Carrier v Carrier Battle
- Thread starter pbeccas
- Start date
Wulf Corbett
Mongoose
I played a couple during playtest. It worked better when we agreed to pretend the carriers were off-table... They were a bit vulnerable, to say the least, to surface fire, although, of course, when you fire at the carrier, you ain't firing at the other ships.pbeccas said:
Note that in campaigns, aircraft from carriers may be used without the carrier - see page 45 - which better represents the reality, with carriers well out of range of surface ships, at least for one side. ACtA second edition should have the same rule in my (playtesting) opinion...
Wulf
Fitzwalrus
Mongoose
Our group will be playing the "Carrier Clash" scenario this Friday.
In preparation for that I've done a few "paper battles" to see how the air combat, AA and air attack rules seem to work out. The air-to-air and AA system seems OK; as currently written the anti-ship capability of aircraft flights seems a bit underrated.
(It is very difficult if not impossible, for instance, to duplicate the US dive bombers' attack at Midway with historical results using the current rules: those few aircraft really can't do that much damage.)
I'm in the process of cobbling together some more detailed rules for carrier Air Operations and increased damage to carriers, and we'll try them out this week. I'm also leaning towards modifying the number of "Flights" carried by the various carriers in the game, but I'm hoping for an answer from Mongoose as to how many aircraft a Flight is intended to represent in the game before I get too far into that.
In general the carrier rules look good, but like several other things in VAS they could use a little tweaking.
In preparation for that I've done a few "paper battles" to see how the air combat, AA and air attack rules seem to work out. The air-to-air and AA system seems OK; as currently written the anti-ship capability of aircraft flights seems a bit underrated.
(It is very difficult if not impossible, for instance, to duplicate the US dive bombers' attack at Midway with historical results using the current rules: those few aircraft really can't do that much damage.)
I'm in the process of cobbling together some more detailed rules for carrier Air Operations and increased damage to carriers, and we'll try them out this week. I'm also leaning towards modifying the number of "Flights" carried by the various carriers in the game, but I'm hoping for an answer from Mongoose as to how many aircraft a Flight is intended to represent in the game before I get too far into that.
In general the carrier rules look good, but like several other things in VAS they could use a little tweaking.
something that might help out torpedoes would be to change the crit confirmation.
2+ to confirm a crit if the torpedo has no torpedo Belt
4+ to confirm crit if the ship has a torpedo belt. (replaces torpedo re-roll ability of torpedo belts)
I should work out the odds for crit locations based on torpedoes re-rolling...
edit
ok, done
normal hits cause vital system crits (the one with the big boom) on a 2 or a 12 on 2D6. there's a 1/36 chance of each, which amounts to about 5.5%
torpedoes can re-roll one of the hit dice. The odds of getting exactly one 1 or 6 on two dice is about 44%, and then re-rolling the other die to get the other 1 or 6 you need is a 1/6 chance, for about 7.4%, together thats just under 13%. There are two occurances of rolling a 1 and a 6 on the initial dice, and again a 1/6 chance of getting the needed re-roll...whcih equals about 1%, so the odds of getting vital system crit with torpedoes is about 13.9% total, or a little better than 1 in 7, or 2.5 times as likely as regular hits.
Chern
Chern
2+ to confirm a crit if the torpedo has no torpedo Belt
4+ to confirm crit if the ship has a torpedo belt. (replaces torpedo re-roll ability of torpedo belts)
I should work out the odds for crit locations based on torpedoes re-rolling...
edit
ok, done
normal hits cause vital system crits (the one with the big boom) on a 2 or a 12 on 2D6. there's a 1/36 chance of each, which amounts to about 5.5%
torpedoes can re-roll one of the hit dice. The odds of getting exactly one 1 or 6 on two dice is about 44%, and then re-rolling the other die to get the other 1 or 6 you need is a 1/6 chance, for about 7.4%, together thats just under 13%. There are two occurances of rolling a 1 and a 6 on the initial dice, and again a 1/6 chance of getting the needed re-roll...whcih equals about 1%, so the odds of getting vital system crit with torpedoes is about 13.9% total, or a little better than 1 in 7, or 2.5 times as likely as regular hits.
Chern
Chern
Soulmage
Mongoose
I was discussing this with my friend last night. Using the carriers off the board. . . as well as the idea somebody posted of having a separate "carrier board" that was 3 turns away for aircraft. . . making it about 7 turns away for a speed 7 ship moving at flank speed.
Some simple rules could be worked out governing aircraft attacking ships attempting to reach the carrier board. (Basically just assuming that they get to attack normally each turn, and the ship gets AA fire each turn.)
Some simple rules could be worked out governing aircraft attacking ships attempting to reach the carrier board. (Basically just assuming that they get to attack normally each turn, and the ship gets AA fire each turn.)
I played a Carrier Clash the other day. Japanese versus American. My opponent doesn't like Carriers much.
I took 4 Shokaku's (2 Shokakus, 1 Ise, and 1 Hosho) and a Kongo, as well as 8 Fubuki's.
He took an Essex and 3 Brooklyns and 2 other Cruisers, as well as a New York and some Clemson's.
My air-armada, unsurprsingly, dominated the skies, outnumbering the opponent 4-1 and being ZERO'S!!!
Zero's are incredible fighters. They can't take a hit, and walk away even from tie's a little worse for wear. But they also hit very hard.
The one lesson I walked away from this fight was - you need to attack one or two ships in waves, instead of attacking his whole fleet with planes. In the climactic turn I had three air-planes of some kind attacking every ship in the American fleet. This rather impressive assault resulted in a massivly damages American fleet, but only 1 sunk Destroyer and a Japanese fleet with its claws pulled.
At this point the Kongo/DD escort would have been overwhelmed (likely). Had I stacked the planes I probably could have dropped the carrier with two or three good waves of attack craft (the Zero's were busy shooting down spotters...I enjoyed complete Air Superiority in this fight, it won't always be such.)
______________
Kernel of truth.
Carriers are amazing, if you bring along a whole bunch of them. But, they are largely a one shot poney, so to speak. Once their fighters are done with thier bombing and torpedo runs...there really isn't a whole lot left for the Carrier to do, except recieve fighters and sail off the board.
______________
Possible use?
I'd like to see a Light Carrier, I'd use it as an Air Defense asset for my fleet. CV's generate a lot of AA dice, and of course thier CAG is good for this too.
I took 4 Shokaku's (2 Shokakus, 1 Ise, and 1 Hosho) and a Kongo, as well as 8 Fubuki's.
He took an Essex and 3 Brooklyns and 2 other Cruisers, as well as a New York and some Clemson's.
My air-armada, unsurprsingly, dominated the skies, outnumbering the opponent 4-1 and being ZERO'S!!!
Zero's are incredible fighters. They can't take a hit, and walk away even from tie's a little worse for wear. But they also hit very hard.
The one lesson I walked away from this fight was - you need to attack one or two ships in waves, instead of attacking his whole fleet with planes. In the climactic turn I had three air-planes of some kind attacking every ship in the American fleet. This rather impressive assault resulted in a massivly damages American fleet, but only 1 sunk Destroyer and a Japanese fleet with its claws pulled.
At this point the Kongo/DD escort would have been overwhelmed (likely). Had I stacked the planes I probably could have dropped the carrier with two or three good waves of attack craft (the Zero's were busy shooting down spotters...I enjoyed complete Air Superiority in this fight, it won't always be such.)
______________
Kernel of truth.
Carriers are amazing, if you bring along a whole bunch of them. But, they are largely a one shot poney, so to speak. Once their fighters are done with thier bombing and torpedo runs...there really isn't a whole lot left for the Carrier to do, except recieve fighters and sail off the board.
______________
Possible use?
I'd like to see a Light Carrier, I'd use it as an Air Defense asset for my fleet. CV's generate a lot of AA dice, and of course thier CAG is good for this too.
Phosis, you appear to have grasped the key tenets of WW2 CV operations very nicely from that encounter 
Concentration of effort is a "must". I have doled out mass destruction in many CV-based games by keeping focussed on the job in hand (e.g. sink the other guy's carriers - ignore the battleships 'cos they are irrelevant). Conversely I have been on the receiving end of air strikes that should have been decisive but which weren't because the attackers spread themselves out too thinly rather than concentrating on the High Value Units.
Concentration of effort is a "must". I have doled out mass destruction in many CV-based games by keeping focussed on the job in hand (e.g. sink the other guy's carriers - ignore the battleships 'cos they are irrelevant). Conversely I have been on the receiving end of air strikes that should have been decisive but which weren't because the attackers spread themselves out too thinly rather than concentrating on the High Value Units.
Soulmage
Mongoose
I do think there ought to be some kind of re-armament rule for bombers/torpedo bombers. I don't even like carriers at all, but I think planes ought to be more than one shot attacks. Without the ability to re-arm you are probably better off with destroyers instead of a carrier in terms of possible torpedo damage.
I also do think fighters should have some ability to attack ships. Reason being, I was watching the Dogfight! episode the other day "Death of the Japanese Navy" and on it a pilot was describing how even after dropping his bombs he was continuing to strafe some of the destroyers with his .50 cal MGs. He said he was shooting at the deck mounted torpedo launchers in the hopes of putting them out of commission and largely ending the significance of the destroyer to the battle.
No word on whether he succeeded, but it does seem clear that guns could be used against exposed systems in an attempt to disable them. Any thoughts??
I also do think fighters should have some ability to attack ships. Reason being, I was watching the Dogfight! episode the other day "Death of the Japanese Navy" and on it a pilot was describing how even after dropping his bombs he was continuing to strafe some of the destroyers with his .50 cal MGs. He said he was shooting at the deck mounted torpedo launchers in the hopes of putting them out of commission and largely ending the significance of the destroyer to the battle.
No word on whether he succeeded, but it does seem clear that guns could be used against exposed systems in an attempt to disable them. Any thoughts??
Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
Disabling deck-mounted equipment with fighters is getting a bit complicated. More stuff to keep track of in the game, which means more notes and more stopping play to write things down.
Captain Kremmen
Mongoose
I would like to be contentious here. Being very new to the game I may have misread the rules, but my understanding is that your torpedo bombers and dive bombers all have 1AD per flight of I presume about 6 aircraft and about 3-4DD. In addition they only ever fire once.
So a descent sized fleet carrier may have around 3-4 torpedo or bomb equipped flights which means that if the entire carriers attack wing gets through unintercepted by AA or CAP they have about 3-4AD each of 3-4DD once for the entire game.
This appears to be far less than one round of firing from a battleship?
Or to compare apples with apples a little more, let's take destroyers and torpedoes.
A destroyer may have around 8 or so torpedoes, which it can fire as one spread this is likely to have a value of approx 3-4AD and 4DD
It would seem to me that a single flight of torpedo bombers would have about the same amount of torpedoes in the water and overall effectiveness. But a single flight of torpedo bombers has only 1AD 4DD
My hypothetical proposal, increase the value of all carriers by one, so raid becomes battle etc, but change all attack planes to 3AD instead of 1AD
This would actually make them useful. Remembering of course that if the defender has good CAP and AA then they will shoot much of the attackers down. If they do not and wave after wave of dive bomber and torpedo bomber comes in against no cap and little AA then I believe history always left the recipient of such a visit under several hundred feet of water.....
Cpt Ishido Kremmen
So a descent sized fleet carrier may have around 3-4 torpedo or bomb equipped flights which means that if the entire carriers attack wing gets through unintercepted by AA or CAP they have about 3-4AD each of 3-4DD once for the entire game.
This appears to be far less than one round of firing from a battleship?
Or to compare apples with apples a little more, let's take destroyers and torpedoes.
A destroyer may have around 8 or so torpedoes, which it can fire as one spread this is likely to have a value of approx 3-4AD and 4DD
It would seem to me that a single flight of torpedo bombers would have about the same amount of torpedoes in the water and overall effectiveness. But a single flight of torpedo bombers has only 1AD 4DD
My hypothetical proposal, increase the value of all carriers by one, so raid becomes battle etc, but change all attack planes to 3AD instead of 1AD
This would actually make them useful. Remembering of course that if the defender has good CAP and AA then they will shoot much of the attackers down. If they do not and wave after wave of dive bomber and torpedo bomber comes in against no cap and little AA then I believe history always left the recipient of such a visit under several hundred feet of water.....
Cpt Ishido Kremmen
Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
The destroyer has to be more effective than the planes overall. The torps are its best chance of hurting a capital ship but it does have guns to deal with other destroyers, can hunt subs and put up an AA screen.
Not having read the book yet, it's looking to me like carriers are an ineffective use of points in this game.
Not having read the book yet, it's looking to me like carriers are an ineffective use of points in this game.
This is precisely the problem with a WW2 naval game, in that aircraft are the bane of surface and submarine forces. If you place aircraft in a historical light then a player can then just throw waves of air attacks that will then devolve into a contest of throwing air defence dice against aerial attack dice. This is historically accurate and while "some fun" is not "a great deal of fun" if you want instead to fight ship-v-ship battles. One way to resolve this is to fight most of your naval "disputes" as night actions. Luckily not many of the combat aircraft in WW2 over water had bat-like capabilities (yet). Because VaS is not necessarily intended to be historical as much as "fun to play" I don't have a lot of criticism if they decided to tone down the combat effectiveness of carrier aircraft in a game that allows carriers from each side to be mixed in with naval unit battles. I cannot speak for the game play balance quality yet, as I'm still just a few days from getting some rules to have a look at. Let's just hope that the play-testers did a bang-up job at game balance testing using an equal rock-paper-scissors method in the game. Remember, if this game is matched to historic capabilities then the subtitle of Victory at Sea becomes "...with aircraft carriers".
