Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
20 Posts

Midway» Forums » Variants

Subject: Searching is good now, but with longer nights will fail. CLARIFIED and explained. rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
My last post on this subject was very unclear. Let me clarify it.

For historical accuracy, I propose this rule: the US, esp., can use his DB to search areas. One DB "squadron" can search 1 area, 2 areas out from the CV. This is done during the Search Phase after the IJN has done his searches, so if found by normal search the US ships can be attacked normally this turn. To let the US have some advantage from this, he must tell the IJN player his location at the end of this Search Phase so the IJN player can attack him this turn, BUT the IJN player's attacks are divided into waves. Each CV can send 7 bombers [or 10 total planes if you are using Ftrs] in a wave, all the CVs in same or adj. zones can combine these bombers into 1 bigger attack. And then the CVs can launch 7 more bombers [or 10 total planes] that form a separate attack. It would usually take some time for the IJN to get lucky and have a plane just happen to find the US CV. The US player should get some benefit from this massive "dawn" search, which was standard practice for the US CVs. These sqs. are called after the IJN is finished so he gets no clues where to search from it and because if he finds the US ships on his own he can attack them normally. Making the IJN player wait 1 turn may be too much delay, this is my attempt at a middle ground.

This may confuse people as to when these searching planes are ready again, if so try the rule further below. Or, try to understand this:

You see, search planes are out of sync with strike planes. As I have said before, strike planes take off early in the turn of the attack right after the search phase. The attack takes place around the very end of that turn, and the planes return and land after the middle of the next turn (depending on the total distance they have flown). Then they spend the rest of that turn and some of the next turn being readied for the next strike. All this is so because the “Search Phase” is early in the turn, and the strike planes have to spend 3 hrs. total in the air to fly out 175 miles & return 175 mi. = total of 350 mi.

Search planes have to arrive over the area (they are to search) early in the turn, in the “Search Phase”. To do this they must have taken off late in the last turn [the turn before they call out their search]. Then they return and land late in the turn of the attack [before the strike planes make their attack]. The “ground” crew would have to really rush to get them ready to strike “in the next turn”. They would have to land and be reading in the same turn that they called out their search and finish reading before the 'search phase' of the next turn. This seems a bit too fast, but maybe be possible if there are not too many of them, maybe up to 4or6?. [Each US CV carried 2 Squadrons of dive bombers, each of 18 (=D-6), one was called the scout squadron and the other was the dive bomber squadron.]

These scouts would be 'reading' when any enemy attack was made that turn.


This version of the rule keeps the strike planes in sync. -- For historical accuracy, I propose this rule: the US, esp., can use his DB to search areas. One DB "squadron" can search 1 area, 2 areas out from the CV. This is done in the Air Strike Phase. To let the US have some advantage from this, he must tell the IJN player his location at the end of this turn [OR, it may be better for the IJN player if the US player waits to tell him where he is after all the IJN searches in the next turn, so if he finds them without being told he can attack normally], BUT in the next turn the IJN player's attacks are divided into waves [if he was told where the US ships are]. Each CV can send 7 bombers [or 10 total planes if you are using Ftrs] in a wave, all the CVs in same or adj. zones can combine these bombers into 1 bigger attack. And then the CVs can launch 7 more bombers [or 10 total planes] that form a separate attack. It would usually take some time for the IJN to get lucky and have a plane just happen to find the US CV. The US player should get some benefit from this massive "dawn" search, which was standard practice for the US CVs. Making the IJN player wait 1 more turn may be too much delay, this is my attempt at a middle ground.

Optional rule -- the IJN player can do this too. He can use Ts or Ds.

You can't use Fs because a one man crew is likely to get lost. If lost it does little good for him to report what he has seen, because when he says "where he is" he will be wrong, so the strike will go to the wrong place.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
To a great extent, Midway is won or lost in the searching part of the game. If a player can make the 1st attack before the enemy finds him, he will usually win.

When combined with the other search rule [it has many areas to the west of Midway always searched by US planes], the US can position his CVs at the front of the 'always searched area' at dawn and use DBs to search 2 areas out with his CVs with regular seaches searching 3 or 4 areas out front of his CVs. How can he fail to find the IJN fleet? Of course, some of his strike planes will not be available for his 1st strike.

Or, he could hide behind Midway, secure that the IJN can't surprise him with a strike without being sighted.

Of course this is THE PROBLEM that the IJN had. By going to Midway they were conceding a big search advantage to the USN. They really should have understood this. They just assumed that they had surprise on their side, that the US CVs would not arrive on the map until 0500 6/5 at the earlist. They were wrong. It was pointed out to them that this was so. It was pointed out that the CV TF had 2 objectives that it could not pursue at the same time. 1st attack to soften up Midway for invasion. It would take more than 1 strike to neutralize the planes there. AND 2nd find and attack the US CVs which were the main objective of the whole operation.

This is why I suggest that they might have considered leading with a BB TF. Let it take a pounding, it is better than exposing the CVs to the posibility of that pounding.

BTW-- Does anyone have any idea why the IJN did not use their massive Mavis and Emily flying boats to search around Midway? Especially after the plan to recon Pearl Harbor failed because US warships were anchored at French Frigate Shoals, the refueling location for the Emily on its way to Pearl Harbor. Was this again the lack of fuel problem?
.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
All war games put you in command. You can, and certainly will, make different decissions. Decissions are just decissions. "Doctrine" is different. Doctrine is harder to change.

IJN recon doctrine relied on float planes. The IJN failed to realize the improtance of recon. If you don't know where he is you can't attack him. Their recon pilots or navigators were chosen from the worst that gradulated from flight school. They should have been chosen from the best at navigation. When you find an enemy TF it is very improtant that you know where you are, which is not easy after flying for 2-3 hrs. over the ocean. If you send in an incorrect position report the subsquent srtike will go to the wrong place.

IJN recon doctrine relied on using float planes to find the enemy. So long as they did this they would lose battles, because float planes are a] slow, b]short range, c] not numerous and d] did not have the best flight crews. As the designer of Midway should one make the IJN use its original doctrine or should one let them do something else? To give them more of a chance to win I think it is better to let them do something else.

This carrier search rule is my idea of a "something else".

BTW -- it is not historically correct to let the IJN search 4 areas from a cruiser or BB. The float planes could only fly 2 areas out and 2 back, so even 3 would be a gift. The search system here is totally gamey. If it works it is happenstance. TF commanders wanted to know there were no enemy TFs near by, this system makes this impossible.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Glenn McMaster
Canada
flag msg tools
You see, search planes are out of sync with strike planes.

Instead of searching in the air strike phase, what about something like this -

For the next turn, you can assign currently 'ready' T (IJN) or D (USN) squadrons for searching. Place these aside.

Each IJN carrier may only use one "T" squadron for searching each turn, but may always use 4 in total. USN carriers - no limit.

When the search phase comes on the next turn, use the squadrons to search an area within 3 areas of their parent carrier. When they have completed searching, they are immediately returned to their carrier and may either be left 'unready, or you can 'ready' them.

Tracking - During the air strike phase, the IJN player may use a 'ready' squadron of type "T" to 'track' one USN ship group. This squadron does not participate in any attack. The USN player has to announce the movements of the tracked group during the next movement step.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Glenn McMaster
Canada
flag msg tools
Quote:
All war games put you in command. You can, and certainly will, make different decissions. Decissions are just decissions. "Doctrine" is different. Doctrine is harder to change.


Yes and no. Recent literature would have one believe that ‘doctrine’ was some sort of granite monolith. The truth was, both carrier navies were in a state of extreme flux and evolution, and ‘doctrine’ was changing, in naval terms, rapidly. For example, at Hawaii the carrier task force had to make two attacks due to deck load restrictions. At Port Darwin just two months later, Kido Butai rendezvoused the two waves to strike the port with all aircraft in one wave.

The tactics on display by Nagumo’s force represented Nagumo’s command style moreso than any IJN 'doctrine'. Another man in the driver’s seat, such as Yamaguchi, Hara, or Ozawa would have done some things differently, some things the same.

Quote:
IJN recon doctrine relied on float planes. The IJN failed to realize the improtance of recon.


Hara at Coral Sea devoted a significant portion of his B5N2 strength to recon (up to 40% I think), so IJN doctrine did not 'rely' just on float planes. IJN doctrine actually stated that no more than 10% of the embarked carrier aircraft should be used for recon. Assuming this did not include fighters, for Nagumo at Midway that meant not more than about 15 Kates, plus two ‘Judys’ aboard Soryu for 17. He used 2.

IJN training did not emphasize recon. Unlike US carriers, there were no squadrons devoted to the task and no advanced training in the subject. Hence, Nagumo’s bad habits (which emphasized surprise over searching) were allowed to languish. Had IJN doctrine been tighter, he’d have not been able to evolve such a dangerous command style. Blame that one on circumstances – carrier warfare was so new that other commands in the IJN, lacking experience, had little idea how to conduct it and took a ‘hands off’ approach.

Quote:
Their recon pilots or navigators were chosen from the worst that gradulated from flight school. They should have been chosen from the best at navigation.


It seems to me that IJN recon reports were no less accurate than American ones, on average.

Quote:
BTW -- it is not historically correct to let the IJN search 4 areas from a cruiser or BB.


Except for Tone, Chikuma, Suzuya, Kumano, Mikuma, Mogami, which had the E13A1. If Tone and Chikuma are together, let them search one area up to 3 or 4 areas distant, (300nm). If the other four are all together, they also may search one area.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
GLENN239 wrote:
Tracking - During the air strike phase, the IJN player may use a 'ready' squadron of type "T" to 'track' one USN ship group. This squadron does not participate in any attack. The USN player has to announce the movements of the tracked group during the next movement step.
Glenn, why do you limit this to the IJN? Couldn't the US PBYs that are their 4 regular search "planes" do this even easier, they had a lot of range.

I suppose it would make it impossible for the IJN to evade US searches.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
GLENN239 wrote:
Quote:
Their recon pilots or navigators were chosen from the worst that gradulated from flight school. They should have been chosen from the best at navigation.


It seems to me that IJN recon reports were no less accurate than American ones, on average.

Quote:
BTW -- it is not historically correct to let the IJN search 4 areas from a cruiser or BB.


Except for Tone, Chikuma, Suzuya, Kumano, Mikuma, Mogami, which had the E13A1. If Tone and Chikuma are together, let them search one area up to 3 or 4 areas distant, (300nm). If the other four are all together, they also may search one area.
Except, the critical report here was wrong both as to location and did not, at 1st, report any CV. The IJN air crews at this stage of the war were, perhaps, the best in the world, except at recon. They were carefully selected, highly trained (over a long time), and combat veterans in the China theater. They really should have been better at recon, if they wanted to win the war. Contrast this with how much effort they went through to get the best lookouts on their ships and get them the best night optics to help.

Yes you are right, I did some research last night and saw I was wrong. The Pete was designed as a spotter plane for BBs to help them hit targets at medium to long range. The Jake had a range of 1200 miles (600 out & 600 back), which is 24 zones or 7-8 areas out. How many Jakes did the Tone and Mogami classes carry that day?

I would let the Tone & Chiguma each search 1 area and 2 of the Mogami class CAs together search another. Why do you cut this in half? Is it because you want to take into effect the time it takes to fly out and back? If yes, then just say the Tone can do it every other turn, etc. Going out to just 4 areas gives the Jake an ability to hang around and search an adjacent area next turn, before it has to return.

BTW- in doing research to see how to carve on the Takao class to change them into other classes, I saw that the Mogami class were the newest class and had the most AA guns. Strange that AH made them the worst CAs. It seems it would be more historically accurate to make them 6-3s with 4 hits and all the rest 6-2s with 3 hits. Of course AH gave an extra hit to the Atago because it represented all the transports. But then, I am all for adding separate AP counters/pieces to the game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Glenn McMaster
Canada
flag msg tools
Steve1501 wrote:
GLENN239 wrote:
Tracking - During the air strike phase, the IJN player may use a 'ready' squadron of type "T" to 'track' one USN ship group. This squadron does not participate in any attack. The USN player has to announce the movements of the tracked group during the next movement step.
Glenn, why do you limit this to the IJN? Couldn't the US PBYs that are their 4 regular search "planes" do this even easier, they had a lot of range.

I suppose it would make it impossible for the IJN to evade US searches.


The USN performance at Midway lacked the capacity to track a detected target. The PBY's that made contact early in the morning reported what they saw and then droned on, never giving updates, never following their targets and broadcasting, never clarifying that more than two IJN carriers were in the force. Ditto for the carrier based SBD's.

In contrast, although Nagumo original search pattern was defective, once the US TF was detected, it was tracked continiously throughout the day, with the strike force sending relief trackers as necessary. So the IJN proved poorer in original search capacity that day, but much better at retaining detected contacts.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Glenn McMaster
Canada
flag msg tools
Quote:
Except, the critical report here was wrong both as to location and did not, at 1st, report any CV.


That is true – the original IJN report was off by maybe 50 miles and gave no hint of a CV. The original USN contact report was off by, (I think) 40 miles and reported 2 CV’s when 4 were present.

Quote:
They really should have been better at recon, if they wanted to win the war.


Doctrine is as much preventing bad habits as it is forcing good ones. In the case of recon, Nagumo had a style evident from the start of the war where he always assumed he had surprised the enemy, hence did not require recon prior to his first attack. Since carrier tactics were in a state of flux, and higher command really had no grasp of it, there was less in the way of correcting Nagumo's bad habits than might have otherwise been the case years later, once carrier warfare was better understood. Just my opinion.

In the Indian Ocean the defects in these tactics became evident, in that on two occasions being late on searching left the Strike Force between two stools, committing to land attacks and then detecting a surface group after it was no longer that easy to deal with it. Nagumo was overly influenced by Kusaka and Genda, and seemed mentally sluggish when it came to understanding key carrier tactics, hence he did not correct his ‘bad habits’ while another IJN carrier commander may have.

Quote:
How many Jakes did the Tone and Mogami classes carry that day?


I believe Tone and Chikuma had 2 x E13A1 each, while the other four cruisers had one each, so a total of one long range search for 8th CRU (Tone, Chikuma with 4 Jakes combined) and one for 7th CRU (the other four with a total of 4 Jakes combined).

There is also the matter of the seaplane carrier (CVS Chitose or Chiyoda) with another, maybe, 4 Jakes. The Kimikawa Maru (CS) was, I believe, unable to use its seaplanes without being at Kure Island, but the CVS could use them in the open sea. Hence the IJN should also get a free search for the CVS.

Quote:
The Jake had a range of 1200 miles (600 out & 600 back),



I think the Jake’s range was about the same as the Kate’s when used for searching. I’d leave it at around 300nm-400nm for either type, for simplicity.

Quote:
BTW- in doing research to see how to carve on the Takao class to change them into other classes, I saw that the Mogami class were the newest class and had the most AA guns. Strange that AH made them the worst CAs. It seems it would be more historically accurate to make them 6-3s with 4 hits and all the rest 6-2s with 3 hits.


I think of the IJN cruisers as being of uniform good quality – tough to sink, tough in battle. That Mikuma and Mogami were not easy marks is evidenced by the fact that TF-16 hit both many times, and Mogami still managed to survive.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
[q="GLENN239"]
Quote:
I think of the IJN cruisers as being of uniform good quality – tough to sink, tough in battle. That Mikuma and Mogami were not easy marks is evidenced by the fact that TF-16 hit both many times, and Mogami still managed to survive.
So how would you rate them, Glenn?
How would you rate the US CA & CL, etc.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Glenn McMaster
Canada
flag msg tools
I'd rate the two sides as about equal in the ability to take punishment - maybe a slight edge to the USN, but not by much. You couldn't go too far wrong by giving all heavy cruisers in the game five hits, and the US light cruiser 4 hits..

In gunnery, about equal in this timeframe, (advantage shifting to USN as 1942 progresses).

In torpedo fire, of course the IJN had a big advantage for its cruisers, about doubling each ship's effectiveness.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
GLENN239 wrote:
I'd rate the two sides as about equal in the ability to take punishment - maybe a slight edge to the USN, but not by much. You couldn't go too far wrong by giving all heavy cruisers in the game five hits, and the US light cruiser 4 hits..

In gunnery, about equal in this timeframe, (advantage shifting to USN as 1942 progresses).

In torpedo fire, of course the IJN had a big advantage for its cruisers, about doubling each ship's effectiveness.
What about AA factors?
I know torpedoes, IJN one's were much better. But, they are short ranged.
.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Glenn McMaster
Canada
flag msg tools
IJN torpedoes were good out to about 24,000 or 40,000 yards, depending on the speed setting. Hits were rare beyond about 10,000 yards though.

Cruiser AA was pretty miserable on both sides at the time of Midway - this is one element of the battle that the Midway CRT grossly distorts. USN AA was, IMO, more effective than IJN, so maybe an extra point AA for US cruisers - say 3 points for an IJN heavy cruiser, 4 for a USN.

The USN CL should have a better rating than any other cruiser in the game. More like a battleship - maybe a 5.

The US carriers should be around a 5 or even 6 on AA. Or, if you want to get really fancy, and to reflect better fire control, the US carriers could be 3/3, meaning up to two fire groups.

On the AA issue, one possible way to fix it might be, instead of losing, say, 4 squadrons to AA in a 1:1 attack, you would roll 4 dice and lose one squadron for each '6' rolled. That would largely correct the problem and put AA loses more into line with historical results. (The AA losses are more like 1945 than 1942).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
GLENN239 wrote:
IJN torpedoes were good out to about 24,000 or 40,000 yards, depending on the speed setting. Hits were rare beyond about 10,000 yards though.

Cruiser AA was pretty miserable on both sides at the time of Midway - this is one element of the battle that the Midway CRT grossly distorts. USN AA was, IMO, more effective than IJN, so maybe an extra point AA for US cruisers - say 3 points for an IJN heavy cruiser, 4 for a USN.

The USN CL should have a better rating than any other cruiser in the game. More like a battleship - maybe a 5.

The US carriers should be around a 5 or even 6 on AA. Or, if you want to get really fancy, and to reflect better fire control, the US carriers could be 3/3, meaning up to two fire groups.

On the AA issue, one possible way to fix it might be, instead of losing, say, 4 squadrons to AA in a 1:1 attack, you would roll 4 dice and lose one squadron for each '6' rolled. That would largely correct the problem and put AA loses more into line with historical results. (The AA losses are more like 1945 than 1942).
Wow, GLENN,
If I read you right, you are proposing that the "squadron" losses on the CRT be converted to -- the number of dice to roll-over with a 1/6 chance of a hit (& a loss) with each die. [Maybe a 1/3 chance of each die resulting in a loss would be better.]

If I were you I would have put this idea 1st, though. If you had put it before you suggested raising the AA factors of most all CAs, it would have reduced the shock I felt at your ratings. You said that AH over-rated the AA factors and then raised them.

How far is 10,000 yds. on the Battle Board? I let the gun ranges be: BB = 4, CA = 3, CL & DD = 2; and for torpedoe ranges: USN = 1 and IJN = 2. WDYT?

Your ratings and new reduced loses will also reduce hits. I sorta feel that DB need some help to get more hits One large attack is not so good now and splitting it is not an answer, now. {But with your change is now more reasonable for loses.}

What do you think of just allowing the BD to be split into up to 2 attacks the same way TB can be split into 2 (or 3) attacks? The defending player can allocate AA to both DB attacks like he can TB attacks.

Glenn, what do you think of my "dodging bombs" rule?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Glenn McMaster
Canada
flag msg tools
If I read you right, you are proposing that the "squadron" losses on the CRT be converted to -- the number of dice to roll-over with a 1/6 chance of a hit (& a loss) with each die. [Maybe a 1/3 chance of each die resulting in a loss would be better.]

Realistically, an attack should wind up with only 1 or 2 squadrons splashed by AA, no matter how many different ships are attacked.

If I were you I would have put this idea 1st, though. If you had put it before you suggested raising the AA factors of most all CAs, it would have reduced the shock I felt at your ratings. You said that AH over-rated the AA factors and then raised them.

I don’t mind a high AA rating provided that it doesn’t translate into dead squadrons. The AA capacity for killing is overrated. How effective it was in helping planes miss their target – that is another matter. ‘2’ for IJN cruisers and ‘3’ for USN cruisers might be justified for AA. Just make the US cruisers ‘1’ stronger in AA, to reflect that they were better at it.

How far is 10,000 yds. on the Battle Board? I let the gun ranges be: BB = 4, CA = 3, CL & DD = 2; and for torpedoe ranges: USN = 1 and IJN = 2. WDYT?

The surface action procedure is so bad virtually anything else would be better. Your ranges look broadly correct as a comparative ratio, with IJN torpedoes being able to fire at range ‘3’, but more effective at range ‘2’ and ‘1’. US torpedoes would be range ‘1’.

Your ratings and new reduced loses will also reduce hits. I sorta feel that DB need some help to get more hits

The problem is that torpedo bombers can split fire in two directions, while DB’s always attack from one direction. IMO, this is realistic, because torpedo hits were much more lethal than bomb hits.

What do you think of just allowing the DB to be split into up to 2 attacks the same way TB can be split into 2 (or 3) attacks? The defending player can allocate AA to both DB attacks like he can TB attacks.

I’ve actually used that ‘house rule’ in the past. Pile one DB group on the bow, one on the stern. Don’t mind it, but I think the current rule reflects the greater danger of torpedo attack.

Glenn, what do you think of my "dodging bombs" rule?

I missed that one. Generally, any rule that allows you to dodge a hit or two by rolling dice can’t be bad.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
GLENN239 wrote:
If I read you right, you are proposing that the "squadron" losses on the CRT be converted to -- the number of dice to roll-over with a 1/6 chance of a hit (& a loss) with each die. [Maybe a 1/3 chance of each die resulting in a loss would be better.]

Realistically, an attack should wind up with only 1 or 2 squadrons splashed by AA, no matter how many different ships are attacked.

If I were you I would have put this idea 1st, though. If you had put it before you suggested raising the AA factors of most all CAs, it would have reduced the shock I felt at your ratings. You said that AH over-rated the AA factors and then raised them.

I don’t mind a high AA rating provided that it doesn’t translate into dead squadrons. The AA capacity for killing is overrated. How effective it was in helping planes miss their target – that is another matter. ‘2’ for IJN cruisers and ‘3’ for USN cruisers might be justified for AA. Just make the US cruisers ‘1’ stronger in AA, to reflect that they were better at it.

How far is 10,000 yds. on the Battle Board? I let the gun ranges be: BB = 4, CA = 3, CL & DD = 2; and for torpedoe ranges: USN = 1 and IJN = 2. WDYT?

The surface action procedure is so bad virtually anything else would be better. Your ranges look broadly correct as a comparative ratio, with IJN torpedoes being able to fire at range ‘3’, but more effective at range ‘2’ and ‘1’. US torpedoes would be range ‘1’.

Your ratings and new reduced loses will also reduce hits. I sorta feel that DB need some help to get more hits

The problem is that torpedo bombers can split fire in two directions, while DB’s always attack from one direction. IMO, this is realistic, because torpedo hits were much more lethal than bomb hits.

What do you think of just allowing the DB to be split into up to 2 attacks the same way TB can be split into 2 (or 3) attacks? The defending player can allocate AA to both DB attacks like he can TB attacks.

I’ve actually used that ‘house rule’ in the past. Pile one DB group on the bow, one on the stern. Don’t mind it, but I think the current rule reflects the greater danger of torpedo attack.

Glenn, what do you think of my "dodging bombs" rule?

I missed that one. Generally, any rule that allows you to dodge a hit or two by rolling dice can’t be bad.
Glenn, the original game of Midway had ftrs as an after an thought. You are saying that AA guns (in this time) shot down few planes, but they added in the loses from ftrs. If you are going to reduce plane loses from AA then you really need to add in the loses from ftrs somehow.

I have said that excess losses in the ftr vs ftr fight are taken by the bombers, because the escorts failed to protect them. I have suggested that additional bombers be aborted, if any are lost. I have also said that Fs should be x2 or x3 on the Battle Board. And if using your roll again rule, then ftrs on the battle board should shoot down more bombers somehow.

Do you agree that the game needs for ftrs to shoot down more bombers?

For surface combat, I suggested that we turn the Battle Board 90 deg. to get 17 'spaces' across the board instead of 9. And I have different speeds of ships, along with the ranges above. Ships start out deeper in the board so they have room to run, while they roll to escape. If they are too slow they can't roll to escape. See "Better Battle Metric" below in variants.

{Edit to add 7/24/14 -- if IJN torpedoes fire at a range of 3 in surface combat the torpedoes would take so long that they would not get 3 spaces out until after the ships had moved. So, they would have to aim ahead of the ships and aim at an empty sq. and then only roll for Hits if a ship moves into that sq. in the next combat round. [This should be further modified to halve the torpedoes if the ship in the sq. is NOT the original target ship, the ocean is big, random shots are unlikely to hit anything, so this is really a gift.]

Am I correct that getting a hit with a torpedo is harder than with a bomb? Put another way, there is a higher chance of a miss. You say torpedoes are more distructive, I say they miss more often. These 2 effects could just cancel each other out.

My dodging bombs and torpedoes rule is also here below in variants.
.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Glenn McMaster
Canada
flag msg tools
Quote:
Glenn, the original game of Midway had ftrs as an after an thought. You are saying that AA guns (in this time) shot down few planes, but they added in the loses from ftrs. If you are going to reduce plane loses from AA then you really need to add in the loses from ftrs somehow.


Right, fighter losses and AA losses have to be accounted for differently, because fighters were lethal and AA was not.

Quote:
Am I correct that getting a hit with a torpedo is harder than with a bomb? Put another way, there is a higher chance of a miss. You say torpedoes are more distructive, I say they miss more often. These 2 effects could just cancel each other out.


I think you’d have to look carefully at the various engagements to try and decide how strongly to rate torpedoes v. gunfire. My impression is that they were pretty bloody dangerous, even if spotty in performance
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
GLENN239 wrote:
Quote:
Glenn, the original game of Midway had ftrs as an after an thought. You are saying that AA guns (in this time) shot down few planes, but they added in the loses from ftrs. If you are going to reduce plane loses from AA then you really need to add in the loses from ftrs somehow.


Right, fighter losses and AA losses have to be accounted for differently, because fighters were lethal and AA was not.

Quote:
Am I correct that getting a hit with a torpedo is harder than with a bomb? Put another way, there is a higher chance of a miss. You say torpedoes are more distructive, I say they miss more often. These 2 effects could just cancel each other out.


I think you’d have to look carefully at the various engagements to try and decide how strongly to rate torpedoes v. gunfire. My impression is that they were pretty bloody dangerous, even if spotty in performance
So Glenn, how would you have Ftrs add to the bombers shot down?

I would also quibble that bombs were effective against CVs more than other types of ships. Torpedoes were necessary to sink or cripple BBs. I'm just following the original game in making them "even".
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Glenn McMaster
Canada
flag msg tools
I'd redesign the CRT to make AA combat realistic (ie, less lethal) and then have a second CRT for fighters vs. fighters, and fighters vs. bombers.

Bombs could be effective against carriers that can catch fire, (ie, four Japanese CV's at Midway, or Princeton, or Franklin), but were otherwise not very good at sinking fleet carriers, just knocking out their flight decks, (ie, Shokaku on several occassions, or Enterprise taking Val bomb hits). Torpedoes, on the other hand, were lethal. There was no US CV in 1942 that took a torpedo and was then able to maintain normal operations.


1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
Steve1501 wrote:
So Glenn, how would you have Ftrs add to the bombers shot down?

I would also quibble that bombs were effective against CVs more than other types of ships. Torpedoes were necessary to sink or cripple BBs. I'm just following the original game in making them "even".

My thought for making Ftrs shoot down more planes would be that each Ftr that is on the Battle Board [defending a ship] shoots down 1 "squadron" = 1 CF of Bombers that it is engaging. Or, if you want more luck, each such Ftr rolls 2 dice and hits 67% of the time with each die. [Note that these loses are in addition to the ones on the CRT [but they are reduced by Glenn's good idea to make "losses" be dice to roll to see how many Bombers are really shot down]. [Note that I would also want to somehow adjust Hits and Loses on the CRT for the number of Bombers in the attack.]

As for Bombs vs Torpedoes -- It is much simpler to (and simpler is a goal in game design) to keep them the same. To keep them separate you would need to mark out a hit box with a D or a T to indicate if the hit was from a bomb or torpedo.

The original game kept ships (especially CVs) operating at full strength until they were sunk. This was simpler AND gave the losing player a better chance of winning later. What this meant was that if a CV took a torpedo hit it could keep on fighting at full effectiveness.

Your factoid would indicate that such a CV would no longer be able to launch planes. My thought was that a Bomb hit on a CV would/could damage the flight deck and so would be unable to launch/recover planes until it was repaired.

My factoid would mean that you can't sink a BB unless it has taken at least 1 torpedo hit. Note how this is a problem with the any 5-1 attack sinks anything rule.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.