:: :: FAQ :: Search :: Memberlist :: Join! (free) :: Profile :: Log in to check your private messages :: Log in ::
Revised 6-set scenario for In Harm's Way WAS-2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Axis & Allies ForuMINI Forum Index -> WAS Scenarios & Houserules
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertising.

 


Likes received:




Post subject:   (Liked by:)  Like this post
Back to top
wargamer55

 

Joined: 19 Sep 2008
Likes received: 9

Posts: 448
FLAGS




Post subject: Revised 6-set scenario for In Harm's Way WAS-2  Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
Revised 6-set OB for WAS-2 In Harm’s Way scenario

Allied Task Force

USS Houston CA
HMAS Sydney CL (HMAS Perth)
Witte de With DD (Evertsen)

Japanese Transport Force

Kinai Maru x 3
Jintsu CL (Natori)
Yukikaze DD x1 (Hatakaze)
Muresame DD x3 (Fubuki, Hatsuyuki, Shirayuki)
Nagatsuki DD x 1 (Asakaze) (card’s SA do not apply – no Long Lance, Tokyo Express)

Japanese Escort Force

Mogami CA x 1
Suzuya CA  x 1 (Mikuma)
Shigure  DD  x 1 (Shikinami)

Discussion

The official scenarios were published when War at Sea was brand new, as part of the marketing effort, Being so early, they required a crazy amount of proxies and some pretty extreme ones as well. This second official scenario, like most, had to use proxies for most of the units. With five more sets many of the gaps can be filled, but some proxies are still needed.

I thought it would be interesting to revisit and revise those scenarios now that we have six sets worth of units to choose from In the case of scenario WAS-2, The Battle of Sunda Strait, we see some of the key units from the historical battle now appearing as themselves, including the USS Houston and the Mogami.

Notes and rationales
Allied task force
USS Houston CA – we now have the actual ship, so it is used. The special rule doesn’t apply because the Houston doesn’t have extended range anyway. I considered reducing the Houston’s firepower because of its damaged third turret, but the Allies already have a challenging situation. Optionally reduce the Houston’s main battery firepower by 1 die.
HMAS Sydney CL –stands in for sister Perth.
Witt de With DD – stands in for near sister Evertsen.

Japanese Transport Force
Kinai Maru x 3 – no change
Jintsu CL – No change, proxy for similar Natori
Yukikaze DD x 1 – Stands in for sister Hatakaze.
Muresame DD x 3 – One of the biggest gaps in the War at Sea line is the Fubuki class destroyer. The later Kagero-class is the closest proxy. Stands in for Fubuki, Hatsuyuki and Shirayuki.
Nagatsuki DD x 1 – This stands in for the older Asakaze, which was a pre-Long Lance design, so it doesn’t get the special ability
Japanese Escort Force
Mogami CA x 1 – the actual ship is available, so it is used.
Suzuya CA x 1 – Stands in for sister ship Mikuma.
Shigure DD x 1 – Another Kagero stands in for the Fubuki-class Shikinami.

Original scenario: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/aam/ah2007121707
_________________
War at Sea 64/64
Task Force 60/60
FS, CZ and Surface Action 40/40 ea.
Set V 39/39 and Starter Set 8/8
AAM All sets 48/48, 45/45, 60/60 & 50/50 for a total of approximately 1,800
A20 and BH 31/31 each
http://pawnderings.blogspot.com


Last edited by wargamer55 on Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:09 pm; edited 1 time in total
PostSun Feb 19, 2012 11:01 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
fredmiracle

 

Joined: 07 Aug 2009
Likes received: 55

Posts: 4740
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
I like what you're doing here!

It would be nice if you embedded a link to the original scenario each time, so I don't have to go hunt for it Smile
PostSat Feb 25, 2012 5:13 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
wargamer55

 

Joined: 19 Sep 2008
Likes received: 9

Posts: 448
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
The other day I played a session of my revised In Harm's Way WAS-2 scenario.

I took the Allied fleet, as it seems they have the harder task. The Japanese player was a denizen of the game shop who has played War at Sea before, although he is, like most of the game shop crowd, primarily a Magic: The Gathering player.

As we shall see, he handled the Japanese fleet competently.

A couple of solitaire play throughs while I developed the revised scenario revealed that it was a very poor strategy for the Allies to come in with guns a-blazing as it just freed up the Japanese sooner, so my plan with the USS Houston and the HMAS Perth was to ignore the Japanese pickets and make a beeline for the transports. My analysis of the victory conditions indicated that it was vital to take out all three Transports because they represented a 20-point swing each (8VP for being sunk and 12VP the Japanese DIDN'T get for having the undamaged at the end.)

The Allies got a little luck as the Japanese lost two of the Fubuki-class DD's (proxied by Kagero's) due to the set-up die rolls.

The first turn saw the Allied cruisers slip through a gap in the Japanese line without being within range due to the Night Surprise rule. This couldn't continue, of course, and on the second turn the Japanese got close enough to shoot -- but did no damage. A return shot from the Perth crippled one DD while a maximum range shot by the USS Houston sunk a transport outright.

The loss of 2 ships was more than enough to let the Japanese shock wear off and also brought in the reinforcement group as well -- so the time pressure was on the Allies!

The next turn the Allied cruiser split up, with the Houston taking the more shoreward path while the Perth was towards the center of the channel to draw fire. I wanted to have at least 2 shots on the next turn -- which the Houston's secondary would provide.

The Perth was, of course, buried under a deluge of Japanese fire, but it was mostly ineffective as only one point of damage was caused by gunfire. A long Lance from one of the IJN heavies was all it took, though, to dispatch Perth. The Allied fire was able to damage the Natori, sink another transport and damage the third one, though.

The fourth and final turn saw the Houston continue its "death ride" into the transport area. As it turned out, friendly fire from one of the IJN ships took out the last transport! The Houston, of course, stood little chance of surviving under the IJN fire and was sunk. It's return fire took out one DD.

The final score was 28 VP for the Japanese for the two Allied cruisers (14 VP each) while the Allies earned 30 VP (24 VP for three sunk transports, 2VP for the crippled Natori and 4 VPs for the sunk DD).

The Eversten did not make an appearance as I figured it was very unlikely it would do as much damage as the Japanese would earn for sinking her.

So it ended up being a very close-fought contest. The point total for the Allied force on the revised OB is significantly less than the original scenario (30 VP is all three ships are used instead of 41 VP). The Japanese force is also somewhat reduced in point value but only the cruisers are worth their full VP value for the Allies if sunk. In the original scenario the Allies really have to sink the Natori as well as the three transports while in the revised scenario the transports are enough so long as some damage is also done to the CL/DD covering force.
_________________
War at Sea 64/64
Task Force 60/60
FS, CZ and Surface Action 40/40 ea.
Set V 39/39 and Starter Set 8/8
AAM All sets 48/48, 45/45, 60/60 & 50/50 for a total of approximately 1,800
A20 and BH 31/31 each
http://pawnderings.blogspot.com
PostTue Mar 06, 2012 2:49 am
Back to top View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
nimitstexan

 

Joined: 15 May 2014
Likes received: 3

Posts: 41
FLAGS




Post subject: Re: Revised 6-set scenario for In Harm's Way WAS-2 Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
wargamer55 wrote:
Revised 6-set OB for WAS-2 In Harm’s Way scenario


Japanese Transport Force

Kinai Maru x 3
Jintsu CL (Natori)
Yukikaze DD x1 (Hatakaze)
Muresame DD x3 (Fubuki, Hatsuyuki, Shirayuki)
Nagatsuki DD x 1 (Asakaze) (card’s SA do not apply – no Long Lance, Tokyo Express)

Japanese Escort Force

Mogami CA x 1
Suzuya CA  x 1 (Mikuma)
Shigure  DD  x 1 (Shikinami)

Discussion


Muresame DD x 3 – One of the biggest gaps in the War at Sea line is the Fubuki class destroyer. The later Kagero-class is the closest proxy. Stands in for Fubuki, Hatsuyuki and Shirayuki.
Shigure DD x 1 – Another Kagero stands in for the Fubuki-class Shikinami.


Shigure and Muresame were Shiratsuyu (1700 tons, 5x12.7cm), not Kagero (2000 ton, 6x12.7cm guns), class DDs. Yukikaze, Hatsukaze, and Isokaze make better proxies. I prefer using Isokaze, as it is the weakest/cheapest of the A&A Kageros

PostSat May 02, 2015 8:57 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic



   Axis & Allies ForuMINI Forum Index » WAS Scenarios & Houserules

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Editor's Choice
Forumini Generals
All AAM cards
All AAAF Cards
All War At Sea Cards
Forumini Admirals
A20 World Rankings
1. Jcmonson 1066
1. Bean965 1038
3. Vergilius 1024
WAS World Rankings
1. Admiral Wannabee 1240
2. mnnorthstars 1170
3. Azrael 1120
AAM World Rankings
1. Lil Snips 1096
2. Tripwire 1021
3. Kawolski 1010
Friends
Official WoTC site
Richard Baker's new Blog
Le Forum de A&ANM
Riverside Gaming
A&A Underground
Top posters
Brigman 42738
weedsrock2 36854
Flakstruk 35335
RAEVSKI 26750
firesdstny 26685
Asbestos 24554
SWO_Daddy 23223
Solomiranthius 19325
NeuralDream 18234
nrnstraswa 17161
herky80 16512
Lt_V 16301
jfkziegler 15353
Swished3 14762
carrion 14490
LcdrSwizzle 13698
packertim 13611
DaJudge 13360
mnnorthstars 12784
The_lucky_Y 12511
danaussie 12161
Shinnentai 11688
hokiepastor 10867


Forumini Newsletter
Issue #10 (Sep. 2013)
Issue #9 (Sep. 2012)
Issue #8 (Dec. 2011)
Issue #7 (Sep. 2011)
Issue #6 (Apr. 2011)
Issue #5 (Christmas 2010)
Issue #4 (Dec. 2010)
Issue #3 (Jul. 2010)
Issue #2 (Apr. 2010)
Issue #1 (Feb. 2010)


Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Theme by: :: Cosmic Distortion ::
Powered by phpBB © 2001 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum