under the basic movement rules.

---------

6. Arcs of Fire
The only arcs of fire you care about are dead ahead and dead astern. Those are the “hexrows” or rows of sectors projected straight out from your bow and your stern. We assume that your captains can sail a little bit “off course” and unmask their batteries for just about everything else other than the hex rows directly in front and directly behind you.
Effects on Gunnery: Gunnery attacks against targets dead ahead or dead astern take a -1 penalty on each die (hit only on 5 or 6) to represent reduction in firepower as compared to your normal broadside.
Effects on Torpedo Attacks: None. We assume you unmask, fire, and resume your course.

This variant makes initiative much more important, since the Second Player can see where he needs to move his ships in order to “cross the T.” Taking a –1 penalty to gunnery is not really as stringent a penalty as it could be—it only reduces hits by 25%, and most ships firing dead ahead or dead astern were usually reduced in firepower by about 50%. But we don’t want to over-reward going second, which is good enough already.

Ships with Unorthodox Battery Arrangements
Several ships in the set have battery arrangements that deserve special abilities if you use the Arcs of Fire variant.

Richelieu: The Richelieu suffers no attack penalty to main battery attacks against targets dead ahead of her, or secondary battery attacks dead astern. She cannot make main battery attacks dead astern, or secondary battery attacks dead ahead.

HMS Rodney: The Rodney cannot make main battery attacks dead astern, or secondary battery attacks dead ahead.

St. Lo: The St. Lo cannot make main battery attacks dead ahead.

Akagi: The Akagi cannot make main battery attacks dead ahead or dead astern.

Tone: The Tone cannot make main battery attacks dead astern.

[Jayhurst]

Engaged Fighters
When your fighter attacks another airplane in the Air Defense phase, put a “Fighter Engaged” marker on your fighter. A fighter with a Fighter Engaged marker can’t attack in the Air Attack phase. Remove the marker in the Air Return phase.

How about adding this little tag into this rule: "...or when a fighter uses its escort ability"

Engaged Fighters
When your fighter attacks another airplane in the Air Defense phase, or when a fighter uses its escort ability, put a “Fighter Engaged” marker on your fighter. A fighter with a Fighter Engaged marker can’t attack in the Air Attack phase. Remove the marker in the Air Return phase

My reasoning is that if a fighter is busy defending the bombers from enemy fighters, he is too busy to be shooting at surface ships. It's a choice of one or the other: protect the bombers, or strafe ships, but not both at the same time.


The other thing I think is needed, which has already been mentioned by others, is to make Destroyers, PT boats, and Torpedo Boats immune to extended range attacks. Boats that small and fast shouldn't be such easy prey for those slow moving, monster guns at those kind of distances.


BTW- Thanks for listening to us, and also for participating on these forums.

[Bigblue2]

How about adding this little tag into this rule: "...or when a fighter uses its escort ability"

Engaged Fighters[/B]
When your fighter attacks another airplane in the Air Defense phase, or when a fighter uses its escort ability, put a “Fighter Engaged” marker on your fighter. A fighter with a Fighter Engaged marker can’t attack in the Air Attack phase. Remove the marker in the Air Return phase

My reasoning is that if a fighter is busy defending the bombers from enemy fighters, he is too busy to be shooting at surface ships. It's a choice of one or the other: protect the bombers, or strafe ships, but not both at the same time.


The other thing I think is needed, which has already been mentioned by others, is to make Destroyers, PT boats, and Torpedo Boats immune to extended range attacks. Boats that small and fast shouldn't be such easy prey for those slow moving, monster guns at those kind of distances.


BTW- Thanks for listening to us, and also for participating on these forums.

The fighter escort addition is dead-on. Way to go Jayhurst.

[Joisey]

Hey, we got our first stickied thread! Yay!@ :)

[tbopper1]

Anybody messed with a Missed Target rule for air? After everybody has placed thier air for the turn role for each squadron seperatly or the entire stkike in a hex as one, on a roll of 1 the squadron or strike aborts and rtb's at the end of the airphase. Planes assigned to hexes with friendly surface ships may do so without the making a roll. Also, if you want to complicate it more make land based air miss thier target on a roll of 1-2 and miss hexes with friendlies on a 1. LBA may be relocated to a carrier at the end of the airphase without making the roll. You could also make a carriers strike exempt from the roll if within 3 squares of the target. I'm not able to play around with it yet because both friends intrested in the game are deployed atm but I'm thinking it would make things a little fun.

[XAos]

Without rules like that, just use Axis subs for your ASW and be done with it.
While your correct that with the printed rules. The only axis ASW worth spit is other subs. That so grossly non-historic, that I consider it proof that the rules need amending. And if anything thats understating the problem. I doubt I can convince any of my local opponents to play this game until the Destroyer/Sub balence is more like WW-II and less present day submarie warfare.

[Barry Kendall]

Richard, thank you for the refinements you've offered and generally for your openness to input on the design. Many designers would feel threatened at the thought of the gaming public suggesting changes to their published work.

Great timing on the Night rules--I'm planning to play an Ironbottom Sound night action game tonight with an altered objective area (transport anchorage at the "south" end of the Sound).

The proposed optional rules all look good. The square-grid "hex geometry" board actually lends itself quite well to the facing/heading rules since miniatures can stay parallel to the square sides and still indicate facing toward either square to their front when moving "against the grain" of the grid.

I do believe there is one area that still needs to be addressed in a big way: torpedo salvo rounds. Since several of your optional rules introduce additional markers, it would not clutter the game unduly to introduce a limit on torpedo firing.

It appears from the ratings that ships generally are provided with one torpedo factor per mount of four or five tubes; the Japanese get a bonus die as well as extra range for the speed and accuracy of their torpedoes.

As I'm sure you know, with the exception of a few older battleships which may have retained their torpedo flats, the only ships with reloadable tubes were submarines and some classes of Japanese DDs and cruisers (including, in game terms, Yukikaze, Tone and Myoko, but, I believe, not Jintsu).

I propose this rule:

When a surface vessel makes a torpedo attack, that ship is given a marker signifying that its torpedoes have been expended. No further torpedo attacks may be made by that ship in the current scenario.

Exception: Yukikaze, Tone and Myoko are considered to have expended their torpedoes after making TWO, rather than one, torpedo attacks. Use a second marker to indicate that these ships have launched all their torpedoes.

My rationale: First, history--these reflect historical limits.

Second, although I admit a bias for history over a faster and more explosive (no pun intended) game, I believe this rule makes the game more interesting. It compels a player to think carefully about the best timing and circumstance for making a torpedo attack, adding another dimension to playing the game well.

Third, it enhances the justification for the relatively high points cost of the Japanese DD and CAs.

What do you folks think?

[Uncle_Joe]

The only axis ASW worth spit is other subs. That so grossly non-historic, that I consider it proof that the rules need amending. And if anything thats understating the problem. I doubt I can convince any of my local opponents to play this game until the Destroyer/Sub balence is more like WW-II and less present day submarie warfare.

Have you tried with the ASW Harassment rule? I think that really evens the playing field between DDs and Subs. The Barb can be dealt with quite easily with this rules although the Truculent can still be quite dangerous with the two dice.

[Uncle_Joe]

When a surface vessel makes a torpedo attack, that ship is given a marker signifying that its torpedoes have been expended. No further torpedo attacks may be made by that ship in the current scenario.

What do you folks think?

When playing with the 'stock' rules, I think I've only once seen a ship fire it's torpedoes. And it certainly never got a second shot.

Given how fragile Cruisers and Destroyers are in stock, a rule limiting their torpedoes seems completely unnecessary IMO. The deck is already stacked heavily against them so I dont see any need to make it worse.

If playing with variant rules like the simultaneous torpedo fire, then they can sometimes actually fire their torpedoes. I have only the see the Allies do it a few times though due to their shorter ranges and lack of hulls with decent torpedo ratings. Even the Japanese LL rarely fires them more than twice even with the House Rules.

So I guess, in the end, I just see it as more book-keeping that is so rarely going to have an effect that its probably not worth implementing. And if, for whatever reason, it DID come into play, then its restricting/limiting units that are already of marginal value anyways so again, I dont see that its worth implementing.

Obviously if you are playing Night Rules with Historical fleet compositions etc, then yeah it might make sense to track torpedoes but I think that is better handled as a scenario rule rather than a blanket rule for the 95%+ other battles where it likely wont ever come into play.

Just my $.02. ;)

[RichardBaker]

Happy to stop by and share some thoughts. I'm pleased that folks are enjoying the game!

You're absolutely right that the game is generous not to limit number of torpedo attacks a ship can make. Unfortunately, one of the things I'm struggling with at the moment is the fact that destroyers and cruisers (the torpedo-carrying surface ships) aren't holding up their weight in competitive play as well as I might like, so a rule that hurts them more than it does other ships is one that I wouldn't be likely to pursue.

Now, if you're more inclined to simulation value, then sure--go ahead. For my own part I figured that a torpedo attack was likely a "spread" of about 3-5 fish, or one mount's worth. Most ships that carried torpedoes carried 2 to 4 mounts. So, as I saw it, most ships probably had at least 2 torpedo salvoes on hand, and some might have even more. Plus, as you observed, some of the Japanese ships could even reload and shoot again. Given the fact that most ships probably had 2-3 torpedo salvoes, I just didn't see much value in tracking them. But it would be pretty easy to do so. As someone else in this thread observed, it could be an excellent scenario "special."



[[following quote snipped some]]

Richard, thank you for the refinements you've offered and generally for your openness to input on the design. Many designers would feel threatened at the thought of the gaming public suggesting changes to their published work.

I propose this rule:

When a surface vessel makes a torpedo attack, that ship is given a marker signifying that its torpedoes have been expended. No further torpedo attacks may be made by that ship in the current scenario.

Exception: Yukikaze, Tone and Myoko are considered to have expended their torpedoes after making TWO, rather than one, torpedo attacks. Use a second marker to indicate that these ships have launched all their torpedoes.

[MarcusAurelius]

Richard,

Thanks for sharing your ideas on rule variants for War at Sea. I've already enjoyed the game immensely as is. But it's good to have options that may add another element to gameplay. I expect several of these to find their way into future battles — in particular, harassed subs and night fighting.

[XAos]

Have you tried with the ASW Harassment rule? I think that really evens the playing field between DDs and Subs. The Barb can be dealt with quite easily with this rules although the Truculent can still be quite dangerous with the two dice.
Yes that rule helps a bit, but not enough. The destroyers still need to survive to reach the subs. Which is very difficult with the fighters as they are. Dive/Torpedo bombers arn't nearly as dangerous (to destroyers)
a) No one wastes bomber attacks on cheap ships like destroyers untill they are the last targets left.
b) Bombers cost more so your opponent doesn't have as many.
c) Bombers are easier to abort/kill than fighters.
d) Because fighters are the cheapest aircraft, they are used in larger numbers, just to get "initiative control" during the air placement phase.
The result is often a swarm of land-based fighters, which make the lighter surface ships (DD's, St.Lo, Shoho and the defense-3 cruisers virtually unplayable) 4xWildcats with a Catalina for "Shadowing" are a threat even to the defense-4 cruisers. And the only rule protecting the fleet carriers (e.g.Enterprise) from this type of attack is the CAP-SA which lets defending fighters move to abort the shadowing Catalina.

And the game really would be a lot more realistic if subs could not torpedo subs.

[jheitz4581]

4xWildcats with a Catalina for "Shadowing" are a threat even to the defense-4 cruisers. And the only rule protecting the fleet carriers (e.g.Enterprise) from this type of attack is the CAP-SA which lets defending fighters move to abort the shadowing Catalina.

This question came up last night. If a Catlina is shadowing (or a Kondor is pinpointing), do the aircraft (or subs) get the bonus die if the Catlina/Kondor is aborted, but not destroyed, in the anti-air phase? We had been playing that they do still get the bonus die, but are leaning against it now, especially with the ruling on Draw the CAP.

[Fellblade]

My impression is the Pinpoint/Shadow ability remains in play regardless of the status of the patrol bomber. After your aircraft has radioed the ships' positions to your fleet, the plane getting shot down doesn't undo the transmittion.

[jheitz4581]

That was our impression, too, Fellblade. But, then we noticed that the Shadowing/Pinpointer take place at the beginning of the air attack phase, by which time the Catalina/Kondor has been aborted. So then thought, how can they shadow/pinpoint of they have been chased away by fighters/AA?

The new clarification on Draw the CAP, while specific to Draw the CAP, seems to imply that your special abilities end when you are aborted, unless otherwise specified, i.e. Press the Attack.

[IXJac]

No, it's been made pretty clear that the moment an aircraft is Aborted its SA ceases to function.

[XAos]

This question came up last night. If a Catlina is shadowing (or a Kondor is pinpointing), do the aircraft (or subs) get the bonus die if the Catlina/Kondor is aborted, but not destroyed, in the anti-air phase? We had been playing that they do still get the bonus die, but are leaning against it now, especially with the ruling on Draw the CAP.
I asked that question on the Q&A forum; the official answer was no. (http://boards.avalonhill.com/showthread.php?t=19210)
I see the latest amendment to the main FAQ only indirectly mentions that situation. i.e. it says the aircraft continues to function for the remainder of the air defense phase. Since "Shadowing" only functions during the (later) Air attack phase. That implies that an aborted Catalina can't shadow.

[jheitz4581]

Thanks, XAos. Ok, so it seems then that the only SA that kicks in after a plane has been aborted is Press the Attack (if the roll is successful). Any others that I'm missing?

[Sillion]

I was thinking about this restriction when putting together your fleet:

You may only use a maximum of 50% of your points for any given unit type.

This would make it impossible to include any bigger BB than Vittorio Veneto in a 100 point fleet. I_ think this would bring some ballance to the game.

In a 200 point game a 70 point Yamato is all you could use or you could go for Scharnhorst (39) and Bismarck (53)combined.

What do you all think of this?

[DarthBoobies]

Thank you very much for these advanced rules. I especially like the 'Facing' rules because now I can Coss the 'T'. :D

[XAos]

Thanks, XAos. Ok, so it seems then that the only SA that kicks in after a plane has been aborted is Press the Attack (if the roll is successful). Any others that I'm missing?
"Defend the Flattop"
"Surprise" but only for the AA fire in air-defense phase.


What about the DDs and CAs?:confused:

DD's were supposedly designed to beat BB's but they don't. Except for some of the really poor BB's which have neither torpedo defense nor a tertiary gun battery. (e.g. HMS-Hood)
Instead DD's get beaten by virtually everything. Though subs need to be slightly carefull against Javalins (which are the best of the ASW units)

CA's were reputedly designed to kill DD's. But since DD's loose to equal costs of virtually anything. You don't need CA's.

[mikoyan]

Here's an idea for planes. I would say that one of the brokenness things about planes is the fact that they don't take any damage. Getting aborted has no effect on them other than they can't make an attack that round. So my proposal is something along these lines:
1st. Abort - Unit attacks at -1 (5's and 6's hit)
2nd Abort - Unit attacks at -2 (6's hit, but don't do double damage or something)
3rd Abort - Destroy

I was thinking this or reducing the amount of dice the unit throws. This would reflect the fact the abort represents a certain number of units either getting damaged or shot down. Given the time frame a game is supposed to represent, those planes wouldn't magically appear when the wing goes out again. So each time the wing goes out, it has less planes (if it was aborted).

[Jaels]

Played some games yesterday with the proposed Experimental Rules. Here are some comments:

Engaged Fighters

This made smaller ships able to survive a little more, until we decided to decline shooting at intercepting fighters (which wouldn't accomplish much anyway) to get to shoot at the destroyers. We then changed it by adding that fighters are also unable to make gunnery attacks if an unaborted enemy fighter was present in the same space in the Air Attack phase. This gave more credible results and worked really well. Now destroyers only were attacked by fighters if they were devoid of air cover. Bombers usually had bigger fishes to take care of.


Harassed Subs

This one made a good difference, as subs were now a minor annoyance as long as the ASW escorts were present. A problem remained, though: since destroyers have the same speed as the ships they escort, they are unable to provide a forward screen unless the battleship moves at less than full speed in the first two turns.
Still, this looks like a very good addition.

Facing
Maneuvering
Arcs of Fire
Ships with Unorthodox Battery Arrangements

We dropped those rules after the first two games, as while they added some realism and tactics to the game, they also added some extra length and complexity with didn't want to bother with in this beer and pretzel game. We might bring back Facing & Maneuvering (as it helps showing destroyers maneuverability without increasing their speed), but arcs of fire were definitely too much.

With those changes, destroyers become viable as anti-sub platforms and can avoid free air attacks to get to the action. They still die horribly to battleships (most of the time without being able to shoot a single torpedo), but this is definitely a step in the right direction.

JL

[Uncle_Joe]

With those changes, destroyers become viable as anti-sub platforms and can avoid free air attacks to get to the action. They still die horribly to battleships (most of the time without being able to shoot a single torpedo), but this is definitely a step in the right direction.

Try adding these two tweaks to the two you used above and see if it helps correct your problem. I've had pretty good results with them:

1) Extended Range: Destroyers and Torpedo Boats may not be targeted at Extended Range by ships with that ability. Cruisers are targeted at half dice (round down) at ranges over 3.

2) Surface Torpedo Fire: All torpedo fire from Ships is resolved during the Gunnery Phase. Submarines still resolve torpedo fire as normal in the Torpedo Phase.

[Jaels]

Try adding these two tweaks to the two you used above and see if it helps correct your problem. I've had pretty good results with them:

1) Extended Range: Destroyers and Torpedo Boats may not be targeted at Extended Range by ships with that ability. Cruisers are targeted at half dice (round down) at ranges over 3.

2) Surface Torpedo Fire: All torpedo fire from Ships is resolved during the Gunnery Phase. Submarines still resolve torpedo fire as normal in the Torpedo Phase.

This was indeed my next step, as I was aware of these propositions. But I wanted to test (and report on) the initial set of optional rules first.

JL

[Barry Kendall]

Since there is some concern that DDs are not able to hold their own against heavy ships to the degree originally anticipated, would there be any merit to considering target size and maneuverability in defining "Successes?"

Given that the physical "footprint" of a heavy cruiser hull is more than twice the area of a destroyer hull, it seems generous to allow the same die results whether a destroyer or a larger vessel is targeted.

Perhaps this would help:

When resolving gunfire attacks against Destroyers (option: and Destroyer Escorts), only "Fives" and "Sixes" are considered Successes. A "Six" still counts as two Successes; a Five is one; a Four, rolled against a Destroyer, is not counted as a Success.

I also believe that all Destroyers should receive the Smoke Screen and Salvo Chasing SAs. While this will slightly reduce the value of an individual ship here and there (those with such an SA), given the wide application of the SAs, there should be minimal distortion of the relative points values of the destroyer classes represented in the game.

On another subject, that of alternating Movement of ships (a la Aircraft), an idea occurred to me. Since ships often fought in Formations, perhaps all ships in the same Square can be moved together as one "Impulse" rather than alternating strictly One-Ship-At-A-Time.

This would speed up play a bit if the alternative movement system is used. Also, "slow" ships should probably be required to move before Speed-2 ships to reflect the versatility which higher speeds bestow.

What do you think?

[swarbs]

I kind of like the minus one thing on the dice but I think that giving all destroyers the same set of SA's, all with sub-hunter, all with smoke screen etc. Would be bad. It seems like by the time the next set comes out most of the major navies will have at least 2-4 destroyer choices. This would make a player make choices about which SA's he thinks he needs during construction, like "Do I pick sub-hunter because the other player will have subs, or do I take smoke screen?"

[XAos]

I kind of like the minus one thing on the dice but I think that giving all destroyers the same set of SA's, all with sub-hunter, all with smoke screen etc. Would be bad. It seems like by the time the next set comes out most of the major navies will have at least 2-4 destroyer choices. This would make a player make choices about which SA's he thinks he needs during construction, like "Do I pick sub-hunter because the other player will have subs, or do I take smoke screen?"
Your argument comes close to convincing me that all destroyers should have the same SA's.
Real navy admirals included destroyers because they could do all of those varied tasks as required.
Having specialised sub-types of escourt ships was a concept introduced post-war. Where the techical requirements for AA/ASW etc became so diverse that modern destroyer are not designed to be effective in all such tasks. ASW warfare requireing a large amount of the ships tonnage dedicated to carry helicopters. And AA requireing a similar specialisation in the quantity of SAM missiles & air search radars.

[XAos]

Should at least be worth testing...
That asymetrically penalises the BB's with torpedo defense. But the ones without are all overcosted anyway. e.g. 2xKongo (70 points) certainly are not the equal of Yamato (70pts) or even Iowa (68 pts).

Possibly it will turn out that the SA just needs to be downgraded. ?
e.g. when hit by torpedoes roll an extra dice on a [5, 6] that damage is reduced by 1.

[Uncle_Joe]

Making BBs even more vulnerable to subs probably isnt a good idea IMO unless major changes were also instituted there. Personally, I would like to avoid having to change almost every single unit at this point and adding/subtracting SA seems unlikely if looking for something semi-official.

Torpedoes already do strike the fear of god into BBs IF they can be fired. That is the reason they dont work very well at the moment...they rarely survive to be launched. The Simultaneous Torpedo Fire tweak fixes that. Even lousy American torpedo ships can stand up for cost against equal points of unescorted large ships on occasion if they can fire their torps simultaneously. Once the torpedoes are a threat, the mindset regarding the BBs tends to shift.

In 'stock', Iowa can easily dispatch Myoko and 4 Yukikazes, usually with minimal damage (and the Japanese actually cost a few points more). With the changes, the Japanese have a very good chance. That encourages the Allies to actually use their plentiful Cruisers and DDs as escorts and discourages simply picking the biggest BB all the time. And the real benefit of ships like Kongo starts to come through when the enemy starts fielding CAs/CLs to deal with the DDs. That gives the BC and the like their 'rightful prey' which are conspicuously absent in stock game.

A few subtle changes can really cascade into sizeable shift in the way the game is played. Slightly reducing CA/CL/DD vulnerability (ie, immunity to ER, and tighter Engaged Fighter rules) while simultaneously slightly increasing their capabilities (ASW Harassment and Simultaneous torps) results in a far different playing field than stock without having huge upheaval in SAs or unit costs or added saves and attendent added luck.

[Cruizin2000]

With all of your good ideas, you guys should write your own rules and get it published. I like what I've read so far.

C2000

[RichardBaker]

I kinda already did, but I missed a couple of things. Hence this discussion...


With all of your good ideas, you guys should write your own rules and get it published. I like what I've read so far.

C2000

[RichardBaker]

That's an interesting idea, Kaufschtick. I would actually be tempted to try something a little different: A variable Torpedo Defense rule (one of the other posters already came up with something similar).

Torpedo Defense 1
When struck by a torpedo, roll a die. On a 4, 5, or 6, you reduce the damage dealt by the torpedo by 1 hull point.


That would leave room for variations on Torpedo Defense for some units that might want it. For example, a "superior" torpedo defense that reduced damage on a 3+ (and maybe reduced by 2 on a roll of 6), or a "poor" one that only worked on a 5+ or 6. For example, apparently the Dunkerque class ships had a really exceptional torpedo protection system and might merit a better-than-average torpedo defense.

However, all that said -- I think Uncle Joe's analysis of the effects of your suggestion is right, and it might not be good to increase BB vulnerability to submarines at the same time we look for ways to make BBs worried about destroyers.



How about just scrapping the SA: Torpedo Defense, get rid of it altogether.

Then the BBs will have an achilles heel that the DDs can actually get at and put a little fear into the BBs.

That added to the "Harassed subs" and "Engaged fighters" ought to do the trick.

What say ye?

[Cruizin2000]

I kinda already did, but I missed a couple of things. Hence this discussion...

I haven't bought anything yet but am still willing to give you a chance. I'm going to wait for the newer updated rule book if and when that comes out. How's that?

C2000

[jeffgoboom]

How about just giving MTBs and DDs something like this, I know its simple but hey why not:

Hard to Port: If this unit is the subject of a Torpedo hit at range 1 or greater; roll a die. On a 4 or greater unit does not suffer any damage from the attack.

DDs would be much stronger against SSs but can still be killed by them. DDs would still need air cover and since some could dodge BB and SS fire CAs and CLs might be used more too.

I would also be in favor of engaged fighters in conjunction with this.

[Sillion]

Hard to Port: If this unit is the subject of a Torpedo hit at range 1 or greater; roll a die. On a 4 or greater unit does not suffer any damage from the attack.


Why not make even more simpler and say that SSs can only torpedo DDs at range 0. This will always give DD first fire against SSs. If the SS runs it can't take the DD out.

[jeffgoboom]

Why not make even more simpler and say that SSs can only torpedo DDs at range 0. This will always give DD first fire against SSs. If the SS runs it can't take the DD out.
Playing it out in my mind I didn't want to make DD impervious to Subs at longer ranges, I like it when no unit has carte blanche on another. Plus I think it captures the spirit of a daring destroyer run on an enemy unit to have the rolls. It keeps the game exciting and unpredictable while making it more balanced. But heck if this is play tested your suggestion might end up being better. All I'm saying is I did put some thought into this before throwing it out there.

[Uncle_Joe]

I'm personally not a fan of adding yet more 'all or nothing' luck rolls to the game. Its already a heavily luck-based game and I dont see a reason to want to add more unless absolutely necessary.

I also dont believe that any wholesale changes are really needed to tweak the game balance. Its not that far off as is so all its going to take is some nudges in the right direction IMO.

Obviously everyone is going to have their own opinions on what should be changed and how to go about affecting that change. But for purposes of this thread (ie, Officially Unofficial Experimental Optional Rules...), I would suspect that many options with semi-radical changes aren't likely to be on the table. I would also guess that adding or deleting SAs at this point is quite unlikely.

[XAos]

However, all that said -- I think Uncle Joe's analysis of the effects of your suggestion is right, and it might not be good to increase BB vulnerability to submarines at the same time we look for ways to make BBs worried about destroyers.

But we are also looking at ways to improve DD's against subs.
Mainly, the sub-harrasement rule.:)
which would net leave subs less effective against BB's. So a moderate improvement in subs V's BB's may effectivly compensate that part of the game balence. That would also need to be tested of course...


Torpedo Defense 1
When struck by a torpedo, roll a die. On a 4, 5, or 6, you reduce the damage dealt by the torpedo by 1 hull point.

If I remember correctly. When I tested 10 Fletchers V's Yamato. Yamato's tactics being to close & contest an objective. I got between 20-26 torpedo dice rolls on Yamato before all the DD's are sunk. Averagely thats 4 hits(ish).
Which would be 4 damage with torpedo defense as currently.
With a roll of [4,5,6] for the torpedo defense to work thats an average of 6 damage. Which would be perfect (i.e. mutal mutual annihilation with equal sized fleets.)
Probably needs additional play testing to see what happens when Yamato becomes crippled...

[Autarch]

I agree with Uncle Joe, I'm not a fan of MORE dice rolling. I like the simplest fixes the best:

Small ships (DD, DE, SC and PT boats) are only hit with 5's and 6's.

Small ships can't be targeted by extended range SA.

Small ships can only be attacked by sub torpedoes at range 0.

[Jaels]

But we are also looking at ways to improve DD's against subs.
Mainly, the sub-harrasement rule.:)
which would net leave subs less effective against BB's. So a moderate improvement in subs V's BB's may effectivly compensate that part of the game balence. That would also need to be tested of course...


If I remember correctly. When I tested 10 Fletchers V's Yamato. Yamato's tactics being to close & contest an objective. I got between 20-26 torpedo dice rolls on Yamato before all the DD's are sunk. Averagely thats 4 hits(ish).
Which would be 4 damage with torpedo defense as currently.
With a roll of [4,5,6] for the torpedo defense to work thats an average of 6 damage. Which would be perfect (i.e. mutal mutual annihilation with equal sized fleets.)
Probably needs additional play testing to see what happens when Yamato becomes crippled...


Don't forget that 10 Fletcher vs a Yamato is the best destroyer matchup you could get because of the "Chase the Salvoes" ability of the Fletcher that gives it a save roll against the Yamato main battery, therefore saving a Fletcher from destruction once every three shots on average. Any other destroyer would probably fare worse against the Yamato for this reason.

[Uncle_Joe]

My attempts at DDs vs equal cost of BBs usually failed miserably for the DD without the simultaneous torpedoes. This is especially true for ships like the Fletcher who have short ranged torps making it much harder to gang up in one turn.

With torpedo defense left as is but with simultaneous torps and immunity to the ER, the DDs tended to perform quite adequately against lone BBs (or BB/subs).

[jeffgoboom]

I still think the focus should be on DD being stronger against SS. Let the SS and other BB worry about the BB.

[XAos]

Uncle_Joe I'd guess your correct, that either method works.
(torpedo defense modification or the change to ER & torpedo firing)

But if "Sub-harrasment" is going to be used. (And I think thats an absolute must.) I prefer the more general modication to torpedoes. (a) One change is simpler than 2. And (b) I suspect that subs will actually need the improvement against BB's to compensate for what they loose against destroyers. The objective after all is to end up with DD's Subs & BB's all equally playable. Not with DD's becoming playable at the expense of making subs unplayable.

[Uncle_Joe]

Subs are still plenty playable even with the Harassment rules. Its not like DDs are still extremely survivable vs most other units. So, the subs might actually try avoiding the DDs but also what occurs is that people start to bring units to scrub the DDs as well.

At the moment (stock), not only are DDs too weak (vulnerable and lacking ASW options), Subs are too strong (they can kill almost any ship that doesnt have Torpedo Defense while being practically immune to most units). So, if DDs get the Harassment rule, that doenst make subs WEAK at all. Its starting to bring them closer to balanced IMO.

As I said above, the problem with more 'saving rolls' is that it adds simply MORE pure luck to the game. Sure, on average it will even out, but whether or not a BB makes its 'torpedo saves' is going to have a huge effect on a typical game.

Another effect of going with that route is that it still leaves DDs/Cruisers as useless UNLESS they are a complete mob (ie more than you can kill in the Gunnery Phase). Going with simultaneous torps allows smaller numbers of them to actually have an effect and cuts down on the desire to go all or nothing. For example, there is little point in bringing 1 or 2 DDs/CA to a battle if they will die during Gunnery and never fire the torps. Instead, bring 12 and guarantee that some survive. There is no middle ground if you want to be effective.

[Jayhurst]

Subs are still plenty playable even with the Harassment rules. Its not like DDs are still extremely survivable vs most other units. So, the subs might actually try avoiding the DDs but also what occurs is that people start to bring units to scrub the DDs as well.

At the moment (stock), not only are DDs too weak (vulnerable and lacking ASW options), Subs are too strong (they can kill almost any ship that doesnt have Torpedo Defense while being practically immune to most units). So, if DDs get the Harassment rule, that doenst make subs WEAK at all. Its starting to bring them closer to balanced IMO.

As I said above, the problem with more 'saving rolls' is that it adds simply MORE pure luck to the game. Sure, on average it will even out, but whether or not a BB makes its 'torpedo saves' is going to have a huge effect on a typical game.

Another effect of going with that route is that it still leaves DDs/Cruisers as useless UNLESS they are a complete mob (ie more than you can kill in the Gunnery Phase). Going with simultaneous torps allows smaller numbers of them to actually have an effect and cuts down on the desire to go all or nothing. For example, there is little point in bringing 1 or 2 DDs/CA to a battle if they will die during Gunnery and never fire the torps. Instead, bring 12 and guarantee that some survive. There is no middle ground if you want to be effective.

That echos my sentiments EXACTLY.

The only thing I would add is the engaged fighter rule is a also a MUST, and that the engaged fighter rule should include any fighter that either (1) attacks a plane, or (2) uses it's escort SA, or (3) is attacked by an enemy fighter, whether or not that attack caused an abort.


The rules my group are playing with are:

Engaged Fighters- But modified as above.

Extended Range- Destroyers (and PT boats) can't be hit using extended range from any gun.

Sub Harassment- Exactly as written by Richard.

Ship Torpedoes- Surface ships fire torpedoes during the surface attack phase, not the torpedo phase.


Those particular combination of rules seem to be doing the trick.

Destroyers have a bit more survivability (but are still easy pickings if the enemy concentrates on the destroyers, as it should be... But then of course the enemy is shooting at the destroyers instead of something else possibly more important, also as it should be...And having to make more tactical decisions like that make the game better.).

Destroyers (especially with some help from the air) annoy the hell out of the enemy's subs, but the subs don't seem to be neutered to badly. Subs still don't die any easier then they used to under the stock rules. They just shoot a lesser amount of torpedoes in the earlier rounds during a typical game. Once the opposing destroyer fleet gets chewed up a little bit, the subs are as good as they ever were. The only reason why it might seem to people that subs die faster under the above set of 4 rules is that with new sub harassment rules, it actually makes sense to field more ASW units then in the stock rules because, now, the ASW units can actually do something (sub harasment) even if they don't actually cause any damage to the subs. But since there are now more ASW units on the board, there are more opportunities for of one of those low-percentage-chance-to-hit ASW attacks to roll a hit on a sub.

Finally, with the surface torpedo rule, destroyers at the very least get a chance to launch some torpedoes against the enemy before being sunk. Under the stock rules, that almost never happened. (For those people who have a hard time accepting the fact that surface ships can now fire torpedoes in a phase other then the torpedo attack phase, let me point out to you that planes already are able to attack with torpedoes in a phase other then the torpedo attack phase. So, why wouldn't surface ships be able to use torpedoes in a phase other the torpedo attack phase, too? Of course, really, at this point, the torpedo attack phase could be probably relabeled as the "submarine attack phase", but that's ok. The game flows much more naturally and has better balance using the above 4 rules.)


One side benefit that is starting to occur with the 4 rules set is that now, we are starting to see some cruisers being used, with the cruisers being sent to deal with the enemy destroyers.

The real mark of success for our play group with this 4 rules set is that ships we never saw being played before are now starting to be used regularly, and all the units now seem to be acting a lot more like their historical counter parts. Destroyers act like sub chasers. Subs hate destroyers but love chasing the big ships. Cruisers now chase enemy destroyers, and when that job is complete, either seek out the enemy carriers or protect their own carriers. Carriers now have to be protected, a job that's falling more and more to cruisers (and I don't just mean the Atlanta, either.) Battleships reign as before, however, destroyers, while not really able to bring a battleship down (which wouldn't be historically accurate anyways), now at least give the battleship some worry about possible damage and loss of the battleship's effectiveness caused by destroyers (which IS historically accurate.)

In short, the 4 rules set as written above, played by my group, has really balanced out the game, and as an added bonus, made the game a lot more historically accurate.

[Jayhurst]

One question on the ships firing torpedos in the surface combat step, is the firing of torpedos in place of shooting gunnery factors or in addition to it?

Surface ships firing torpedos in the surface attack phase have no effect on whether a ship can perform any other attack types during that phase.

However, the rules as written in the rulebook concerning choosing either ASW or gunnery attacks during the surface attack phase DO apply. So a ship can attack using gunnery and torps, or attack using ASW and torps, but can't do ASW and gunnery attacks on the same surface attack phase.

[Uncle_Joe]

Under 'Extended Range', I've also added that shots vs Cruiser-type ships roll half dice rounded down.

This helps prevent cruisers from being 'one-shot'ed' at extreme range. They are still vulnerable to being hit and damaged, but they arent routinely blown out of the water at 20000 yards by the bigger BBs.

Adding that to the four listed above has rounded the fleet out quite nicely.

[Jayhurst]

Under 'Extended Range', I've also added that shots vs Cruiser-type ships roll half dice rounded down.

This helps prevent cruisers from being 'one-shot'ed' at extreme range. They are still vulnerable to being hit and damaged, but they arent routinely blown out of the water at 20000 yards by the bigger BBs.

Adding that to the four listed above has rounded the fleet out quite nicely.

I can see the logic in adding that to the extend range rule, too. Ok then. It's now getting to be a pretty tight rule set. And the best part is, this rule set isn't overly complicated, no stat cards need changed for any unit, and no recosting needs to take place.

Richard, what do you think so far?

[Uncle_Joe]

FWIW, my Engaged Fighters rule is also slightly different. For consistancy, here are the exact rules I've been using:

1) Engaged Fighters: If a Fighter attacks enemy aircraft or is attacked by enemy aircraft in the Air Defense Phase, it may not attack in the Air Attack Step. Fighters that are in the same sector as an unaborted enemy Fighter also may not attack in the Air Attack Step.

2) Extended Range: Destroyers and Torpedo Boats may not be targeted at Extended Range by ships with that ability. Cruisers are targeted at half dice (round down) at ranges over 3.

3) Surface Torpedo Fire: All torpedo fire from Ships is resolved during the Gunnery Phase. Submarines still resolve torpedo fire as normal in the Torpedo Phase.

4) Harassed Subs: After your Aircraft or Ship makes an ASW attack against a submarine, place a “Harassed” marker next to the sub that was attacked. You can place a bonus “Harassed” marker if:- a second unit makes an ASW attack against that same sub; or- another friendly Ship with an ASW value is in or adjacent to the harassed sub’s sector.

You can place a maximum of 2 Harassed markers on a sub.
In the Torpedo Attack phase, each Harassed marker reduces the harassed sub’s torpedo attack value by 1 die, to a minimum of 1 die. Apply this special modifier before applying any other bonuses or penalties (so wolfpacked U-boats get +1 die back, the Ambra gets +1 die against destroyers, and so on).
Remove Harassed markers from submarines at the end of the turn.

[XAos]

Yukikaze would require a completly seperate playtest. Sure long lance is more effective. But having only 6xDD's for 72 points makes each hit from the BB's guns a lot more effective in terms of the percentage of torpedos lost.
So I did some tests with 6xYukikaze V's Yamato.
Using the modified Torpedo defense Rule. The Yukikaze were all destroyed having fired only 4 torpedos at Yamato (2 damage). Basically their low numeric advantage (only 6 to 1) resulted in most of them being destroyed in the gunnary phase before they could fire in the torpedo phase. The inbalence was so great I saw no point in multiple tests.
The same matchup using uncle_joe's rule suggestions. The Yukikaze managed to fire 18 - 21 torpedos during the games. Results varied from a win by Yamato to mutual Annihilation & a win with 1 surviving Yukikaze.
IMO while the two options are about the same end balence for a Fletcher swarm. Uncle Joe's suggested amendments are much better balenced than my suggestion for a Yukikaze swarm. :)


The only thing I would add is the engaged fighter rule is a also a MUST, and that the engaged fighter rule should include any fighter that either (1) attacks a plane, or (2) uses it's escort SA, or (3) is attacked by an enemy fighter, whether or not that attack caused an abort.

I don't think that definition of "engaged" goes far enough. I'd much prefer "can not attack ships if an unaborted enemy fighter is in the sector".
The tactic I see with fighters is groups of up to 4 fighters attacking a pair of DD's.
Obviously the attacking fighters don't use AA againt any defending fighters. They want a 30% hit on the destroyers not a 3% hit on a fighter.
And with no bombers in that sector, the fighters can't be using Escourt.
So the first two clauses in that definition have no effect.
The 3rd helps a bit. But would require one defending fighter for each attacker.

[Sillion]

3) Surface Torpedo Fire: All torpedo fire from Ships is resolved during the Gunnery Phase. Submarines still resolve torpedo fire as normal in the Torpedo Phase.


Won't this make Destroyers better at attacking Cruisers too (and other destroyers)?

And will this make the Japanese Cruisers worth their cost?

Will Cruisers with torpedos make even faster work of other DD and CA/CL?

Or will this improvement even out between DD and CA/CL?

I haven't had the the opportunity to test these rule yet, since all my opponents live in other towns.

[XAos]

The Surface torpedo fire rule is a distinct improvement in the game balence for Destroyers V's BB's. And helps a lot in making the Yukikaze playable.

I havn't tested them for Cruisers V's DDs yet.

Cruisers will presumably kill each other in fewer game turns. But should remain mostly in balence;
The long lance cruisers will clearly gain most
and the cruisers with no torpedoes will gain nothing.
Atlanta & Baltimore are currently the most cost-effective cruisers. While Jintsu & Myoko are nearly the worst. So the net result is probably an improvement.

[Thunderjp]

This helps prevent cruisers from being 'one-shot'ed' at extreme range. They are still vulnerable to being hit and damaged, but they arent routinely blown out of the water at 20000 yards by the bigger BBs.



Yep, it was frustratingly predictable when my Tone got 1shoted by the Iowa at range 5 yesterday.

[Uncle_Joe]

Won't this make Destroyers better at attacking Cruisers too (and other destroyers)?

Yes, it makes them better across the board. But Cruisers still seem to do fine vs DDs for cost because gunnery is a FAR more reliable way to kill low defense ships. Also, Cruiser gunnery outranges all torpedoes but the LL, but the Japanese DDs cost as much as Cruisers so that evens out IMO.

And will this make the Japanese Cruisers worth their cost?

IMO, yes it does. They still die to aircraft and they are still dead meat vs subs. But vs a surface fleet, they are quite dangerous. If you use all of the rules I listed you'll likely start to see more cruiser battles and DD screens etc before long. Ships like the Iowa start to feel quite lonely in small point games if there are number of LL Cruisers/DDs out there....

Will Cruisers with torpedos make even faster work of other DD and CA/CL?

Or will this improvement even out between DD and CA/CL?

The battles between opposing CAs/CLs/DDs can be quite bloody, but really with the exception of the (otherwise overpriced) Japanese, the torpedo difference is slight. I think CLs make a good foil to DDs with these rules. Sure, the CL can be killed on a lucky torpedo hit, but CLs gunnery is lethal to DDs as well.

I haven't had the the opportunity to test these rule yet, since all my opponents live in other towns.

I have playtested them quite a bit in both singleplayer matchups and plenty of multiplayer games as well. I think it restores the balance in the game quite well with very minimal hassle.

[MidnMike]

The Surface torpedo fire rule is a distinct improvement in the game balence for Destroyers V's BB's. And helps a lot in making the Yukikaze playable.

I havn't tested them for Cruisers V's DDs yet.

Cruisers will presumably kill each other in fewer game turns. But should remain mostly in balence;
The long lance cruisers will clearly gain most
and the cruisers with no torpedoes will gain nothing.
Atlanta & Baltimore are currently the most cost-effective cruisers. While Jintsu & Myoko are nearly the worst. So the net result is probably an improvement.

A group of Yukikazes using this rule absolutely murdered my Richelieu... Long lances are deadly when they can be used!

[Khayman7]

I unfortunately am not going to have much time to playtest anymore, but if I get a chance to this weekend, then I will post the results, and maybe even pics if I remember my camera (or learn how to get the pics off my phone).

[Bigblue2]

FWIW, my Engaged Fighters rule is also slightly different. For consistancy, here are the exact rules I've been using:

1) Engaged Fighters: If a Fighter attacks enemy aircraft or is attacked by enemy aircraft in the Air Defense Phase, it may not attack in the Air Attack Step. Fighters that are in the same sector as an unaborted enemy Fighter also may not attack in the Air Attack Step.

I think that your rule additions are sound except for the highlighted portion. This does not appear to make sense to me. Could you please explain your reasoning.

As I see it, if opponent A places two attack aircraft and a fighter in a sector with an opponent B ship and then opponent B places a fighter in the same sector then the following options should apply.

Opponent A: The fighter can escort the attack aircraft, attack opponent B's fighter aircraft, or attack opponent B's ship. If opponent A does either of the first two options then he forfeits the attack on opponent B's ship. If he decides to attack the ship, then he must have outfitted his fighter aircraft with bombs and is justified in his attack on opponent B's ship.

Opponent B: Can try to prevent the attack of the fighter by attacking it, trying to abort it, or go for one of the attack aircraft. Either way, if opponent A wants to attack the ship he may, but can not escort or attack opponent B's fighter aircraft. The mere presence of an enemy fighter should not deter an attack on a ship. It doesn't work that way against an attack aircraft.

[Uncle_Joe]

Well, part of it is just for simplicity. Its easy to look in the air attack step and see opposing Fighters and determine that no attacks will take place rather than trying to remember who used Escort or who was attacked etc. Yes, that situation does still occur, but its far less common with the blanket rule.

Also, IMO the higher Armor/Vital armor numbers on the Fighters represents their role as Fighters, not when they are carrying added bombs or whatnot for surface strike. But since that number stays the same regardless of the mission the aircraft is performing, it seems a little bit too much to be rewarding them with 'fighter defense' whilst on bombing runs. They are very hard to abort in the game, but getting them to drop external ordnance should be far easier IMO.

I also simply dont like the fact that without this rule, its often easier to use fighters as anti-DD aircraft than to actually buy bombers or especially torpedo planes. For example, for the price of 1 SBD, I can get 2 Wildcats. If the enemy has a Zeke, I likely wont get to kill many DDs with my SBD. But with the Wildcats I can just drop both on a DD and let the Zekes take their potshots. Chances are they will miss and I'll hit and kill the DD in one round (or at the very least cripple it). So, the Wildcats are actually BETTER at the anti-shipping role since they are harder to hit. But in actuality, I seriously doubt that those Wildcat pilots would calmly ignore the Zekes and continue with their runs like that... ;)

The final part of it is simply for added reduction of the power of Fighters vs surface ships. A current (too?) good strategy is to buy a lot of Fighter and subs. The Fighters can kill off almost anything that can hurt the subs be it ASW aircraft or DDs. Even if the DD has aircover, commiting a few Wildcats etc will still result in dead DDs in short order. So, I prefer if the Fighters have to attack and abort the defending aircraft to allow the others to attack. This slows down the rate of destruction of DDs to non-attack aircraft and allows them the potential to accomplish some ASW missions without being crippled/sunk from the get-go.

Regardless, I dont think its a huge deal either way. Personally, I just prefer making it a little easier on the DDs...they already have enough to worry about and I like the idea of Fighter cover actually being an effective way to protect them.

[RichardBaker]

I think it's a good, tight set of rules modifications that we could package together pretty easily. I hope to do some playtesting of the "whole package" together and see how it works for myself. I'm not sure I go along with the Extended Range bits... but you guys are swearing by them, so I intend to at least give them a try.

(As an alternative, I might be tempted to skip the Extended Range change, but instead introduce good Darkness rules, and a scenario "toggle" that makes a night battle equally as likely as a day battle. Darkness rules will negate Extended Range, so destroyers and cruisers would flourish in scenarios where planes don't fly and nobody shoots more than 2 spaces anyway. We're talking about maybe instituting a tournament format where you play a Day round, a Night round, then a Day round, and allowing heavy sideboarding between rounds. But we'll see, it's still early yet.)

Ideally, any official rules updates/improvements we post will be relatively clean and easily applied changes to the game, and won't involve trying to change values or special abiltiies on specific cards.




I can see the logic in adding that to the extend range rule, too. Ok then. It's now getting to be a pretty tight rule set. And the best part is, this rule set isn't overly complicated, no stat cards need changed for any unit, and no recosting needs to take place.

Richard, what do you think so far?

[Uncle_Joe]

Hi Richard,

Thanks for the input. I like the Night Rules as an option to play, but wouldnt want to see them as the answer to standard balance. That is getting too fiddly IMO and its the type of complication I'd prefer not to see necessary to actually play with Cruisers and Destroyers.

Another consideration is that at 100 points (ie standard game), many matchups are 'hit or miss'. There are many potential mismatch fleets where the only meaningful interactions are AA or ASW/Torpedo rolls. Thats fine every now and then but adding a chance for night (or even alternating it) means just more chance of a mismatch (oops, I have a carrier and its night...I lose). And if you know ahead of time, then that takes some of the flavor out of force building (ie, in daytime take 'x' or 'y' and in night time load up on 'z' instead). Finally, if its randomized or alternating, it will encourage people to pick units that function equally well in both arenas...ie Subs and BBs. Sure BBs might be bit more vulnerable at 'night', but they are still a safer bet vs most opposition.

I'm not sure I go along with the Extended Range bits... but you guys are swearing by them, so I intend to at least give them a try

Yep, please do. It gives smaller ships a larger operating area. And it makes more sense from a realism PoV...potting fast moving ships just DIDNT happen at extreme ranges. The game mechanics make it far too easy so it becomes the norm and that is bad IMO...things that didnt (and actually almost couldnt) happen should not be SOP in the game IMO. In game terms, the maps are quite small. With ER 5 (and even 4), CAs/DDs are in great danger from almost the second turn! So their role for ASW is cut down (use subs instead that cant be killed from range) and their threat is greatly reduced (since they have to survive almost a minimum of two turns of incredible fire in order to have a chance to launch a meaningful attack). Sure its possible to happen, but why take the chance? Just buy subs instead and your odds of survival and success go up dramatically.

So, FWIW, IMO the changes to Extended Range are both more realistic AND better for gameplay since it makes BBs not quite so all-powerful vs every other surface ship. The Extended Range ability is still VERY key when dealing with opposing BBs or when trying to corner CVs etc, but the smaller ships have a chance to function before being killed out of hand. The half dice vs Cruisers makes them much more appealing as well. They still die vs battleships if they are not careful, but they are far less vulnerable to the 'one shot-one kill' at 20000+ yards (again, where BBs might even have trouble SPOTTING some of the cruisers let alone laying accurate salvos on it).

Thanks again!

[Jaels]

I think it's a good, tight set of rules modifications that we could package together pretty easily. I hope to do some playtesting of the "whole package" together and see how it works for myself. I'm not sure I go along with the Extended Range bits... but you guys are swearing by them, so I intend to at least give them a try.

(As an alternative, I might be tempted to skip the Extended Range change, but instead introduce good Darkness rules, and a scenario "toggle" that makes a night battle equally as likely as a day battle. Darkness rules will negate Extended Range, so destroyers and cruisers would flourish in scenarios where planes don't fly and nobody shoots more than 2 spaces anyway. We're talking about maybe instituting a tournament format where you play a Day round, a Night round, then a Day round, and allowing heavy sideboarding between rounds. But we'll see, it's still early yet.)

Ideally, any official rules updates/improvements we post will be relatively clean and easily applied changes to the game, and won't involve trying to change values or special abiltiies on specific cards.

This is very good news indeed. With further testing at home, I am now firmly in the "Harassed Subs/Engaged Fighters/Surface Torpedoes/Extended Range" camp as the best solution to bring the destroyers and cruisers back in the game.

In fact, this is now the basic ruleset I use outside of tournaments, and it allowed most ships to be able to see play and be at least somehow effective (I say most, as I still can't see any use for the Japanese Subchaser...).

One thing you should keep in mind when testing the changes, though: make sure to test extreme builds too, as these are the one that will stress the system and be played by whoever is looking for an edge (for example, in the current situation, since BB/Subs/Planes are better than CL/DD, the extreme build is to play only with BB/Subs/Planes even if no historically minded commander would ever do it).

JL

P.S.: If you want some computer simulations of battles to be run to test the new rules, contact me.

[Jayhurst]

Hi Richard,

Thanks for the input. I like the Night Rules as an option to play, but wouldnt want to see them as the answer to standard balance. That is getting too fiddly IMO and its the type of complication I'd prefer not to see necessary to actually play with Cruisers and Destroyers.

Another consideration is that at 100 points (ie standard game), many matchups are 'hit or miss'. There are many potential mismatch fleets where the only meaningful interactions are AA or ASW/Torpedo rolls. Thats fine every now and then but adding a chance for night (or even alternating it) means just more chance of a mismatch (oops, I have a carrier and its night...I lose). And if you know ahead of time, then that takes some of the flavor out of force building (ie, in daytime take 'x' or 'y' and in night time load up on 'z' instead). Finally, if its randomized or alternating, it will encourage people to pick units that function equally well in both arenas...ie Subs and BBs. Sure BBs might be bit more vulnerable at 'night', but they are still a safer bet vs most opposition.



Yep, please do. It gives smaller ships a larger operating area. And it makes more sense from a realism PoV...potting fast moving ships just DIDNT happen at extreme ranges. The game mechanics make it far too easy so it becomes the norm and that is bad IMO...things that didnt (and actually almost couldnt) happen should not be SOP in the game IMO. In game terms, the maps are quite small. With ER 5 (and even 4), CAs/DDs are in great danger from almost the second turn! So their role for ASW is cut down (use subs instead that cant be killed from range) and their threat is greatly reduced (since they have to survive almost a minimum of two turns of incredible fire in order to have a chance to launch a meaningful attack). Sure its possible to happen, but why take the chance? Just buy subs instead and your odds of survival and success go up dramatically.

So, FWIW, IMO the changes to Extended Range are both more realistic AND better for gameplay since it makes BBs not quite so all-powerful vs every other surface ship. The Extended Range ability is still VERY key when dealing with opposing BBs or when trying to corner CVs etc, but the smaller ships have a chance to function before being killed out of hand. The half dice vs Cruisers makes them much more appealing as well. They still die vs battleships if they are not careful, but they are far less vulnerable to the 'one shot-one kill' at 20000+ yards (again, where BBs might even have trouble SPOTTING some of the cruisers let alone laying accurate salvos on it).

Thanks again!

Yes. Exactly what Joe said.

Richard, PLEASE PLEASE keep the darkness rules only as a pre-game player-known option for scenario play. Don't be tempted to use the darkness rules as 'unit balancing toggle switch'. If you do decide that there needs to be an slight balance adjustment to the game because the BB big guns take out the smaller ships too easily, and that fact is contributing to making the small boats unplayable, then please make the rules adjustment directly to the problem area (BB guns have devastating, over-accurate range against small ships), and not use a sweeping type rules fix that effects every single unit in the game.

Don't get me wrong, I LIKE the darkness rules, but only if they are used as a pre-known scenario condition in the same way you would use, for example, fog.

If you did use the night rules as a toggle switch, everyone would be forced to use the only 'safe' options that are as equally good at daytime and nighttime fighting: Subs, and Battleships...Which is exactly the problem everyone is trying to solve at the moment;


With the least amount of rules changes/adjustments as possible, how can we get other units on the board that aren't just battleships, subs, or planes, and make them at least PLAYABLE, if not balanced?



Richard, I really do appreciate you going above and beyond to make the game the best it can be, but a darkness toggle switch will just make the waters muddier, not clear them up. At best, a darkness toggle switch is a temporary, conditional, game balancer, that when turned off (daytime), returns things to exactly as they ever were: Subs and battleships ships rule, and no destroyers, cruisers, or PT boats ever get played.

As always, thanks for listening!

[RichardBaker]

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. If we went with a "some games are Darkness-condition games" approach, my basic assumption is that you'd know ahead of time and have the opportunity to build for it. In practice, I think that would amount to bringing two fleets to a game and being ready to play either one, but that seems fine to me.

No one wants to see a random roll say "Your Enterprise and 3 Dauntless squadrons are now wasted points," so don't worry about that. But I do think it could be interesting if a roll said "Hey, it's going to be dark, build/sideboard your fleet accordingly."

In any event, some of the "Basic Suite" changes we're talking about here seem like fine ideas regardless of whether we add a Darkness "toggle."


(quote snipped)

Yes. Exactly what Joe said.

Richard, PLEASE PLEASE keep the darkness rules only as a pre-game player-known option for scenario play. Don't be tempted to use the darkness rules as 'unit balancing toggle switch'. If you do decide that there needs to be an slight balance adjustment to the game because the BB big guns take out the smaller ships too easily, and that fact is contributing to making the small boats unplayable, then please make the rules adjustment directly to the problem area (BB guns have devastating, over-accurate range against small ships), and not use a sweeping type rules fix that effects every single unit in the game.

[XAos]

A group of Yukikazes using this rule absolutely murdered my Richelieu... Long lances are deadly when they can be used!
How big a group ?
What exactly were both forces in the test ?

Well, part of it is just for simplicity. Its easy to look in the air attack step and see opposing Fighters and determine that no attacks will take place rather than trying to remember who used Escort or who was attacked etc.
....
I just prefer making it a little easier on the DDs...they already have enough to worry about and I like the idea of Fighter cover actually being an effective way to protect them.
I'm with uncle_Joe's logic on this point 100% (not just the sentences I copied)
Typically I see forces using the maximum land based air with additional aircraft for carriers. So the average airforce in a 200pt fleet is 10 planes. And the majority of those are fighters, because they are the cheapest planes, and as the air rules stand, the most generally usefull. The net result is any DD, no matter how well escourted gets crippled or sunk by a swarm of fighters. And my local player group has given up playing St-Lo & Shoho. Even with Atlanata & 4-Wildcats, St-Lo cannot be protected from Zekes. Uncle_Joe's version of the engaged fighter rule is the minimum rule that actually allows those ships a defense against enemy fighters.
I'd guess that a later expansion might include one of the genuine fighter-bombers (P-38, Mosquito) But they could have an SA allowing them to bomb a ship that has fighter cover & would be points costed correctly for that.

[zaarin7]

And hopefully the Beaufighter as well.

[XAos]

A group of Yukikazes using this rule absolutely murdered my Richelieu... Long lances are deadly when they can be used!
How big a group ?
What exactly were both forces in the test ?
....
Ok, so I did a test with Richilieu.
This is not an ideal ship (by which I mean the worst I can imagine) to test anything with.
The Extended range-5 only works if you win initiative & it has flag-0. So it's very erratic.
It's other SA is ussless unless you have another ship (possibly several other ships) Which "mudies the waters" on any concludsions that might be drawn from paytesting it.
And V's Yukikaze it's 54 points equals 4.5 Yukikaze. It's more than a bit difficult to playtest half a destroyer.
So instead I tested 2xRichilieu V's 9xYukikaze. That exactly equal (108 points).
The Yukikaze took only one objective & were annhilted for only 17 torpedoes fired (One Richilieu killed) Without knowing exactly what you tested & how many torpedos your Yukikaze managed to fire I'm not sure what happened on your test. Possibly it's that long lances arn't "deadly when they can be used". But just "very random".
They are of course worthless when they can't be used.

[Uncle_Joe]

How big a group ?
What exactly were both forces in the test ?

We were playing with the 4 House Rules that I have posted.

Forces involved were:

Japan:

1x Myoko
1x Tone
4x Yukikaze
1x Orca

France:

1x Richilieu
2x Gloire
2x Terrible

It was a very short game. France divided and went after the objectives. 1 DD and 1 CA to each side and the BB to the center. On turn 2, Japan won init and the French advanced on all 3 flanks. Japanese forces all pounced on Richilieu at a range of 2 for the CAs and a pair of DDs while the other pair of DDs was at range 3. Nine LL Torpedoes were fired for 3 hits...no more Richilieu. The Tone's spotting on the closest Gloire allowed the two cruisers and the closer DDs to also sink that French cruiser as well. In return, Richilieu crippled Myoko and a Gloire crippled one of the Yukikaze class.

To be fair, I knew ahead of time what Mike's French fleet consisted of. He had used it previously vs another player's carrier fleet to good effect. But we wanted to test it against an opposing surface squadron. I was also looking for more 'proof of concept' for the House Rules so I took a squadron that had torpedoes to use.

The combination of being safer at Extended Range and Simultaneous Torpedoes really helps make the cruisers and DDs worth their cost (Japanese in particular). The fact that in that matchup the Japanese had a Flag while the French did not also really helped the Japanese. But the critical error for the French was dividing their force, which allowed the Japanese to mass everything onto Richilieu in one turn. That was Mike's first real experience with the LL and I'm sure that were we to play that matchup again, it might go a bit differently... :)

With the stock rules, I never would have bothered to play that Japanese squadron...much better to just bring the Yamato instead. ;)

[MidnMike]

We were playing with the 4 House Rules that I have posted.

Forces involved were:

Japan:

1x Myoko
1x Tone
4x Yukikaze
1x Orca

France:

1x Richilieu
2x Gloire
2x Terrible

It was a very short game. France divided and went after the objectives. 1 DD and 1 CA to each side and the BB to the center. On turn 2, Japan won init and the French advanced on all 3 flanks. Japanese forces all pounced on Richilieu at a range of 2 for the CAs and a pair of DDs while the other pair of DDs was at range 3. Nine LL Torpedoes were fired for 3 hits...no more Richilieu. The Tone's spotting on the closest Gloire allowed the two cruisers and the closer DDs to also sink that French cruiser as well. In return, Richilieu crippled Myoko and a Gloire crippled one of the Yukikaze class.

To be fair, I knew ahead of time what Mike's French fleet consisted of. He had used it previously vs another player's carrier fleet to good effect. But we wanted to test it against an opposing surface squadron. I was also looking for more 'proof of concept' for the House Rules so I took a squadron that had torpedoes to use.

The combination of being safer at Extended Range and Simultaneous Torpedoes really helps make the cruisers and DDs worth their cost (Japanese in particular). The fact that in that matchup the Japanese had a Flag while the French did not also really helped the Japanese. But the critical error for the French was dividing their force, which allowed the Japanese to mass everything onto Richilieu in one turn. That was Mike's first real experience with the LL and I'm sure that were we to play that matchup again, it might go a bit differently... :)

With the stock rules, I never would have bothered to play that Japanese squadron...much better to just bring the Yamato instead. ;)

Yeah, if we played that setup again, I would hold the Richelieu back, and send all the CAs and DDs together to engage the Yukikazes, with some support from Richelieu's extended range (though we were also playing DDs cant be hit from extended range and CAs are attacked with half dice from extended range)... which is exactly the type of battle these rules were intended to encourage

[MidnMike]

The one qualm I have about the surface torpedo fire rule, however, is that it severely reduces the value of a BBs secondary and tertiary batteries... These are the anti-DD-and-PT-swarm weapons, but they don't matter if the swarm gets their torpedoes off regardless...

[XAos]

Uncle_Joe I have a question on your Surface Torpedo fire rule.
How does it interact with the "Lay Smokescreen" SA. i.e If I have a flotilla of Javalins can they fire torpedoes & then lay smoke in a surface combat phase. Or is there still effectivly a sub-phase for firing torpedoes. So that all the Javalins would have to lay smoke before any could fire torpedos.?

DD and 1 CA to each side and the BB to the center. On turn 2, Japan won init and the French advanced on all 3 flanks. Japanese forces all pounced on Richilieu at a range of 2 for the CAs and a pair of DDs while the other pair of DDs was at range 3. Nine LL Torpedoes were fired for 3 hits...no more Richilieu.
Thanks for the details. So is was partially good luck (3 hits from 9 torpedos)
Thats a quirk of Torpedoes (particularly LL-torps) a couple of lucky 6's and the game balance changes massivly. Of course you can just as easily get unlucky with LL.
And partially that it was a pure-french fleet. Richilieu had nothing to lay-smoke for it. Not sure what your local metagame is like. but in mine, Richilieu is usually played with multiple Javalins or Luca Terigo.
In the position you had I'd expect Richilieu to loose, though with more average torpedo dice it would not have sunk till next turn. But it was on the wrong end of the entire firepower of 95pts of Japanese ships. Not just the 4xYukikaze.
Yeah, if we played that setup again, I would hold the Richelieu back, and send all the CAs and DDs together to engage the Yukikazes,
That sounds a lot better tactics. Do you play that all DD's have "Lay Smoke" ?

The one qualm I have about the surface torpedo fire rule, however, is that it severely reduces the value of a BBs secondary and tertiary batteries... These are the anti-DD-and-PT-swarm weapons, but they don't matter if the swarm gets their torpedoes off regardless...
A DD sunk by a battleships 2ndry & 3rtry guns may get to shoot this turn but it's still sunk, you get the victory points & it won't get another shot next turn. And reducing the current overwhelming effect of the BB's gunnary advantage is the whole point, we want to stop BB's being dominant over DD's. If we suggested reversing the sequnce so that ships sunk by torpedoes were removed before they could fire guns. Then the BB's 2ndry armament would be useless. Just as Torpedoes are useless at present.

[zaarin7]

To reflect secondary and tertiary gunnery on the torpedo firing platforms how about a -1 to the dice. This would need a marker like a coin or an upside down counter. Then the sequence would be like this:

Surface attack step;

All units make gunnery attacks with in range weapons using the various rules already being discussed for DD's, cruizers at long range etc.

All units with torpedoes that are in range make attacks. Any torpedoe firing ship or PT boat shot at with sec & ter guns are firing at -1 to each die.

Apply all damage from gunnery and torpedoes to the targets of the attacks above etc.

[Autarch]

The one qualm I have about the surface torpedo fire rule, however, is that it severely reduces the value of a BBs secondary and tertiary batteries... These are the anti-DD-and-PT-swarm weapons, but they don't matter if the swarm gets their torpedoes off regardless...

I agree with this. I think only the winner of initiative should be able to fire torpedoes during the surface attack phase. This would better simulate events where torpedo salvos were fired before or with gunnery attacks. That might be too much of an advantage to the initiative winner, so to balance it out, all torpedo attacks within the same hex are conducted during the surface attack phase.

[Uncle_Joe]

Initiative rolls CERTAINLY dont need to be any more important IMO. They already have far too much influence on the battle as it is.

As far as the simultaneous torpedoes making secondary/tertiary guns less powerful? Well, I dont see it as a 'problem' at all. Those guns are still there to kill the DDs. Sure, they cant prevent the torpedo attack THIS turn, but they are still preventing a further attack in the future. The current 'stock' rules make the smaller craft useless precisely BECAUSE the million shots that BBs and whatnot get kill/cripple the DDs before they can fire. And with the exception of the Japanese ships, many secondary guns outrange torpedoes so if you play it right, you can often be hitting them and not getting hit back. Obviously you cant do this to the Japanese with the LL, but the Japanese pay a HUGE premium for that ability. For ample proof of that, compare the Baltimore and the Jintsu. The Baltimore is significantly better in nearly every way....Extended Range, far better Armor, bigger guns, secondary guns, Torpedo defense, better AA. The only real advantage the Jintsu has is the LL. And the Jintsu costs MORE than Baltimore. So, unless those LLs are pretty darned useful, the Japanese are DREADFULLY overpriced.

So, in the end due to the high cost torpedoes add to ships, particularly LL torpedoes, I think its absolutely necessary to give them the ability to actually fire them if they can survive airpower and escorting ships gunnery to be able to get to the enemy larger vessels. Otherwise leave the DDs/CLs/CAs at home and use subs to deliver the torpedoes and keep using the BBs to soak up damage and claim objectives.

[Bigblue2]

Hey Uncle Joe, what is an Orca? You listed that as being in your IJN force. Is it a new queen of the sea BB or a mind-controlled whale with explosives strapped to its body. :eek:

[Uncle_Joe]

Uncle_Joe I have a question on your Surface Torpedo fire rule.
How does it interact with the "Lay Smokescreen" SA. i.e If I have a flotilla of Javalins can they fire torpedoes & then lay smoke in a surface combat phase. Or is there still effectivly a sub-phase for firing torpedoes. So that all the Javalins would have to lay smoke before any could fire torpedos.?

So far, I'm just going with letting the Javelins (or whatever) fire the torps and then fire the smoke if they want. As of yet, I haven't seen it pose any form of problem, but if playing with mixed Axis fleets though, I suppose it might be annoying to let the Japanese fire their torpedoes at long range and then be covered by smoke by Italian DDs. A safeguard against this would be to have each side resolve all of their gunfire/ASW followed by all their torpedo fire. That keeps it consistant and prevents the usage of smoke to mask torpedo firing ships. In fact that is probably a better way to word it anyways and I'll update it in my doc.

Hey Uncle Joe, what is an Orca? You listed that as being in your IJN force.

The Japanese Subchaser...Which happens to look amazingly like Quint's boat in Jaws....the Orca.

http://imdb.com/gallery/ss/0073195/12.html?path=gallery&path_key=0073195&seq=41

[MidnMike]

That sounds a lot better tactics. Do you play that all DD's have "Lay Smoke" ?

Yes, as I mentioned in my "Tactica Francophonica," if I were to play the build competitively and not for the fun of a "pure" build, I would take Javelins instead of Le Terribles. Le Terribles are just plain bad, not only for lacking smoke, but especially for lacking sub hunter...

[Patton_71]

As I have been reading these posts, I can't get away from the thought that while many of these rules are definitely into adding more realism and depth to the game, there are just as many rules being put forward to fix problems with the rules that are basically broken out of the box, and its barely a month old.

I cannot fathom some of the design decisions made by the creators of this game. For example....can anyone explain to me why the Iowa's secondary fire is more effective than the Atlanta? The Atlanta can give a broadside of 14 5-inch guns, yet the Iowa can only get 10 of its 20 5 inchers in on one broadside (and only 5 for the Fletcher, yet its gunfactors are nearly the same). Also, bigger battleships are proven basically immune to aircraft once the torpedo aircraft are gone. The best bomb attack is 13 dice from an SBD off of a USN carrier. That is less than a 50% shot to do any damage at all to a 9 armor unit. A carrier cannot survive an assault from just one BB (barring obscene luck). In playtest after playtest, an Iowa or a Yamato will defeat an enemy CV even if it is loaded entirely with attack aircraft. However, the best shot the axis have is a 9 die attack against a Wildcat (zero off a carrier turn 1). Do you realize how difficult it is to get 9 sucesses? Do the math.

I could continue to go on ad nauseum about both game play and historical flops this game is infested with. Its just sad that this could have been done way better than this, and still could be attractive to the mass market. Oh well...

Patton

[buffdog]

Patton 71 I agree with your comments about BBs being too strong in comparison to CVs and aircraft. We had a game tonight where 4 subs and roughly 4 TBD / DB's couldn't sink the Iowa over about 4 turns. I know that's not enough info to do a mathematical analysis but it does seem that aircraft can't rule the seas as they did during WWII.

Still, I love the game, but I'll be looking for a way to help air become more effective in battle against surface ships.

[Khayman7]

Patton 71 I agree with your comments about BBs being too strong in comparison to CVs and aircraft. We had a game tonight where 4 subs and roughly 4 TBD / DB's couldn't sink the Iowa over about 4 turns. I know that's not enough info to do a mathematical analysis but it does seem that aircraft can't rule the seas as they did during WWII.

Still, I love the game, but I'll be looking for a way to help air become more effective in battle against surface ships.

Play on a larger board. We did 4' worth of 3" squares and the other players remaining BB got off 1 shot at surface ships and was already crippled (we could have moved away from the fire, but felt bad for the newer player). All support ships were gone as well by that turn. Our losses 2 dive bomber groups. 200 point game.

Basically it was a Japanese BB fleet with only minimal air cover, maybe 2 zekes, versus 2 american carriers plus 2 land based planes and an Iowa plus some subs and other various support ships. No fighter cover in a larger area game = death by planes.

[Fellblade]

One thing I've been trying out to help small ship survivability is discarding 6s. It sounds a little strange since 6 is normally a good role, but it seems to really help the small ship dynamic without having to research on the internet which ships have guns larger and smaller than 8" since I'm not much of a WWII ship buff.

I ran through about a dozen micro battles using roughly equal point values of destroyers/PT boats vs a battleship and the fights became fairly close. A couple times the battleship would turn its main guns on the little ships and roll something like, 1,2,2,3,4,5,6,6,6,6,6,6 against a fletcher and not even hurt it. Once you throw away all the 6s, that becomes only 2 hits whereas it would outright sink just about any other ship in the game.

Mathematically, its the same as giving small ships a -1 to hit and counting 6s as only a single hit if that sounds more intuitive, but its less text to just say "discard 6s."


Rule wise, its as simple as writing:
"Small Target: Discard 6s when attacking PT boats and Destroyers."

Give it a try in a game, I'm going to see if I can find some people to give it a try in a normal game to see how much of a difference it makes.

[Barry Kendall]

We played two games last weekend using the Night rules and a home-brewed scenario in Ironbottom Sound (the Land side of the mapsheets).

A Japanese force consisting of Tone, two Myokos, Jintsu and four Yukikazes entered the map on the Savo Island side with the objective of destroying three Liberty ships anchored in the two squares closest to the off-board airfield display.

The Japanese were opposed by Canberra, two Salt Lake City class CAs, two Boises, one Atlanta, three Fletchers and two Roberts class DEs being treated as older US DDs (meaning they get Speed 2, period).

We used home rules limiting Allied ships and Jintsu to one torpedo salvo per game and the Japanese CAs and DDs to two (these classes carried reloads).

All proposed Night Action rules were used, with the addition that CAs and the Boises could use their secondaries to fire starshell to illuminate one ship each. Tone got her spotter plane as a flare dropper, essentially one free illumination per turn.

The games were great, very fast, very violent. In the first, the Japanese player, who was not very experienced at naval gaming, opted to come to very close range to fight it out.

The final outcome was the destruction of the entire Japanese force in three turns; no Japanese ship ever more than three squares southeast of Savo. Allied losses were heavy, with one Boise, one Salt Lake city and the two Roberts DEs surviving.

The second game was much closer. The Japanese player, now counseled to use his powerful torpedo advantage for standoff attacks, concentrated on the Guadalcanal side of Savo, broke through the Allied line hugging the Guadalcanal coast, and carried out an end run. Leaving crippled ships behind to come on at their best speed, the two Myokos forged ahead and one of them reached the anchored transports.

A "friendly fire" salvo from Boise finished off a crippled Liberty ship, freeing the last relatively unscathed Myoko to destroy the last of the cargo flotilla as the two Roberts DEs pecked away ineffectually at the big cruiser.

Outcome: Japanese victory, with a Myoko damaged, another crippled, Tone crippled, Jintsu and all four Yukikazes sunk, three Fletchers, both Salt Lake Cities, Canberra and a Boise sunk and the remaining Boise burning.

I highly recommend the Night rules for a game with light and medium ships. We did find that Searchlights were used very little, but that was probably due in part to the Japanese Night Vision advantage and the fact that numerous Japanese ships were damaged in the first turn or two, rendering them "illuminated" (by virtue of being on fire, I suppose) for the balance of the game.

The Fletcher's "Armor Factor 3" on several occasions proved to be a considerable advantage, purchasing another turn of life.

IMPORTANT MEMORY AID: Remember that destroyers reduced to one Hull point are Crippled and move one square per turn. We got caught up in the action and forgot this a time or two.

Great fun; we're looking forward to having at it again.

[Patton_71]

Play on a larger board. We did 4' worth of 3" squares and the other players remaining BB got off 1 shot at surface ships and was already crippled (we could have moved away from the fire, but felt bad for the newer player). All support ships were gone as well by that turn. Our losses 2 dive bomber groups. 200 point game.

Basically it was a Japanese BB fleet with only minimal air cover, maybe 2 zekes, versus 2 american carriers plus 2 land based planes and an Iowa plus some subs and other various support ships. No fighter cover in a larger area game = death by planes.

Thats exactly my point. By this example, you must break the rules to make the game playable or even remotely historically palatable. The suggestion of doubling the map area is an obviously good one. Its just basically disappointing to have to modify game rules just to make them playable. You would think that the people who are fortunate enough to have this as a CAREER would be better at it. Many players here, who are by definition amateurs, are putting a far superior set of rules than the designers of the game. I understand that the rules allow for larger maps for larger battles, but It seems like the fleets are designed around the scenario points rules first, ALA Warhammer or Warhammer 40K...bllleccch....

Patton

[RichardBaker]

Ah, it warms a designer's heart to read a post like that.

Could you explain the "friendly fire" rule you used? It seems pretty harsh (if, unfortunately, historically accurate) to hammer your own ships.



We played two games last weekend using the Night rules and a home-brewed scenario in Ironbottom Sound (the Land side of the mapsheets).

A Japanese force consisting of Tone, two Myokos, Jintsu and four Yukikazes entered the map on the Savo Island side with the objective of destroying three Liberty ships anchored in the two squares closest to the off-board airfield display.

The Japanese were opposed by Canberra, two Salt Lake City class CAs, two Boises, one Atlanta, three Fletchers and two Roberts class DEs being treated as older US DDs (meaning they get Speed 2, period).

We used home rules limiting Allied ships and Jintsu to one torpedo salvo per game and the Japanese CAs and DDs to two (these classes carried reloads).

All proposed Night Action rules were used, with the addition that CAs and the Boises could use their secondaries to fire starshell to illuminate one ship each. Tone got her spotter plane as a flare dropper, essentially one free illumination per turn.

The games were great, very fast, very violent. In the first, the Japanese player, who was not very experienced at naval gaming, opted to come to very close range to fight it out.

The final outcome was the destruction of the entire Japanese force in three turns; no Japanese ship ever more than three squares southeast of Savo. Allied losses were heavy, with one Boise, one Salt Lake city and the two Roberts DEs surviving.

The second game was much closer. The Japanese player, now counseled to use his powerful torpedo advantage for standoff attacks, concentrated on the Guadalcanal side of Savo, broke through the Allied line hugging the Guadalcanal coast, and carried out an end run. Leaving crippled ships behind to come on at their best speed, the two Myokos forged ahead and one of them reached the anchored transports.

A "friendly fire" salvo from Boise finished off a crippled Liberty ship, freeing the last relatively unscathed Myoko to destroy the last of the cargo flotilla as the two Roberts DEs pecked away ineffectually at the big cruiser.

Outcome: Japanese victory, with a Myoko damaged, another crippled, Tone crippled, Jintsu and all four Yukikazes sunk, three Fletchers, both Salt Lake Cities, Canberra and a Boise sunk and the remaining Boise burning.

I highly recommend the Night rules for a game with light and medium ships. We did find that Searchlights were used very little, but that was probably due in part to the Japanese Night Vision advantage and the fact that numerous Japanese ships were damaged in the first turn or two, rendering them "illuminated" (by virtue of being on fire, I suppose) for the balance of the game.

The Fletcher's "Armor Factor 3" on several occasions proved to be a considerable advantage, purchasing another turn of life.

IMPORTANT MEMORY AID: Remember that destroyers reduced to one Hull point are Crippled and move one square per turn. We got caught up in the action and forgot this a time or two.

Great fun; we're looking forward to having at it again.

[Barry Kendall]

Hi Richard,

Having great fun with the game, biggest gripe (personal stake, as my dad served on one) is the "undergunned" Fletcher--Rate of Fire should justify 5/5/4 at least if not 6/5/4. Had to get that plug in!

The "Friendly Fire" rule we used was posted somewhere on here by another player.

In a Night Action, any time an Enemy vessel is targeted by gunfire in a square also occupied by a Friendly, roll one D6 before rolling to resolve fire. If the result is a "1" or a "2," the subsequent attack will be made on the Friendly ship. If there are two Friendly ships, roll again even/odd to determine which Friendly will be the victim.

Sorry I can't recall who proposed the rule, but it makes Midnight Mayhem even more wild and woolly.

IMO the "Night Action" rules really bring out the value of destroyers and light cruisers relative to BBs. Since nobody can fire beyond Range 2, the stand-off BB advantage is negated considerably.

We're thinking about a double-blind version with an umpire; ships only appear on the board when they are "spotted" by lookouts/flares/starshells. I once watched a 1:1200 miniatures game of an Ironbottom Sound battle played on the floor at Historicon in two separate rooms, with umpires in radio contact managing ship movement, spotting, torpedo tracks, and damage. It was really something.

That "Where the heck are they?" aspect could be easily reproduced with small plotting maps and numbered or named markers for the ships involved. Part of the beauty of WAS is that its fundamental simplicity lends itself well to customization.

Glad you enjoyed the AAR. We're enjoying the game!

[RichardBaker]

I hear you. If I'd realized how poor the RoF was on some of the other destroyer mounts, I might have had a change of heart about the Fletcher's 5-gun configuration.

Regarding your double-blind format: Here's a way to do something similar without an umpire. This is loosely based on the search system in the old Jutland game.

- Use a sheet of paper on the side to track where your own units are by sector number.
- Each turn, after the Movement Phase, you add a Search Phase.
- In the Search Phase, players alternate calling out "search sectors." Start with the First Player, of course.
- To call out a Search sector, you must have a unit in an adjacent sector. You can call out your own sector if you like. You can only use a unit as the "base" for one search call per Search Phase.
- If the enemy has a unit in or adjacent to the search sector you called out, he puts his unit on the map.
- Each player makes 3 search calls per Search Phase (unless reduced to 2 units or less). You're required to make your search calls.

With this system, you will occasionally spot an enemy without him spotting you--usually because you're the Second Player and you got lucky on your third call, sometimes because your opponent is more interested in trying to find some other part of your fleet.

In addition:

- If you make a gunnery attack in the Surface Attack phase, put your ship on the map.
- At the end of the turn, remove all ships from the map. However, Damaged ships stay on the map.





Hi Richard,

Having great fun with the game, biggest gripe (personal stake, as my dad served on one) is the "undergunned" Fletcher--Rate of Fire should justify 5/5/4 at least if not 6/5/4. Had to get that plug in!

The "Friendly Fire" rule we used was posted somewhere on here by another player.

In a Night Action, any time an Enemy vessel is targeted by gunfire in a square also occupied by a Friendly, roll one D6 before rolling to resolve fire. If the result is a "1" or a "2," the subsequent attack will be made on the Friendly ship. If there are two Friendly ships, roll again even/odd to determine which Friendly will be the victim.

Sorry I can't recall who proposed the rule, but it makes Midnight Mayhem even more wild and woolly.

IMO the "Night Action" rules really bring out the value of destroyers and light cruisers relative to BBs. Since nobody can fire beyond Range 2, the stand-off BB advantage is negated considerably.

We're thinking about a double-blind version with an umpire; ships only appear on the board when they are "spotted" by lookouts/flares/starshells. I once watched a 1:1200 miniatures game of an Ironbottom Sound battle played on the floor at Historicon in two separate rooms, with umpires in radio contact managing ship movement, spotting, torpedo tracks, and damage. It was really something.

That "Where the heck are they?" aspect could be easily reproduced with small plotting maps and numbered or named markers for the ships involved. Part of the beauty of WAS is that its fundamental simplicity lends itself well to customization.

Glad you enjoyed the AAR. We're enjoying the game!

[Autarch]

The "Friendly Fire" rule we used was posted somewhere on here by another player.

In a Night Action, any time an Enemy vessel is targeted by gunfire in a square also occupied by a Friendly, roll one D6 before rolling to resolve fire. If the result is a "1" or a "2," the subsequent attack will be made on the Friendly ship. If there are two Friendly ships, roll again even/odd to determine which Friendly will be the victim.

Sorry I can't recall who proposed the rule, but it makes Midnight Mayhem even more wild and woolly.



That was me! I'm glad you liked them. Those suggestions were a part of some rules for a Savo Island game I wrote up a few years ago using A&A and Attack! ships. I've been meaning to dig them out of my closet and post them, but I've been getting ready for a tournament this weekend and haven't had a chance.

[Captain Hydro]

Don't know if anyone has thought about this yet, but the Nelson class battleship can only fire directly ahead with TWO turrets, the third being masked by the forward two. Similarly, the Fletcher class destroyers can only fire with TWO turrets directly ahead and astern since the third turret is midships and would either have to fire over the forward superstructure(not a good idea) or over the aft two turrets(also not a good idea). If you aren't using a firing arc rule, nevermind:)

[Barry Kendall]

Hey there Autarch! Nice touch. It helps capture the chaos of the Ironbottom Sound battles.

Richard, I'm going to keep on plugging the Fletcher . . . I'm sure nobody would call you bad names if you made an optional revised value available for the Fletcher (hint, hint) . . . perhaps one of these more computer-savvy guys would even make up a downloadable card for it!

Thanks for acknowledging the RoF issue . . . my esteem for you as a designer who has retained the happy spirit of gaming continues to climb! In truth it wasn't so much that the other DDs had a "poor" RoF as that the 5"/38 mount was quite a phenom when it came out. The USN loved it and the British considered using it. The gun was developed specifically for dual-purpose anti-surface/AA use and was a cut-down longer-caliber battleship secondary tube held in a beefed-up mount from a 5"/25.

I can understand how relative RoF for smaller guns might not have come to mind as you evaluated the stats. If I hadn't found a wonderful book on ship and weapon designs covering this period I would only have had anecdotal evidence from some of the actions (like Samar) to go on.

In case you're interested, the book is "Fleets of World War II" by Richard Worth (ISBN 0-306-81116-2 publisher Da Capo Press). It includes an amazing amount of data relevant to establishing WaS-type ship stats and info on armaments, aircraft, torpedoes, alterations, the plusses and minuses of torpedo blister additions, hull stability and durability, and more, class by class for major and minor powers.

Not every class gets a photo (those can be found elsewhere) and no line drawings, but fabulous information. I believe Joisey ordered one and hope to find out what he thinks of it.

I like the search rules--they're quick and easy and will add more suspense. I've got some tablet backs to draw lines on for plotting boards and we'll give 'em a spin.

By the way, the observation about Nelson/Rodney's main armament is right--the third mount needed a pretty generous clearance angle to avoid shock impact to the B turret--but the Fletcher's midship mount was not nearly so restricted.

This was at least the second if not the third or fourth USN class to have this midship mount pointing forward. The idea was not only to increase the broadside, but to support a torpedo attack run-in with fire. Since the run-in was made obliquely to begin with (according to the course of the target) and the ship had to turn even more to launch her fish, this mount could support Mounts 51 and 52 most of the time.

I've seen photos of this gun firing at what appears to be only about a 22-degree deflection from the centerline. On the Fletchers, the round object on top of the aft torpedo tube mount is a blast shield for the torpedo crew to protect them from this gun's muzzle blast; the forward tube mount has no such shield because such protection was not needed between the funnels.

The Germans also apparently found a mount in this position advantageous in their newer DDs.

Richard, keep those creative juices flowing! This is my favorite topic on the WaS thread.

[RichardBaker]

Yep, it's in my library. We decided to use Conway's as our "king" source, but I also pored through a dozen more reference books. I like the way Worth sums up a lot of pretty technical information in a pretty readable format. He's brutal on the Germans and doesn't think much of the Hipper class cruisers or the Bismarck class battleships, and he's a real fan of the revolutionary French designs like Dunkerque and Richelieu. I might have given Richelieu just a little more respect than I should've for that very reason.


In case you're interested, the book is "Fleets of World War II" by Richard Worth (ISBN 0-306-81116-2 publisher Da Capo Press). It includes an amazing amount of data relevant to establishing WaS-type ship stats and info on armaments, aircraft, torpedoes, alterations, the plusses and minuses of torpedo blister additions, hull stability and durability, and more, class by class for major and minor powers.

Not every class gets a photo (those can be found elsewhere) and no line drawings, but fabulous information. I believe Joisey ordered one and hope to find out what he thinks of it.

[zaarin7]

You should also look at John W. Campbell's book on WW II naval weapons.

[Count_Ciano]

And here are some excellent online resources I like quite a bit:

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/index_weapons.htm

http://www.voodoo.cz/battleships/

http://www.world-war.co.uk/

:cool:

[JohnDoeGamer]

As a newcomer to this game, I must tell you it is awesome to see staff input. Made me buy more pieces frankly.

One suggestion I have regarding the "Engaged Fighters" rule. I like the engaged fighters rules put forth here. They make sense to me. Here's something I have been kicking around. Its something I've been calling, "At All Costs".

Consider the following:
Say I have 2 fighters sent out to strafe a DD and the enemy throws up CAP. A Wildcat shows up. After a series of dice throws later and the Wildcat isnt aborted but 1 of my Zekes are. However I want to attack the DD At All Costs ;). What if I decided to strafe anyway with my remaining Zeke even though the enemy Wildcat was present BUT to do so would give the Wildcat a free shot with perhaps (+1 or +2 extra dice)?

Maybe this is ridiculous but I was thinking of a time where I would know there was CAP but wanted to press the attack out of desperation or just take my chances.

I've got to believe that for one reason or another, fighters chased after a ship or two to fulfill a mission despite CAP nipping at their heels.

[Big Kahuna]

HMM
Richard,
I have been hounding the boards since the release, and I dont think I have seen anything about manuver or arc of fire problems. More the need for DD speed and BB not using thier main batteries against such small ships. I like the game for it's simplicity and ease of play. The rules changes you made here will greatly impact that end.

Robert

I just started reading this huge thread so bare with me, I agree with this post 100%.

Now I'm 1/2 way through... and here are some of my thoughts:

Firing Arcs, all good in a game that takes hours with guys that are thinking hey this bares a semblance to reality. In WWII there were scant occasions with battlelines and crossing the T, etc. I would say this simple rule would cover 95% of the historical instances for example the Hood vs the Bismarck, the Hood wants to close which allowed the Bismarck to cross her T for a scant few minutes. The rule: Ship moving their full movement allowance suffer -1 to their gun vs ship die rolls, this assumes the ship is trying to close the range and hence probably can’t bring her full armament to bare. Ships NOT moving or moving less then their full value fire normally. This would assume the captain is spending time maximizing his guns and less time trying to close and / or open the range.

[Maine]

Consider the following:
Say I have 2 fighters sent out to strafe a DD and the enemy throws up CAP. A Wildcat shows up. After a series of dice throws later and the Wildcat isnt aborted but 1 of my Zekes are. However I want to attack the DD At All Costs ;). What if I decided to strafe anyway with my remaining Zeke even though the enemy Wildcat was present BUT to do so would give the Wildcat a free shot with perhaps (+1 or +2 extra dice)?

Playing with the experimental rule as it is written, you only get engaged markers on fighters that MAKE an AA attack, not fighters that are the recipients of such attacks. As long as the remaining Zeke didn't do AA against Wildcat, it can strafe.

Now, with this rule and in these circumstances, you'll have to keep track of which did AA and which gets aborted. If you lose initiative, and do an AA attack with one Zeke, on your opponents turn, all he has to do is throw everything at the remaining Zeke to abort it, preventing either from strafing. So in this case, you'd want to do no AA attacks with either Zeke, and hope one or both gets through. If you win initiative, you could change tactics knowing which are aborted. In this case, if one Zeke is aborted you send that one on an AA against the Wildcat, the other unaborted will strafe - representing the aborted plane aborting his strafing run to take on the Wildcat and cover the other Zeke squadron's strafing run!

[Autarch]

The problem is fighters are hard to abort and even more difficult to destroy. If I was the Japanese player, I wouldn't even engage the F4F and just use both Zekes to attack the destroyer to make sure it is sunk.

Taking a cue from Flat Top, I'd give the fighter being attacked an interesting choice, either engage the attacker at full values and lose it's air attack step, or be targeted with lower armor values (-1/-1) and if it survives antiair it can attack during the air attack step.

[olliande]

With a little change, the same as most people:

Engaged Fighters
If there is an non aborted ennemy fighter in the same sector, your fighter can't attack during the air attack phase. we find it more simple.

Harassed Subs
same as usual

Extended Range
The special ability Extended Range may not be used against ships with the sub type Destroyer or Torpedo Boat.

Ship Torpedos
Surface ships fire torpedos during the Surface Attack Phase, not the Torpedo Phase.

We make a few battle with this rule, it's a lot better

[moonglum01]

I like those - clean and simple solutions.

[Big Kahuna]

looks great... why does it have to be a fighter, even if it was any enemy plane one would assume that the fighters would be up trying to shoot it down and not straffing. So any non-aborted plane should prevent straffing.

So is this thread only going to deal with the designer rules or can we all pipe in on other changes, like I post above about facings / maneuvering being a simple speed thing with a die roll mod.

If so I would also like to include my favorite house rule: You can only have fighters if you have a CV / CVL. This cuts down on the fighter heavy builds as it forces you to have the drawback of having a sinkable CV in your build. This is about 90% historical; of course individual scenarios can change this...

[Bigblue2]

If so I would also like to include my favorite house rule: You can only have fighters if you have a CV / CVL. This cuts down on the fighter heavy builds as it forces you to have the drawback of having a sinkable CV in your build. This is about 90% historical; of course individual scenarios can change this...

This is historical, why? Maybe for Atlantic scenarios, but it would not be historical for pacific scenarios. The Japanese and the US created lots of airfields on most islands captured. Both sides liked the idea of unsinkable carriers.

[Khayman7]

This is historical, why? Maybe for Atlantic scenarios, but it would not be historical for pacific scenarios. The Japanese and the US created lots of airfields on most islands captured. Both sides liked the idea of unsinkable carriers.

I like the idea but I see it as more scenario specific (or gentlemen's agreement) than the norm. Just say no land airbase in range of this engagement. You want planes, you got to be able to support them. Protecting the carriers would get huge too, since your planes would have nowhere to land if they get sunk.

[Big Kahuna]

This is historical, why? Maybe for Atlantic scenarios, but it would not be historical for pacific scenarios. The Japanese and the US created lots of airfields on most islands captured. Both sides liked the idea of unsinkable carriers.


we are talking CAP above ships, maybe late war with the really long range planes, but wildcats flying CAP and in general straffing... don't think so. Even on the very few straffing deals, the IJN would be landing against an allied held base. Not some misc unheld objective, hence I said depending on the scenario...

[TK421]

I also favour allowing only Patrol Bombers to use land airbases. Scenarios would be an exception. It would give a reason for having carriers, especially in 100 point games. It would make it tough to take a fighter to go after destroyers, because now you'd have to take a carrier with it.

I like the idea of a "facing" rule to include a little more decision-making. It should also make the battle-ship dance a little harder to implement.

I think that most battleship AA is over-rated (especially the early war stuff).

[Bismarck]

I also favour allowing only Patrol Bombers to use land airbases. Scenarios would be an exception. It would give a reason for having carriers, especially in 100 point games. It would make it tough to take a fighter to go after destroyers, because now you'd have to take a carrier with it.


That's exactly how I have been playing the last couple of games.
Land based air makes carriers too insignificant in the game in my opinion.

Land based air might also be a part of the "weak destroyers" problem. You can't field as many planes when you're restricted by carrier capacity so I would assume other options would come more into play.

[RichardBaker]

That's an interesting idea. We'd have to find some way to protect the Stuka, though. I'd hate to see it become a piece you could only use if a scenario let you.


That's exactly how I have been playing the last couple of games.
Land based air makes carriers too insignificant in the game in my opinion.

Land based air might also be a part of the "weak destroyers" problem. You can't field as many planes when you're restricted by carrier capacity so I would assume other options would come more into play.

[Pellaeon]

That's an interesting idea. We'd have to find some way to protect the Stuka, though. I'd hate to see it become a piece you could only use if a scenario let you.

True... but I'd assume the Stuka's existing "Land Based" SA handles this. In fact, that SA could actually be considered a good thing if it meant the Stuka was the only non-patrol bomber you could land on the airbase in a regular game.

[cravex]

Same here it would seem the Stuka's problem is already solved.

[zaarin7]

I agree that would make sense as long as it was extended to any other aircraft that were never planed for ship board deployment.

[Uncle_Joe]

I have to say that I'm not really a fan of removing land-based air. For one thing, its basically just adding restrictions, not fixing the problem. IMO, fix the problem instead and then let players build as they please.

For another, it doesnt make a whole lot of sense IMO. Land-based air was a very important part of the Pacific War. And its removal means that almost any PacWar battle will require CVs since you can't even offer minimal protection for any surface fleet in the form of fighter cover.

Finally, how would it work when a CV is sunk? Do the planes all die or are they suddenly allowed to base on land? If the former I think the penalties are WAY too harsh and would discourage playing any of the smaller carriers anyways and if its the latter then the overall rule make even less sense.

No, fix the problem of fighters being too powerful vs ships...dont just start removing options from the builds.

[MidnMike]

I'm in agreement with limiting the airbase to only patrol bombers and aircraft with the "land based" SA... In fact, I had that same idea a few days ago! When the game first came out, I thought the land airbase was kind of a ridiculous snub to aircraft carriers in a war that was virtually defined by the carrier...

The thing is, this doesn't solve the problem of subs, which are what really break the game... The problem with subs is that they're the only unit type that can't be attacked by almost every unit, yet they can attack anything but aircraft. The problem is further compounded by the fact that the only surface ships that can attack them are the DDs that lack survivability, and even then only at point blank range. I'd give some DDs a ranged ASW attack, at least one square in range, to represent hedgehogs, etc. Or give DDs a very high chance to evade torpedo attacks due to their maneuverability and ability to detect subs before they strike.

Make DDs stronger against subs in this way, and remove the easy land-based fighter destroyer sinkings, and we've got a game.

[Khayman7]

I have to say that I'm not really a fan of removing land-based air. For one thing, its basically just adding restrictions, not fixing the problem. IMO, fix the problem instead and then let players build as they please.

For another, it doesnt make a whole lot of sense IMO. Land-based air was a very important part of the Pacific War. And its removal means that almost any PacWar battle will require CVs since you can't even offer minimal protection for any surface fleet in the form of fighter cover.

Finally, how would it work when a CV is sunk? Do the planes all die or are they suddenly allowed to base on land? If the former I think the penalties are WAY too harsh and would discourage playing any of the smaller carriers anyways and if its the latter then the overall rule make even less sense.

No, fix the problem of fighters being too powerful vs ships...dont just start removing options from the builds.

This idea has been growing on me the more I think about it. I agree that land based air was a pivotal part in the PTO. I also agree that it doesn't really solve the problem, but I see it more as a band aid until something better comes along. You could still use land based air as long as your opponent agrees, or if your playing with stock rules. Lets be honest, how many "competitive" builds are using aircraft carriers anyway? Most PTO fleets that did well had carrier based air cover anyways, because land based air cover was inconsistant at best for a variety of reasons. I guess it kind of goes with the idea of if you want it done right do it yourself (or bring it, in this case).

I also have no problem with saying that since there was no airbase nearby then all planes are lost. This would make players defend them instead of just use them as expendable resources to keep planes on a constant rotation for as long as possible, and then using the airbase when the carrier is killed. Now yes I know this will probably just lead to more sub and BB only fleets as people say well I can't defend it effectively so I won't bring it, but on the flipside this player now has only shipboard AA. The player that brings the carrier have an advantage. Kind of a Yin Yang thing :). I'm willing to playtest it out the next time my group gets together and I'll report on how it worked out/what the effects of the rule were.

[shadowhooch]

Just throwing something out there....

What about if ASW attacks forces the subs to surface? So any time you ASW a sub, it is considered "surfaced" and then subject to gunnery attacks.

That would certainly make destroyers and ASW aircraft pretty valuable...maybe.

And make destroyers speed 3. Then they can better assault BBs.

[TK421]

I have to say that I'm not really a fan of removing land-based air. For one thing, its basically just adding restrictions, not fixing the problem. IMO, fix the problem instead and then let players build as they please.

For another, it doesnt make a whole lot of sense IMO. Land-based air was a very important part of the Pacific War. And its removal means that almost any PacWar battle will require CVs since you can't even offer minimal protection for any surface fleet in the form of fighter cover.

Finally, how would it work when a CV is sunk? Do the planes all die or are they suddenly allowed to base on land? If the former I think the penalties are WAY too harsh and would discourage playing any of the smaller carriers anyways and if its the latter then the overall rule make even less sense.

No, fix the problem of fighters being too powerful vs ships...dont just start removing options from the builds.

Land-based air was important, but we should examine it a little more closely. The big-hitters in the early Japanese drives were often the Bettys and Nells. These would be untouched as Patrol Bombers. Ditto for PBYs and Condors. The Stukas at Crete and other Med battles are also safe. The Cactus Airforce at Henderson Field was very important, but they didn't seem to be integrated into battles. Their impact seemd to be the denial of the Slot to the IJN during the day and creaming any crippled IJN ships once dawn came. At Midway they had an impact (varied), but again this could be seen as scenario-based. I'm trying to think of a battle where both sides had land airbases with fighters and short-ranged bombers but I'm not coming up with one (perhaps Leyte Gulf).

The Channel Dash is an obvious example of land-based CAP being effective and this certainly argues against my suggestion. Of course, we could see that as a "scenario." The efforts to provide land-based CAP for Force Z, however, didn't turn out and there are probably other examples. Coordinating land-based CAP would be no simple matter.

I suggest this rule to introduce an element of risk in not taking a carrier. Without a carrier you do not get fighters unless it is a scenario. If you've paid the points for a carrier and fighters its going to restrict your choices in the build (at 100 points). This in turn could break the Sub-BB-Fighter gang that has "broken" the game. It might also bring some of those carriers out of the tackle boxes and onto the gaming table, along with some cruisers.

I'd also like to see AA values reeled in a little, but now I'm getting a little crazy...:)

[Big Kahuna]

I agree that land based air was a pivotal part in the PTO.
I’m pretty familiar with early war PTO, I really can’t think of anywhere that land based CAP ie fighters covering fleets especially battle fleets were ever used. There are a few examples of fighters strafing barges early war: loan P-40 in the PI, P-40 / P-39 in SouthPac at least twice. I can’t think of any fighting ships being sunk, excluding the one off Wake that hit the depth charges, that may have been a Wildcat. In all cases we are talking about pushing light ships or barges close to allied bases, not battle fleets at sea. The IJN was suppose to fly supplemental CAP over the Shoho and failed, maybe there were a few planes over her. The only really successful CAP that I know of was the channel dash and the Germans had hundreds of planes all along the line of travel and I think they had 6 to 12 over the fleet at any one time which is zero in game terms.
On the subs and submerged shots, I believe this rule reflects subs shooting at other subs on the surface while each are trying to get into position, which is fine. Lets not forget that planes were the big sub killer pre-engagement. I think some soft of better CV, CVL, CVE or even the one shot merchant man air based ASW needs to come out in set two. ..

I also have no problem with saying that since there was no airbase nearby then all planes are lost
Welcome to the world of naval aviation…. I find it highly assuming that if your carrier sinks your planes make it to a land base and even assuming that, you have to assume the land base has all the engines, parts, bombs, and torpedoes to keep your exact type of aircraft in top combat shape. .. these are suppose to be 10 minute turns… right?

[Uncle_Joe]

Welcome to the world of naval aviation

Oh, you mean the world of naval aviation where carriers are tethered to a fixed area and allow battleships and cruisers to drive up into range and blast them? That world of naval aviation? :p

Come on. As I've said before gameplay > history in a game like this. Yes, you want to get things to be fairly representative of history, but the important thing is that your mechanics work.

Removing the ability for land based air takes away a lot of options for force construction. And its not the presence of the planes that causes the problem, its the way the fighters interact with the ships that is the problem. Note that limiting fighters to CVs still doesnt prevent them from slaughtering DDs or Patrol aircraft (which is the problem). In our last few 200 point battles, some players were buying CVs and just loading them with fighters and ignoring attack planes altogether anyways...the fighters kill the threats to the subs as easily or easier than the more expensive attack planes. So this limit does nothing to fix one of the fundamental problems anyways. I'm not a fan of limits in the first place but adding limits that dont 'fix' the problems is even worse IMO.

What's next? Limit subs to 1 or 2? Then BBs? Next thing you know we'll all be using basic mirror fleets because all of the options have been removed.

[Cinnibar]

After a few reads through the various suggestions, I must say that I'm pretty interested in quite a few of the rule tweaks as suggested, with the notable exception of the ship facing rules... having played a few games where clusters of ships get shifted accidentally as counters are dropped, the facing could be a headache to maintain with such light minatures.

That aside...

Some of the outside independent suggestions regarding the shift of sub movement to prior to surface movement as a new phase strike me as a good partial solution that doesn't require a complete re-issue of cards. Add in a few survivability tweaks to destroyers (auto-save vs torps, and/or +1 difficulty for BB's to ping them) and the game seems a bit better balanced. I also like the idea of shifting ship torpedo attacks to the gunnery phase to coincide with surface gunnery fire.

Anyway, that's just my two cents, plus tax.

[IXJac]

The only really successful CAP that I know of was the channel dash and the Germans had hundreds of planes all along the line of travel and I think they had 6 to 12 over the fleet at any one time which is zero in game terms.

32 at any one time. One group of 16 rotating in, and another group of 16 rotating out, each on station for 30 minutes with 15 minutes of overlap at the beginning and end of their sorties.

Galland's plan was well thought out and flawlessly executed, aided by the total failure of the British to mount a co-ordinated response.


Anyway, I don't worry about DDs much anymore. I've found our house rules fix their vulnerability nicely, and we haven't found them to be unbalanced the other way. Generally a useful addition now.

[Khayman7]

Removing the ability for land based air takes away a lot of options for force construction. And its not the presence of the planes that causes the problem, its the way the fighters interact with the ships that is the problem. Note that limiting fighters to CVs still doesnt prevent them from slaughtering DDs or Patrol aircraft (which is the problem). In our last few 200 point battles, some players were buying CVs and just loading them with fighters and ignoring attack planes altogether anyways...the fighters kill the threats to the subs as easily or easier than the more expensive attack planes.

How about keeping the airbases then and say only attack planes can attack ships, as others have mentioned? This would stick to your idea that gameplay trumps history and gives very deliniated responsibilities and needs for aircraft. You would still want to bring fighters for the escorting (and maybe strafing planes on land bases???:)), though less would be needed and you wouldn't be wanting to risk your bombers on DD's when there are bigger more threatening targets out there but you would be forced to if you want to protect your subs.

As for the carriers not engaging I couldn't agree more, but instead of letting them come into attack range and the carrier being forced to stay, why not allow the carrier to retreat off the map and surrender the points? I know I can hear it now...then why bother bringing it at all, just use land based planes. Its beginning to sound like a circular arguement, a nice catch 22. Or allow retreating off the map and with it after turn 3 and deny the points to your opponent (maybe unless the carrier is crippled)? This would hurt players who don't take enough ships or protect them well enough to take the necesarry objectives forcing a draw.

[Fellblade]

Creating bandaid rules to fix core game mechanics problems is always a bad idea. It doesn't matter if the game is miniatures, roleplaying, or even on your computer. Fix the problem and be done with it.

Land based fighters aren't the problem with destroyers being wrecked on sight. Fighters in general mauling destroyers (and cruisers, and carriers) is the problem. Change the "fluff" that an aircraft squadron approximates 3-5 planes in the air so people don't keep yelling about "well, 25 fighters SHOULD wreck a destroyer..." then go about fixing the core game mechanic problems.

The truth is, fighters in a combat zone shouldn't ever be so bored they strafe ships for sport with impunity. Aircraft armor values on are fairly well scaled against other aircraft attacks but not against ships. A fighter with a vital of 8-9 isn't going to be afraid of attacking a ship throwing 4-6 dice of anti-air, their armor value is designed for taking 8+ dice from other aircraft.

What if the average fighter's armor was dropped to around a 3-4? (not vital armor, mind you, just normal armor) The result is it would be fairly easy to abort a fighter, but this would be perfectly fine for most aspects of the game because the fighter already did it job. Most of the time aborting a fighter is meaningless, it escorted the bombers and shot at other aircraft so anything it gets to do afterwards is just a bonus. This won't stop people from wrecking destroyers by throwing several fighter units against them, but it would vastly increase the life expectancy of low armor ships. Besides, what's the point of some ships having an AA value of 3-4? They're unlikely to do anything against an aircraft unless they roll almost all 6s anyhow, which is all the more reason to reduce fighter armor values so these ships have a reason for their AA mounts.

[Khayman7]

Change the "fluff" that an aircraft squadron approximates 3-5 planes in the air so people don't keep yelling about "well, 25 fighters SHOULD wreck a destroyer..." then go about fixing the core game mechanic problems.

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, IMHO this fix for a core game mechanic creates new core game mechanic problems. Now a carrier has 15 squadrons on it? I know your not saying that the Enterprise carried only 15 planes. You fix the fighters this way then you have to fix carrier capacities, then you have to fix airplane stacking rules. It creates a cascade of changes. In the end you have a whole new game. Not to mention how long it would take placing all those planes and rolling for them all.
[QUOTE]

[Uncle_Joe]

How about keeping the airbases then and say only attack planes can attack ships, as others have mentioned?

This is the way I think it should have been from the get-go. Fighters are CHEAP (only 5-7 points). Their role should be CAP and Escort. The attack planes tend to cost quite a bit more and are more vulnerable (especially without Escort). Their role should be anti-shipping.

However I dont think the Gunnery Stat on Fighters is going to be changed in any type of 'official' rule at this point. So something else has to be done. My suggestion is similar to Fellblade's about lowering Fighter Armor when it is on a 'strike' mission (indicated by placing a marker when the fighter is deployed). Subtract 2 from the Armor (not Vital) of such Fighter and make them ineligible to use Escort or to fire in the Air Defense step. Now they are configured as 'attack planes' and are more vulnerable and less versatile.

Alternatively, the House Rule of fighters only hitting ships on a 6 (which isnt doubled) might work as well. This is simpler and easy to implement but isnt consistant with the rules on Gunnery (a non-issue to me, but I can others being confused).

But yeah, given my druthers, I'd just not allow Fighters to attack ships and be done with it.

[Fellblade]

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, IMHO this fix for a core game mechanic creates new core game mechanic problems. Now a carrier has 15 squadrons on it? I know your not saying that the Enterprise carried only 15 planes.
Naw, I only meant aircraft in flight. It makes about as much sense that the Enterprise can launch, recover, and rearm 75 planes every 10minutes as it can only carry 15.
However, if a squadron represented 5 planes in flight, the scale becomes more reasonable. Maybe 5 are in the air on a mission, 5 are landing, 5 are rearming, 5 are ready to launch, and another 5 are below deck as replacements. All 25 planes per squadron accounted for, but they aren't all strafing some poor destroyer at the same instant. That perspective can also account for why airwings are lost when the carrier goes down (not enough planes scrambled or diverted).
It only breaks down when you wonder why losing 5 planes on the first attack grounds the entire remaining squadron. In that regard, its easier just to write it off as game mechanics.

[fenyan]

But yeah, given my druthers, I'd just not allow Fighters to attack ships and be done with it.

I'd agree with that sentiment.

[XAos]

That's exactly how I have been playing the last couple of games.
Land based air makes carriers too insignificant in the game in my opinion.

Thats not my experience. Carriers are about the only thing in the game that "trumps" land based air. Since carrier based planes fly missions every turn. So 3 carrier based fighters are in some respects as good as 6 land based fighters. And your not allowed 6 land based fighters (in a 100pt game.)
Overall I'm with Uncle_Joe on fighters. They are far too good against ships. A nearly perfect force for the Convoy scenario is 8 Wildcats & Enterprise (only 81pts). 8 fighters will obliterate freighters. Even if your opponent knows thats what your going to use & defends with one Atlanta for each freighter.

[TK421]

Not to flog a dead horse, but in a 100 point game you'd be hardpressed to bring more than 3 fighters on carriers without leaving yourself wide open to a surface ship blitz. You might sneak in a sub with a six fighter build having to employ carriers. In the convoy scenario you would have three fighters, not eight, on your Enterprise. You wouldn't have the other five unless you had purchased the carrier-basing for it.

I do see some other flaws, not the least of which is that players without carriers wouldn't have a use for their aircraft. I agree that fighters seem a little too daring and effective against surface ships.

I guess I'm just less worried about the sub-destroyer-fighter dynamic than I am about the absence of carriers.

Cheers

[MidnMike]

TK421, why are you STILL not at your post?

But yeah, just get rid of gunnery values for fighters. Sure they COULD strafe ships and sometimes DID... But did it really happen often enough to be modeled by a game mechanic?

[XAos]

To flog the deceased Equine a bit more. it's obvious that carriers cost too much for 100 point battles. But thats not the fault of land based air. Thats just the total points cost of a CV & 3 planes.
Don't have a rule book in reach, I thought it was legal to use land based air in the convoy scenario ? Hence 8 planes & only 1 carrier.


On the subs and submerged shots, I believe this rule reflects subs shooting at other subs on the surface while each are trying to get into position, which is fine.
So what does lines of 8 subs accross the entire map, engageing a similar line of enemy subs "reflect" :confused:

[Khayman7]

Naw, I only meant aircraft in flight. It makes about as much sense that the Enterprise can launch, recover, and rearm 75 planes every 10minutes as it can only carry 15.
However, if a squadron represented 5 planes in flight, the scale becomes more reasonable. Maybe 5 are in the air on a mission, 5 are landing, 5 are rearming, 5 are ready to launch, and another 5 are below deck as replacements. All 25 planes per squadron accounted for, but they aren't all strafing some poor destroyer at the same instant. That perspective can also account for why airwings are lost when the carrier goes down (not enough planes scrambled or diverted).
It only breaks down when you wonder why losing 5 planes on the first attack grounds the entire remaining squadron. In that regard, its easier just to write it off as game mechanics.

I agree that the 10 minutes to turn around a squadron is unrealistic as I've stated before, but the idea that only 5 planes were sent out on a mission to escort or attack an enemy fleet is unrealistic too. I think its more of a compromise for gameplay sake.

The idea of lowering their armor makes some merit but your going to get complaints about why its easier to abort a fast, nimble, fighter than a slow, lumbering torpedo plane. This though is a compromise for gameplay I could have lived with when the game came out. The problem I see further down the road is that it won't change enough. As people have pointed out people are taking carriers and land bases full up with fighters. You can still get cheap fighters (just might take 2 now until its crippled) to kill the destroyers, unless you load up that sector and then your back to the arguement others have made about destroyers need escorts etc...


Alternatively, the House Rule of fighters only hitting ships on a 6 (which isnt doubled) might work as well. This is simpler and easy to implement but isnt consistant with the rules on Gunnery (a non-issue to me, but I can others being confused).

But yeah, given my druthers, I'd just not allow Fighters to attack ships and be done with it.

I am personally just waiting for my next game night to see how these 2 ideas work out and we'll see what the guys say. I think these are the easiest to implement and you can make arguements for each for the historical minded player and the purely game player. I think it all comes down to the compromises you want to make for the sake of gameplay.

[Khayman7]

Thats not my experience. Carriers are about the only thing in the game that "trumps" land based air. Since carrier based planes fly missions every turn. So 3 carrier based fighters are in some respects as good as 6 land based fighters. And your not allowed 6 land based fighters (in a 100pt game.)
Overall I'm with Uncle_Joe on fighters. They are far too good against ships. A nearly perfect force for the Convoy scenario is 8 Wildcats & Enterprise (only 81pts). 8 fighters will obliterate freighters. Even if your opponent knows thats what your going to use & defends with one Atlanta for each freighter.

My experience has been that its cheaper and more effective to get 6 fighters than 3 fighters and a carrier. Unfortunately. :(

[XAos]

My experience has been that its cheaper and more effective to get 6 fighters than 3 fighters and a carrier. Unfortunately. :(
6 wildcats = 42 points
Enterprise + 3 wildcats = 46 points.
So the pure land-basedc air is obviously cheaper.
However, your not allowed to use unlimited land based air.
It's my experience (at 200pts) that 7 land based air + a carrier with 3 extra fighters. Will beat an opponent who just uses land based air.
At 100pts that would also work, but for the problem that the two cheap carriers (Shoho & St.Lo) are too vulnerable to fighters.

[Khayman7]

6 wildcats = 42 points
Enterprise + 3 wildcats = 46 points.
So the pure land-basedc air is obviously cheaper.
However, your not allowed to use unlimited land based air.
It's my experience (at 200pts) that 7 land based air + a carrier with 3 extra fighters. Will beat an opponent who just uses land based air.
At 100pts that would also work, but for the problem that the two cheap carriers (Shoho & St.Lo) are too vulnerable to fighters.

At 200 points it really depends on the opponent's force construction. As I posted elsewhere I played a 200 point tournament where the opponent tried to use overwhelming airpower, but his build was rendered ineffective because mine only allowed him to use 4 airplanes per phase to attack ships. I had only land based air. In the end he lost all of his ships and couldn't take an objective while I had lost something like only 2 subs and 1 BB took 1 hit.

Which goes back to the starting point again of BB, Subs, Planes are the only useful units as things are now.

[Fellblade]

The idea of lowering their armor makes some merit but your going to get complaints about why its easier to abort a fast, nimble, fighter than a slow, lumbering torpedo plane.
Fighter used up all their ammo before they could cause significant damage? The fighter jettisoned its drop tanks and is low on fuel? In the end its just a game mechanic, but you can spin it any way you want.

[Bigblue2]

But yeah, given my druthers, I'd just not allow Fighters to attack ships and be done with it.

"The Wildcats harassed the invaders with machine guns and bombs, with Elrod scoring a direct hit on the destroyer KISARAGI, sinking it."

Somebody should tell the crew of the japanese destroyer that was sunk by a wildcat fighter, that they really were not sunk and that is was just a bad dream.

Anybody that doesn't think that a thinly armored destroyer could not be sunk by a swarm of fighters armed with 250lb bombs has rocks in their heads. I agree, that its not right for a fighter who escorted a bomber or fought another fighter to be able to attack a ship as they would most likely have jettisoned any bombs to tangle with the fighters.

[Bismarck]

Regarding the harassed sub rules.
I rather like something along the lines of it, although preferably something simpler.
I don't know if it would make subs too weak if they wouldn't be able to fire at all if they had been attacked in the same turn.

[Uncle_Joe]

"The Wildcats harassed the invaders with machine guns and bombs, with Elrod scoring a direct hit on the destroyer KISARAGI, sinking it."

Somebody should tell the crew of the japanese destroyer that was sunk by a wildcat fighter, that they really were not sunk and that is was just a bad dream.

Anybody that doesn't think that a thinly armored destroyer could not be sunk by a swarm of fighters armed with 250lb bombs has rocks in their heads. I agree, that its not right for a fighter who escorted a bomber or fought another fighter to be able to attack a ship as they would most likely have jettisoned any bombs to tangle with the fighters.

But there is currently no mechanism for defining fighters armed with bombs and on a strike mission and those without. So fighters get the best of both worlds and end up superior to strike planes due to their greatly decreased vulnerabilty and cheaper cost (allowing 2 to 1 ratios).

So given the choice between making fighters have every capability all the time and only their primary capability I'll choose the latter. I dont think anything here thinks that fighters CAN'T sink a DD. Thats not the issue. :rolleyes:

[Khayman7]

"The Wildcats harassed the invaders with machine guns and bombs, with Elrod scoring a direct hit on the destroyer KISARAGI, sinking it."

Somebody should tell the crew of the japanese destroyer that was sunk by a wildcat fighter, that they really were not sunk and that is was just a bad dream.

Anybody that doesn't think that a thinly armored destroyer could not be sunk by a swarm of fighters armed with 250lb bombs has rocks in their heads. I agree, that its not right for a fighter who escorted a bomber or fought another fighter to be able to attack a ship as they would most likely have jettisoned any bombs to tangle with the fighters.

I couldn't agree with you more. The Wildcat, along with most fighters in WW2, pulled double duty as an figher-bomber and was effective. This would be a compromise I would be willing to make though for the sake of gameplay balance until something more official or better comes along. I'm really wondering what they are going to do when they put out the next set with planes that are primarily Fighter-Bombers. Maybe a one time a game bombs or rockets ability?

Perhaps this would be a way to allow fighters to attack ships? Give fighters the Alternate Payload ability of Bombs 4-6 one time a game? But on the flip side of that they could not engage in AA combat. OR just go with the rule that they can attack but only hit on 6's which count as 2 hits.

[IXJac]

"The Wildcats harassed the invaders with machine guns and bombs, with Elrod scoring a direct hit on the destroyer KISARAGI, sinking it."

Captain Elrod also got lucky. His bomb landed right in the middle of all the depth charges the Kisaragi had stored on her stern and set them off. We simulate that luck by only having fighters hit on a 6, and 6's count as just one success. That lets them shoot up PT boats, freighters and escorts/small destroyers (the Kisaragi was an old post-WWI destroyer), but means they have to get VERY lucky to harm a modern destroyer.

And I imagine alternate payload for fighters will probably come in later planes like the Corsair which were used more heavily as fighter-bombers. No need to steal the F4U's thunder just yet.

[IXJac]

As far as air is concerned, my group tries to make it harder to attack lighter ships with air, and a bit easier to attack bigger ones. The simplest way to do this is to increase the air stacking limit to five. No one masses up five planes to jump a destroyer, but being able to mass five planes against a battleship can make a big difference.

We also have started giving fighters an AA suppression ability that functions very similar to Escort. If there is no opposing enemy aircraft present each fighter can pick one ship and reduce it's AA fire by -1 on each dice when shooting at bombers. This simulates the fighters strafing the ship's AA crews, something they did during major air attacks when there were no enemy aircraft to engage. It gives fighters something in their toolbox to use against battleships, even while we're nerfing them against destroyers.

[MichaelR]

As a newcomer to this game, I must tell you it is awesome to see staff input. Made me buy more pieces frankly.

One suggestion I have regarding the "Engaged Fighters" rule. I like the engaged fighters rules put forth here. They make sense to me. Here's something I have been kicking around. Its something I've been calling, "At All Costs".

Consider the following:
Say I have 2 fighters sent out to strafe a DD and the enemy throws up CAP. A Wildcat shows up. After a series of dice throws later and the Wildcat isnt aborted but 1 of my Zekes are. However I want to attack the DD At All Costs ;). What if I decided to strafe anyway with my remaining Zeke even though the enemy Wildcat was present BUT to do so would give the Wildcat a free shot with perhaps (+1 or +2 extra dice)?

Maybe this is ridiculous but I was thinking of a time where I would know there was CAP but wanted to press the attack out of desperation or just take my chances.

I've got to believe that for one reason or another, fighters chased after a ship or two to fulfill a mission despite CAP nipping at their heels.

To me this is a broke area of the game. Fighters should not be able to damage capital ships, I would think the best they could do would be to harass, causing the DD to be at negatives for all actions. As it stands right now, 100 .50" machine guns are far deadlier then 5 5" guns and that is just way wrong. I don't think fighters should be able to damage capital ships at all, unless they are fighter/bombers and are designated as leaving their base with bombs on board. JMHO

Michael

[MichaelR]

I have to say that I'm not really a fan of removing land-based air. For one thing, its basically just adding restrictions, not fixing the problem. IMO, fix the problem instead and then let players build as they please.

For another, it doesnt make a whole lot of sense IMO. Land-based air was a very important part of the Pacific War. And its removal means that almost any PacWar battle will require CVs since you can't even offer minimal protection for any surface fleet in the form of fighter cover.

Finally, how would it work when a CV is sunk? Do the planes all die or are they suddenly allowed to base on land? If the former I think the penalties are WAY too harsh and would discourage playing any of the smaller carriers anyways and if its the latter then the overall rule make even less sense.

No, fix the problem of fighters being too powerful vs ships...dont just start removing options from the builds.

Then put a point value on having a land airbase in the area. Very few pacific naval battles were fought under the cover of land based aircraft, except the long ranged Betty's and Catalina's et al.

Michael R.

[MichaelR]

As far as air is concerned, my group tries to make it harder to attack lighter ships with air, and a bit easier to attack bigger ones. The simplest way to do this is to increase the air stacking limit to five. No one masses up five planes to jump a destroyer, but being able to mass five planes against a battleship can make a big difference.

We also have started giving fighters an AA suppression ability that functions very similar to Escort. If there is no opposing enemy aircraft present each fighter can pick one ship and reduce it's AA fire by -1 on each dice when shooting at bombers. This simulates the fighters strafing the ship's AA crews, something they did during major air attacks when there were no enemy aircraft to engage. It gives fighters something in their toolbox to use against battleships, even while we're nerfing them against destroyers.


I love this one, I hope Richard does too.

Michael R.

[Diamondback]

IIRC, a Bf109 chalked up a British light cruiser (which was out of AA ammo) with just one bomb off the centerline rack...

[IXJac]

IIRC, a Bf109 chalked up a British light cruiser (which was out of AA ammo) with just one bomb off the centerline rack...

Yeah, but that one bomb was the last of about twenty bombs dropped on the HMS Fiji over the course of four hours of continual air attack on 22 May, and this preceded by at least two dozen attacks the previous day during which she had expended most of her ammunition.

So by then she was very low on ammo, and didn't see the 109 from III/JG 77 (which had something of a reputation for sinking ships and flew specially modified 109s) coming out of the clouds. The single 250kg bomb did not infact sink her, though it was a damaging hit amidships and she began taking on water. Listing heavily the Fiji began limping out of the battle zone at reduced speed, but was caught by another bomber about half an hour later, hit with at least three more bombs and sunk.

Edit: And just for a counter example, in that same battle the destroyer Kipling stayed behind to rescue survivors from other ships when the fleet was withdrawing to Alexandria. The single destroyer came under ferocious air attack from wave after wave of Stukas. She picked up 279 survivors and evaded no less than 83 bombs before making her way back to port. While she came through the attack unscathed, her evasives had been so furious she ran out of fuel fifty miles from the harbour and had to be towed in. For his courageous and skillfull handling her Captain was awarded the DSO (second only to the VC).

[Bigblue2]

Then put a point value on having a land airbase in the area. Very few pacific naval battles were fought under the cover of land based aircraft, except the long ranged Betty's and Catalina's et al.Michael R.

I believe that every kamakaze attack was from a land based plane , no matter what the plane used. The pilots used were not good enough for carrier operations.

"To me this is a broke area of the game. Fighters should not be able to damage capital ships,..."MichaelR

Since when were DD's considered capital ships?

[XAos]

"The Wildcats harassed the invaders with machine guns and bombs, with Elrod scoring a direct hit on the destroyer KISARAGI, sinking it."

Somebody should tell the crew of the japanese destroyer that was sunk by a wildcat fighter, that they really were not sunk and that is was just a bad dream.


And at the same time they should tell the pilot of that fighter, that it was such a common occurence. that he didn't get a Congesssional Medal of Honour for it.
Except that Congress already said his actions were exactly that exceptional.

If the game rules required 1 in a million shots for a fighter to hit a destroyer. That would be a realistic representation of the Wake island attack. But such attacks are commonplace in the game. To the extent that the crews of destroyers should all be awarded (postumous) medals. Just for sailing out of harbor.

[Autarch]

I like IXJac's AA suppression rule: it gives fighters something better to do than abandoning their charges and chasing after tin cans. It could be rolled into the escort SA (...enemy Fighters OR one enemy ship get -1 on each attack die...). During Leyte, the FM-2 Wildcats were so effective at strafing the decks and superstructures of the enemy fleet, they actually began taking evasive action to avoid them. In fact, from what I've read it seems it was doctrine for fighters to lead torpedo bombers in attacking the ships in order to suppress AA fire.

[MichaelR]

I believe that every kamakaze attack was from a land based plane , no matter what the plane used. The pilots used were not good enough for carrier operations.

"To me this is a broke area of the game. Fighters should not be able to damage capital ships,..."MichaelR

Since when were DD's considered capital ships?

But how many kamikaze attacks were coordinated with a naval action? None successfully that I am aware of. Now, how many naval engagements can you name that BOTH sides had land based fighter cover for?

I would consider DDs the low end of capital ships, and the tiny number of them destroyed by fighters in WW2 support that they should be immune to all but suppression attacks from fighters. Do you really think 100 .50 caliber machine guns really do so much more damage then 3 5" guns?

[Big Kahuna]

I agree in general terms to what you have stated.

[Jayhurst]

Then put a point value on having a land airbase in the area. Very few pacific naval battles were fought under the cover of land based aircraft, except the long ranged Betty's and Catalina's et al.

Michael R.

Supposedly...That point cost has already been factored into the planes that can only be based on land. After all, a land airbase is the only place that they can operate from. There is no other option for those particular planes.

[IXJac]

I think the best answer to this is more scenarios.

The basic game just offers an "anything goes" scenario which allows any and all options. If you want to build a scenario where one side has an airbase and another doesn't you'll have to factor that into the points available and victory conditions is all.

[MichaelR]

Supposedly...That point cost has already been factored into the planes that can only be based on land. After all, a land airbase is the only place that they can operate from. There is other option for those particular planes.

I don't see your logic, a Catalina is a 7 point ship with a lot of versatility and the shadowning SA that rocks. A TBD devastator is a 9 point plane that is pretty wimpy and all carrier based planes can be land based at no extra cost. Basically it is ridiculous in the extreme to have so much air power so cheap in a naval combat game. No competent commander would chase an enemy formation under their own friendly fighters if he could avoid it and NO battle was fought under the cover of friendly land based fighters from both sides that I am aware of.

Michael

[mandt2]

Here's a set of rules that Major Chaos and I have been tossing around that we think will allow carriers in A&A to operate more like their WWII counterparts.

Carriers: Leaving the Map

In practice, carriers operated as far from enemy surface ships as the range of their air wings allowed. In Axis & Allies carriers are forced to operate in a restricted area which can frequently lead to situations where carriers are engaged and sunk by enemy cruisers and battleships. I believe this happened only once during WWII. This optional rule will allow for a more realistic representation of carrier warfare.

• As long as a carrier is on the map, it functions normally. The player may however, intentionally exit a carrier from the map with the following results.

• Once a carrier leaves the map, it may not reenter.

• Carriers that leave the map are not considered destroyed, so the opposing does not receive victory points for them.

• An off-map carrier cannot be attacked from enemy surface units or land based aircraft. It can however, be attacked by enemy aircraft operating from enemy carriers that are on the map.

• An off-map carrier’s special abilities for its air units still apply.

• Air units operating from an off-map carrier must receive a “Rearm” marker at the end of their turn. Just as with land based air units, the air unit must spend the next turn rearming.

• Catalina patrol aircraft may attack or spot enemy off-map ships.

In addition to moving a carrier off-map the player may also designate a single escort ship to exit with it. For example, the American player may choose to exit CV Enterprise and CLAA Atlanta. The escort is assumed to occupy the same space as the off-map carrier, and is subject to all of the same rules.

[timewalker]

Richard:

My son and I are having a great time playing the game. You have done a great job and I appreciate that it is simple enough for fast play yet still have a historical feel.

I also know how hard game design is and no matter how much you playtest it never survives contact with the real world. (I used to work for Task Force Games long, long ago).

One thing that you start to address here which bothered me immediately upon playing was how easy it was for battleships to knock out destroyers and MTB's/PT's at long ranges. While I have not done any research in the area for a long time, it seemed to me that logic would dictate that it would be much harder to hit a small target at long range then a big one, especially for main guns. So why was it as easy for the Iowa to hit a destroyer at range five as another battleship? I would suggest, as have others, that BB's cannot hit DD's or smaller at extended range (main guns only). I would also suggest that BB's subtract one die from DD's or smaller at range one, two die at range two and three die at range three, although I have not tested this. It might also be interesting to have BB's fire at a penalty against DD's at range zero for their main guns (recalling the Samuel B. Roberts closing so close that the main guns could not depress. I know this was a cruiser, but I didn't think they should be penalized vs. DD's).

Something else I was thinking of was if you institute facing, that you could add an optional rule for wind direction. Roll a die for wind direction every third turn and a carrier must steam into the wind to launch planes (or alternatively, could steam at half speed in any other direction to reflect turning into the wind to launch planes). This might be overly complex and certainly would have to be an optional rule, but would reflect the fact that carriers cannot simply go steaming full speed into action if they are going to conduct flight operations.

Thanks again for a great game.

Stephen

[RichardBaker]

Thanks for the kind words, Stephen! I'm glad you're enjoying the game.

I doubt that we would formally institute facing--I only threw it out there as a suggested house rule for people who really want to increase the game's simulation value. That said, I certainly thought that determining a wind direction could be part of that. It makes facing matter for carriers, too. Wind direction played a pretty important part in several battles for that very reason--Phillipine Sea jumps to mind. The US carriers had to turn and steam away from the Japanese in order to launch and recover.

I think we are likely to provide some "small boy" help against battleship main batteries. We're looking at a couple of potential patches for that.


Richard:

My son and I are having a great time playing the game. You have done a great job and I appreciate that it is simple enough for fast play yet still have a historical feel.

I also know how hard game design is and no matter how much you playtest it never survives contact with the real world. (I used to work for Task Force Games long, long ago).

One thing that you start to address here which bothered me immediately upon playing was how easy it was for battleships to knock out destroyers and MTB's/PT's at long ranges. While I have not done any research in the area for a long time, it seemed to me that logic would dictate that it would be much harder to hit a small target at long range then a big one, especially for main guns. So why was it as easy for the Iowa to hit a destroyer at range five as another battleship? I would suggest, as have others, that BB's cannot hit DD's or smaller at extended range (main guns only). I would also suggest that BB's subtract one die from DD's or smaller at range one, two die at range two and three die at range three, although I have not tested this. It might also be interesting to have BB's fire at a penalty against DD's at range zero for their main guns (recalling the Samuel B. Roberts closing so close that the main guns could not depress. I know this was a cruiser, but I didn't think they should be penalized vs. DD's).

Something else I was thinking of was if you institute facing, that you could add an optional rule for wind direction. Roll a die for wind direction every third turn and a carrier must steam into the wind to launch planes (or alternatively, could steam at half speed in any other direction to reflect turning into the wind to launch planes). This might be overly complex and certainly would have to be an optional rule, but would reflect the fact that carriers cannot simply go steaming full speed into action if they are going to conduct flight operations.

Thanks again for a great game.

Stephen

[Big Kahuna]

small boats could not be targeted by the main guns, but there are a few DD sunk and some at range by BB fire: Ardent and Acosta by the BC twins and one DE maybe by the Yamato, there maybe others. So if there are no targets and a BB decides to use her main battery on a DD well it ain't no fun on the DD. Still it is hard to sink a DD at range say 3 and above in this game, something like um rolling say counting each 6 as one hit...

[Jayhurst]

I don't see your logic, a Catalina is a 7 point ship with a lot of versatility and the shadowing SA that rocks. A TBD devastator is a 9 point plane that is pretty wimpy and all carrier based planes can be land based at no extra cost. Basically it is ridiculous in the extreme to have so much air power so cheap in a naval combat game. No competent commander would chase an enemy formation under their own friendly fighters if he could avoid it and NO battle was fought under the cover of friendly land based fighters from both sides that I am aware of.

Michael

Notice I said "SUPPOSEDLY...that point cost has already been factored into the planes that can only be based on land.." That doesn't necessarily mean that all planes from all nations are price costed CORRECTLY. A lot of point cost decisions made for certain units in this game leave me scratching my head (American PT boat vs. the Italian PT boat, anyone?). That said, however, the Catalina doesn't really strike me as being under priced, not because it 'should' be cheaper because it can't be carrier based, but because it needs a big investment in enough friendly fighters so the Cat can be properly escorted. No points being spent on fighter escorts for the Catalinas usually means having a dead Cat in short order. (Don't get me wrong, the TBD devastator dies it's quick deaths, too.)

In my previous post, when I was taking about options, I was saying land planes (patrol bombers, stuka) can ONLY be based on land, they have no other options BUT to be based on land, land planes do not have the option to be based on a carrier. I was not talking about available SA options.



Then put a point value on having a land airbase in the area. Very few pacific naval battles were fought under the cover of land based aircraft, except the long ranged Betty's and Catalina's et al.

Michael R.

Being a plane that can ONLY be based on land is a disadvantage, not an advantage, so why would there be a cost added to a land based only plane? Land based is a negative SA, not a positive SA.

I understand what you are trying to say about “how can there be so much land based air?” Well just as one example off the top of my head, the P-38 fighter. The P-38 was extremely active in the pacific, shot down more Japanese planes then any other fighter, strafed ships, provided escort for ships and friendly bombers and was, to the best of my knowledge, an entirely land based plane. Read the book “The Fork Tailed Devil.” by Martin Caidin.

http://www.amazon.com/Fork-Tailed-Devil-P-38-Martin-Caidin/dp/0743479629/ref=sr_1_1/103-9237166-4207804?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178956337&sr=8-1

Also, there is a reason why we took over all those Japanese island airbases in the middle of the pacific... We took them so we could use our land based airplanes from those newly acquired airfields, and prevent the Japanese from using those island airbases against us. “The Fork Tailed Devil” mentions again and again how the Zeros were such a pain (especially early on in the war) because the Zeros were based on all those islands, and had such a large radius of operation because of it.

[Big Kahuna]

While it is true that some naval guns have a nominally higher rate of fire than others, at long range it does not matter very much.

50% to 250% faster is um a little more than nominally, that is like saying a Vette is nominally faster the a Ford Escort. What range are we talking clearly sub 20,000 yards RoF becomes critically important. How many BB hits above this range? Scant few, something all the BB throw weight guys leave off. With a potential closing speed of 2000 yards or 1 mile a minute um the range can be dropping quite quickly.
Plus the Bismarck uses a unique far near bracketing where she can fire ½ salvos and due to their unique shell fall pattern can range much faster than any other ship… how’s that?

The practice in many navies was not to fire the next salvo until the last one had arrived and the fall of shot [splashes] had been noted and the corrections applied.

Except for the Bismarck and other German heavy units with far / near ½ salvo brackets could range much faster as each half salvo has a unique shell fall.. wooooo

As time of flight for a shell was sometimes very long [HMS Ajax's first 6-inch shell against Graf Spee took nearly 60 seconds to reach target] a slightly higher rate of fire will have little effect unless at very close range, say in a night action.

Like I’ve said in so many other post, ranges above 20,000 yards are indirect fire and you are just shooting 15” holes in the water at places the target may or maynot be within ½ mile, hence there are few hit above that range plunging to just a handful above 25,000 yards( pun inteneded). There are two HUGE issues with you contention, we are not talking about a “slightly higher rate of fire”, we are talking above much faster to much much much faster and “very close range” is something like 15,000 yards which can be closed in 5 to 10 minutes in most actions and in fact in the North Sea was probably near the start of combat ranges. So these are not “VERY CLOSE RANGE”, many most night actions were at ½ that range. Once again this smacks of the theoretical perfect targeting salvo weight battle line vs battle line WW I thinking. Which basically never happened in WWII, which had running spiraling battles, even the Scharnhorst was actually between the Duke of York and the Convoy when the battle was joined. If she was not blind and with no escorts she could have made an unopposed pass right through the convoy.
EDIT: As an added note it is worth considering that crew fatigue can be a major factor in an engagement. In Bismarck's second engagement the crew had been awake most of the night fending off Vian's destroyers. While shooting at HMS King George V and HMS Rodney the Bismarck managed only a few straddles and no hits at all before her fire control and both forward turrets were knocked out about 20 minutes into the action.
The Germans were shooting from a moving uncontrollable platform; their T was crossed by two capital ships and a host of other ships from other directions. She was only able to fire front turret salvos and did indeed land a few straddles before the front turrets fired their last shot which amazingly were fired toward the end of the battle. A major armor weakness with the Bismarck was her for aft bulk heads to the armor citadel were hideously weak, easily penetrated by RN Heavy Units, I got no clue why they were so weak, maybe the designers thought due to her speed she would never be facing an enemy directly astern of in front and any hit here would be at high vertical angularity. So the Bismarck was especially vulnerable to ships crossing her T. Yes I’m sure the crew was dead tired, but her shooting was more than reasonable given an uncontrolled platform and firing ½ here guns against the broadside of 2 battleships that is a 19 to 4 advantage.


understand what you are trying to say about “how can there be so much land based air?” Well just as one example off the top of my head, the P-38 fighter. The P-38 was extremely active in the pacific, shot down more Japanese planes then any other fighter, strafed ships, provided escort for ships and friendly bombers and was, to the best of my knowledge, an entirely land based plane. Read the book “The Fork Tailed Devil.” by Martin Caidin.
Great book and it does tell why the P-38 was so bad then so super good in North Africa, now to the topic at hand, the P-38 has so so so much longer range, guns all in the nose, armor up the wazoo and flew at a time where the US had such a significant advantage that we could afford to use cannons against row boats. All this and the USArmyAir was indeed training, arming and using most of their planes for antishipping roles as there was nothing left to shoot at. This is a game and for it to work there has to be a balance in any engagement, and I don’t think you will find any near balanced scenario, where one side can bother using extra fighters to strafe naval units. So in game terms if we are talking 10,000 point builds vs 200 point builds, sure historically the extra planes of all sorts were used for strafing great fun… at least for the US.

Also, there is a reason why we took over all those Japanese island airbases in the middle of the pacific... We took them so we could use our land based airplanes from those newly acquired airfields, and prevent the Japanese from using those island airbases against us. “The Fork Tailed Devil” mentions again and again how the Zeros were such a pain (especially early on in the war) because the Zeros were based on all those islands, and had such a large radius of operation because of it.

All true and these bases did protect the supply line for small barges and from enemy subs. There are scant accounts of coordination between LandBaseAir and naval units especially in fleet battles. I sighted the Shoho was supposed to be help by LBA and few if any help was on hand, the PI battles were suppose to coordinate the kamikaze attacks with the fleet, as far as I know it did not happen. The IJN attack in the central pacific also has virtually no coordination between the carrier air and LBA, all of which were shot down in uncoordinated strikes. The only example I can think of was the single channel dash where a preplanned run using hundreds of LBA from fields all along the run were able to keep 6 to 12 planes.

To sum this up fighters strafing fleet units of the navy on their own did not happen or rarely happened in a naval battle and if / when it did for the most part was because one side had so so so so many extra planes they had nothing else to do.. So yes in a late war “battle” where the US gets 10,000 points and the IJN has 200 feel free to use groups of fighters to strafe naval units.

As a counter example fighters were at Singapore the RN commander did not call for them, the sinking BC called for them and they got there in time to see life boats, that is how useful LBA is in reality.

['Warspite']

Thank you for the detailed response. I will reply shortly after I have checked my sources. I suspect my sources on the Bismarck's final action differ from yours.

The last two quotes attributed to me [subject: P-38 fighters and Japanese islands] are NOT mine and were not written by me. As a Brit I would hardly write about: "...we took over all those Japanese island airbases..."

You might wish to check where those two quotes came from and re-attribute them.

['Warspite']

With regard to the question of small ships being targeted by battleship guns:

The problems really start when firing shells larger than 6-inch calibre at destroyers and destroyer escorts. Weapons from 5.5-inch to 6.1-inch were ideal destroyer 'killers' as tests at the Shoeburyness range in Essex had proved in the early 1900s. These tests had demonstrated that the 12-pounders and 4-inch guns then in use on many ships lacked the punch to kill a WW1 destroyer with a couple of rounds. That is why the 6-inch gun was eventually re-adopted by the Royal Navy with the battlecruiser HMS Tiger and the Iron Duke Class of dreadnoughts. This calibre had been dropped from RN battleship design when HMS Dreadnought was being designed.

With shells larger than 6.1 inch - say 7.5-inch calibre up to about 9.2-inch calibre - the principal problem [apart from the small target size and high target speed] is that all these 'CA' guns cannot be hand loaded. Their rate of fire will be much slower which, in turn, makes it harder to straddle and straddling DDs and DEs. The period betweens salvoes/broadsides is much greater.

Guns up to 6-inch can be hand loaded and this means rates of fire of around five rounds per minute [easy pace] with possible eight rounds per minute [or more!] if the crew goes rapid. But the crew will wear themselves out very quickly with such higher rates of fire.

With guns around 7.5-inch the rate of fire drops to around three/four rounds per minute and by the time you pass through 8-inch calibre and reach 9.2-inch calibre you are in the realms of two rounds per minute. These rates of fire are dictated by the various mechanised loading methods.

With heavier guns [11-inch and larger] you are stuck with two or three rounds per minute. However there is another problem with firing such heavy shells at DDs and DEs and that is the question of 'punch through'. Even contact-fused H.E. rounds require to hit something solid and most destroyers do not have the structure to detonate a large calibre H.E. round.

Examples: HMS Warspite [my namesake] fired whole salvoes at the Second Battle of Narvik into stranded German DDs at very close range - typically 2000 to 3000 yards. The result was the target DDs visibly heeled over as the 15-inch shells passed straight through them - but the rounds actually exploded on the beach some distance behind the targets. The 'punch through' rounds were not duds.

At the Battle of Sirte very long-range Italian gunnery [15-inch] sent a shell clean through one British destroyer. It did not explode and little damage was caused. The one destroyer which WAS harmed by Italian 15-inch was actually damaged by a near miss which burst alongside and flooded a boiler room.

It has been suggested that, at the night action at Cape Matapan, the British 15-inch shells so overmatched the Italian cruisers that many of our rounds passed clean through them - thus explaining why the cruisers had to be finished off by British torpedoes later. I have also read of US cruiser gunfire passing through a US cruiser in a friendly fire incident at Guadalcanal. The point here is that if even cruisers suffer from heavy shell 'punch-through' then DDs and DEs will also stand to benefit being that much more lightly constructed.

John Campbell's analytical book on the Battle of Jutland is full of rounds - both HE, semi-AP and AP - which failed to detonate on battleship structural plating [often several layers of structural plating] which is thicker than the structural plating used on destroyers. Detonations on armour in his book are much more frequent as armour presents a solid [impact resistant] surface.

So the problem with firing very big guns at small ships is not only the difficulty in hitting them with a slow firing gun which has problems hitting a fast target, but this is also compounded by the difficulty in getting a hitting shell to actually explode in a satisfactory fashion.

If I may turn to the 1942 Battle of the Barents Sea the difference between slow firing big guns and faster firing small guns is amply demonstrated.

In a relatively long range action against British 'O' Class destroyers, the Hipper [8-inch main guns] and Lutzow [11-inch main guns] achieved inconclusive results although some 8-inch rounds exploded on two destroyers and some smaller vessels were sunk at very close range. It does not appear that Lutzow's guns achieved any hits at all on the British destroyers.

By contrast HMS Sheffield and HMS Jamaica - at that stage involved in a gun action with the Hipper - found themselves threatened by the German destroyer Friedrich Eckholdt.

Switching targets with their faster-firing 6-inch guns [while Admiral Burnett told Captain Clarke of the Sheffield to 'ram the blighter Nobby'] the Sheffield and Jamaica pumped rapid salvoes into the Eckholdt from ranges coming down from less than three miles.

Their ability to fire fast and correct fast [unlike Hipper and Lutzow] plus their willingness to get close meant the Eckholdt was swamped with gunfire. "As we swept down on the target she was disintegrating before our eyes," Captain Clarke later wrote.

The Eckholdt never got off a shot or torpedo in response and when the two British ships swept past in pursuit of the Germans the Eckholdt was settling fast and was also underfire from the rear turrets of the British ships plus every AA gun which would bear. There were no survivors.

There was sufficient spare British firepower to also open fire on Ekholdts' two consorts and see them off. They fled pursued by shells from Jamaica's forward turrets.

While destroyers like Acasta and Ardent were certainly sunk by Scharnhorst and Gneisenau it is my understanding that it was S&G's secondary and tertiary batteries which did most of the damage while the main batteries were engaging HMS Glorious. [this article confirms: http://www.warship.org/no11994.htm ]

In conclusion if battleship and cruiser gunfire is be penalised against DDs and DEs [which IMO I think it should] then a distinction should be made between gunfire from cruisers up to 6-inch calibre [CL] such as Koln, Ajax and Sydney and cruisers over 7-inch such as Exeter, Brooklyn and the Japanese ships. These heavier cruisers should be classed as battleships.

In another thread a writer on this forum noted that cruisers seemed almost valueless. In either of the world wars cruisers had these roles:
1) scouting and recce
2) communications
3) 'ship of force' on distant stations [i.e. a cheap battleship]
4) acting as 'destroyer leaders' for large destroyer flotillas
5) commerce raiding or hunting commerce raiders

However it is also apparent that the faster firing light cruisers could also function as excellent destroyer killers as they fired a shell of sufficient power to cause severe damage and fired these frequently enough to allow for quick corrections of the fall of shot against a fast moving target.

Sources:
'73 North' by Dudley Pope [Battle of the Barents Sea]
'The Battle of Sirte' by S.W.C Pack
'Narvik' by Captain Peter Dickens
'Warrior to Dreadnought' and 'The Grand Fleet' by D.K. Brown

[Big Kahuna]

well that was a great write up..

There are sources that cite 6" CL were "better" then 8" CA in South Pac and toward the end the USN had the load any type of shell any angle: 6" guns which were NEAR crazy in shell fire.. That is a CA / CL / DD and even massive damage on the most above waterline BB.... brutal is the term.

here 12 Rounds / minute

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_6-47DP_mk16.htm

If you are still looking a RoF the Bismarck is rated at 20 seconds, the Bismarck site itself says 18 seconds. Typical pre war USN 16" RoF was about 40 seconds, the Nelson as well as the French had all kinds of other issues and their RoF for the 16" and 15" really was dismal. The base standard weapon was the Brit 15" and that was a good gone able to sustain a 100% salvo count with a RoF of 40 seconds. You will like the link as it list the Warspite...

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_15-42_mk1.htm

['Warspite']

In the case of your account of the sinking of the Bismarck it is at some variance with the senior German survivor [the late Baron Von Mullenheim-Rechberg] and with British observations. Both state Anton and Bruno turret [A & B - the forward turrets] were knocked out early - probably less than 15 minutes after the British opened fire. The Baron was in charge of the aft director control and he took over control from his position when forward control went off the air. Dora [D turret] had a gun barrel hit or it burst and was next to go out of action. It was Caesar [C turret] which was the last in action and that was in local control by then.

As to my comment about minor variations in rates of fire:

I am not questioning what is written down in some sources - the problem tends to be what is meant by what is written down when it comes to rate of fire. I am also questioning whether those rates of fire were ever achieved in action [see later].

Some nations used 'rate of fire' to mean complete firing cycle at short range [ie the breech does not have to be depressed or elevated to and from an actual long range firing position] while others referred to mid range or long range and they DO take elevation and depression times into account as well. Some nations use manufacturer's range test figures which could never be achieved in combat.

If the gun is elevated at 30 degrees for firing but can only be loaded at 5 degrees elevation, or less, then there is time lost in moving the gun breech both up and down. As you may already know the Italians achieved marvellous figures for their ships' speeds by running them pre-war with minimum fuel, minimum water, no ammunition and often no armament mounted either. Yet wartime operations proved Italian ships little faster than anyone else's. They simply could not achieve it in combat.

Regarding the Bismarck: in her first action against Hood she scored three hits on Hood [3rd salvo, 4th salvo, 5th salvo].
She had opened fire at 26,000 yards at 0555 hours [salvo 1] and scored the fatal hit at 16,500 yards at 0600 hours [salvo 5]. This fatal hit is thus five minutes after opening fire and indicates Bismarck was firing at about one salvo per minute which is typical for any big gun at long range. The limiting factor is time of flight of the shell, not the speed at which the gun can be reloaded.

Prinz Eugen appears to have matched her salvo for salvo. The British ships appear to have matched the Germans shot for shot as well which indicates [like all intrinsically conservative sailors] that each side was awaiting the fall of shot to apply the next correction. Time of flight plus time to calculate the correction would take about a minute at those ranges - as they closed it might speed up a little more, say 45 seconds.

In the first action against the Hood and the Prince of Wales - with a fresh crew and an undamaged warship - the Bismarck achieved at least three hits on Hood in the first five minutes and she is credited with a further three or four on Prince of Wales in the few minutes after Hood blew up and before Prince of Wales turned away under smoke.

In the second gun action with King George V and Rodney, Bismarck achieved no hits at all despite concentrating on one target for 15 to 20 minutes. Her subsequent choice of target/s appears erratic. The Bismarck was eventually surrounded by targets, some as close as 3800 yards away [HMS Rodney burned and bent her decks because her gun muzzles were so low because the range was so short] and still the Bismarck hit nothing. The King George V came within 4,800 yards during the same period and she was undamaged.

The nearest the Bismarck got to a hit was a 'short' on Rodney which exploded close alongside and damaged an underwater torpedo tube. The base of an exploded 5.9 inch shell also penetrated the ship.

Bismarck's unfortunate inabilty to hit anything in the second action suggests there was nothing exceptionally good about the German ranging system and it further suggests that the Bismarck's crew were suffering from fatigue and the psychological effects of lack of sleep plus the knowledge that their ship could not be steered. In other words their system broke down.

At the beginning of the action she would have fired the forward four guns but [if British claims that B turret fired spasmodically are correct] then she may have had six guns in action for a while as the British ships moved around her.

At the time of opening fire Bismarck was steaming straight and at an estimated speed of 10 knots. That should have considerably aided her gunnery. At 27 knots there is a lot of spray and a lot of vibration in the gunnery optics plus there is another 17 knots 'rate of change' to be factored in by her gunnery control.

By contrast the 'slow firing' Rodney was somehow able to manage two salvoes a minute from opening fire at 08.47 hrs [23,500 yards range] until almost the end of the action at 10.14 hrs at 3,300 yards range. I have all the timings to hand as I write. [Warship quarterly No 28].

If many years of experience as a amateur naval historian and wargamer have taught me anything it is not to trust figures - especially rates of fire.

Footnote: hotlink to the US 6-inch/47 is interesting but she is a post WW2 warship optimised for anti-aircraft work. I believe this system was automatic and not hand operated. Similarly the Des Moines were a 'fast firing' 8-inch which did not see WW2 service either. I believe they achieved six or seven rounds a minute with an 8-inch weapon which is very creditable!

[zaarin7]

You are correct on the 6"/47 and 8" guns. They were post WW II ships. Some of the best CA's and CL's ever built.

['Warspite']

Just been checking John Campbell's Naval Weapons of World War Two.

The new 6-inch a twin turret mounting and he quotes a firing cycle of 5 seconds which works out at 12 rounds per minute.

The Des Moines' 8-inch was a development of the 6-inch and he quotes a firing cycle of 6 seconds. Neither were used in WW2 and the mounting is clearly semi-automatic and not a handload.

[PercyHobart]

To Richard (the designer),

I've read a couple of forum member compilations of your Experimental rules but you have posted additional suggestions after some/most of these. I was wondering if you were editing your very first post as the "official" or "living" Experimental Rules (thus saving me having to trawl through nearly 30 pages of discussion) or if they were available elsewhere for viewing.

Cheers,

Steve

[Big Kahuna]

Here about the Rodney:From British Battleships of WWII

The designed loading-cycle for these mounts was 30 seconds, but in practice, it was 35 seconds for one gun. As the shell loading in the handling rooms required 50 seconds, the maximum sustained rate of fire was one round per gun every 50 seconds. However, because of the necessity of firing wing and center guns of turrets in different salvos [in order to reduce dispersion problems], the firing rate was further reduced to one round every 60 to 65 seconds . Even with modifications, the Director of Naval Ordnance considered it extremely doubtful that a greater rate of fire than one round of every 40 seconds for the first four rounds and one round every 45 seconds thereafter would actually be achieved.

Here the Bismarck's site of 18 seconds:
http://www.bismarck-class.dk/technicallayout/armament/artillery380skc34.html


Now the Bismarck not hitting anything, it is an uncontrolled platform, so how can fire be plotted? Yes long range salvo are limited by flight time, already stated that so so many times...

Did the Bismarck get a salvo off from the front main guns last?

At 0927, turret A (Anton) and B (Bruno) surprisingly fired one last salvo.

So that is 40 minutes after being pounded to death, shows to go you that the Bismarck did take massive damage.... and her deap internals were still working. That is after at least one of the back turrets and long after they were put out of action.

Feel free to post the rest on the Bismarck thread.

[RichardBaker]

That's a good idea, I should have thought of that about 20 pages ago.

I *think* I might have come up with another way to skin the cat, as regards to giving destroyers some help. I'll try to work up some notes and show you guys an unplaytested prototype of the suggestion later today; we're planning on giving it a play on Wednesday.


To Richard (the designer),

I've read a couple of forum member compilations of your Experimental rules but you have posted additional suggestions after some/most of these. I was wondering if you were editing your very first post as the "official" or "living" Experimental Rules (thus saving me having to trawl through nearly 30 pages of discussion) or if they were available elsewhere for viewing.

Cheers,

Steve

[RichardBaker]

Interesting research, Big Kahuna. You're starting to convince me that I might have given the Rodney's 16-inchers a little too much respect, and maybe sold the Bismarck just a bit short.



Here about the Rodney:From British Battleships of WWII

The designed loading-cycle for these mounts was 30 seconds, but in practice, it was 35 seconds for one gun. As the shell loading in the handling rooms required 50 seconds, the maximum sustained rate of fire was one round per gun every 50 seconds. However, because of the necessity of firing wing and center guns of turrets in different salvos [in order to reduce dispersion problems], the firing rate was further reduced to one round every 60 to 65 seconds . Even with modifications, the Director of Naval Ordnance considered it extremely doubtful that a greater rate of fire than one round of every 40 seconds for the first four rounds and one round every 45 seconds thereafter would actually be achieved.

Here the Bismarck's site of 18 seconds:
http://www.bismarck-class.dk/technicallayout/armament/artillery380skc34.html


Now the Bismarck not hitting anything, it is an uncontrolled platform, so how can fire be plotted? Yes long range salvo are limited by flight time, already stated that so so many times...

Did the Bismarck get a salvo off from the front main guns last?

At 0927, turret A (Anton) and B (Bruno) surprisingly fired one last salvo.

So that is 40 minutes after being pounded to death, shows to go you that the Bismarck did take massive damage.... and her deap internals were still working. That is after at least one of the back turrets and long after they were put out of action.

Feel free to post the rest on the Bismarck thread.