Interesting. I am finding myself agreeing with CalvinHobbesLiker … It has been a previous trend in AA to underrepresent naval forces from what might be expected. For, example, in the old Europe, didn’t the Axis just have one Battleship off of Italy? Plus a transport and a destroyer somewhere in the Med? That doesn’t seem like much when you consider all the ships there (depending on the starting date of the game). Even though this is a bigger game (more territories/sea zones. I guess that I do not expect to see armadas of ships choking the Mediterranean.
If I were to disagree with one thing Calvin said, it was the placement of British units. I think the amounts are nearly right, but I personally would think Calvin’s Alexandria and Gibraltar forces should be switched. Due to the Alexandria force having two older battleships and an older aircraft carrier, I would think they’d get a cruiser, destroyer and a transport (maybe) in Axis and Allies. The Gibraltar force, in my opinion should be stronger; being comprised of newer battleships, the Hood, which was effectively a battleship, plus the Ark Royal (carrier) and support ships. A couple months after France fell, the Brits sent the new carrier Illustrious into the Med also. This being the case, I bet Britain has 1 carrier somewhere in the Atlantic, standing in for both Ark Royal and Illustrious.
I don’t know if I would agree with a reduce French fleet or not. I mean, I agree with Calvin that it is a very likely thing the designers will do. I just don’t know if I like it or not.
I guess that all of the fleet sizes are relative. They will be somehow proportional to each other based on what they were in actuality. I bank on fewer as opposed to more ships, overall on the board. That has been the trend and I don’t see it stopping. It is probably better that way too. If somebody wants to build a huge fleet, let them. But having large amounts of ships at the start of the game leaves little incentive to risk losing them in battle.