|
Post by TheDreadnought on Nov 30, 2010 11:00:28 GMT -5
So, I'm feeling that the destroyers in the WWII version are too fragile. Wondering if other people thought this was the case as well, and if so, what suggestions people had to fix them.
I have several ideas but want to see what others propose before I mention any so that I don't influence any creativity.
|
|
shigure
Commander
IJN Shigure
Posts: 356
|
Post by shigure on Nov 30, 2010 19:32:59 GMT -5
I think there is some frustration in that several of us have played many games without even getting the DD's into range before firing the torpedoes at any vessel let alone a capital ship. The biggest glaring example of when the DD's & even DE's should never had an opportunity to fire their torpedoes at capital ships was the action off Samar. The overwhelming superiority of the IJN with BB's, cruisers, and DD's never should have allowed the USN DD's & DE's to ever launch any torpedoes. Now Kurita bears some responsibility in ordering a general chase rather than forming his battleline. But, as he thought he was facing USN fleet CV's and their escorts this may have affected his thinking. While we certainly do not want DD's to become superweapons as this was certainly not the case during the two world wars. I suggest we look at the different proposals and game play them and see what gives us what should be a little more realistic result. Please see the attached web address for an evaluation of the IJN torpedo results during WWII. The 'Long Lance' was generally regarded as best torpedo of the war. This may give a better analysis of what the results were during WWII. I disagreed with Joe's analysis of the probable hit rate for a possible Decisive Battle. His analysis dealt with actions against high speed cruiser or fast battleship type vessels. The decisive battle would have had a USN battleline with a formation speed of 20 knots max vs. 27 to +30 knots for fast BB's and cruiser task forces. Also the Decisive Battle would have been against a USN fleet very inexperienced in night battle. So I do not buy into all his conclusions. But, he does a good job of pitching his analysis. www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-067.htm
|
|
|
Post by regiamarina on Dec 1, 2010 1:26:02 GMT -5
As Shigure said I think they get unfairly targeted early in a battle by bigger ships to remove the potential for torpedo runs and then the fire is shifted to the capital ships. This has happened in our games and may simply be a quirk of the players rather than the DDs being too fragile.
If you want to address this then some options to try might be: 1. Increase the difficulty number to hit a destroyer. 2. Add a to hit modifier when firing a larger caliber, slower rate of fire gun at a destroyer. Perhaps 6" and over. 3. Increase the hull points of the destroyers. This would probably throw the balance out a fair bit. 4. Add a target priority list into the rules. For example a BB must fire at an enemy BB if it can, then a BC, CV, CA, CL and finally a DD and DE. Ships must follow this priority list unless enemy ships are within close range so nearing torpedo range when they may fire freely. This option would stop large capital ships from targeting smaller DDs if there are other targets around but the downside is you are taking some of the decision making away from the players. 5. Increase the range torpedoes may fire at. This might bring destroyers into the game more but would probably make destroyers even more targeted than they are now.
These are just some quick ideas you may want to playtest but personally I just think destroyers get targeted simply because players fear the potential damage of what a torpedo spread may do compared to a bombarment of shells. I don't think you can alter this.
|
|
|
Post by kenh01 on Dec 1, 2010 8:19:19 GMT -5
How about if your secondary weapons are 5 inch or larger, you can not fire main guns at DDs. Simple, clean, easy to use.
Ken
|
|
|
Post by afilter on Dec 1, 2010 11:31:33 GMT -5
Admittedly I have not played any WWII DD actions yet, so I cannot speak from experience in NT.
Reading the comments above this one seems to make sense if there is a real problem with game mechanics:
2. Add a to hit modifier when firing a larger caliber, slower rate of fire gun at a destroyer. Perhaps 6" and over.
DDs already start off at a 9 to hit. Is it more an issue of tactics not currently represented in game mechanics?
A common tactic was for DDs to use evasive manuevers when closing. Commonly called chasing the salvos with the idea to steer toward the impact of the last shell splash as the enemy would be adjusting fire and not hit the same spot twice.
Evasive seems to be to big a penalty for DDs IMO in the game mechanics it would reduce most undamaged DDs from 9"to 4" of movement.
Maybe a fix would be adding an ability something like "Chase the Salvos" for DDs only which only cost 2" movement, but make them a +2 to hit for any main battery weapon system only.
Essentially giving them evasive at less cost and only applies to weapons 6" and larger.
This way evasive and "chase the slavos" are two different abilities and does not change the current mechanics.
This way DDs suffer a small movement penalty to avoid the big guns, but if the sail straight in they can expect to be blasted away.
Just thinking out loud..Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by fastgit on Dec 1, 2010 18:45:07 GMT -5
Maybe a fix would be adding an ability something like "Chase the Salvos" for DDs only which only cost 2" movement, but make them a +2 to hit for any main battery weapon system only. Essentially giving them evasive at less cost and only applies to weapons 6" and larger. I like the sound of this... but I'm not sure it should include 6" guns. Many WWII light cruisers were armed with such weaponry and I can see this proposed rule putting them at a disadvantage in CL vs. DD engagements... something I'm not certain should be the case. Would this -- perhaps -- be a function of rate of fire?
|
|
|
Post by afilter on Dec 1, 2010 18:58:11 GMT -5
Maybe a fix would be adding an ability something like "Chase the Salvos" for DDs only which only cost 2" movement, but make them a +2 to hit for any main battery weapon system only. Essentially giving them evasive at less cost and only applies to weapons 6" and larger. I like the sound of this... but I'm not sure it should include 6" guns. Many WWII light cruisers were armed with such weaponry and I can see this proposed rule putting them at a disadvantage in CL vs. DD engagements... something I'm not certain should be the case. Would this -- perhaps -- be a function of rate of fire? OK, to keep it simple how about "chase the Salvos" only works against main Battery guns? I believe 6" is classified as a secondary battery on all data cards. Probably makes it easier to keep track of that way.
|
|
|
Post by fastgit on Dec 1, 2010 19:02:58 GMT -5
OK, to keep it simple how about "chase the Salvos" only works against main Battery guns? I believe 6" is classified as a secondary battery on all data cards. Probably makes it easier to keep track of that way. Works for me.
|
|
|
Post by afilter on Dec 1, 2010 19:17:50 GMT -5
OK, to keep it simple how about "chase the Salvos" only works against main Battery guns? I believe 6" is classified as a secondary battery on all data cards. Probably makes it easier to keep track of that way. Works for me. That was easy...I say PRINT IT! Oh wait, others might want a say. ;D
|
|
shigure
Commander
IJN Shigure
Posts: 356
|
Post by shigure on Dec 1, 2010 22:57:26 GMT -5
Their are certainly some ideas here that should be playtested by many of us that use this board. Perhaps we can pick a couple to try at a time and report the results. We may find some have unintended consequences, but at least we will have tried them. Another idea I have considered is to add a +1 to any secondary batteries that do not fire at the same target as the main batteries. This would reflect the secondaries not being able to use the main range finders. In some cases this would reflect the ship having to put the secondary batteries on local control. If a vessel has tertiary batteries and it does not fire as the same target as the secondary batteries add another +1 to hit to reflect utilizing these guns with even smaller range finders or in local control. Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by warchariot on Dec 1, 2010 23:48:03 GMT -5
Their are certainly some ideas here that should be playtested by many of us that use this board. Perhaps we can pick a couple to try at a time and report the results. We may find some have unintended consequences, but at least we will have tried them. This is a great approach to figuring what works and feels right with other rules. Maybe Dread can give us an idea on what/which ones he is looking at and give them a try.
|
|
|
Post by fastgit on Dec 2, 2010 6:07:18 GMT -5
Their are certainly some ideas here that should be playtested by many of us that use this board. Perhaps we can pick a couple to try at a time and report the results. We may find some have unintended consequences, but at least we will have tried them. This is a great approach to figuring what works and feels right with other rules. Maybe Dread can give us an idea on what/which ones he is looking at and give them a try. Agreed. No pressure, though...
|
|
|
Post by fastgit on Dec 2, 2010 6:11:30 GMT -5
Another idea I have considered is to add a +1 to any secondary batteries that do not fire at the same target as the main batteries. This could work... but would it solve the problem of DD fragility (due to being targeted by the big guns of heavy units (BBs, BCs)? Certainly, DDs would be harder to hit with secondaries... unless they're also being targeted by main battery weapons.
|
|
Bluebear
Commander
He who laughs
Posts: 405
|
Post by Bluebear on Dec 2, 2010 8:46:41 GMT -5
I don't know if things are different in the WWII rules, but in the WWI rules ("Clash of Dreadnoughts") each ship with a main battery may only fire at one single vessel (and guns that can't bear on that single vessel, can't shoot at all) . . . IF they hit, they only kill one DD in the Flotilla (see below from pg 32). . . and if more than one capitol ship fires at the Flotilla, all are firing at a penalty to hit
"When targeting destroyer flotillas with main battery weapons or torpedoes, the shooter is actually targeting an individual ship. Because main battery weapons cannot split their fire, apply all damage from a ship's main battery salvo to a single destroyer. Any excess damage is lost. Thus, a single ship may sink no more than 1 destroyer per turn with main battery shooting."
Is it different in the WWII rules? If it is, perhaps instituting the CoD rules would help a lot, since it seems to me that capitol ships would have much better targets for their big guns than wasting them on a single DD in a large Flotilla.
-- Jeff
|
|
|
Post by kenh01 on Dec 2, 2010 9:58:08 GMT -5
Bluebear
In BR DDs are single units not flotillas
Ken
|
|
|
Post by regiamarina on Dec 2, 2010 21:16:10 GMT -5
Bluebear
Main battery guns may also split their fire in the WWII rules.
Martin
|
|
|
Post by fastgit on Dec 5, 2010 20:50:51 GMT -5
I don't know if things are different in the WWII rules Simple answer...? Yes. More detailed response... see previous two posts.
|
|
|
Post by regiamarina on Dec 5, 2010 21:26:19 GMT -5
Had a another game of Battleship Row Friday night and oddly enough the destroyers performed well this time. It was a Med game with some Vichy French on the Axis side and the destroyers managed to avoid the fire of the enemy cruisers whilst they were duelling with the friendly cruisers and the Mogador actually managed to cripple the HMS Berwick with a torpedo attack. There were no Battleships this time so perhaps this is why they lived to get in close? Still it was a good game as I was thinking about this destroyer question for most of the game and it showed that much of the problem with their fragility is that they get targeted at very long range to stop the above from happening. Didn't really come up with any more answers sorry but I thought it was interesting given the current discussion of destroyers.
Second game was hilarious with an untouched Graf Spee exploding to the first shell fired from the Ajax. Fastest game I've ever played in.
Martin
|
|
|
Post by sieve on Dec 8, 2010 2:05:08 GMT -5
Second game was hilarious with an untouched Graf Spee exploding to the first shell fired from the Ajax. Fastest game I've ever played in. Martin Channelling my magic dice powers again A.
|
|
|
Post by fastgit on Dec 8, 2010 16:36:25 GMT -5
Second game was hilarious with an untouched Graf Spee exploding to the first shell fired from the Ajax. Fastest game I've ever played in. Ugh. Tragic is more like it... Ouch!
|
|