That must have been a very tough TRS. The rules state that one torpedo hit alone will deduct one life point, so something seems amiss there. I recently experienced an opposite situation with torpedo damage in a fleet battle. My opening allied torpedo salvo sank all IJN destroyers in the opposing fleet; 8 or 9 of them; that was before any guns were fired. Highly unlikely. Even with the element of surprise factored in.
No, these are not shown, although the manual gives full details of hit and damage chance percentages.
That's really pity. If no sound is authenticity (which I would miss) then the absence of dice is contrary. Maybe I'm not hardcore enough but for me both development choices are a bridge to far. Nevertheless, I hope the game sells good because I have the impression that a lot of love went into the adaptation.
You make a valid point Dragan. Sometimes it is good to see the dice rolls. It depends on the complexity of the game. With a game as complex as Carrier Battles there are so many calculations occuring, probably hundreds, that I think showing every die roll would slow down gameplay to an unacceptable extent. Much as I like authenticity, there are some some aspects of cardboard wargaming that would be tedious if translated to the digital format. I'd say that the streamlining applied here is a good compromise.
Two recommendations I've had are Richard B. Frank - Guadalcanal the definitive account of the Landmark Battle which is an overall picture and also Neptunes Inferno by James D. Hornfischer which is more focused on the sea battle I'll certainly be checking them both out. Hope this helps.
Thanks scarypharoah. They both look excellent. Will initially download Neptunes Inferno in view of the focus on the sea battles.
I have made a rough AAR of Bismark Sea scenario, it is long-winded with quite a lot of graphics. Read it here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-DmSXrelXZCvUNwKFPW0nAFU7BzaBVWejcyReuOD3do/edit?usp=sharing It is still in the process of polishing, so please bear with me. I always think some games, especially board games are meant to be played on a larger screen.
Thanks for the above excellent article currymutton. A very interesting and insightful read. There's much to learn about the game in general from this as well as the Bismark Sea scenario. For instance, I hadn't considered the possibilty of a fighter sweep to draw enemy CAP. Good work, and I'm sure it will help many people get a better understanding of the operational process.
I just try my best. Fighter sweep is nothing new, it is actually a mission type found in the Flat Top game. So, if you ever come into to contact with Microprose's 1942 Pacific Air War, fighter sweep is also a mission type available which is also flying a fighter to enemy base looking for trouble (Ooops, I think I have just slipped the secret of my age)
The more I play the more I get frustrated by the air-to-ship damage model. Once I hit Akagi with 1 torpedo and 9 bombs and she is considered to be heavy damaged (half the score gained), while 3 bombs or more can take care of any of my US CV, most of the time. According to the section "Damage and Repair", it reads as follows: By a torpedo Loss of 1 life point 75% chances to list 1 potential critical hit By a bomb Up to 30% of AA guns destroyed 75% chance damage to the flight deck 1 potential critical hit By a shell Up to 30% of AA guns destroyed 1 potential critical hit Extra effect on carriers A hit destroys 2 air units BUT if 2 armed units (in the middle of their preparation for their mission) are hit, then more planes are destroyed, a major fire breaks out and there is 1 potential critical hit for each 2 bombers destroyed this way Note: 1. Never see a major fire on Japanese CVA/CVL/CVE, even when I hit them with planes on deck 2. Guns seems not damaging the flight deck and seems to have similar effect as bombs, but in reality, US CV never survives more than 1 round before direct gun fire 3. May be there are way too many critical hit options for CV so life point deducting hit rarely occurs 4. Yes torpedo here is more lethal. But (I really hate to say this) historically, Hiryu, the last of the four CVA at Midway, was stuck by 4 bombs, with no arming planes on deck at that time, causing an uncontrolled fire and forced it to be abandoned. On the other hand, Hornet was stuck by 2 torpedoes, 3 bombs and 2 planes deliberated crashed onto, later even survive another torpedo hit, still managed to afloat but abandoned. Sank later by Japanese DD hitting her with 4 torpedoes. I guess luck may be playing a bit too much role in this. I am passing this to the developer and hope to see how this may get resolved. Update: Akagi breaks her own record: hit by 1 torpedo and 13 bombs and listed a crippled......
It will be interesting to see the developer's response. As previously mentioned I have also experienced some unlikely damage modelling. But, as you say, a lot could be down to luck; whether too much luck is involved is open to question. In reality it was fairly common for bombs to malfunction and do no damage, and I wonder if this is taken into account, though it's not mentioned in the manual. I'm not familiar with the historical battles represented here, but I have a book on order. Moving off subject a bit, I just finished reading about the WW1 Battle of Jutland. No bombs involved of course, but it was amazing how many shells those old ships could soak up and still keep moving and firing. Then again, one lucky hit to a magazine could cause a fatal explosion. Torpedoes and mines were the real fear and just the possibility of those being in the water resulted in the British Grand Fleet turning back from a probable victory.
Sorry if I start to sound like ranting. Please understand when you throw in 8 dive bombers and 4 torpedo bombers units at 2 CVAs and you get a crazy number of hits but that gorram ship just stays there...I guess if your bomb does not cause any structural damage, which deducts life points, it is not very useful. I am quite sure that some time bomb did go dud (not exploding), but when the records said a ship was hit, I think it means the ammunition hitting exploded. And it is known that CV are more vulnerable than DN, not only it have much thinner armor for the size. Also the amount of inflammable substance carried (large amount of light fuel and bombs) on board makes it even more vulnerable to fire and explosion. If you read this account of Battle of Midway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway Our friend CVA Akagi was struck only by one unlucky bomb that went through the deck straight into the hanger, just when the bombs and fuel and stacked there, starting an uncontrollable fire, leading to the eventual abandon of the ship. The other two CVA, which were attacked at the same time, the enormous Kaga took 4 to 5 direct hits while Soryu took about 3. All three went ablaze and were later scuttled. Which leads to the point that US torpedo was really bad in year 1942. The standard US torpedo (both ship based and airborne) is steam powered. It was unreliable: it was known to fail to start the motor after launched, or even it reached the target, it went dud... On the other hand, torpedo used by Japanese forces was the best in the world at that time. Not only it was reliable and deadly, the Long Lance torpedo used on ships had longer range than the Allied one, also, the launch tubes on DD were placed amidships which made them easy to launch. IJN also trained their men to use at night so during the battles near Solomon Seas, IJN sank and damaged many Allies ships with this torpedo. If you are really interested in understanding the series of naval struggles in this area, Wikipedia is a good start. If you want to access other sources, the video called "Midway" by National Geographic is pretty good. It uses 3D model to analyze how the carriers got damaged and interviewed survivors of the battle of both sides. I can write a bit more on the topics, less on history but may be more on hardware or tactics used, if you don't mind.
Jargon and abbreivations Sorry, as a guy growing up with traditional wargames, I cannot help but using jargon and abbreviations here and there and not explaining. Let's start with ship class designations: BB: battleships, one with very big guns with thick armor. Japan still holds the record of the most powerful BB in the world DN: dreadnoughts, once the mainstay of naval battle line back in WW1, but they were phased out in favor of more advanced BB. However, Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN), the official name of Japanese Navy during WW2, converted some of the old DN into BB, one of which was the Kongo class. It was no match with Allied BB one-on-one, but they were still pretty formidable to other ships CA: Heavy cruisers CL: Light crusiers CVA: Heavy aircraft carriers, some would simply use CV but CVA distinguishes from their lighter cousins. Again in the year 1942, IJN had the largest fleet of CVA, the largest number of naval aircraft and the most experienced aviators than the Allied. CVL: Light aircraft carriers CVE: escort aircraft carriers. Even smaller than CVL. US employed quite a fleet of CVE carrying fighters only for transport escorts and anti-submarine role in both Pacific and Atlantic theaters DD: destroyers, doing all the jobs including anti-aircraft, anti-submarine, torpedo screen, smoke screen, picking up survivors, the lowly worker of the fleet TRS: transports sending out fuel, more men, food, entertainment and toilet paper rolls to all those in need (ref: the TV show "The Pacific") PT: patrol boats, big speedboat(?) with machine guns and torpedoes (not featured in CB4G) SS: submarines (again not featured in CB4G)
Curry, I can only speak for myself but I find your posts invaluable. I unlike you did not grow up on these war games, but I find them fascinating and love the challenge of trying to unpick them and gain an understanding of not just the game but also the historical context as well. I loved the iPad version of phantom leader which although was not quite as well presented as this app, was very deep and enjoyable too. Many thanks for taking the time to post these and I assure you the info is much appreciated.
