Destroyer Escorts

Talk about the game or make suggestions.

Destroyer Escorts

Postby Prince Hood » Mon Jan 02, 2006 1:28 am

Here's an idea to capture some of the flavor of escorts:

The percentage chance to hit a capital ship with a torpedo is halved for each destroyer adjacent to the capital ship.

This abstractly models the role of escorts as screens for capital ships, while leaving all other game mechanics intact.
Prince Hood
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 9:32 pm

didnt get it

Postby aracuan_77 » Mon Jan 02, 2006 8:37 am

hello,

im sorry,my english are not perfect.therefore can u please tell again what exaclty u mean by showing an example?
aracuan_77
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 2:24 pm

Postby Prince Hood » Mon Jan 02, 2006 11:00 am

I am making a program modification recommendation.

If a friendly destroyer is next to a capital ship (BB, BC, CA), all torpedoes fired at the capital ship have the hit percentage reduced by half.

This modification allows a player to use friendly destroyers as escorts for capital ships, making it harder for enemy destroyers and enemy submarines to torpedo the escorted capital ship. The enemy can still attempt to torpedo the capital ship, but at reduced hit percentages.
Prince Hood
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 9:32 pm

Postby orion » Tue Jan 03, 2006 11:50 am

I must concur. I have suggested this myself, and I have also suggested that the more DDs attack simultaneously against the same target, the better the chance of a hit.

The torp discussion has played out in several threads. A large fraction (tough to say whether minority or majority) believe the current torp set-up is fine, and anyway you can play Chapter 3 with no torps. Others believe the loner DD is too strong. I am in the latter group, and so generally play Chapter 3.
orion
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:27 am

Postby Andrew Ewanchyna » Tue Jan 03, 2006 2:08 pm

I too find the lone destroyer to be too strong most of the time so something like the escort rule sounds interesting. I'll give it some thought. I just don't want to have too many special case rules.
Andrew Ewanchyna
Site Admin
 
Posts: 837
Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2002 4:11 pm

I DISAGREE

Postby aracuan_77 » Thu Jan 05, 2006 8:56 am

Hello Guys,

My opinion is welcome to your conversation?

I dont agree with you all.i will explain why and as always i ll prove it with historical facts.
Destroyer attack versus capital ships,were dangerous but most times they got succesfull.these however had as a result the destruction of the destroyer.
first event:ww2,the british destroyers akasta and ardent,attcked in a desperate attack the scharnhorst and gneisnau,cause the german battlecruisers sunk the hms glorious.the 2 destroyers sunk of course but the akasta manage to send 2 torpeodes in the front of scharnhorst,disabling"a"turret,and causing fire.therefore the scharnhorst for almost 2 years was out of action.
second event:the british destroyers attcking the bismark:
after the swordfish torpedo hit that jammed bismark rudders,at night,a group of 5 under leader destroyer PIORUN.and yes,destroyers attcked bismark.althought the attack was disrupted by accurate gunfire,they manage to hit the bismark in the middle,to the boiler room,but no serious damage they cause,but they forced to withdraw.
third example:the sunk of japanese havy cruiser haguro,in the battle of samar,by 4 british destroyers(unefortunately i havent search enough for details from my books regarding this naval battle).
from these above you can all make easy conclusions.i consider that destroyer odds of hiting an enemy ship are quite correct,and no changes i think that need to be made.cause if a destroyer closes enough a capital ship to fire its torpedoes,then the capital ship has failed to stop it with its heavy guns from a distance.then the destroyer has complete its purpose by 50%,the other 50% is to hit it.this is its first goal for the capital ship,to sink the destroyer before it reaches it.the second goal of a capital ship that gots hit from destroyers torpedoes,should be that the escaping destroyer must be sunk at least-and that s exactly my point of view:(by requesting the secondary armament):in bc,the destroyer should have the same odds when in close range to fire in torps versus capital ships,and that proved in history,but the destroyer will also know before,that if it decide to take over a mission like this,it will be very difficult to return at one piece,unless if the ship that pursuides is already wounded(Italian Heavy cruiser Pola,south mediterannean,sunk by british destroyers during the naval battle of Matapan,.)
Last edited by aracuan_77 on Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
aracuan_77
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 2:24 pm

Postby Andrew Ewanchyna » Thu Jan 05, 2006 11:35 am

Hmm, my feeling is that all ships should have a role to play in the game. Given that this isn't a large fleet action game, things have to be boiled down to one ship handling the role of many. E.g., One destroyer instead of a flotilla going in on an attack.

As for having secondary guns on capital ships, I'd rather you have some cruisers or destroyers near by to handle the destroyer threat. That's what I mean about all ships having a role. While I'm not sure if a special rule is needed to lessen odds of torpedo hits if adjacent to escorts is the right way to go, it does offer some improvement.

The problem with torpedoes is that, historically, their odds of hitting and exploding were low. If I made them have historic hitting odds people would get frustrated. But put them too high and they become super weapons. I suppose another possiblity is to slow down the torpedoes rate of fire. All that being said, I'll still look into the special escort rule discussed here.
Andrew Ewanchyna
Site Admin
 
Posts: 837
Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2002 4:11 pm


Return to Battleship Chess

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron