Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Naval Combat House Rule proposal

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Naval Combat House Rule proposal Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Naval Combat House Rule proposal - 12/8/2007 5:42:40 PM   
DeadInThrench

 

Posts: 318
Joined: 12/27/2006
From: NE Pennsylvania, USA
Status: offline 		I have been having some discussions with Eric Nygaard, about naval combat in his Double Eagle - Rising Sun (Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905) scenario, and have come up with a house rule proposal to make things realistic.

But first, the naval system in TOAW3, has it's problems, and the defender typically gets a huge advantage and, some examples.

In DE-RS, the game starts with two Russian cruisers near Chemulpo, the port leading to Soul, and as the Japanese player you must take those two cruisers out.

They are a 1-1 and a 2-2, and if I send in a 2-5 and a 2-4 (Japanese battleships) in a direct attack mode, I will lose those two ships, sometimes taking out one of the Russian cruisers, sometimes taking out neither (like I say, the naval system has it's problems).

If instead I attack with two full stacks (18 ships total) of the best battleships and cruisers in the Japanese fleet, I will take those two Russian cruisers out, but will take losses significantly greater than I inflict. Typically this will be twice the number of ships and twice the 'loss penalty' that I inflict, and in some cases I have lost 4x the number of ships and 4x the loss penalty, and this is aggravated given the Japanese having overwhelming force (again, the naval system has it's problems, in no uncertain terms).

Now, if instead I do as suggested here in these forums, just having the wimpiest destroyer I can find directly attack, while having the rest of the Japanese fleet 'support' the attack, then I take out those two Russian cruisers, with the destroyer sometimes going down while other times, it escapes.

The problem with this approach, is I can wipe out the entirety of the Russian Pacific Fleet, while only losing a handful of destroyers, and in a human vs human game, the Russian player could use the same tactic to destroy the entire Japanese fleet, with only minimal losses.

So, the house rule I have proposed is, in naval combat, the attacking player may not set up ships so that they support an attack, unless they match or better the number of each class of ships in the defending stack, with the ships that are directly attacking.

With this, I have to have two cruisers (or better) directly attack those two Russian cruisers near Chemuplo, and I typically (with the rest of the Japanese fleet supporting the attack) lose one of em but sometimes none, and IMO this is reasonable (given the overwhelming Japanese naval advantage there).

Then, the Japanese fleet would move to blockade Port Arthur (if against a human player) and, if the Russian fleet tries to attack a Japanese stack, they will probably get the worst out of it in no uncertain terms.

Historically, in this scenario, it is not wise for the Japanese to trade ships with the Russian Pacific Fleet, because the Russian Baltic Fleet is on it's way. Instead, best to keep them bottled up in Port Arthur and let them get destroyed by land based artillery once the Japanese army gets there, which is what happenend historically.

One could argue that it would be better if the TOAW3 naval system were just fixed so that defenders in naval combat do not get any advantage. However, the problem here is this would allow the attacker to force combat with the defender not being allowed to avoid it. Historically in the RJW, at one point the Russian Pacific Fleet offerred battle with the Japanese fleet, with the latter managing to avoid it, which was to their advantage so they could save their ships to do what they did historically, at Tsushima.

My apologies for the extensive and somewhat exhaustive post here, but just wanted to get any comments anyone might have, if they have read this far <g>.

DiT

< Message edited by DeadInThrench -- 12/8/2007 5:45:24 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Naval Combat House Rule proposal - 12/8/2007 6:42:31 PM   
macgregor


Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline 		I'm glad someone besides myself sees the imperative to improve the naval combat, even if only in the most minor of ways. It's not like naval combat isn't good enough, but more like it's impossible to get anything close to a realistic result. It's like the hemorrhaging artery that's been left bleeding while other minor cuts and scrapes have been addressed.

(in reply to DeadInThrench)
Post #: 2
RE: Naval Combat House Rule proposal - 12/8/2007 8:19:37 PM   
DeadInThrench

 

Posts: 318
Joined: 12/27/2006
From: NE Pennsylvania, USA
Status: offline 		Hmmm... thank you for your reply, but you DIDN'T address whether or not my house rule fixes the problem <g>.

The thing about the naval combat system, is if you really want to get into it, it can get kinda complex.

The first thing, is should defending naval units get the advantage in defense that they get now (which my guess is just the land combat system being used for the naval)?

And, IMO, they SHOULD, simply because the defending naval fleets are much more likely to get a crossing of the T, like the Japanese achieved at Tsushima.

But, what this would mean, is that in dreadnaught combat, you wouldn't want to attack unless you had an overwhelming force. Whether or not this is realistic, well, I am not enough of an expert on dreadnaught combat to say.

But, IMO, you gotta look at the overall bottom line. In other words, do the rules tend to provoke decisions and overall results, that were made, or should have been made, historically?

And, IMO, this house rule, along with what Eric has already but in there re house rules and the like, tends to produce the right historical situation in DE-RS.

So, I guess my question is, how would this house rule affect other scenarios?

Other than this, in the Russo-Japanese War, both side lost two battleships, to MINES. Plus, there were things like the Japanese trying to block Port Arthur by sinking concrete laden ships in the harbor (lol... they were unsuccessful).

So, would be difficult to simulate everything possible. Just would be nice to get the basic stuff functioning realistically.

DiT

P.S. Oh, BTW, would not be that difficult for something like this to be implemented in the code. If an attacking force does not match (or better) the defending force in the number of each class of ship in the defending hex, with the ships that are attacking directly, then, well, no support fire.

P.S.2. Also, would be wise IMO, to implement Eric's house rule in the code, that naval units including land units being transported, must STOP if they encounter an enemy naval unit (or shore battery), and cannot move further that turn unless that enemy naval unit or shore battery is attacked. Hmmmm... in this one... could just put in something in the code so that the naval unit or shore battery, gets an attack if you just try to move away, like exists in land combat.

P.S.3. macgregor... thanks again for the response! Yeah, guess I am getting a bit intense about this whole deal <g>.

< Message edited by DeadInThrench -- 12/8/2007 8:23:29 PM >

(in reply to macgregor)
Post #: 3
RE: Naval Combat House Rule proposal - 12/8/2007 10:00:24 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench
So, the house rule I have proposed is, in naval combat, the attacking player may not set up ships so that they support an attack, unless they match or better the number of each class of ships in the defending stack, with the ships that are directly attacking.


I think the most egregious problems occur when ships are used to attack adjacent targets. And that's not limited to ship-vs-ship - it applies to ship-vs-shore too. It seems that the system treats the ships not as floating artillery but as ground assaulters - which really screws things up.

So, perhaps a better rule might be to require all ship-vs-ship combat to be at 2-hex or greater range - no adjacent combat allowed. Then the combat will be resolved as bombardment vs counterbattery and should more-or-less reflect relative combat odds in the results (at least so I think - I haven't run any tests).

(in reply to DeadInThrench)
Post #: 4
RE: Naval Combat House Rule proposal - 12/9/2007 1:34:22 AM   
desert


Posts: 827
Joined: 9/14/2006
Status: offline 		But what about ships that don't have the range to bombard from 2 or more hexes away? Like destroyers, and ships in 50km maps.

_____________________________

"I would rather he had given me one more division"
- Rommel, when Hitler made him a Field Marshall

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 5
RE: Naval Combat House Rule proposal - 12/9/2007 3:39:34 AM   
a white rabbit


Posts: 2366
Joined: 4/27/2002
From: ..under deconstruction..6N124E..
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench
So, the house rule I have proposed is, in naval combat, the attacking player may not set up ships so that they support an attack, unless they match or better the number of each class of ships in the defending stack, with the ships that are directly attacking.


I think the most egregious problems occur when ships are used to attack adjacent targets. And that's not limited to ship-vs-ship - it applies to ship-vs-shore too. It seems that the system treats the ships not as floating artillery but as ground assaulters - which really screws things up.



..do they get flank attack bonuses then ?


_____________________________

..toodA, irmAb moAs'lyB 'exper'mentin'..,..beàn'tus all..?,

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 6
RE: Naval Combat House Rule proposal - 12/9/2007 4:55:38 AM   
rhinobones

 

Posts: 1540
Joined: 2/17/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
So, perhaps a better rule might be to require all ship-vs-ship combat to be at 2-hex or greater range - no adjacent combat allowed. Then the combat will be resolved as bombardment vs counterbattery and should more-or-less reflect relative combat odds in the results (at least so I think - I haven't run any tests).


Like it, sounds good in theory, but wonder how it will work in practice.

This would make surrounding a naval unit almost impossible (personally I think that’s a cheesey tactic, but it’s legal), and what happens when a naval unit bumps into an enemy naval unit? It has to back off a hex before it can fire? Fortunately naval units do not suffer from the disengagement penalty.

Regards, RhinoBones

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 7
RE: Naval Combat House Rule proposal - 12/9/2007 6:27:00 AM   
DeadInThrench

 

Posts: 318
Joined: 12/27/2006
From: NE Pennsylvania, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


I think the most egregious problems occur when ships are used to attack adjacent targets. And that's not limited to ship-vs-ship - it applies to ship-vs-shore too. It seems that the system treats the ships not as floating artillery but as ground assaulters - which really screws things up.


Hmmm.... yeah.... THAT is a problem also. I believe I have seen naval vessels taking losses attacking static infantry from a range of 1. This is a problem that exists in land combat as well, if you attack with just artillery they are assumed to be attacking across land with their horse teams or what not.

Naval vessels and artillery should ONLY come into play in the bombardment phase. Once that phase is over then they should be out of the combat resolution, and if attackers not be subject to any losses at all (except in the bombardment phase). In other words, you should be able to bombard with both naval vessels and artillery at a range of 1.

quote:



So, perhaps a better rule might be to require all ship-vs-ship combat to be at 2-hex or greater range - no adjacent combat allowed. Then the combat will be resolved as bombardment vs counterbattery and should more-or-less reflect relative combat odds in the results (at least so I think - I haven't run any tests).


I don't think this would work, because of the fact that some ships (and artillery) only have a range of 1. Also, in the testing I have done, with like 24 Japanese ships attacking those 2 Russian cruisers, this time at a range of 2, it is not as bad as the other situations I mentioned as far as attacker losses, but sometimes you don't take those 2 cruisers out, and lose 20% supply for each limited losses bombardment, which adds up fast if you do multiple 2 hex range bombardment attacks.

I should say here that, in the testing I have done, there appears to be much less damage inflicted when you attack at a range greater than 1. This is not just naval units but siege artillery as well, with attacks at a range of 2 seeming to do almost negligible damage (almost not worth the effort).

DiT

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 8
RE: Naval Combat House Rule proposal - 12/9/2007 5:17:09 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones
This would make surrounding a naval unit almost impossible (personally I think that’s a cheesey tactic, but it’s legal),


It wouldn't prevent that at all, so long as they don't attack while adjacent. And, you can surround at 2-hex range, too (takes a lot more ships, of course).

quote:

and what happens when a naval unit bumps into an enemy naval unit? It has to back off a hex before it can fire? Fortunately naval units do not suffer from the disengagement penalty.


Yes.

(in reply to rhinobones)
Post #: 9
RE: Naval Combat House Rule proposal - 12/9/2007 5:25:18 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench
Naval vessels and artillery should ONLY come into play in the bombardment phase. Once that phase is over then they should be out of the combat resolution, and if attackers not be subject to any losses at all (except in the bombardment phase). In other words, you should be able to bombard with both naval vessels and artillery at a range of 1.


Agreed, but until that's the case, you need a house rule that works.

quote:

I don't think this would work, because of the fact that some ships (and artillery) only have a range of 1.


Then edit the ranges with the BioEd so that all ships have at least a range of 2. I did something similar with "The Next War 1979". Now all naval vessels in it have ranges of 2.

quote:

Also, in the testing I have done, with like 24 Japanese ships attacking those 2 Russian cruisers, this time at a range of 2, it is not as bad as the other situations I mentioned as far as attacker losses, but sometimes you don't take those 2 cruisers out, and lose 20% supply for each limited losses bombardment, which adds up fast if you do multiple 2 hex range bombardment attacks.

I should say here that, in the testing I have done, there appears to be much less damage inflicted when you attack at a range greater than 1. This is not just naval units but siege artillery as well, with attacks at a range of 2 seeming to do almost negligible damage (almost not worth the effort).


But is that unrealistic? If so, then an AD change might be in order.

(in reply to DeadInThrench)
Post #: 10
RE: Naval Combat House Rule proposal - 12/9/2007 6:43:00 PM   
DeadInThrench

 

Posts: 318
Joined: 12/27/2006
From: NE Pennsylvania, USA
Status: offline 		The house rule I proposed, will work for naval vessels with range of just 1.

If you put a bunch of range 1 naval vessels adjacent to a defending stack, but do not have all of them attack, the remaining vessels are available to support the attack.

In the Chemulpo example I have been using, with the house rule I have proposed, I could put 18 range 1 ships adjacent to those two Russian cruisers, have two cruisers directly attack (with minimum losses) and the remaining 16 are then available to support.

This works, IMO, as far as realism and avoiding excessive attacker losses given the overwhelming advantage.
This can also be used for land attacks by naval units. Have one unit attack at range 1 with minimum losses and have other ships (at their appropriate range) available to support. With this only the one ship will be subject to possible loss. Ideally there shouldn't be any but, worse case you lose one destroyer and that is at least getting pretty close.

Units that support an attack, as I understand it only attack with half of their attack ability (but, just use up half of the supply they would normally use). But, from my experience, this is still considerably more than what they would use at a range 2 bombardment. I don't know what the multiplier there is, but my guess would be 25% or 20%. They also lose full supply for each round that they fire.

DiT

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 11
RE: Naval Combat House Rule proposal - 12/10/2007 11:43:52 AM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Then edit the ranges with the BioEd so that all ships have at least a range of 2. I did something similar with "The Next War 1979". Now all naval vessels in it have ranges of 2.


This creates a problem with shore bombardment, however. So you'd need another house rule.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 12
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Naval Combat House Rule proposal Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.703