Modern BB v Old BB

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: Modern BB v Old BB

Post by geofflambert »

ORIGINAL: JuanG
ORIGINAL: margeorg

Re: "This referenced the issue in the British BCs which were relatively state-of-the-art at the time that they tended to blow to bits".

British BC´s were definitely NOT state-of-the-art during WW-I. Their armour protection was much thinner than comparable german designs (esp. Seydlitz and the Derfflinger class), their internal compartment separations left much to desired, and their distance-measuring equipment for fire control was not top-notch, compared to the Zeiss equipment on german ships. Even BC Tiger was way behind the Derfflinger class ...

On the other hand, their firepower (especially once they got working shells) was notably better, and with aforementioned shells would have rendered any protection advantage on the German BC's meaningless. They were also designed for long range operations with crew spaces to match - the German BC's like their BB's were designed to operate in the North Sea or North Atlantic at best, and made do with less. Being on average 1-1.5 knots faster is fairly nice too, provided its used right (ie. not to charge into the maw of the HSF..)


Maybe after the Queen Elizabeths catch up.

User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: Modern BB v Old BB

Post by Nikademus »

ORIGINAL: cavalry

Thanks guys but mY questions related to surface actions BB V BB.
Sorry that was not clear.


in a straight up fight, no difference just because one is "old" or "new" It comes down to the stats or each ship. For example some older BB's have radars during certain periods as good as on any "modern" BB, same for guns, armor etc. It'll come down to experience, circumstance and luck when the various attributes are similar. Speed in a BB vs BB fight won't make much if any difference except that the faster side, if the CO is so inclined has a better chance of breaking off the action.

However....in the Pac environment where one can see lots of night combat, an Old BB is generally not well suited. Technically a modern one isn't' either but there at least the better SPEED of the modern might help keep it out of trouble.

or example i recently was forced by the AI to defend a fledgling South Pacific base from aggressive AI night raids using several cruisers and DD's. All i had to really oppose them were a gangly collection of old DD's a couple DMS's and two New Mexico class old BB's i'd used to escort a valuable convoy. I needed that convoy to unload and the AI wasn't having it. So in they went. (all my available cruisers were tied up)

Variables and luck aside, the game clearly demonstrated why this is not an optimal fight for the otherwise strong New Mexico class. First off, their night exp wasn't so hot. 2nd, the close range negated much of the edge of their big rifles. Worst of all, their slow speed and size made them very vulnerable to torpedoes. And that's what happened. Oh i managed to score just enough to scare off the AI with damage....but it cost me one BB torpedoed causing major damage. Due to a followup encounter, ended up losing her. Even had she survived it would have been a long repair time and trip back to Pearl. It helped my long term plans but it was expensive and one i'd hope not to repeat soon. Moral of the story....there's a reason why old BB's weren't just thrown into Guadalcanal, besides the logistics. Just not a good fit. i did also mention the logistics yes? :)



wegman58
Posts: 460
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 1:15 pm
Location: Edina, MN (FROM the Bronx)

RE: Modern BB v Old BB

Post by wegman58 »

Considering the old BBs are torpedo magnets is it worth it to run them off the West Coast - only one or two hexes from a serious base - with escorts? Yes you take damage - but they aren't good for much anyway AND you might get the escort to pounce?

And is the change in torpedo protection between WWI and the newer battleships patterned in the game?
Bill Goin
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: Modern BB v Old BB

Post by Nikademus »

depends on the damage they take at Pearl.

Pearl has a decent shipyard but several damaged BB's will quickly tax it and you need the base's facilities for minor repairs and upgrades to the other ship classes, esp. the carriers.

One has to be careful here as taking them out of dock too soon (aka too much major damage...esp FLOOD) and trying to get them to the West Coast shipyards can result in them being lost to incremental damage along the way. The lesser damaged BB's i send immediately (under heavy escort) back to the W Coast....followed by the badly damaged ones as soon as they can safely do it.

Repaired or intact BB's i leave at Pearl. Having intact BB's sit on the West Coast is a waste IMO (it was done historically to as a sort of last line of defense) This way they can be used if needed. (such as to attach to important convoys that route through Pearl via San Fran/Seattle/LA)

only con is if the Japan player tries to attack Pearl again but if you have enough defenses at the base, only a seriously brave or sneaky player is going to risk that. (i'd personally only contemplate it if i figure the Allied player has stripped Pearl of units)

TDS systems are not represented in the game engine. BB's resistance to torps is a combination of penetration value and warhead vs. belt armor and DUR of the ship in question.

a weakness of the system is that even the biggest BB's (aka Yamato) won't meaure up to the real life resistance. For example a Yamato can be consistantly crippled if not sunk by around a half dozen torp hits.

Sometimes too....a torpedo hit will do next to nothing even though it penetrates the belt armor. That also happened in my example. Both New Mexicos took a torp, But NM only suffered 2% SYS and Flt damage. The gods of dice rolls favored me. Unfortunately her sister took serious ENG and FLT damage from two hits. Not enough to sink.....but enough to badly damage.

Reminder too.....moderate to high levels of major flood damage will more often than not result in additional flooding unless you get the ship to a port fast. (you'll see messages during the combat phase like "temporary flooding repairs failing aboard such and such") Higher the major damage.....more likely it'll happen.

Repair ships can be life savers but even with one nearby nursing a big battlewagon back to a shipyard can be precarious and time consuming.

Worth risking? all comes down to your needs and how much you feel like gambling. I gambled...and came out with a draw. Losing a BB was hard but it bought me some breathing space as the AI in my game is seriously aggressive and was moving the Chains so to speak faster than i could establish my network. In hindsight i probably should have avoided combat but I was in a hurry. Sometimes you just gotta use what's available. :)
User avatar
JeffroK
Posts: 6415
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:05 am

RE: Modern BB v Old BB

Post by JeffroK »

IMVHO, the older BB are worth their weight in Gold.

Previous mentions include Convoy escort or Bombardment, but I see them as being invaluable in an Amphib TF, both to provide covering fire (both AA & AS)and to absorb CD fire.

This probably more of an AFB bonus than JFB who do most of their landings into more lightly defended targets.

The new BB just swan around with the brown shoe boys and possibly never fire their main guns.
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
spence
Posts: 5421
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:56 am
Location: Vancouver, Washington

RE: Modern BB v Old BB

Post by spence »

Having intact BB's sit on the West Coast is a waste IMO (it was done historically to as a sort of last line of defense)

The real reason the old BBs sat around on the West Coast was because they burned up too much fuel doing much of anything. For the very same reason the IJN BBs mostly sat around the Inland Sea writing haiku for most of the war.
Big B
Posts: 4633
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:41 pm
Location: Cali
Contact:

RE: Modern BB v Old BB

Post by Big B »

+1
I would only change the wording to - the main reason.
They did consume prodigious amounts of fuel and in early 1942 that was a precious commodity. Old BBs did make it into the South Pacific in late 1942, and of course in the island hopping campaigns of 43-45 the USN had the luxury of sending them everywhere.
ORIGINAL: spence

The real reason the old BBs sat around on the West Coast was because they burned up too much fuel doing much of anything....

User avatar
pontiouspilot
Posts: 1131
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 7:09 pm

RE: Modern BB v Old BB

Post by pontiouspilot »

Depending on day 1 losses I view old Allied BBs as expendable items. This also assumes you can afford the point loss. I find them to be a powerful deterent if you show your opponent you are willing to commit them. The proviso to this is that you don't commit them in face of known KB or close at hand LBA. As an example good old Tennessee with 4xDDs sank a CA, Cl and ravaged 3xDDs in stopping a Jan '42 invasion of Midway. I also find the BBs useful in SoPac where the Japanese player often has limited air assets. If you can preserve Force Z they can operate with great effectiveness in the ambush islands around DEI. I have used the old "R" class to stop sea flanking invasions on Bay of Bengal.....better have some air cover though!!

The greatest downside to the early use of US BBs is their poor experience rating. In an AI game I lost 4xUS BBs (only Warsite put up a good show) defending Moresby against IJN BBs. It was expensive but invasion stymied. A badly damaged Yamato was sank by torpedo limping home.

Given resources as Allied player I would never avoid a fight using old Allied BBs against new IJN BBs. Attrition is your friend. As IJN I would avoid old BBs vs. new Allied BBs. The problem is if you get too paranoid about what you avoid they become decorations rather than useful.

User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Modern BB v Old BB

Post by crsutton »

ORIGINAL: Big B

+1
I would only change the wording to - the main reason.
They did consume prodigious amounts of fuel and in early 1942 that was a precious commodity. Old BBs did make it into the South Pacific in late 1942, and of course in the island hopping campaigns of 43-45 the USN had the luxury of sending them everywhere.
ORIGINAL: spence

The real reason the old BBs sat around on the West Coast was because they burned up too much fuel doing much of anything....


Yep my first campaign game I moved all my BBs and carriers to the South Pacific in early 1942. Problem is they just sucked the fuel out of the region. Big mistake...
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
HansBolter
Posts: 7450
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
Location: United States

RE: Modern BB v Old BB

Post by HansBolter »

I just started AndyMac's Ironman Nasty version 5 (scenario 10).

The Japanese invade all over the map on turn 1, so I decided to set a premise that these invasion forces were discovered, ruining first turn surprise.

I came out of Pearl with everything I had to get the KB which has significantly enhanced escorts.

I have run the turn several times with several variants as experiments.

Several times I saw the old WWI BB tower armor stop Musashi's 46cm rounds. The deck armor is another story altogether.

They even left Musashi burning heavily from a multitude of paint scratchers (no penetrating hits) in one iteration.

The three IJN BBs, Hei, Kirishima and Musahsi all tended to concentrate their fire on the two American BBs with 16" guns.

Depending on the circumstances and barring an effective Long Lance attack the old battle wagons can hold their own surprisingly well.
Hans

User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Modern BB v Old BB

Post by crsutton »

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

Depending on day 1 losses I view old Allied BBs as expendable items. This also assumes you can afford the point loss. I find them to be a powerful deterent if you show your opponent you are willing to commit them. The proviso to this is that you don't commit them in face of known KB or close at hand LBA. As an example good old Tennessee with 4xDDs sank a CA, Cl and ravaged 3xDDs in stopping a Jan '42 invasion of Midway. I also find the BBs useful in SoPac where the Japanese player often has limited air assets. If you can preserve Force Z they can operate with great effectiveness in the ambush islands around DEI. I have used the old "R" class to stop sea flanking invasions on Bay of Bengal.....better have some air cover though!!

The greatest downside to the early use of US BBs is their poor experience rating. In an AI game I lost 4xUS BBs (only Warsite put up a good show) defending Moresby against IJN BBs. It was expensive but invasion stymied. A badly damaged Yamato was sank by torpedo limping home.

Given resources as Allied player I would never avoid a fight using old Allied BBs against new IJN BBs. Attrition is your friend. As IJN I would avoid old BBs vs. new Allied BBs. The problem is if you get too paranoid about what you avoid they become decorations rather than useful.


I kind of take the opposite view. They are an asset that has low value in 1942 but their valued increases greatly as the war progress. To expend them is a mistake if you plan on playing into 1944 and 45. You just have to have them when you are making your big invasions. They are excellent in invasion TF for absorbing shore gun hits and dealing out counter battery. Plus they have great AA values once upgraded and will soak up plenty of kamikaze hits that otherwise would go to a carrier. They are not expendable at all in my book. DDs and CAs are expendable and do a fine job fighting Japanese surface ships-including BBs. Old BBs are way to valuable to squander in this manner.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
pontiouspilot
Posts: 1131
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 7:09 pm

RE: Modern BB v Old BB

Post by pontiouspilot »

CR is of course correct insofar as you better have enough BB left for later bombardment/amphib duties. On the other hand how many of us actually get to later'43-'44 except vs. AI. Maybe that has crept into my thinking.
User avatar
Erkki
Posts: 1460
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 5:03 am

RE: Modern BB v Old BB

Post by Erkki »

True, Allies surrender by late 1942. [;)]
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Modern BB v Old BB

Post by crsutton »

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

CR is of course correct insofar as you better have enough BB left for later bombardment/amphib duties. On the other hand how many of us actually get to later'43-'44 except vs. AI. Maybe that has crept into my thinking.


Ah, but when you do get there. There is nothing better...[;)]
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: Modern BB v Old BB

Post by Nikademus »

ORIGINAL: spence
Having intact BB's sit on the West Coast is a waste IMO (it was done historically to as a sort of last line of defense)

The real reason the old BBs sat around on the West Coast was because they burned up too much fuel doing much of anything. For the very same reason the IJN BBs mostly sat around the Inland Sea writing haiku for most of the war.

Well i'd say "real" is a subjective term. Lundstrom felt it had to do more with Chester Nimitz not wanting to use them unless in an optimal situation where they could be best protected and employed from enemy counterattacks. King was more than willing to employ them in the South Pacific if necessary but ultimately Nimitz made the call

The Japanese BB's were governed more by the old conservative view from which the Battleline was to be hoarded for the DB.

Either way.....if necessary both sides could find the fuel. Kind of like i did deploying several US BB's in the battles i described.
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Modern BB v Old BB

Post by crsutton »

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: spence
Having intact BB's sit on the West Coast is a waste IMO (it was done historically to as a sort of last line of defense)

The real reason the old BBs sat around on the West Coast was because they burned up too much fuel doing much of anything. For the very same reason the IJN BBs mostly sat around the Inland Sea writing haiku for most of the war.

Well i'd say "real" is a subjective term. Lundstrom felt it had to do more with Chester Nimitz not wanting to use them unless in an optimal situation where they could be best protected and employed from enemy counterattacks. King was more than willing to employ them in the South Pacific if necessary but ultimately Nimitz made the call

The Japanese BB's were governed more by the old conservative view from which the Battleline was to be hoarded for the DB.

Either way.....if necessary both sides could find the fuel. Kind of like i did deploying several US BB's in the battles i described.

A post campaign survey of the Guadacanal campaign by the navy concluded that both old BBs and treaty cruisers were unsuited for night fighting in confined waters such as the slot. Poor fire control, slow turret speed and frequent course changes made then too vulnerable. I am sure this had to change when updated fire control systems and radar became available. At the battle if Surigao Strait, three old battleships did most of the firing and damage. They were equipped with the newer Mark 8 fire control system while the old battleships with the older Mark 3 system were virtually useless-even though they all had good radar. In 1942 there was no mark 8 system.

In game terms, I find this works out about the same. In fact, I find that in most surface engagements with smaller ships, the BBs don't even fire their main armament. (at least in 42-43). I can see no good reason but total desperation (or a perverse desire to watch them blow up) for sending them into a night actions.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: Modern BB v Old BB

Post by Nikademus »

As long as the targets were at "range" for a BB fight. The most modern Mk 8's did make that possible given that it allowed correction of fire just as in the daytime. If it devolves into a close in fight at ranges under 10K, it would still be an unsuitable environment for large battlewagons regardless of the year. In other words the key, day or night is their ability to engage at arm's length as would be expected of a typical slugfest between BB's. Allow small to medium fast forces to get in close and things can get hairy.

All in all i'd say the game represents it pretty decently. I knew my TF comp. wasn't optimal.....esp given the age of the escorts i was using. lol.....also learned that DMS's are not very good escorts. They were sacrificed for the greater good. MY glorious plan.

Now if i can only hold onto PM......AI just tried to land another regiment but i had a carrier TF nearby just as they were landing.....sank all it's support! haha. Now if i can just land my reinforcements.....but fuel is tight, and not because of BB's.

(but because all my fuel in the commonwealth bases vanished.)



jmalter
Posts: 1673
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:41 pm

RE: Modern BB v Old BB

Post by jmalter »

In game terms, SurfTFs should be composed of similar ships for both the capital & escort components. BBs & CAs should have v. similar or identical speed & MA. They should have v. similar or identical speed, & should share the latest upgrades. Escorts should meet similar criteria, & including the odd CA or CL might not be helpful. Optimum TF size is 15-16 ships, 20-25 ships greatly increases chance of a fratricidal collision during combat.

This is much easier to achieve for the Allies, who can band sisters together - more difficult for the IJ, who must do as best they can. Mixing old & new types in the same SurfTF puts it at a disadvantage for combat.

Choose an AGGR rating for the TF commander (or flagship captain) that is in line w/ how feisty you want the TF to be.
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Modern BB v Old BB

Post by crsutton »

ORIGINAL: jmalter

In game terms, SurfTFs should be composed of similar ships for both the capital & escort components. BBs & CAs should have v. similar or identical speed & MA. They should have v. similar or identical speed, & should share the latest upgrades. Escorts should meet similar criteria, & including the odd CA or CL might not be helpful. Optimum TF size is 15-16 ships, 20-25 ships greatly increases chance of a fratricidal collision during combat.

This is much easier to achieve for the Allies, who can band sisters together - more difficult for the IJ, who must do as best they can. Mixing old & new types in the same SurfTF puts it at a disadvantage for combat.

Choose an AGGR rating for the TF commander (or flagship captain) that is in line w/ how feisty you want the TF to be.

I really do not know if this has ever been confirmed and think it may be more of a pet theory. Personally, I have not noticed much difference. I mix CAs with CLs and all type of DDs as the situation occurs. I mix nationalities too which in real life caused a lot of problems. Don't think there is enough difference between a 4.7 inch gun and a 5 inch. I just don't see it as much of a problem. I just try to keep old BBs out of the mix as much as possible. I try to keep ship speed in the same range though.

I prefer high naval skill over high aggression. An aggressive commander will sometimes stay and slug it out and lose the entire TF. I want somebody with enough sense to leave when the time comes.[;)] But late war, I want the highest aggression. Not so concerned about losing ships then.

I will say that I am a firm believer in TF size. The perfect night action TF in my book is six to eight ships with about 2/3rds being DDs. I prefer two smaller TFs going in rather than one big. Once again, with a large TF many ships simply never fire a shot.

I think the Japanese player has less of a choice and must use his BBs in more situations. But that is no surprise either.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: Modern BB v Old BB

Post by Nikademus »

Different weapon types (4.7 vs 5) and such won't make a difference. Speed can be an impediment if it makes your TF slower than the enemy TF.

You are correct that having too many ships, esp at night will tend to just result in a number of them not participating. This was deliberate since the UV days.

My particular TF was purely the result of immediate need. I had just transferred a bunch of auxiliaries to the new forward base. Fortunately my air searches reconnoitered the approach of the enemy surface TF. So i scrapped together what i had which was hardly the First Team :) The AI ate em for lunch, not least due to the fact that I was facing a highly skilled night team with more modern DD's bolstered by a CA. The DMS's had very poor night skills and the old DD's while better were simply outgunned.

Actually the battle was interesting in that it played out much as it did with Sodak and Washington....losing the screen but miraculously avoiding all torps. In my case I ate a couple and only scored lightly but enough to force the enemy to retreat back to Truk or Rabaul.

There's no penalty for mixed nationalities. There was a peanlty for not properly escorting my BB's but war waits for NO MAN. [;)]
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”