| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tora Tora Tora
Posts: 5700
|
|
|
Post subject: 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.
_________________
Member of the Helldivers WAS league
Last edited by Duck Crusader on Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:00 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
 Sun Sep 13, 2009 9:31 pm |
|
|
Muahahaha!
AHF Silver-Rated Trader
Posts: 1493
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I've often thought of a similar set-up. I think it is great! Let us know how it works out!
_________________
-Greyh
Trade List: Greyh's WAS Trade List
+13 On AH Trade Boards
+10 On aaminis Trade Boards |
|
| Sun Sep 13, 2009 10:43 pm |
|
|
Posts: 1642
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
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. 
_________________
Repaint Reference...
http://aaminis.myfastforum.org/about6080.html |
|
| Sun Sep 13, 2009 10:45 pm |
|
|
Forum Administrator
Posts: 6928
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I like the idea, although it seems to me that it would make it hard to balance points out.
_________________
 |
|
| Sun Sep 13, 2009 10:53 pm |
|
|
Tora Tora Tora
Posts: 5700
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
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.
_________________
Member of the Helldivers WAS league |
|
| Sun Sep 13, 2009 10:55 pm |
|
|
Forum Administrator
Posts: 6928
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
It certainly sounds like it would make things a lot more realistic. It would also encourage people to bring more lesser used units.
_________________
|
|
| Sun Sep 13, 2009 11:47 pm |
|
|
Posts: 421
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| 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... |
|
| Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:55 am |
|
|
Tora Tora Tora
Posts: 5700
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
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.
_________________
Member of the Helldivers WAS league |
|
| Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:56 am |
|
|
Posts: 227
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
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.
_________________
Member of the Helldivers WAS league
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' “Chuck him out, the brute!” But it's “Saviour of 'is country” when the guns begin to shoot.- Rudyard Kipling |
|
| Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:47 pm |
|
|
Tora Tora Tora
Posts: 5700
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
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.
_________________
Member of the Helldivers WAS league |
|
| Thu Oct 01, 2009 9:52 pm |
|
|
Dr. Communazi, Ph.D
Posts: 1059
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: Order of Battle houserule.
|
|
|
| Duck Crusader wrote: | 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, 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. |
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.
_________________
 |
|
| Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:24 am |
|
|
Posts: 287
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
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? It´s tricky enough to make a solid carrier build without BBs, so doesn´t 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 couldn´t really become one-dimensional.
2) Isn´t the sub restriction a bit hard? I´m 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. |
|
| Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:56 am |
|
|
Tora Tora Tora
Posts: 5700
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
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.
_________________
Member of the Helldivers WAS league |
|
| Fri Oct 02, 2009 10:34 am |
|
|
Dr. Communazi, Ph.D
Posts: 1059
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| USS Yorktown (CV-5) wrote: | 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? It´s tricky enough to make a solid carrier build without BBs, so doesn´t 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 couldn´t really become one-dimensional. |
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).
| Quote: | | 2) Isn´t the sub restriction a bit hard? I´m 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. |
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.
_________________
|
|
| Fri Oct 02, 2009 3:31 pm |
|
|
Posts: 66
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| 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. |
|
| Tue Oct 06, 2009 4:16 pm |
|
|
Posts: 3120
|
|
|
| Tue Oct 06, 2009 4:53 pm |
|
|
Thank God I have done my Duty
Posts: 387
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: Order of Battle houserule.
|
|
|
| Duck Crusader wrote: | 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, 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. |
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
_________________
...it is good that war is so horrible, lest we grow too fond of it. -Bobby Lee
W@S BS 64/64 TF 60/60 FS 40/40 |
|
| Fri Oct 09, 2009 7:45 pm |
|
|
Posts: 1079
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
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)
_________________
 |
|
| Sun Oct 11, 2009 9:36 pm |
|
|
Tora Tora Tora
Posts: 5700
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| IJN Fuso wrote: | | What constitutes a support ship? An Auxilary? A CVL? |
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.
_________________
Member of the Helldivers WAS league |
|
| Mon Oct 12, 2009 4:05 am |
|
|
Tora Tora Tora
Posts: 5700
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Commissar_JPH wrote: | 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) |
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...
_________________
Member of the Helldivers WAS league |
|
| Mon Oct 12, 2009 4:13 am |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
Donations are used for Forumini Olympics awards (donations admin: Aquarius)
| Forumini Gallery |
 |
|
