CRUISER CONTROVERSY

Thanks for your input todate. Here is a collection of my thinking at this point. Please feel free to participate in this on going discussion. Your contributions are appreciated. Tell your A&A friends about this so they have a chance to voice what they want in A-A&A. I'll update the the original posting as changes and new ideas are adopted or contemplated.
Griffey
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 8:00 pm
Location: Houston

CRUISER CONTROVERSY

Post by Griffey » Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:55 pm

As there's clamor for cruisers, I did a little research in my 1942 JANE's FIGHTING SHIPS.

The data there suggests that the distinctive feature of a cruiser unit in the game should be a higher combat movement allowance.

What leaps out is that the cruisers of 1942 were much newer, on average, than the battleships. Frequently, they had more powerful engines than the older battleships of AD 1942.

The older generation of battleships were about 20-25 years old, having been laid down about the time of World War One. The new generation of battleships that was laid down with the arms race of the mid to late 1930s hadn't quite appeared yet, although they would very soon.

One of the biggest differences between the older ships, whether battleships or cruisers, and the newer ships, whether battleships or cruisers, was that the newer ships had about twice the horsepower, and, with more efficient new engines, had a significantly GREATER RADIUS of ACTION. They could go a lot further without refueling than the older warships could. They were also faster at top speed.

The new British Kent class cruisers, e.g., had a radius of 2300 miles at full speed (31.5 kts.) , and of 10400 miles at cruising speed (11-14 kts.,) and carried 3400 tons of oil fully loaded.

The old Queen Elizabeth class battlleships carried the same amount of fuel, but had a radius of only "about" 4,400 miles.

The new Nelson class battleships carried 4000 tons of fuel, and had a radius of well over 10,000 miles.

Destroyers typically had radiuses about 60% those of cruisers of the same generation.

In a game of this scale, with 3-6 month turns, it is not the top speed of vessels which is significant, it is how long they can stay at sea ready for combat.

So the CRUISER should have a COMBAT MOVEMENT ALLOWANCE
a point higher than that of the battleship or the destroyer. The CARRIERS also tended to be newer ships with a big radius of action.

The new generation of BATTLESHIPS might be distinguished with a combat factor of 5 on d6 or of 10 on d12, and also have a have a cruiser combat movement allowance.

If some sort of INTERCEPTION rule is being used for surface combat, the cruisers and carriers should have a higher interception probability.

You might even give the non-phasing player's cruiser an ability to move to the defense of adjacent embattled sea zones, after the enemy has ended his combat movement, in a manner similar to what many propose for defending fighters.

I would recommend three independent movement phases, with no carry-over of left over movement allowance points from phase to phase.

1. First Noncombat Movement. Aircraft and Surface Naval Units ONLY. Naval units which do not do a Combat Move in 2) may move an extra six spaces beyond their normal movement allowance in this phase.

2. Combat Movement.

3. Reaction Phase. Non-Phasing Player's Fighters and CRUISERS may move to defend adjacent sea zones and territories, if their own sea zone or territory is not under attack.

4. Second Non-Combat Movement. All units may Noncombat Move.

MOVEMENT ALLOWANCES, VALID for ALL MOVEMENT PHASES 1), 2), 4).
Submarines, Transports, Old Battleships, Destroyers, Bombers: 2.
Cruisers, Carriers, New Battleships, Tanks: 3.
Fighters, Infantry, Artillery: 1

User avatar
Larry
Posts: 3090
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:44 am

Post by Larry » Mon Feb 28, 2005 1:50 am

Comments noted

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Post by Imperious leader » Thu Mar 03, 2005 4:41 pm

Ok some figures regarding ship speeds...

BB (mid to late war)= 27.5-28 knots
Old BB (pre war-ww1 retrofits)= 21 knots

CA= 33 knots
CL= 32.5 knots

Battlecruisers (BC)= 29 knots

DD= 35-41 knots

CV= 31.5-33 knots
older CV= 25+ knots

CVL = 32.5 Knots

CE= 18-19 knots

Subs (SS) =11.75 surface/9 submerged

So as far as this game goes id make 3 point spread on movement as follows:

Battleships (BB) at 2 spaces
Cruisers (CA and CL) at 3
Destroyers (DD) at 4
Carriers (CV, CVL, CE) at 3
Subs (SS) at 1 or perhaps 2

case one:
When Yamamoto planned the midway attack he seperated his "First Carrier Strike Group" into Carriers and Destroyers since they travel at faster speeds, while the "Main Body" made up of primarily battleships and a small escort carrier.
\

case two:
The hunt for the Bismarck had the royal navy protecting the different "interception routes" with groups of ships assigned by their speed classification (amoung other things) so that they could keep up with each other and have a chance of sucess if they got in a surface action with Bismarck.

case three:
Japanese operations in Leyte gulf (sho1, sho2,sho3)
were prepared to a lessor degree to facilitate the deployment of their forces in groups so that the ships of slower speeds were kept together, while the fast battleship force would be able to surprise the unloading landing force and supporting escort carriers. A decoy force of Carriers and Cruisers were used to lure the main US fleet into northern waters so the other groups could have a chance to win the battle.

case four:
The attack on Hawaii was conducted with careful planning and only the fast battleships and supporting warships traveled with the carrier group.

I can name a few more , but its clear from the record that a major consideration as to a ships speed was taken into account in the planning of any major surface naval action. I think having ships at a few different speeds would help the game simulate the actual naval warfare better, than the "all ships move two" rule
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

User avatar
Krieghund
Posts: 2667
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:18 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Post by Krieghund » Thu Mar 03, 2005 5:03 pm

Imperious leader wrote:I can name a few more , but its clear from the record that a major consideration as to a ships speed was taken into account in the planning of any major surface naval action. I think having ships at a few different speeds would help the game simulate the actual naval warfare better, than the "all ships move two" rule
I wholeheartedly concur.
A&A Developer and Playtester

"War is much more fun when you're winning!" - General Martok

User avatar
elbowmaster
Posts: 1559
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:20 am
Location: "western boogerland"
Contact:

Post by elbowmaster » Thu Mar 03, 2005 5:32 pm

seems fitting, it will totally change the sea zones in the game

perhaps making the maximum movement 3, and the main movement phases as 1...if there are more sea zones, then it will affect other things like air movement...

im basing this on the revised map...

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Post by Imperious leader » Thu Mar 03, 2005 5:51 pm

Well yes the "spread" can move from the 2-4 range down to 1-3 range. In either case additional sea zones are needed. Im picturing the zones that are currently in a/a Pacific. That looks basically perfect and the math about the relationships between the sea zones has allready been figured out. More work would have to be done on the Atlantic side, as we need more sea zones to move about. A/A Europe kinda put naval warfare on the backburner which is fine, but now with a 50 inch board we can accomodate a few more sea zones .
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

Griffey
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 8:00 pm
Location: Houston

Naval Movement Allowances

Post by Griffey » Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:52 pm

Comrade gamers,

Cruisers in the game should have a higher movement allowance than destoyers.

The 1942 JANE'S FIGHTING SHIPS indicates that ships at top speed burned oil at about 4 or 5 times the rate per nautical mile they burned it at optimal cruising speed. The speed of at which ships burned fuel at optimal efficiency, reckoned per nautical mile, was one-half to one-third their top speed.

That's why it's mistaken to regard destroyers as "faster," in game terms, than vintage 1930s cruisers. Yes, the destroyers had a higher top speed than the cruisers, but they couldn't maintain it very long at all. They would use their top speed only when making an attack run in combat. 99% of the time they ran at slower speeds. Since a game turn represents 3-6 months, the top combat speed of the unit has no relation to its game movement allowance.

The new cruisers were the ships that could remain at sea on station, combat ready, for long periods of time. They had big cruising radii of action. Destroyers had much shorter radii of action. That's why cruisers should have the highest movement allowances.

Aircraft carriers had new cruiser hulls and new big cruiser engines and should also have higher movement allowances.

The purpose of destroyers was screening more valuable ships against submarines and other threats. That's their special task in the game, as in "reality."

Look, con-sarn it ! You're the guys who wanted cruisers in the game. Give them at least one special ability as a unit, which in fact they had in "reality," which was their high movement allowance over protracted time.

Let cruisers cruise.

User avatar
elbowmaster
Posts: 1559
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:20 am
Location: "western boogerland"
Contact:

Post by elbowmaster » Fri Mar 04, 2005 12:00 am

no argument from me, griffey does point out a good argument including resources...

what would be your next choice??? better "combined defense" vs lets say aircraft..??

before the new aa series came out, aae and aap, we would allow a transport to carry an aa gun for an aa shot at attacking air...

have to admit, also wouldnt mind seeing it take more than 1 turn to get to uk from eastern usa...

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests