AARHE: National Units (Phase 1)

[theduke]

Aircraft
Military aircraft of all types
United States = 324,750
Germany = 189,307
Soviet Union = 157,261
United Kingdom = 131,549
Japan = 76,320
Canada = 16,431
Italy = 11,122
Other Commonwealth = 3,081
Hungary = 1,046
Romania = 1,000

Fighter aircraft

United States = 99,950
Soviet Union = 63,087
Germany = 55,727
United Kingdom = 49,422
Japan = 30,447
Italy = 4,510

Attack aircraft
Soviet Union = 37,549
Germany = 12,539

Bomber aircraft

United States = 97,810
United Kingdom = 34,689
Soviet Union = 21,116
Germany = 18,235
Japan = 15,117
Italy = 2,063

*****This info doesn’t support the idea that UK made a disproportionately high number of air units. IMO I don’t think the Spitfire should be the national unit. Also, I like Japanese kamikazes and I don’t want fighters as national units for more than 1 nation. I want diversification.

[theduke]

Cruisers
United States = 48
United Kingdom = 32
Japan = 9
Italy = 6
Soviet Union = 2

Destroyers
United States = 349
United Kingdom = 240
Japan = 63
Soviet Union = 25
Germany = 17
Italy = 6

*****Look at how many DDs the UK built! This is the only reason why I thought DD’s should be the UK national unit. Also, the ‘Destroyers for Bases’ program earlier in the war might also justify the UK having a ton of destroyers, don’t you think?

[Guerrilla Guy]

If you make DD’s a national unit for Britain I would make Fighters the National unit for Japan…

British H Class Destroyer:
Cost 10 IPC’s for each Destroyer Purchased

Japanese Kawasaki Fighters:
the 1 Fighter Purchased on Purchase Units Phase costs 10 IPC’s

[theduke]

Post-World War I and World War II classes (of Destroyers)

A class — 11 ships, 1929–1930
B class — 9 ships, 1930
C and D class — 14 ships, 1931–1932
E and F class — 18 ships, 1934
G and H class — 24 ships, 1935–1936
I class — 11 ships, 1936–1937
Tribal class (1936) — 27 ships, 1936–1944
J and K class — 16 ships, 1938–1939
Hunt class — 83 ships (20 Batch I, 33 Batch II, 28 Batch III, 2 Batch IV), 1939–1942
L and M class — 16 ships, 1939–1942
N class — 8 ships, 1940–1941
O and P class — 16 ships, 1941–1942
Q and R class — 16 ships, 1941–1942
S and T class — 16 ships, 1942–1943
U and V class — 16 ships, 1942–1943
W and Z class — 16 ships, 1943–1944
C class — 32 ships, 1943–1945
Battle class — 23 ships (16 Batch I, 7 Batch II), 1943–1946

********Class H were WWI class ships. I believe the last one was built in 1939, several years before the game is set.
The most prevelent class of WWII destroyers were of Hunt Class:

The Hunt class was a class of destroyer escorts of the Royal Navy. They are named after British fox hunts. They served as convoy escorts in World War II.

The Hunt class were supposed to be quickly and cheaply built escort destroyers. The Type 1s were under armed; four 4" dual-purpose guns (capable of ship to ship and AA fire) in twin turrets. This was due to a major design error caused by rushed calculations in an overworked design department, leading to instability. One turret had to be removed and ballast added. The next batch of ships had their hulls split lengthways and widened while building to give 33 Type 2s with six 4" guns in 3 turrets. The subsequent 28 Type 3s carried four 4" guns but had two torpedo tubes amidships. The Type 4s were built to a larger different design by J I Thornycroft.

Except for the Type 1s, Hunt class destroyers served with the Royal Navy, Polish Navy, Royal Hellenic Navy (Greece) and Royal Norwegian Navy.

************ Notice the first line “quickly and cheaply built escort destroyers”…. justification for making them cost 10? The last ones came in 1942, however.

[Guerrilla Guy]

alrighty, make them the hunt class… My main point is making Japanese Fighters 10…

[tekkyy]

continuing discussing from main thread on this new thread

@Micoom:

JAP; 8 IPC figthers and battleships attack and defend on a 5

The battleship is already in the Yamato Japanese National Advantage.

US; Extra ccapacityon Liberty ships: Always 2 infantry + 1 other land unit. and CA for 13 each (still 2 hits)

Which carrier is that? The light fleet carrier or the light crusier hull carrier?  :lol:
I don’t think its too bad unbalanced to be 13 IPC and take 1 hit only. I mean we gave their Liberty transport an advantage.
We still let US build normal carriers.

[theduke]

liberty ships are very cheap cargo vessels. if they can be justifiably represented by transport units then it makes sense to have US transports be cheap. liberty ships shouldn’t be involved in amphib assaults (realistically), which is the main purpose of transport units, so I said that liberty ships shouldn’t be represented by transport units.

convoys aren’t represented by transport units (we already had discussion why) so therefore I say liberty ships shouldn’t be represented by those units either. That is my stance, but I do like the discussion over it because I want to be able to justify liberty ships as transport units, I just can’t.

[Micoom]

@tekkyy:

continuing discussing from main thread on this new thread

@Micoom:

JAP; 8 IPC figthers and battleships attack and defend on a 5

The battleship is already in the Yamato Japanese National Advantage.

I know, but I wanted to skip the NA… But I like your kamikazes also.

UK Could have the DD or BB, no fighters indeed.

[Imperious Leader]

I dont know where to jump in after like 15 posts in one day… but i can say this:

the United States built 2,710 EC2 liberty ships and about 500 C2 and C3 cargo ships… this is staggering quantity… The reason why i feel the US should have these units as the “kicker” is due to 2 things:

1. Germany has cheap subs and if USA has cheap Trannies it will balance out the battle of the atlantic better.
2. If USA gets a cheaper tranny over a cheaper destroyer it wont help them as much.

if anything let UK get cheaper battleships since they had the most modern battleships… the figure is 12 vs 17 but most of the american BB’s were not retrofitted or modernized.
A second choice for UK would be spitfires.

it may be noted that usa started the war with 171 destroyers and Japan had 113 destroyers. United States also sold 50 destroyers to UK in exchange for base rights. this was early 1941.

[tekkyy]

@Micoom:

I know, but I wanted to skip the NA…

Oh I see. Why is that?
So far National Units is about cost modifiers to model historic purchase trends.

@Imperious:

if anything let UK get cheaper battleships since they had the most modern battleships

Which one is that? http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm sugguests US’s Iowa with the best weaponary and protection. Should it be cheaper because of “modern”? I thought its about mass production or efficiency.

United States also sold 50 destroyers to UK in exchange for base rights. this was early 1941.

Thats another point for UK cheap DD.

[Micoom]

Losses and builds during WWII;

DD
          Losses      Builds
GER    50            17
IT        84            6
JAP    134          63
UK      110          240
US      71            349
RUS    27            25

AC
          Losses      Builds
GER    0              2
IT        0            0
JAP    19            16
UK      8              14
US      11            141
RUS    0              0

BB
        Losses      Builds
GER    7              2
IT        1            3
JAP    8              2
UK      5              5
US      2              8
RUS    1              0

Sub
        Losses      Builds
GER    751          1337
IT      84            28
JAP    130          167
UK      77            167
US      53            422
RUS    90            52

[theduke]

Here is an idea I have on the drawing board…

1 national unit each… no fighters as national units though. instead, a separate category for national fighter advantages. each nation has a different advantage.

National Unit NA:
Russia=armor units
Germany=subs
UK=bombers? DDs? BBs? (still debating this one)
Japan=infantry (advantage something like dug-in defenders and/or banzai inf)
US= CVs (maybe transports if we can justify liberty ships as transport units)

National Fighters NA:
Russia= cheap fighters?
germany= strategic dive bombers
UK= spitfire, defend at 5
Japan= kamikaze rules I explained before
US= P-51, greater movement… what about conflict with LRA as tech?

[theduke]

What if instead of each nation having a fighter advantage we do this (these might be too similar however):

National unit:
Russia= tank (cheaper)
germany= sub (cheaper?)
UK= fighter (defend better and maybe cheaper)
japan= infantry (defend better and maybe cheaper)
us= CV (cheaper and move 3)

National Special Attack:
Russia=  Katyusha rocket launchers
germany= blitzkrieg
UK= enigma decoder
japan= just kamikazes? maybe include kaitens and banzai inf as suicidal warfare? suicidal inf too similar to Russian advantage of sacrificing men?
US= Amphibious Assault (marines)

what are some unique tactics that Russia and US used during the war?

[theduke]

what did japan mass produce during the war?

[Micoom]

@theduke:

what did japan mass produce during the war?

Compared to the other powers they didn’t really mass produce… But they came in 4rd in machine guns.  and 2nd in Reconnaissance aircraft and AC’s and 3rd in Submarines.

So looking at the Machine Guns the Infantry option isn’t that bad!

[Imperious Leader]

National unit: ( these are just as you stated )
Russia= tank (cheaper)
germany= sub (cheaper?)
UK= fighter (defend better and maybe cheaper)
japan= infantry (defend better and maybe cheaper)
us= CV (cheaper and move 3)

This all looks good.

National Special Attack:
Russia=  Katyusha rocket launchers (+1 first strike on artillery)
germany= blitzkrieg (each armor brings up one infantry +1 on attack, each plane brings up one armor on attack +1)
UK= enigma decoder
japan= banzai attack is a must +1 attack but must attack to the bitter end… no retreats
US= Amphibious Assault (marines) +1 first round on invasions

what are some unique tactics that Russia and US used during the war?

Russia:
They copied german tactics… they learn well from their masters but relied on numbers to grind down the opponent… quality was not the issue it was quantity. Also excellent fighters in poor weather and built up areas… turned quick battles into a quagmire of attrition

USA:
Installed great bomber campaign over germany…excellent logistics and supply system second to none. Used German tactics on land combat. marines looks promising

[theduke]

we can’t include banzai inf and not include kamikazes. kamikaze national special attack comes first IMO.

[Imperious Leader]

A kamakazi is a desperate attack… its not something the japanese should be doing unless they are going to lose. I know its fun… but historically they didnt throw away their lives with frivolous attacks w/o purpose. The style of combat has to be respectible… Banzai is derivitive of the concept of Bushido… its also somewhat a desperate attack but symbolizes the fighting spirit of the japanese warrior. I think kami should stick as a NA and not a specific type of combat method… it looks bad for japanese people in general because of its desperate character.

[tekkyy]

Kamikaze is quite major in numbers but Imperious Leader has a point that they wouldn’t use it until they were losing the war.
But dug-in defenders also makes a defensive NA so its hard to say.

The new “no retreat” idea for Banzai attack sounds good to me.

But what happens to infantry powerful for Russia and Germany? I reckon more like this…

Russia= tank (cheaper) = T34 , d6 dice number of 2 IPC infantries
germany= sub (cheaper) = VII , d6 dice number of 2 IPC infantries
UK= fighter (defend better) = Spitfire
japan = fighter (cheaper) = Zero
us= CV (move 3) = Essex

So we let US have fast but just as strong carriers. But lets not make them cheaper as well??? If it was Essex Light Fleet Carrier but as least they need to build MORE of them to carry the same amount of fighter in the fleet.

[theduke]

Banzai is derivative of the concept of Bushido… its also somewhat a desperate attack but symbolizes the fighting spirit of the Japanese warrior.

And kamikaze attacks aren’t a symbol of the fighting spirit of the Japanese warrior???

A kamikaze is a desperate attack… its not something the Japanese should be doing unless they are going to lose.
True for both.

I know its fun… but historically they didn’t throw away their lives with frivolous attacks w/o purpose.
True for both.

Wikipedpia On Banzai Charge:

Banzai charge is a term derived from the Japanese samurai spirit and ideology of not accepting the shame of defeat. Instead, it is considered honourable to do a last desperate charge at the enemy and perish together with them instead of dying in cowardice.

Banzai is literally translated as “Ten thousand years” but more accurately “Long Live” and was a Japanese motto during the war. They honour their emperor by shouting “Banzai”, meaning “Long live the emperor”.

The Kamikaze strategy used in World War II is a good exemplification of the banzai charge, although the banzai charge is used mainly for infantry troopers.

Banzai infantry, kamikaze fighters, kaiten subs are all forms of suicide attacks, but utilizing different units to do so. Kamikaze attacks were the most effective, and therefore famous form of the attack during WWII. The only question in my mind is whether to have just kamikaze attacks as the advantage or all forms of suicide attacks.