Post by mnnorthstars on May 26, 2017 14:40:27 GMT
Page 2
Shinnentai
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
Likes received: 416
Posts: 11687
FLAGS
Post subject: Reply with quote (Liked by:0) Like this post
mnnorthstars wrote:
I could envision a Japanese carrier fighter with Escort that required a die roll to be able to use the SA. They didn't really have escorting strike aircraft as part of their strategy from what I understand.
This isn't the impression I got from reading up on Pacific carrier battles in the past.
However I do remember on several occasions escort fighters were overeager to engage targets of opportunity, leaving the strike aircraft they were supposed to be escorting underprotected, so you could probably achieve the same in-game effect. Perhaps if the escort roll is failed it gets a bonus to AA score for the turn (very tempting to make escort work on a 4+, any other roll being the bonus to AA - ie plus 1-3, though that'd be horrific to word correctly).
_________________
www.shinnentai.com
"...we shall prove ourselves once more able to defend our island home, to ride out the storm of war... if necessary for years, if necessary alone."
PostTue Oct 25, 2016 6:17 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
mnnorthstars
Keeper of the Leigh Light
MySingleNationClub
MyTheaterClub
MySpecialCauseClub
Joined: 31 Jul 2011
Likes received: 334
Posts: 12782
FLAGS
Post subject: Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post (Liked by:0) Like this post
That's what I was looking at too. They didn't escort their strike planes so much as they used them for bait to go fighter hunting.
Historically Accurate, Yet Frustrating Doctrine - If this unit is in a sector with an enemy Fighter, roll a die. On a 3 or less, this unit can't use the Escort ability and rolls 1 extra die when making attacks against Fighters.
_________________
Capt. Strange wrote:
Last edited by mnnorthstars on Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:26 pm; edited 1 time in total
PostTue Oct 25, 2016 6:26 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
Flakstruk
Nobody Expects The FLAK-ATAK
MySingleNationClub
MyTheaterClub
Joined: 23 Jan 2010
Likes received: 405
Posts: 35335
FLAGS
Post subject: Reply with quote (Liked by:0) Like this post
probably easier to break it into 2 SAs, one that's a variant of escort and one that's the +1
PostTue Oct 25, 2016 6:26 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
mnnorthstars
Keeper of the Leigh Light
MySingleNationClub
MyTheaterClub
MySpecialCauseClub
Joined: 31 Jul 2011
Likes received: 334
Posts: 12782
FLAGS
Post subject: Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post (Liked by:0) Like this post
Then that ability would stack with Escort.
_________________
Capt. Strange wrote:
PostTue Oct 25, 2016 6:27 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
LcdrSwizzle
_
Club KM Uber Alles !
MySingleNationClub
MyTheaterClub
Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Likes received: 345
Posts: 13697
FLAGS
Post subject: Reply with quote (Liked by:0) Like this post
From what I have read, and remember, the Japanese sent fighters along with strikes, yes. However, they were neither trained, ordered nor willing to "protect" the bombers. They went to get their own kills, and to strafe, etc.
The "Thatch Weave" was designed by an American to help American fighters do a better job of protecting bombers, which was their "main" duty on strikes.
We all know that if you did not give the Japanese ESCORT, the game would be even more imbalanced, so for gameplay's sake, they get it and I'm fine with it.
_________________
Großadmiral Swizzle
Browncoat by fandom; Cossack by blood; American by birth; Virginian/Husband/Father by wife; Libertarian by choice; Human by race; Christian by grace.
PostTue Oct 25, 2016 6:29 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
mnnorthstars
Keeper of the Leigh Light
MySingleNationClub
MyTheaterClub
MySpecialCauseClub
Joined: 31 Jul 2011
Likes received: 334
Posts: 12782
FLAGS
Post subject: Re: Future cards to make with a negative SA Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post (Liked by:0) Like this post
weedsrock2 wrote:
Negative characteristics
UK - Ships with limited range
Is this limited range of effective fire, or limited cruising range? Regardless, can you give an example?
_________________
Capt. Strange wrote:
PostTue Oct 25, 2016 6:33 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
LcdrSwizzle
_
Club KM Uber Alles !
MySingleNationClub
MyTheaterClub
Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Likes received: 345
Posts: 13697
FLAGS
Post subject: Reply with quote (Liked by:0) Like this post
As an example of what we can do ... I don't like the EUROPA as is. The team did a fine job, just made her too much like an Allied carrier, so I guess that's what bugs me about her. Plus, she was a TERRIBLE design, trying to do too much. (True, not the only carrier that had that problem.) So, I am considering making my own card for her, and part of that process is this following SA:
Unstable Sailer: At the end of your Sea Movement step, roll a die for this unit. If you roll the number of sectors moved or lower, take one hp of damage. Always take one hp damage on a one. If a Squall involved in the movement, adjust die by -1.
also
Busy Crew: This unit may not operate aircraft if crippled.
-OR-
No Room: While crippled, reduce aircraft capacity by one.
_________________
Großadmiral Swizzle
Browncoat by fandom; Cossack by blood; American by birth; Virginian/Husband/Father by wife; Libertarian by choice; Human by race; Christian by grace.
PostTue Oct 25, 2016 6:33 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Shinnentai
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
Likes received: 416
Posts: 11687
FLAGS
Post subject: Re: Future cards to make with a negative SA Reply with quote (Liked by:0) Like this post
mnnorthstars wrote:
weedsrock2 wrote:
Negative characteristics
UK - Ships with limited range
Is this limited range of effective fire, or limited cruising range? Regardless, can you give an example?
It'll be cruising range - as Worth's Fleets of World War II notes on page 96, "British naval machinery in general proved 25% less economical than the American". KGVs had less than half the range of US fast battleships. Both KGV & Rodney were extremely short of fuel by the time they engaged Bismarck.
Italian ships usually had even worse range - understandable given they were mostly supposed to operate in the confines of the Med, but the short legs on their fleet destroyers limited them even in this theater.
_________________
www.shinnentai.com
"...we shall prove ourselves once more able to defend our island home, to ride out the storm of war... if necessary for years, if necessary alone."
PostTue Oct 25, 2016 6:47 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
admiral_tee
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Likes received: 335
Posts: 4396
FLAGS
Post subject: Re: Future cards to make with a negative SA Reply with quote (Liked by:0) Like this post
Shinnentai wrote:
mnnorthstars wrote:
weedsrock2 wrote:
Negative characteristics
UK - Ships with limited range
Is this limited range of effective fire, or limited cruising range? Regardless, can you give an example?
It'll be cruising range - as Worth's Fleets of World War II notes on page 96, "British naval machinery in general proved 25% less economical than the American". KGVs had less than half the range of US fast battleships. Both KGV & Rodney were extremely short of fuel by the time they engaged Bismarck.
Italian ships usually had even worse range - understandable given they were mostly supposed to operate in the confines of the Med, but the short legs on their fleet destroyers limited them even in this theater.
The comparatively short range of the UK warships wasn't an accident or error of design. It was intentional and partly off set due the location of military bases throughout the globe.
Also - an SA representing the "short legs" is not a good fit for a tactical game like WaS.
This is a better fit for a strategic game.
Once ships are engaged in WaS, they're already at the location where they've been travelling to. The extra hundred or so miles/k's travelling towards each other on the WaS map is of no consequence.
My 2 cents.
Tee
_________________
Scharnhorst's fate in WaS: "Scharnhorst is quite a... "Häßlich stinkender Hund" that the only real options are the LS 6 early year 41 cost Gneisenau, and the 4 attack kaboomkannon fantasy Scharnhorst."
PostTue Oct 25, 2016 8:12 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
war at sea 4
FROM THE USN TO THE IJN SAY HELLO TO MY LITTLE FRIENDS
Joined: 30 Oct 2012
Likes received: 145
Posts: 2465
FLAGS
Post subject: Reply with quote (Liked by:0) Like this post
Fighting 6 wrote:
I think ships with negative special abilities might get some play if the cost of the unit is deeply discounted. How you come up with the discount might be based on just how negative the ability is. Maybe this already happens but apparently it's not enough. Just my two cents worth.
I agree with this train of thought; but i also agree with Weeds that this has to be balanced between both the point lose and effectiveness of the SA.
Case in point early war German torpedo failure; Is
U-37 worth 11 pts with Defective Torpedoes; probably
U-47 worth 13 pts with Defective Torpedoes; doubt it
PostTue Oct 25, 2016 8:21 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
Flakstruk
Nobody Expects The FLAK-ATAK
MySingleNationClub
MyTheaterClub
Joined: 23 Jan 2010
Likes received: 405
Posts: 35335
FLAGS
Post subject: Reply with quote (Liked by:0) Like this post
thinking on it, the navy specific stuff is probably getting too deep into things for W@S. We could use a couple of good generic NSAs to go along with power failure and incomplete.
What about a confusion SA
PostTue Oct 25, 2016 9:07 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
weedsrock2
MySpecialCauseClub
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Likes received: 909
Posts: 36849
FLAGS
Post subject: Re: Future cards to make with a negative SA Reply with quote (Liked by:0) Like this post
mnnorthstars wrote:
weedsrock2 wrote:
Negative characteristics
UK - Ships with limited range
Is this limited range of effective fire, or limited cruising range? Regardless, can you give an example?
Limited cruising range. When the RN arrived in the Pacific in 1945 they had to withdraw to refuel much more often than the American ships. American and Japanese ships were designed to operate in large expanse of the Pacific ocean where bases were limited. Royal Navy ships were optimized in other ways because it was assumed they would always have a base relatively nearby around the Empire. Also, the USN adopted high pressure steam turbines in the late 30s (and were the only ones to do it successfully at that time because they didn't try to push it too far like everyone else did) and that made their ships more fuel efficient. The relatively short range of RN destroyers and escorts was also a big problem for Atlantic convoy escort. They couldn't go all the way across. So they had to break off about a third of the way across and return to base. Then escorts from the other side would pick up the convoy a third of the way from the other side. For the first couple of years the "Atlantic gap" had convoys without much ship escort in addition to no air cover. Only the little Flower class corvettes could routinely make the entire crossing.
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
PostTue Oct 25, 2016 10:09 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
dracos42
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Likes received: 21
Posts: 5709
FLAGS
Post subject: Reply with quote (Liked by:0) Like this post
The obvious SA for the USN is Defective Torpedoes, for destroyers and submarines.
I have an idea for representing short-ranged ships.
Short-legged: If this unit is on your opponent's side of the map at the end of turn 10, it counts as destroyed for victory point purposes.
An example would be the German destroyers at Narvik. They were stuck there waiting for a tanker, if I remember correctly.
PostTue Oct 25, 2016 10:45 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
weedsrock2
MySpecialCauseClub
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Likes received: 909
Posts: 36849
FLAGS
Post subject: Reply with quote (Liked by:0) Like this post
dracos42 wrote:
The obvious SA for the USN is Defective Torpedoes, for destroyers and submarines.
I have an idea for representing short-ranged ships.
Short-legged: If this unit is on your opponent's side of the map at the end of turn 10, it counts as destroyed for victory point purposes.
An example would be the German destroyers at Narvik. They were stuck there waiting for a tanker, if I remember correctly.
Interesting general idea, although I think maybe a bit too drastic.
What about limiting speed to 1 (or giving it Slow 1 or whatever increment downward in speed) when the ship is on the opponents side of the map? Reducing speed to conserve fuel.
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
PostTue Oct 25, 2016 11:22 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
weedsrock2
MySpecialCauseClub
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Likes received: 909
Posts: 36849
FLAGS
Post subject: Re: Future cards to make with a negative SA Reply with quote (Liked by:0) Like this post
admiral_tee wrote:
Shinnentai wrote:
mnnorthstars wrote:
weedsrock2 wrote:
Negative characteristics
UK - Ships with limited range
Is this limited range of effective fire, or limited cruising range? Regardless, can you give an example?
It'll be cruising range - as Worth's Fleets of World War II notes on page 96, "British naval machinery in general proved 25% less economical than the American". KGVs had less than half the range of US fast battleships. Both KGV & Rodney were extremely short of fuel by the time they engaged Bismarck.
Italian ships usually had even worse range - understandable given they were mostly supposed to operate in the confines of the Med, but the short legs on their fleet destroyers limited them even in this theater.
The comparatively short range of the UK warships wasn't an accident or error of design. It was intentional and partly off set due the location of military bases throughout the globe.
Also - an SA representing the "short legs" is not a good fit for a tactical game like WaS.
This is a better fit for a strategic game.
Once ships are engaged in WaS, they're already at the location where they've been travelling to. The extra hundred or so miles/k's travelling towards each other on the WaS map is of no consequence.
My 2 cents.
Tee
I generally agree, although game SAs have not been totally restricted to tacitical SAs. I could see an SA that slows a ship by one increment after turn 4 or something like that to simulate the need to reduce speed to conserve fuel.
I would not put this on a lot of ships, just like I wouldn't put defective torpedoes on a lot of US ships or subs. It is a "flavor" SA (in the yucky flavor category Wink).
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
PostTue Oct 25, 2016 11:26 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
weedsrock2
MySpecialCauseClub
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Likes received: 909
Posts: 36849
FLAGS
Post subject: Re: Future cards to make with a negative SA Reply with quote (Liked by:0) Like this post
Shinnentai wrote:
mnnorthstars wrote:
weedsrock2 wrote:
Negative characteristics
UK - Ships with limited range
Is this limited range of effective fire, or limited cruising range? Regardless, can you give an example?
It'll be cruising range - as Worth's Fleets of World War II notes on page 96, "British naval machinery in general proved 25% less economical than the American". KGVs had less than half the range of US fast battleships. Both KGV & Rodney were extremely short of fuel by the time they engaged Bismarck.
Italian ships usually had even worse range - understandable given they were mostly supposed to operate in the confines of the Med, but the short legs on their fleet destroyers limited them even in this theater.
And the Italian ships suffered even more because of the emphasis on speed over endurance in the design specifications. Fast, fuel sucking engines.
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
PostTue Oct 25, 2016 11:29 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
admiral_tee
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Likes received: 335
Posts: 4396
FLAGS
Post subject: Re: Future cards to make with a negative SA Reply with quote (Liked by:0) Like this post
weedsrock2 wrote:
admiral_tee wrote:
Shinnentai wrote:
mnnorthstars wrote:
weedsrock2 wrote:
Negative characteristics
UK - Ships with limited range
Is this limited range of effective fire, or limited cruising range? Regardless, can you give an example?
It'll be cruising range - as Worth's Fleets of World War II notes on page 96, "British naval machinery in general proved 25% less economical than the American". KGVs had less than half the range of US fast battleships. Both KGV & Rodney were extremely short of fuel by the time they engaged Bismarck.
Italian ships usually had even worse range - understandable given they were mostly supposed to operate in the confines of the Med, but the short legs on their fleet destroyers limited them even in this theater.
The comparatively short range of the UK warships wasn't an accident or error of design. It was intentional and partly off set due the location of military bases throughout the globe.
Also - an SA representing the "short legs" is not a good fit for a tactical game like WaS.
This is a better fit for a strategic game.
Once ships are engaged in WaS, they're already at the location where they've been travelling to. The extra hundred or so miles/k's travelling towards each other on the WaS map is of no consequence.
My 2 cents.
Tee
I generally agree, although game SAs have not been totally restricted to tacitical SAs. I could see an SA that slows a ship by one increment after turn 4 or something like that to simulate the need to reduce speed to conserve fuel.
I would not put this on a lot of ships, just like I wouldn't put defective torpedoes on a lot of US ships or subs. It is a "flavor" SA (in the yucky flavor category Wink).
If there are a few "strategic" level SA's in the game, it doesn't necessarily mean new ones are an "auto add" Wink
If there are a few examples where, during a tactical action, RN ships ran out of fuel or had to limit their speed during an engagement due to low fuel, then sure, lets consider it.
Even the low fuel of the RN capital ships when they cornered Bismarck had no impact on that tactical engagement. On a strategic level, it sure did but that is not the focus for WaS.
Also, who's to say that every WaS battle featuring RN units is at a distance far from an Allied port? Why can it not be just off the coast, or only a day's distance? This type of SA makes less sense when you extrapolate the situation.
I'd be a very vocal voice AGAINST adding a "low range/low fuel" SA and I think that stance would fall on the rational side of the argument.
Tee
_________________
Scharnhorst's fate in WaS: "Scharnhorst is quite a... "Häßlich stinkender Hund" that the only real options are the LS 6 early year 41 cost Gneisenau, and the 4 attack kaboomkannon fantasy Scharnhorst."
PostTue Oct 25, 2016 11:46 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
weedsrock2
MySpecialCauseClub
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Likes received: 909
Posts: 36849
FLAGS
Post subject: Reply with quote (Liked by:1) Like this post
Well, I probably wouldn't disagree. But my assumption is it is very likely I wouldn't use any unit that had a negative SA in a competitive game anyway. Even so, I agree having a basis in reality is much to be preferred. And I don't care much for strategic resource based elements in the game either. It wasn't designed for that. It's one reason convoy scenarios don't work well. The most important defense a convoy had was to not be discovered in the first place.
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
PostWed Oct 26, 2016 12:55 am
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
weedsrock2
MySpecialCauseClub
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Likes received: 909
Posts: 36849
FLAGS
Post subject: Reply with quote (Liked by:1) Like this post
Mostly, I am just glad this thread is generating some discussion! It was getting quiet and lonely around here.
As I said in the first post, it won't be easy coming up with negative SAs and units that we could get a consensus on. The suggestions for specific "jinx" ships like the USS William Porter, or RB's Mogami - that so many people love - are good ideas I think.
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
PostWed Oct 26, 2016 1:01 am
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
weedsrock2
MySpecialCauseClub
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Likes received: 909
Posts: 36849
FLAGS
Post subject: Reply with quote (Liked by:0) Like this post
BTW, one of our early team members lobbied very hard to put some type of slow SA on a German DD to account for the constant engine problems they had. But there was a lot of opposition because speed is the main characteristic of a DD. Look at how many DD/escorts with Speed 1 are used in actual games. Not many, not often. I myself was opposed because at the time I didn't think Germany had enough good DD options yet to throw one away on a negative SA. That probably isn't the case now. But I think it would have been a technically correct SA. Or maybe having a chance (roll a die every turn) of a complete sudden shutdown in propulsion for a turn. Nasty.
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
PostWed Oct 26, 2016 1:05 am
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic
Page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Stop watching this topic Axis & Allies ForuMINI Forum Index » WAS General Discussion
Shinnentai
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
Likes received: 416
Posts: 11687
FLAGS
Post subject: Reply with quote (Liked by:0) Like this post
mnnorthstars wrote:
I could envision a Japanese carrier fighter with Escort that required a die roll to be able to use the SA. They didn't really have escorting strike aircraft as part of their strategy from what I understand.
This isn't the impression I got from reading up on Pacific carrier battles in the past.
However I do remember on several occasions escort fighters were overeager to engage targets of opportunity, leaving the strike aircraft they were supposed to be escorting underprotected, so you could probably achieve the same in-game effect. Perhaps if the escort roll is failed it gets a bonus to AA score for the turn (very tempting to make escort work on a 4+, any other roll being the bonus to AA - ie plus 1-3, though that'd be horrific to word correctly).
_________________
www.shinnentai.com
"...we shall prove ourselves once more able to defend our island home, to ride out the storm of war... if necessary for years, if necessary alone."
PostTue Oct 25, 2016 6:17 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
mnnorthstars
Keeper of the Leigh Light
MySingleNationClub
MyTheaterClub
MySpecialCauseClub
Joined: 31 Jul 2011
Likes received: 334
Posts: 12782
FLAGS
Post subject: Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post (Liked by:0) Like this post
That's what I was looking at too. They didn't escort their strike planes so much as they used them for bait to go fighter hunting.
Historically Accurate, Yet Frustrating Doctrine - If this unit is in a sector with an enemy Fighter, roll a die. On a 3 or less, this unit can't use the Escort ability and rolls 1 extra die when making attacks against Fighters.
_________________
Capt. Strange wrote:
Last edited by mnnorthstars on Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:26 pm; edited 1 time in total
PostTue Oct 25, 2016 6:26 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
Flakstruk
Nobody Expects The FLAK-ATAK
MySingleNationClub
MyTheaterClub
Joined: 23 Jan 2010
Likes received: 405
Posts: 35335
FLAGS
Post subject: Reply with quote (Liked by:0) Like this post
probably easier to break it into 2 SAs, one that's a variant of escort and one that's the +1
PostTue Oct 25, 2016 6:26 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
mnnorthstars
Keeper of the Leigh Light
MySingleNationClub
MyTheaterClub
MySpecialCauseClub
Joined: 31 Jul 2011
Likes received: 334
Posts: 12782
FLAGS
Post subject: Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post (Liked by:0) Like this post
Then that ability would stack with Escort.
_________________
Capt. Strange wrote:
PostTue Oct 25, 2016 6:27 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
LcdrSwizzle
_
Club KM Uber Alles !
MySingleNationClub
MyTheaterClub
Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Likes received: 345
Posts: 13697
FLAGS
Post subject: Reply with quote (Liked by:0) Like this post
From what I have read, and remember, the Japanese sent fighters along with strikes, yes. However, they were neither trained, ordered nor willing to "protect" the bombers. They went to get their own kills, and to strafe, etc.
The "Thatch Weave" was designed by an American to help American fighters do a better job of protecting bombers, which was their "main" duty on strikes.
We all know that if you did not give the Japanese ESCORT, the game would be even more imbalanced, so for gameplay's sake, they get it and I'm fine with it.
_________________
Großadmiral Swizzle
Browncoat by fandom; Cossack by blood; American by birth; Virginian/Husband/Father by wife; Libertarian by choice; Human by race; Christian by grace.
PostTue Oct 25, 2016 6:29 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
mnnorthstars
Keeper of the Leigh Light
MySingleNationClub
MyTheaterClub
MySpecialCauseClub
Joined: 31 Jul 2011
Likes received: 334
Posts: 12782
FLAGS
Post subject: Re: Future cards to make with a negative SA Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post (Liked by:0) Like this post
weedsrock2 wrote:
Negative characteristics
UK - Ships with limited range
Is this limited range of effective fire, or limited cruising range? Regardless, can you give an example?
_________________
Capt. Strange wrote:
PostTue Oct 25, 2016 6:33 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
LcdrSwizzle
_
Club KM Uber Alles !
MySingleNationClub
MyTheaterClub
Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Likes received: 345
Posts: 13697
FLAGS
Post subject: Reply with quote (Liked by:0) Like this post
As an example of what we can do ... I don't like the EUROPA as is. The team did a fine job, just made her too much like an Allied carrier, so I guess that's what bugs me about her. Plus, she was a TERRIBLE design, trying to do too much. (True, not the only carrier that had that problem.) So, I am considering making my own card for her, and part of that process is this following SA:
Unstable Sailer: At the end of your Sea Movement step, roll a die for this unit. If you roll the number of sectors moved or lower, take one hp of damage. Always take one hp damage on a one. If a Squall involved in the movement, adjust die by -1.
also
Busy Crew: This unit may not operate aircraft if crippled.
-OR-
No Room: While crippled, reduce aircraft capacity by one.
_________________
Großadmiral Swizzle
Browncoat by fandom; Cossack by blood; American by birth; Virginian/Husband/Father by wife; Libertarian by choice; Human by race; Christian by grace.
PostTue Oct 25, 2016 6:33 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Shinnentai
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
Likes received: 416
Posts: 11687
FLAGS
Post subject: Re: Future cards to make with a negative SA Reply with quote (Liked by:0) Like this post
mnnorthstars wrote:
weedsrock2 wrote:
Negative characteristics
UK - Ships with limited range
Is this limited range of effective fire, or limited cruising range? Regardless, can you give an example?
It'll be cruising range - as Worth's Fleets of World War II notes on page 96, "British naval machinery in general proved 25% less economical than the American". KGVs had less than half the range of US fast battleships. Both KGV & Rodney were extremely short of fuel by the time they engaged Bismarck.
Italian ships usually had even worse range - understandable given they were mostly supposed to operate in the confines of the Med, but the short legs on their fleet destroyers limited them even in this theater.
_________________
www.shinnentai.com
"...we shall prove ourselves once more able to defend our island home, to ride out the storm of war... if necessary for years, if necessary alone."
PostTue Oct 25, 2016 6:47 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
admiral_tee
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Likes received: 335
Posts: 4396
FLAGS
Post subject: Re: Future cards to make with a negative SA Reply with quote (Liked by:0) Like this post
Shinnentai wrote:
mnnorthstars wrote:
weedsrock2 wrote:
Negative characteristics
UK - Ships with limited range
Is this limited range of effective fire, or limited cruising range? Regardless, can you give an example?
It'll be cruising range - as Worth's Fleets of World War II notes on page 96, "British naval machinery in general proved 25% less economical than the American". KGVs had less than half the range of US fast battleships. Both KGV & Rodney were extremely short of fuel by the time they engaged Bismarck.
Italian ships usually had even worse range - understandable given they were mostly supposed to operate in the confines of the Med, but the short legs on their fleet destroyers limited them even in this theater.
The comparatively short range of the UK warships wasn't an accident or error of design. It was intentional and partly off set due the location of military bases throughout the globe.
Also - an SA representing the "short legs" is not a good fit for a tactical game like WaS.
This is a better fit for a strategic game.
Once ships are engaged in WaS, they're already at the location where they've been travelling to. The extra hundred or so miles/k's travelling towards each other on the WaS map is of no consequence.
My 2 cents.
Tee
_________________
Scharnhorst's fate in WaS: "Scharnhorst is quite a... "Häßlich stinkender Hund" that the only real options are the LS 6 early year 41 cost Gneisenau, and the 4 attack kaboomkannon fantasy Scharnhorst."
PostTue Oct 25, 2016 8:12 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
war at sea 4
FROM THE USN TO THE IJN SAY HELLO TO MY LITTLE FRIENDS
Joined: 30 Oct 2012
Likes received: 145
Posts: 2465
FLAGS
Post subject: Reply with quote (Liked by:0) Like this post
Fighting 6 wrote:
I think ships with negative special abilities might get some play if the cost of the unit is deeply discounted. How you come up with the discount might be based on just how negative the ability is. Maybe this already happens but apparently it's not enough. Just my two cents worth.
I agree with this train of thought; but i also agree with Weeds that this has to be balanced between both the point lose and effectiveness of the SA.
Case in point early war German torpedo failure; Is
U-37 worth 11 pts with Defective Torpedoes; probably
U-47 worth 13 pts with Defective Torpedoes; doubt it
PostTue Oct 25, 2016 8:21 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
Flakstruk
Nobody Expects The FLAK-ATAK
MySingleNationClub
MyTheaterClub
Joined: 23 Jan 2010
Likes received: 405
Posts: 35335
FLAGS
Post subject: Reply with quote (Liked by:0) Like this post
thinking on it, the navy specific stuff is probably getting too deep into things for W@S. We could use a couple of good generic NSAs to go along with power failure and incomplete.
What about a confusion SA
PostTue Oct 25, 2016 9:07 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
weedsrock2
MySpecialCauseClub
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Likes received: 909
Posts: 36849
FLAGS
Post subject: Re: Future cards to make with a negative SA Reply with quote (Liked by:0) Like this post
mnnorthstars wrote:
weedsrock2 wrote:
Negative characteristics
UK - Ships with limited range
Is this limited range of effective fire, or limited cruising range? Regardless, can you give an example?
Limited cruising range. When the RN arrived in the Pacific in 1945 they had to withdraw to refuel much more often than the American ships. American and Japanese ships were designed to operate in large expanse of the Pacific ocean where bases were limited. Royal Navy ships were optimized in other ways because it was assumed they would always have a base relatively nearby around the Empire. Also, the USN adopted high pressure steam turbines in the late 30s (and were the only ones to do it successfully at that time because they didn't try to push it too far like everyone else did) and that made their ships more fuel efficient. The relatively short range of RN destroyers and escorts was also a big problem for Atlantic convoy escort. They couldn't go all the way across. So they had to break off about a third of the way across and return to base. Then escorts from the other side would pick up the convoy a third of the way from the other side. For the first couple of years the "Atlantic gap" had convoys without much ship escort in addition to no air cover. Only the little Flower class corvettes could routinely make the entire crossing.
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
PostTue Oct 25, 2016 10:09 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
dracos42
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Likes received: 21
Posts: 5709
FLAGS
Post subject: Reply with quote (Liked by:0) Like this post
The obvious SA for the USN is Defective Torpedoes, for destroyers and submarines.
I have an idea for representing short-ranged ships.
Short-legged: If this unit is on your opponent's side of the map at the end of turn 10, it counts as destroyed for victory point purposes.
An example would be the German destroyers at Narvik. They were stuck there waiting for a tanker, if I remember correctly.
PostTue Oct 25, 2016 10:45 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
weedsrock2
MySpecialCauseClub
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Likes received: 909
Posts: 36849
FLAGS
Post subject: Reply with quote (Liked by:0) Like this post
dracos42 wrote:
The obvious SA for the USN is Defective Torpedoes, for destroyers and submarines.
I have an idea for representing short-ranged ships.
Short-legged: If this unit is on your opponent's side of the map at the end of turn 10, it counts as destroyed for victory point purposes.
An example would be the German destroyers at Narvik. They were stuck there waiting for a tanker, if I remember correctly.
Interesting general idea, although I think maybe a bit too drastic.
What about limiting speed to 1 (or giving it Slow 1 or whatever increment downward in speed) when the ship is on the opponents side of the map? Reducing speed to conserve fuel.
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
PostTue Oct 25, 2016 11:22 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
weedsrock2
MySpecialCauseClub
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Likes received: 909
Posts: 36849
FLAGS
Post subject: Re: Future cards to make with a negative SA Reply with quote (Liked by:0) Like this post
admiral_tee wrote:
Shinnentai wrote:
mnnorthstars wrote:
weedsrock2 wrote:
Negative characteristics
UK - Ships with limited range
Is this limited range of effective fire, or limited cruising range? Regardless, can you give an example?
It'll be cruising range - as Worth's Fleets of World War II notes on page 96, "British naval machinery in general proved 25% less economical than the American". KGVs had less than half the range of US fast battleships. Both KGV & Rodney were extremely short of fuel by the time they engaged Bismarck.
Italian ships usually had even worse range - understandable given they were mostly supposed to operate in the confines of the Med, but the short legs on their fleet destroyers limited them even in this theater.
The comparatively short range of the UK warships wasn't an accident or error of design. It was intentional and partly off set due the location of military bases throughout the globe.
Also - an SA representing the "short legs" is not a good fit for a tactical game like WaS.
This is a better fit for a strategic game.
Once ships are engaged in WaS, they're already at the location where they've been travelling to. The extra hundred or so miles/k's travelling towards each other on the WaS map is of no consequence.
My 2 cents.
Tee
I generally agree, although game SAs have not been totally restricted to tacitical SAs. I could see an SA that slows a ship by one increment after turn 4 or something like that to simulate the need to reduce speed to conserve fuel.
I would not put this on a lot of ships, just like I wouldn't put defective torpedoes on a lot of US ships or subs. It is a "flavor" SA (in the yucky flavor category Wink).
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
PostTue Oct 25, 2016 11:26 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
weedsrock2
MySpecialCauseClub
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Likes received: 909
Posts: 36849
FLAGS
Post subject: Re: Future cards to make with a negative SA Reply with quote (Liked by:0) Like this post
Shinnentai wrote:
mnnorthstars wrote:
weedsrock2 wrote:
Negative characteristics
UK - Ships with limited range
Is this limited range of effective fire, or limited cruising range? Regardless, can you give an example?
It'll be cruising range - as Worth's Fleets of World War II notes on page 96, "British naval machinery in general proved 25% less economical than the American". KGVs had less than half the range of US fast battleships. Both KGV & Rodney were extremely short of fuel by the time they engaged Bismarck.
Italian ships usually had even worse range - understandable given they were mostly supposed to operate in the confines of the Med, but the short legs on their fleet destroyers limited them even in this theater.
And the Italian ships suffered even more because of the emphasis on speed over endurance in the design specifications. Fast, fuel sucking engines.
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
PostTue Oct 25, 2016 11:29 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
admiral_tee
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Likes received: 335
Posts: 4396
FLAGS
Post subject: Re: Future cards to make with a negative SA Reply with quote (Liked by:0) Like this post
weedsrock2 wrote:
admiral_tee wrote:
Shinnentai wrote:
mnnorthstars wrote:
weedsrock2 wrote:
Negative characteristics
UK - Ships with limited range
Is this limited range of effective fire, or limited cruising range? Regardless, can you give an example?
It'll be cruising range - as Worth's Fleets of World War II notes on page 96, "British naval machinery in general proved 25% less economical than the American". KGVs had less than half the range of US fast battleships. Both KGV & Rodney were extremely short of fuel by the time they engaged Bismarck.
Italian ships usually had even worse range - understandable given they were mostly supposed to operate in the confines of the Med, but the short legs on their fleet destroyers limited them even in this theater.
The comparatively short range of the UK warships wasn't an accident or error of design. It was intentional and partly off set due the location of military bases throughout the globe.
Also - an SA representing the "short legs" is not a good fit for a tactical game like WaS.
This is a better fit for a strategic game.
Once ships are engaged in WaS, they're already at the location where they've been travelling to. The extra hundred or so miles/k's travelling towards each other on the WaS map is of no consequence.
My 2 cents.
Tee
I generally agree, although game SAs have not been totally restricted to tacitical SAs. I could see an SA that slows a ship by one increment after turn 4 or something like that to simulate the need to reduce speed to conserve fuel.
I would not put this on a lot of ships, just like I wouldn't put defective torpedoes on a lot of US ships or subs. It is a "flavor" SA (in the yucky flavor category Wink).
If there are a few "strategic" level SA's in the game, it doesn't necessarily mean new ones are an "auto add" Wink
If there are a few examples where, during a tactical action, RN ships ran out of fuel or had to limit their speed during an engagement due to low fuel, then sure, lets consider it.
Even the low fuel of the RN capital ships when they cornered Bismarck had no impact on that tactical engagement. On a strategic level, it sure did but that is not the focus for WaS.
Also, who's to say that every WaS battle featuring RN units is at a distance far from an Allied port? Why can it not be just off the coast, or only a day's distance? This type of SA makes less sense when you extrapolate the situation.
I'd be a very vocal voice AGAINST adding a "low range/low fuel" SA and I think that stance would fall on the rational side of the argument.
Tee
_________________
Scharnhorst's fate in WaS: "Scharnhorst is quite a... "Häßlich stinkender Hund" that the only real options are the LS 6 early year 41 cost Gneisenau, and the 4 attack kaboomkannon fantasy Scharnhorst."
PostTue Oct 25, 2016 11:46 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
weedsrock2
MySpecialCauseClub
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Likes received: 909
Posts: 36849
FLAGS
Post subject: Reply with quote (Liked by:1) Like this post
Well, I probably wouldn't disagree. But my assumption is it is very likely I wouldn't use any unit that had a negative SA in a competitive game anyway. Even so, I agree having a basis in reality is much to be preferred. And I don't care much for strategic resource based elements in the game either. It wasn't designed for that. It's one reason convoy scenarios don't work well. The most important defense a convoy had was to not be discovered in the first place.
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
PostWed Oct 26, 2016 12:55 am
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
weedsrock2
MySpecialCauseClub
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Likes received: 909
Posts: 36849
FLAGS
Post subject: Reply with quote (Liked by:1) Like this post
Mostly, I am just glad this thread is generating some discussion! It was getting quiet and lonely around here.
As I said in the first post, it won't be easy coming up with negative SAs and units that we could get a consensus on. The suggestions for specific "jinx" ships like the USS William Porter, or RB's Mogami - that so many people love - are good ideas I think.
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
PostWed Oct 26, 2016 1:01 am
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
weedsrock2
MySpecialCauseClub
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Likes received: 909
Posts: 36849
FLAGS
Post subject: Reply with quote (Liked by:0) Like this post
BTW, one of our early team members lobbied very hard to put some type of slow SA on a German DD to account for the constant engine problems they had. But there was a lot of opposition because speed is the main characteristic of a DD. Look at how many DD/escorts with Speed 1 are used in actual games. Not many, not often. I myself was opposed because at the time I didn't think Germany had enough good DD options yet to throw one away on a negative SA. That probably isn't the case now. But I think it would have been a technically correct SA. Or maybe having a chance (roll a die every turn) of a complete sudden shutdown in propulsion for a turn. Nasty.
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
PostWed Oct 26, 2016 1:05 am
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic
Page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Stop watching this topic Axis & Allies ForuMINI Forum Index » WAS General Discussion