Re: SM battle report - "Death of the Decoys"

Alan wrote:

> > Fought this battle today. Cinematic movement on a floating table
> 
> > Alan and Roger, I hope this report answers some of your questions 
> > about dealing with BJs :-/
> 
> Indeed it does, very useful.
>  
> > NSL fleet:
> > 1 Von Tegetthoff SDN, carrying 1 Interceptor sqdn
> > 1 Szent Istvan BDN, carrying 1 Interceptor sqdn
> > 1 Maria von Burgund BB
> > 2 Kronprinz Wilhelm/E CLEs
> > 3 Waldburg/M DDGs
> > 16 Stroschen CTs
> 
> Try the same thing with 3 Marias, 4-5 Wilhelms, maybe a CA or two or
> Waldburg/Ms, and 15 or so Falkes as BJs.

Will do when time permits. I don't think it'll be that different,
though - Falkes die much faster than Stroschens, allowing the FSE
heavies to knock some of the cruisers out instead before
launching.missiles. Besides, MvBs are *much* easier to kill than Szent
Istvans or Von Tegetthoffs :-/

> > Total: 2999 pts, 752 of which (25.1%) were used to buy banzai 
> > jammers.

> Seems a bit high. In fact very high. 

The "25% for BJ" figure came from your "what-if" scenario (75% NSL
force, 100% FSE force with empty magazines), and IIRC you're also the
one who talked about using Stroschens instead of Falkes for BJ duties.
We merely assumed you meant what you had written :-/

> I'd use smaller, with the points
> being used to get CLEs. Yes, the BJs can be taken out by fighters:
but
> if you have more than a very indequate number of CLEs, the fighters
get 
> taken out instead, and the BJs remain.

In this battle, only 5 of the 15 BJs were killed by fighters. With more
CLEs but fewer and weaker BJs, the BJs would've died much faster to
other threats.

> > The BJs were deployed 4 to each capital and 2 covering each CLE,
but
> > they moved around a bit during the battle.
> 
> 2 per big fella's enough. The rest should cower behind, using their
> great movement factor to zip in front in the next movement phase to
> replace losses from plinking.

Wouldn't have mattered much in this battle. The rear Stroschens - those
covering the CLEs - were the first to die, in spite of being 6mu behind
the battleline.

> Any marauding FF/DD must therefore run the
> gauntlet of great numbers of beams before getting within 12".

You're flying your anti-BJ ships *way* too slowly, then :-/ I've never
had any problem getting strike units from outside C3 range to within
their own weapons range of their chosen target in one turn. The NSL
heavies opened fire at the FSE small fry at the same time as the small
fry opened fire on the Stroschens.

> While fighters, who don't have this problem, should face 4+ ADAF PDs 
> on each fighter group.

As I said above the fighters only killed 5 BJs. If the BJs had been
Falkes instead, I'd've been very tempted to throw the fighters at the
CLEs instead - the Ibizas wouldn't have needed any help from the
figthers to kill the BJs. Particularly not if the BJs had been Falke/Ss
:-/

> > FSE fleet:
> > 1 Bologna CVL, carrying 1 standard, 1 Interceptor and 2 Heavy
Attack
> > sqdns
> > 3 Roma BBs
> > 2 Jerez CAs, each with 2 SM-ER and 1 normal salvo
> > 9 Ibiza FFs
> > 2 Mistral/A SCs (the /A variant replaces 1 C1 battery with 1
subpack).
> > 
> > Total: 3000 pts. This fleet was explicitly designed to beat a
> > BJ-protected fleet.
> 
> 4 Bolognas would have done it better though!

Yeah, sure. 4 strike-loaded Bolognas would've left me with a grand 392
points to spend on other ships (assuming I didn't buy any Attack
fighters, that is!), and not nearly enough missiles to make any
impression on anything whatsoever. If I had wanted to fight with
fighters only, I'd've played NAC instead. 

Indeed, the Bologna was mainly there to counter any *NSL* fighters
(since the FB1 FSE don't have any ADFC ships at all), but I didn't
expect to need more than 1-2 anti-fighter groups - thus the two attack
groups to fill the remaining hangar bays. Had I known the NSL wouldn't
bring any offensive figthers at all, I'd've bought another Roma and one
more Jerez instead.

> The NSL fleet was very very under-escorted.

Yep.

> >It worked.
> 
> Try it against double the number of CL(E)s and slightly fewer (and
> smaller) BJs.

See above. In this battle, only 2-3 CLEs would've been in action when
the first FSE missiles went in - the rest would've been knocked out by
FSE beam fire, along with the Falkes.

> > Deployment saw the NSL in a tight formation, heavies in front, CLEs
in
> > the middle so all ships was covered by at least one CLE, and the
DDGs
> > bringing up the rear (about 6mu behind the heavies). Each CT was
> > deployed 0.5mu from the ship it protected - it was physically
> > impossible to get it closer than that.
> 
> Faultless. Except that the BJs should have been covered by 4 CL(E)s 
> and I'd forget about the fighters, but the latter is a minor issue.
Oh yes,
> and BJs are "ablative armour", you keep most in reserve (6mu behind),
> not all up front. Remember that by the sequence of play, you can
strip
> off every BJ around a heavy, but before your SMs reach the target,
more
> can arrive.

That assumes that the reserve BJs haven't already been killed :-/ In
this battle they were already dead and another 2 mu of distance between
the reserve BJs and the heavies wouldn't have protected them.

> Usually by accelerating 6 and 5 from 6 MU behind while the
> big guy decelerates 0.5 (and maybe turning). 

Assuming you allow fractional accelerations. We've actually never
thought of it, but I guess that comes from measuring in cm rather than
".

> Don't know about you, but I
> find it very difficult getting enough missiles within 0.25 MU of the
> target consistently.

That's why you kill *all* the jammers before the missiles go in <g>

> I have done it once vs this type of defence, and a
> Maria ate 6 SMs. Which made it very ill.  
 
It would <g> The 6 SMs that hit the Szent Istvan made *it* very ill,
and it has 60% more hull and armour than a Maria :-/

> > The FSE deployed in two groups: one consisting of the FFs and CTs
> > moving slightly to starboard, and the other of the heavies which
veered
> > off sharply to port.
>  
> > The FSE small fry accelerated as hard as they could towards the
NSL,
> > who turned their entire fleet to meet them. The FSE interceptor
group
> > managed to engage both the NSL squadrons in a furball, and although
> > it was wiped out itself only 4 NSL fighters survived the
experience.
> 
> Par for the course. One reason I have either Lots of fighters, none
at
> all, or keep em in the bays until enemy fighter strength is
comparable.

The big NSL mistake was to keep the two squadrons too closely together
- I was able to get my single squadron into a dogfight (ie,
base-to-base contact) with both of them at once; if he'd withdrawn one
of them I would've gotten a "free" shot at it (and therefore probably
would've wiped it out). If he hadn't done that mistake, the fighter
numbers would've been quite comparable since half of my fighters were
useless in dogfights. Unfortunately for him, I lost the initiative on
both turns - ie, my fighters moved first :-/

'Course, since my fighter tactics only aimed at keeping his fighters of
my attack fighters, I'd've been quite happy to see him keep his own
fighters unlaunched! Unfortunately I've inflicted too many high-speed
needle beam strikes on his carriers in the past for him to keep any
fighters unlaunched one second longer than necessary :-(

> > The
> > other FSE fighter squadrons nailed one BJ each, while the Ibizas
and
> > Mistrals did in another three and crippled two for the loss of
three
> > Ibizas and both Mistrals.
> 
> How many fighters did you lose to the CL(E)s?

The first turn? 2 (lucky) and 3 (more normal for heavy fighters),
respectively.

>  Would twice the number of PDs firing have made a significant
difference > (ie if the BJs had been Falkes, would the Mistrals etc
have killed many > more)

No and yes, respectively - with twice the number of PDSs the fighters
would most likely have killed about as many Falkes as they now killed
Stroschens, but the Mistrals and Ibizas would have killed about 8 BJs
instead of 3 killed + 2 crippled (which were polished off by the FSE
heavies and fighters on the next turn).

> Also remember if
> using Falke/S that they get to shoot back pretty nastily, and could
> easily take out the (damaged) small fry sent against them, should
they
> get a chance to fire before evaporating (unlikely, I'll admit)

Falke/Ss die even faster than standard Falkes; adjust to 10 BJs killed
by the Ibizas in this case. The Stroschens we used aren't entirely
toothless either, and most of them did get to fire at least once before
dying - but unfortunately most of them only had unloaded Ibizas left to
shoot at.

> > Meanwhile, the FSE heavies had swung around in a wide arc and now
> > closed in from the NSL's starboard side. The germanics launched
> > missiles in their path, but only one salvo hit a BB and all its
> > missiles were shot down. The other salvoes locked on to the
withdrawing
> > Ibizas instead, and killed two more of them.
> 
> ie Banzai Jamming (just a note).

Of sorts. The Ibizas started the turn more than 30mu away from the FSE
heavies and ended it roughly 10mu away from them, moving in the
opposite direction - hardly optimal BJ tactics :-/

The NSL admiral had assumed that my heavies would make a 1-point turn
instead of a 2-point turn, and placed his salvoes accordingly. Of the
four NSL salvoes only two were in range of FSE heavies, and each
would've hit a different Roma. The other two salvoes would've been
clean misses if the Ibizas hadn't blundered into their path :-( I lost
2 Ibizas and had a third one badly damaged without drawing any serious
pressure off the Romas.

> > Once again, the FSE
> > managed to lock both the NSL squadrons in a dogfight, this time
with
> > their own standard squadron, while their attack fighters nailed
another
> > two BJs.
> 
> There were surviving fighters? Oh yes, only 2 CL(E)s. And you weren't
> using Morale, fair enough.

I was using fighter morale, yes. 3 and 4 heavy attack fighters
remained, respectively, after the tender attention of one CLE each on
the previous turn; I lost another 4 the second turn; due to the loose
NSL formation only one of the CLEs was able to engage them. The other
was just outside ADFC range (by 0.2 mu).

The standard squadron hadn't suffered any casualties at this point
(thanks to the lack of more CLEs), but since their only goal this turn
was to dogfight the NSL interceptors it wouldn't have mattered how many
there were left of them - one single standard fighter would've been
enough for their job.

> > The FSE battleline also concentrated all their guns at the
> > BJs, killing three; now only five BJs remained in action - three of
> > them covering the Maria von Burgund. NSL return fire was fairly
> > ineffective since most of their weapons were out of arc, but they
> > managed to inflict two threshold checks on one of the Jerezes.
> > Unfortunately the only important damage was one of the SMLs, and it

> > was repaired almost immediately.
> 
> > So, what happened to the "impregnable" BJ defence? Well, basically
the
> > FSE used their superior maneuverability to limit the number of
weapons
> > the NSL could bring to bear.
> 
> I've found this to be nearly impossible: by "weaving" , ie having
half
> the force turn port 1 pt while the other half turns starboard, at
least
> half the weapons get to bear on one target,  the other half aren't
> wasted, they just have to plink at the other.

On the contrary - the other half would've been wasted. While the FSE
small fry were closing the FSE heavies were completely out of weapons
range, and when the FSE heavies had closed the range the FSE small fry
had already passed through the NSL formation and were on the same side
of it as the heavies. IOW, the NSL never had targets on both sides of
their ships, so there was nothing for the out-of-arc weapons to plink
at.

> Speed 2-4 is about right, to give you the option of spinning in
place.

Speed 2-4? That *would* have allowed me to place my missiles with
0.25mu precision :-/ More seriously, it would have let me set my attack
runs up much better than I did now. I wouldn't have put the Bologna
just in front of the SDN, for one thing - that was the only launcher I
lost during the entire battle.

> > The Stroschens did all you could ask of them, which was to die
> > horribly, but they didn't live long enough to stop the missile
> > onslaught.
> 
> Their one and only aim in life is NOT to die horribly, but to stop
the
> missiles!

Same end result :-/

> In this case there were not enough ADAFs to stop maraunding
> fighters from taking em out.
 
"Marauding"? Only 5 of the 16 BJs were killed by fighters. 10 were
killed by beams or subpacks.

> Now try the same battle, but with all the Waldburg/Ms replaced by
> Wilhelms and see what happens.
> 
> Summary: A very sub-optimal NSL fleet, with slightly sub-optimal
> tactics. Enough in either to invalidate your main point, since I'm
sure
> similar tweaking could have been done with the FSE? Not sure. The
idea
> was to prove whether the BJ tactic is invincible or not. It appears
not.

Not enough in either, at least not by using the NSL tweaks and tactics
you've suggested - the only way to protect the BJs would have been to
keep them at least 10 mu away from the battleline, and that would've
defeated their purpose entirely (and allowed me to concentrate on the
CLEs instead, which is definitely a Bad Thing for the NSL).

Getting a better optimized NSL fleet would make the battle more even,
but I don't think it'll be enough to change it from the current FSE
cake-walk to an NSL cake-walk.

> OTOH....
> Though do try it with a few more CL(E)s. I should have made this a
bit
> clearer, you need enough in any fleet vs any opponent to keep the
flies
> away. 2 CL(E)s in a 3000 pt battle isn't enough - supposing the FSE
had
> taken, say 4 Bolognas?

If the FSE had taken 4 Bolognas, they wouldn't have had *anything*
else. OK, maybe a single Jerez and an Ibiza, but that's it.

> Heck, if I was taking NSL vs an unknown FSE
> fleet, I'd take 4-5 of em, just in case I hit a Carrier group. But
then
> again, no fighters of my own if playing NSL.

> Another point: Any reason why the NSL didn't just annhihilate the
Ibizas
> at 12" with their massed class 3s on their Big Platforms before the
> Ibizas could fire?

Because there were only three NSL heavies, they were unable to bring
all their batteries to bear in spite of turning to face early on, and
they didn't get a chance to fire until the instant before the Ibizas
themselves opened up. They also had some problems with optimizing their
fire patterns; the first few FSE ships to die were badly overkilled (8
points on a Mistral... though admittedly that damage came from only 4
dice :-/), and at least four of the surviving Ibizas hung on with a
single damage box left at the end of their attack run. 

The FSE heavies were outside C3 range of the NSL (range 40 to the
nearest Jerez IIRC) when the small fry went in, so there were no
distractions at all.

> Expendable doesn't mean Disposable. The BJs are there to absorb
> missiles, and should be protected adequately to do that job.

By keeping them back a few more mu? It wouldn't have helped them in
this battle, though. Keeping them 10 mu behind the NSL battleline
would've protected them, but OTOH that would've left the battleline
mother-naked against the missile storm.

> Summary:
> NSL fleet severely, even fatally, unbalanced as it had nowhere near
> enough ADAFs against any carrier fleet (whether said carrier fleet
used
> SMLs or no).

This FSE force wasn't exactly a "carrier fleet". Without any ADFC units
of their own they need at least rudimentary fighter cover just in case
the *NSL* decides to bring their own fighters, so I had to choose
between a Bologna and a Foch. The only way to get the two I squadrons
(Interceptor + Standard) I wanted without having to buy a third or
fourth squadron as well is to take two Bonapartes, and, well... I can
think of a lot of better things to spend 1062 points on than two
Bonapartes :-/

However, the NSL brought their fighters for pretty much the same reason
as I brought mine, and given their ADFC units they shouldn't have
bothered. IMO they also shouldn't have bothered with the missile units;
there were too few of them to be effective.

> NSL tactics should be to keep the BJs in a reserve behind the main
> fleet, and to zap any charging FFs/DDs that attempt to strip away
BJs,
> and not plink the FSE big guys.

They tried to zap the charging FFs but didn't do it fast enough, and
they were too far away to fire at the FSE big guys at all :-/

> After the FFs are disposed of, THEN go after the main force. 

This is exactly what the NSL tried to do. Except that the FSE were
doing most of the closing, roughly perpendicular to the NSL course :-/

> FSE tactics were superb: The left-right split like this makes keeping
> the BJs in reserve (as above) problematical at best. 

Very problematical, yes :-/

> Not merely that, but the use of Ibizas as Banzai Jammers against the 
> Waldburg/Ms was very good tactics

The accidental use of Ibizas as banzai jammers was extremely *poor*
tactics, and will - together with the completely insane order to send a
bunch of damaged frigates with empty sub-packs back into the fray to
get killed - probably inflict at least a court of inquiry on the
commanding FSE admiral. Six frigates destroyed for no return
whatsoever...

> (though maybe a bit wasteful, try to absorb more than one
> SM salvo next time <g>)

More to the point, try not to run your small fry into SM salvoes which
don't have any other targets :-/

Regards,

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry