| Archive for Axis & Allies ForuMINI Specialised in the World War II Axis & Allies Miniatures and War At Sea Games |
| Duck Crusader |
Order of Battle houserule.Something I'm thinking of trying out this week for historical games. Tell me what you think.For each capital ship (CV, CVL, BB, BC, and yes, the Alaska's getting counted as a BC since it's armor 7) you must have: 1 CA or CL 2 DD or DDE For each CVE or support ship you must have: 1DD or DDE You can't have more submarines than you have capital ships but you can always have at least one, CVE's and support ships don't count. Also, you can't have more than two carriers of any type for each BB or BC Simple and quick way to bring a more historical balance to fleets. |
||||
| Greyh Seer |
I've often thought of a similar set-up. I think it is great! Let us know how it works out! | ||||
| chesty |
Seems okay to me, but I like balanced builds. I've used a similar rule of thumb...
You have to bring at least one small for every large, and you have to bring at least one normal. CV or BB = Large CC or SS = Normal DD or TB = Small Note... Your version would add that you have to bring a small per normal, too. Sounds reasonable, now that you mention it. 
|
||||
| jfkziegler |
I like the idea, although it seems to me that it would make it hard to balance points out. | ||||
| Duck Crusader |
Land-based aircraft, torp boats, and the fact that CA, CL, DD, and DDE are unrestricted should take care of that. You can go bigger down chain, just not up. | ||||
| jfkziegler |
It certainly sounds like it would make things a lot more realistic. It would also encourage people to bring more lesser used units. | ||||
| fredmiracle |
Germany might be disproportionately impacted because they have the best sub-swarm option. If you are playing against Germany, you always have to watch for that. But I think the OOB rule would preclude it. The sub-swarm is, of course, not historically realistic, but it does pose an interesting alternative to "big iron" fleets in game terms... | ||||
| Duck Crusader |
We gave it a whirl in a couple of games tonight. First Ark eeked out a VERY narrow win over one of our newbies, with only Ark Royal, a crippled DD, a badly damaged KGV and three subs at the end of the game. Cruisers did damage all out of proportion in that one.
Then he went up against my Japanese with the same fleet. I was down to a badly Yamishiro, another hale one, Tone and Shokaku and a crippled I-19, but he had two subs and a DD left... This REALLY forces you to think about what you're taking. In the second game my CA's and DD's actually did the lion's share of the damage, and ARK suffered from a pair of long-lance hits to KGV on turn two, then lost his other BB to long lances on turn three before my BB's could even fire at them! The Italian's dual-use divebomer/fighter and Beaufighters are particularly dangerous as well. I think this is going to become a new standard for us. |
||||
| ARK |
Ignore the lies of the Axis Propaganda machine, the ships that they claim were sunk have just been transferred.  Now on to the reality, the game worked out really well, in the first game it really was a cruiser fight for most of the game. Belfast and Kent were dishing out damage left and right. Vs Duck it was those bloody long lances, they shattered my battle line. Oh well that is the luck of the dice.
I do agree with Duck I think we will be playing this way much more often. Also I think I love the Belfast, she is a beast. |
||||
| Duck Crusader |
It's a whole new game this way. We've got several under our belt now and no longer play any other way, 'historical' or not. | ||||
| Planetary Eulogy |
Re: Order of Battle houserule.
I've been play testing this with friends for a couple of weeks, and it makes for the best game play I've found so far. Kudos. |
||||
| USS Yorktown (CV-5) |
I like these OOB rules in general.
Two questions or comments though: 1) Is it necessary to restrict carrier builds by forcing you to include a BB or BC if you want more than 2 carriers? Itīs tricky enough to make a solid carrier build without BBs, so doesnīt this limit the options for no reason? You still need to give the carriers proper escorts according to the OOB rules so any carrier build couldnīt really become one-dimensional. 2) Isnīt the sub restriction a bit hard? Iīm all for limiting subs to avoid big swarms that are unhistorical, but subs still have an important place in the game as a counter to the bigger battleships. I think a limit of 1 sub per 50 points would perhaps allow for more options without going against the purpose of the ruleset. That would allow Germany four subs in a 200 point game which is in no way overwhelming I think, but would at the same time allow a viable build around smaller ships like cruisers, torpedo boats and planes. This is hardly any less historical for Germany than a fleet of numerous capital ships and preserves their "national identity" within the game a little better perhaps. |
||||
| Duck Crusader |
I came up with these from the averages of several fleets OOB. The number of CV per BB and subs per capital ship is based off of that. Remember that with your opponent bound by the same restrictions. I take your point about Germany as well though, but I was trying to make them simple and uncomplicated. Feel free to modify them to suit your own style, they are only houserules after all. | ||||
| Planetary Eulogy |
I dunno, I like the 2 CV to 1 BB ratio, which, in my group, has definitely had the effect of making large games against the USN more consistently playable (i.e. not dictated entirely by Avengers and Helldivers/Dauntlesses).
I've found submarines to be, in general, grossly overpowered within the game. I mean, in a practical sense, subs were of little real use in fleet engagements due to their extremely slow speeds and the essential impossibility of coordinating large numbers of them in real time (as opposed to American and German "wolfpacks," which didn't so much involve direct coordination as they did putting several subs in the same patch of water and turning them loose). Sure, subs could pick off stragglers and finish off cripples, and they ambushed a few large victims coming and going from engagements, but their main role in actual fleet engagements was scouting, not combat. With that in mind, I think it's perhaps worth allowing more subs for large games played under the distance rules, but I don't see any need to increase their presence in "normal" games. A couple of observations after playtesting this about a dozen times: 1. I think our group will make the OOB rules pretty much a permanent fixture of our gameplay. 2. Nagato was already a beast, but the 2/1 rule makes her even more of a beast under this rule set. 3. The 2/1 rule makes it very tempting for US players to use Alaska as a frontline BB, but she's definitely turning out to be more than a bit of a glass cannon in that role. Which is fine by me. I love sinking that ugly PoS. 4. IJN players definitely seem to get off more LLs on average in games where carriers are present than they did in the past. 5. This format seems to punish US battleships a bit more for having weak secondaries and no tertiaries (with the obvious exception of Arizona) than the standard format. As a most-of-the-time IJN player, I kind of like that from a gameplay perspective, as an all-of-the-time historian, I'm not sure I do. 6. Cleveland is still 16 pts. of SATAN. 7. Intrepid's Base 4 is definitely more valuable under this rule set. |
||||
| ElectricCatND |
To be honest outside of cheese builds most of the fleets in my group have ended up maybe not exactly within these but very close anyways just so that you are balanced enough to handle threats on a normal sized map. | ||||
| IJN Fuso |
What constitutes a support ship? An Auxilary? A CVL? | ||||
| Lobukia |
Re: Order of Battle houserule.
We have been playing a hard limit of 50% air, 50% BBs, but I think we'll give this a try next week. I like
|
||||
| Commissar_JPH |
me and fuso played this last night.
It was an exceptionally close game at 300 points. I had 2 Arizonas, 1 North Carolina, 2 Baltimores, 1 San Francisco, 1 Phelps, 1 Kidd, 4 Laffeys, 2 Hellcats, and 2 Avengers. He had Musashi, Nagato, Aoba, Oi, Yahagi, 2 Shigures, and several Aktisukis, Isokazes, A6M5's, a Shoho, an I-19, and a Kamikaze. It came down to I needed 1 more ship to kill to win the points game (we were playing objectives)....Musashi was crippled, I had an Arizona (2 points of damage), 2 Baltimores (1 crippled), crippled Phelps, and the San Fran (undamaged). He had a crippled Musashi and I-19 near the left objective (where all my ships were) and a Shoho, Akitsuki, and Isokaze on the opposite side of the map. He vitaled the Arizona and I failed to hit by 1 die (I had 9 successes). He finished off the crippled Phelps and Baltimore with his seconds and terts to win the game. Exceptionally close game, and best one of the night (we played from around noon to 11pm) |
||||
| Duck Crusader |
Landing ships, Nordmark, freighters, CVEs, etc. CVLs count as capital ships, so need a CA/CL and two DDs. Only needing a DD for a CVE (1 baser) makes them more attractive here. |
||||
| Duck Crusader |
Close matches have been our experience as well. The one exception was due to a totally fluke round of fire following the long-range fluke one-shotting of ARK's North Carolina. Long lances didn't even play much of a part in it, though they did sink the only surviving ship with their one and only hit. It was Japanese gunnery which ruled the day! For the most part we tend to end up with VERY few ships left on either side, and games that see-saw back and forth. All of the games we've played with them so far have been our standard 300 pointers. One of these days we'll get crazy and do 1000 points... |
||||
| Commissar_JPH |
Long Lances played a crucial part in that match against Fuso.
His LL's took out the North Carolina in one turn (though she did vital the Nagato at range 2....18 hits...should've shot at the Musashi), and broke the back of the Pennsylvania and crippled the Macon (2nd Baltimore). If it weren't for them, I would've won. That and the Arizona completely whiffed a range-1 shot. |
||||
| IJN Fuso |
I stayed until the end and played another 200 point OOB w/ P. UK vs Germany. The UK won, but it was close. The last turn both sides were on the last objective. The turning point was a couple of UK cruiser torp hits on the Tirpitz allows the PoW to finish it off, while the uboats whiffed. But it could have gone either way. OOB makes for some VERY close, fun games. |
||||
| Commissar_JPH |
yeah, I think OOB should be the new standard for our games | ||||
| Duck Crusader |
Glad you guys like them. | ||||
| Asbestos |
Tried making an IJN OOB fleet and noticed how prohibitively expensive it is for the IJN to bring capital ships/subs in this format. Restricted to LL fleets for most point values it seems. | ||||
| Duck Crusader |
Difficult for everybody, but they're powerful as all get out. Ask ARK. More of your LL bearing ships are going to get in range since there's less air. Cruisers are the weak spot. I usually run with a Tone, a Nachi, and a Yahagi. Couple Of Yamishiros for BBs, Soyru or Shokaku for CV, and three each Isokaze and Akitsuki. Flesh out with SS and aircraft to suit. 300 points of deadly. | ||||
| Asbestos |
Conversely I found that the UK and US can very easily bring capital ships/meaningful air power in this format. The IJN BBs and CVs are comparable in terms of cost to those of other nations but there are allied cruisers that are equal to or less than the cost of IJN cruisers and DDs that are half the cost of some IJN DDs.
The Fencer really gives the UK an upperhand in terms of air defence in this format, throw a Martlett on board and for 20pts + a DD you've got two uses of airborne AA every turn. No one else can hope to match that efficiency. |
||||
| Run Silent |
They can take the Pocket BB's as there Crusier option. That should help Firepower |
||||
| Planetary Eulogy |
OOB definitely puts Yamato and Musashi out of play in 100 pt. formats, but then again, it makes Iowa and Missouri equally unfeasible. On the other hand, Nagato really shines in this format. |
||||
| Asbestos |
Iowa, Baltimore, two allied 7 point DDs of choice= 100 pts. |
||||
| IJN Fuso |
Mushashi 66
Yahagi 14 2X Akit 20 total 100 |
||||
| Duck Crusader |
That's the point tho, forces you to THINK about what you're going to bring in more ways than just 'pack in as many BBs and subs/aircraft as I can'. CAs add a lot to the game when you've got one per capital ship. Do I want to push it forward to aid my attack, or hold back to protect it's SA?. Tone almost always snuggles with my CV, but it has long lances and has gotten into the party more than once before. Yahagi usually rolls with the battleline, but I've held it out of the fight to keep my bonus up as well. | ||||
| Asbestos |
Touché, though that's the cheapest you can make the IJN escorts without including Type 14s. Big Mo could easily be brought in with little modification and Baltimore is one of the more expensive USN cruisers so the US (and everyone but the IJN) can easily build around their big BBs in the 100pt format. A UK/US build can actually bring two BBs to the fight.
This is all more of a thought experiment than a criticism, but I think that because they have such expensive cruisers and DDs the IJN has the hardest time doing anything but LL in the 100 and possibly even 200pt OOB builds. |
||||
| USS Yorktown (CV-5) |
I think the big ships (Yamato, Iowa) might become too powerful in the 100 pt format because you can pretty much just counter with one sub. Long lance fleet is possible for the IJN but other fleets might have very limited options against big BB builds. | ||||
| Duck Crusader |
Well, if you do go for them, it just makes it a battle of the giants. Not so bad IMO. OR the other side can counter with heavy air, at least in a 200 pointer. No restrictions except basing on that, and if the other guy blew his points on heavy BBs he'll have less to counter. | ||||
| Asbestos |
Hmm... Well, I'm willing to try out an online match to try out these OOB rules if anyone is up for it. | ||||
| IJN Fuso |
OK Asbestos - your're on. I'll even be Japan. How many points? | ||||
| Asbestos |
I was thinking 100 Pts. Since you're more familiar with the map images I'll let you handle that? | ||||
| IJN Fuso |
http://aaminis.myfastforum.org/sutra206705.php#206705 | ||||
| warhawk-77 |
I like the limits. Our Group is going to start using them in our games. We played a 300 point game over the weekend that was fun but a bit unbalanced.
I don't recall all the ships by name but we had UK 4 Battleships 1 Carrier 2 subs 5-7 air craft Japan 2 battleships 2 carriers 2 destroyers 2 cruisers 8-10 air craft The JP Val just could not damage the battle ships. The only thing I see is it might limit Subs a bit much but with out playing it I can't be 100% on that. We might swap it to 1 sub per 50points but I think we will play a few games first. |
||||
| Asbestos |
It seems that in 100pt OOB games surface swarm and BB builds might be the most universally powerful.
Duck, what point values do you and ARK normally play at with these rules? |
||||
| ARK |
The majority of fights are at 300 points. Though we do some 100 point fast fights. | ||||
| Duck Crusader |
What he said. We usually go 300 for the first and 100 for the second. Tonight we played a 300, a 100, ARK went a 100 points vs Seisen and then Seisen and I went another 100, for which there's a battle report in the Fleet Builds section.
*Edit* Here's one of our first OOB shootouts, this time with 300 pointers. Yes, BBs are powerful, but they already were. This really stirs 'stuff'` up. Note that it's the lowly Akitsukis that're the heros of the battle, and JAPANESE GUNFIRE does most of the damage. I couldn't make a torp roll to save my life that night, hitting twice out of over thirty or so shots! http://aaminis.myfastforum.org/about9374.html (Duh, guess ti would've helped if I'd actually posted the link...) |
||||
| herky80 |
I like these OOB rules. Simple and not unbalanced for any unit. | ||||
| Duck Crusader |
That was the point. All I really did was take the fleets from my Guadalcanal book and average out what they had in them. Sure you could play with air avalibility and such not, but I prefer the KISS principle! | ||||
| zaarin7 |
If you have the Avalanche Press games in the SWWAS series they use air tables to generate the air OOB so it is a little different each game. I would think these tables as a guide on availablility. | ||||
| herky80 |
While using these rules yesterday I realized that I can not have more submarines than battleships. However, what if I don't want any battleships but I want two submarines? Do you have to have a battleship to have a sub? It seems like it would make more sense if the rule was stated as such:
Players may include two submarines in their build, but may not include more subs than battleships if exceeding two submarines. Or something more articulate along those lines. You can have two subs, but if you want more, they can't exceed the amount of battleships. |
||||
| Duck Crusader |
That sounds reasonable. Opted to go 'torpedo' style on it and make it at least one. If you want more feel free, they're only houserules. | ||||
| warhawk-77 |
I am having a hard time building a German fleet with the subs I am wanting. I like all the limits but the one on subs.
What if you did one sub for each capital ship (BB and Carrirers) and one for each 2 cruisers? |
||||
| Duck Crusader |
They ARE only houserules, but personally I'm not going to modify them any more than that. As representing a battlegroup vs a wolfpack they're pretty accurate. Overloading them with subs will just throw it out of whack again. | ||||
| Rangefinder |
My group is going to try your rules for a WAS league we're starting soon. Looks like fun. I agree about subs. I think 2-3 subs are plenty for a 200-300 point game. |