Thanks all for your comments. I understand it now.
Mediterranean Naval Units
-
Even if the UK doesn’t survive round one, they have always had more resources than anyone else to rebuild their fleet and make it the one of the most powerful on the board. It has generally been very difficult for Germany to win (in my experience) if they do not destroy the brunt of Allied combat ships on the first turn. Because Germany quickly loses, or loses use of, her navy, and cannot hope to match the UK’s.
As for Italian subs… Yes the book I was reading said “nearly 100 MORE subs than Britain in the Mediterranean”. Which is rather many. I don’t know why they did not sink more British warships. Perhaps they were incompetent. (By the way, this is not the same book that gave me the July 4 date for Mers-el-Kabir… this is from the Time Life World War II series, Volume: The Mediterranean.)
And Calvin: yes I do think I heard about the Italians attacking their own ships… I sort of forgot about that incident. Kind of embarrassing for them. Maybe their sub commanders were suffered from the same problems. Actually I believe I read that Italy was very short on experienced submarine captains and many of their boats were commanded by junior officers. That is one more mark against them which would lead to a reduced sub fleet in the game.
-
Yeah, most navies are downsized……except for japan’s. Did Japan really have 3 times as many carriers as the US?
-
Yeah, most navies are downsized……except for japan’s. Did Japan really have 3 times as many carriers as the US?
Yeah, I don’t know about that. At the time of Pearl Harbor, the US had 5, maybe 6 (if you count the Ranger), carriers available. And if we speak of 1940 time, I think we can lower that number to a max of 5, because I don’t think the Hornet was totally operational yet. The Japanese had 6 main line carriers in the Pearl Harbor attack alone, plus some escort carriers … plus whatever they had in waters off their Eastern holdings. I am not certain. Japan had large numbers of battleships and cruisers, but even for Japan, I have never seen a setup where they have any more than 2 battleships or 2 Cruisers. Japan only had 2 battleships in Pacific 40 starting setup, correct?
-
Yeah, most navies are downsized……except for japan’s. Did Japan really have 3 times as many carriers as the US?
Yeah, I don’t know about that. At the time of Pearl Harbor, the US had 5, maybe 6 (if you count the Ranger), carriers available. And if we speak of 1940 time, I think we can lower that number to a max of 5, because I don’t think the Hornet was totally operational yet. The Japanese had 6 main line carriers in the Pearl Harbor attack alone, plus some escort carriers … plus whatever they had in waters off their Eastern holdings. I am not certain. Japan had large numbers of battleships and cruisers, but even for Japan, I have never seen a setup where they have any more than 2 battleships or 2 Cruisers. Japan only had 2 battleships in Pacific 40 starting setup, correct?
Yeah. Japan starts with 2 BB, 3 AC, 2 CA, 2 SS, 4 DD, 3 Trans
-
Just found this (from Imperial Japanes Navy - Wikipedia):
“Japan put particular emphasis on aircraft carriers. The Imperial Japanese Navy started the Pacific War with 10 aircraft carriers, the largest and most modern carrier fleet in the world at that time. There were seven American aircraft carriers at the beginning of hostilities, only three operating in the Pacific; and eight British aircraft carriers, of which a single one operated in the Indian Ocean.”
As a note, Yamato and Musashi were not completed until after 1940.
-
Just found this (from Imperial Japanes Navy - Wikipedia):
“Japan put particular emphasis on aircraft carriers. The Imperial Japanese Navy started the Pacific War with 10 aircraft carriers, the largest and most modern carrier fleet in the world at that time. There were seven American aircraft carriers at the beginning of hostilities, only three operating in the Pacific; and eight British aircraft carriers, of which a single one operated in the Indian Ocean.”
As a note, Yamato and Musashi were not completed until after 1940.
Okay. 10 to 3 is about the same as 3 to 1. After Midway, they’d still have 6 carriers.
-
@UN:
I think the French fleet will be smaller to show the effects of scuttling it without actually having a scuttling rule.
I don’t understand this. If we’re ignoring the Vichy rule, why can’t we ignore the French naval scuttling either? I understand your concept, but because France’s ground lifespan isn’t going to be very long, at least give them a seizable fleet to work with.
I think the French fleet should be:
1 battleship, 2 cruisers, 3 destroyers, 2 subs, 2 transports
I think this might be appropriate, judging by the historical units, but I believe it would make France too powerful for its role. If France had this substantial of a force, and they combined it with whatever England has or builds… Germany can never hope to destroy them even with combined Italian forces. Germany just has too much else to spend money and planes on, while Italy likely won’t have enough money to start an arms race. The Allies could quickly assemble an extremely powerful fleet that would defy any air or sea attack (short of having loads of heavy bombers). I think such an element would sway game power too much. Especially if France is given transports… then they will be able to conduct multiple amphibious assaults of their own during the game, which I think is a little far fetched.
-
@UN:
I think the French fleet will be smaller to show the effects of scuttling it without actually having a scuttling rule.
I don’t understand this. If we’re ignoring the Vichy rule, why can’t we ignore the French naval scuttling either? I understand your concept, but because France’s ground lifespan isn’t going to be very long, at least give them a seizable fleet to work with.
I think the French fleet should be:
1 battleship, 2 cruisers, 3 destroyers, 2 subs, 2 transports
Did you want to say anything to this?
-
Yeah, sorry, I just fixed that. See above.
-
my point is the UK wont be able to bring both of its mediteranian fleets to bear on Italy at the same time because they are to dispersed. by UK 2 the Italian navy might be a target, but it might be near egypt by then and out of range of the gibraltar fleet.
It will be a game of cat and mouse in the med, well 2 small cats and one big rat.
Italys fleet will be able to crush EITHER the Egypt fleet, or the Gibraltar fleet. But not both without more support. With that knowledge, the UK player will keep his 2 smaller (smaller than the italian fleet) fleets out of range of the Italain fleet, but in doing so will be out of range to attack the Italian fleet in unison with both of his fleets.UK 1 BB, 1 CA, 1 DD Egypt SZ + 1 AC, 1 CA, 1 DD Gibraltar SZ + 1 DD Malta SZ (associated land based air units)
Italy 2 BB, 2 CA, 2-3 DD, 1 SS Southern Italy SZ (associated land based air units) -
Hey chaps,
I think some of the numbers of units mentioned here is too high. Regardless of the historical numbers on each side, the numbers of units in the Med (and in the game in general) will be in relation to:
-
the number of units in AAP40
-
their relative success in the war
Therefore, even if the Italians had many submarines (mostly coastal vessels I suspect), because they failed utterly to use them effectively in real life AND we must keep proportions stable with the Japanese and the US Pacific fleets, I believe we will see fewer units. My guess is:
-
France: 1 CA, 1 Transport
-
UK Gibraltar: 1 CV + air, 1 BB, 1 DD
-
UK Malta: 1 Sub
-
UK Egypt: 1 BB, 1 CA
-
Italy: 1 BB, 1 CA, 1 DD, 1 Sub, 1 Transport
-
Germany: -
Cheers,
Lozza007
-
-
Hey chaps,
I think some of the numbers of units mentioned here is too high. Regardless of the historical numbers on each side, the numbers of units in the Med (and in the game in general) will be in relation to:
-
the number of units in AAP40
-
their relative success in the war
Therefore, even if the Italians had many submarines (mostly coastal vessels I suspect), because they failed utterly to use them effectively in real life AND we must keep proportions stable with the Japanese and the US Pacific fleets, I believe we will see fewer units. My guess is:
-
France: 1 CA, 1 Transport
-
UK Gibraltar: 1 CV + air, 1 BB, 1 DD
-
UK Malta: 1 Sub
-
UK Egypt: 1 BB, 1 CA
-
Italy: 1 BB, 1 CA, 1 DD, 1 Sub, 1 Transport
-
Germany: -
Cheers,
Lozza007
I think this is pretty realistic. The units will have to be proportional to previous standards, such as Pacific 40. I think that a good deal of the attack capabilities will depend on the number of sea zones in the Med. I have not studied the map in detail…. Calvin should know this dynamic better than I. Though with Naval bases, the Med will become a much smaller area than it should be in my opinion. I am growing to like this +1 movement thing for Air/Naval bases less and less… like IL said, it doesn’t model their purpose well.
-
-
Im really not comfortable giving Italy LESS of a fleet than it has in AA 50
At least 2 cruisers and a battleship
-
Hey chaps,
I think some of the numbers of units mentioned here is too high. Regardless of the historical numbers on each side, the numbers of units in the Med (and in the game in general) will be in relation to:
-
the number of units in AAP40
-
their relative success in the war
Therefore, even if the Italians had many submarines (mostly coastal vessels I suspect), because they failed utterly to use them effectively in real life AND we must keep proportions stable with the Japanese and the US Pacific fleets, I believe we will see fewer units. My guess is:
-
France: 1 CA, 1 Transport
-
UK Gibraltar: 1 CV + air, 1 BB, 1 DD
-
UK Malta: 1 Sub
-
UK Egypt: 1 BB, 1 CA
-
Italy: 1 BB, 1 CA, 1 DD, 1 Sub, 1 Transport
-
Germany: -
Cheers,
Lozza007
I think this is pretty realistic. The units will have to be proportional to previous standards, such as Pacific 40. I think that a good deal of the attack capabilities will depend on the number of sea zones in the Med. I have not studied the map in detail…. Calvin should know this dynamic better than I. Though with Naval bases, the Med will become a much smaller area than it should be in my opinion. I am growing to like this +1 movement thing for Air/Naval bases less and less… like IL said, it doesn’t model their purpose well.
Naval Base represents advanced ship facilities that allow a ship to travel farther before it runs out of fuel and has to be refueled by invisible oil tankers. Air base uses the same rationelle. IL says that ships in ports should be protected from naval attack. Why? Ships can hit other ships from a mile away(literally), so they don’t have to actually enter the port
-
-
Im really not comfortable giving Italy LESS of a fleet than it has in AA 50
At least 2 cruisers and a battleship
Isn’t a DD and SS worth more than a CA?
-
Im really not comfortable giving Italy LESS of a fleet than it has in AA 50
At least 2 cruisers and a battleship
Isn’t a DD and SS worth more than a CA?
I would not like giving them less than what was in Anniversary either, but calvin has a point that a DD and SS is equal or greater than a Cruiser. Though, I would not think it ludicrous to add a Cruiser to the BB, CA, DD, SS, Transport mix… making it 2 CA. I think this would be substantial and powerful enough.
-
True. I guess bigger means more than increasing its value by 2 ipcs.
I think the 3 space movement in the Med is good for the UK since it can move from one side of the med to the other without being hit by axis air/navy in between. It is also good for the Italians, who can probably reach Gibraltar, egypt, and perhaps even caucusus(assuming axis controls Turkey)
-
Naval Base represents advanced ship facilities that allow a ship to travel farther before it runs out of fuel and has to be refueled by invisible oil tankers. Air base uses the same rationelle. IL says that ships in ports should be protected from naval attack. Why? Ships can hit other ships from a mile away(literally), so they don’t have to actually enter the port
I don’t know about getting an extra move though… I mean, a full tank of gas is a full tank of gas, whether you are at sea or coming out of port. Same for Air Bases. Wherever you would land has an airfield, and therefore fuel and supplies. Why does having an Air Base give you an extra move? Does a more major airfield mean you can get more out of your gas tank? I don’t know, it seems kinda unrealistic in that way. And it just allows even faster movement across the board… which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but sometimes the movement can get rather long. Especially with long range aircraft … if that will be available in Global.
I agree wholeheartedly with the repair rule for ships. I think that is a great idea. As for protected Naval Bases… I don’t think it is a bad idea. It gives them more reason for use and purchase, plus it was historically accurate for nations to hole their ships up in port for protection. Other than at Mers-el-Kabir I know of no direct naval assault on a major port facility. And Mers-el-Kabir doesn’t really count since the ships were technically friendly with regards to each other. The Italians kept their ships at Taranto, knowing the British wouldn’t send their fleet there… so they (the Brits) ended up putting together an airstrike to do the job. The Japanes didn’t use their ships at Pearl Harbor, only planes. The Tirpiz was never directly attacked by sea forces while He was in berth (as far as I know), Truk was not raided by naval units, only by American carrier aircraft… I am sure there are other examples. I am saying that there is obviously some reason why nobody did it in the war, and I think that is where the deterrant of a Naval Base should come into play.
-
Naval Base represents advanced ship facilities that allow a ship to travel farther before it runs out of fuel and has to be refueled by invisible oil tankers. Air base uses the same rationelle. IL says that ships in ports should be protected from naval attack. Why? Ships can hit other ships from a mile away(literally), so they don’t have to actually enter the port
I don’t know about getting an extra move though… I mean, a full tank of gas is a full tank of gas, whether you are at sea or coming out of port. Same for Air Bases. Wherever you would land has an airfield, and therefore fuel and supplies. Why does having an Air Base give you an extra move? Does a more major airfield mean you can get more out of your gas tank? I don’t know, it seems kinda unrealistic in that way. And it just allows even faster movement across the board… which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but sometimes the movement can get rather long. Especially with long range aircraft … if that will be available in Global.
I agree wholeheartedly with the repair rule for ships. I think that is a great idea. As for protected Naval Bases… I don’t think it is a bad idea. It gives them more reason for use and purchase, plus it was historically accurate for nations to hole their ships up in port for protection. Other than at Mers-el-Kabir I know of no direct naval assault on a major port facility. And Mers-el-Kabir doesn’t really count since the ships were technically friendly with regards to each other. The Italians kept their ships at Taranto, knowing the British wouldn’t send their fleet there… so they (the Brits) ended up putting together an airstrike to do the job. The Japanes didn’t use their ships at Pearl Harbor, only planes. The Tirpiz was never directly attacked by sea forces while He was in berth (as far as I know), Truk was not raided by naval units, only by American carrier aircraft… I am sure there are other examples. I am saying that there is obviously some reason why nobody did it in the war, and I think that is where the deterrant of a Naval Base should come into play.
But the tank may not be full if it starts in open sea, since oil tankers may not be enough to fill it. Both facilities make sure that the tank is full.
As for no naval attacks, I don’t know the obvious reason. if anyone does, please tell me
-
I think the 3 space movement in the Med is good for the UK since it can move from one side of the med to the other without being hit by axis air/navy in between. It is also good for the Italians, who can probably reach Gibraltar, egypt, and perhaps even caucusus(assuming axis controls Turkey)
Yeah, I suppose it should be fine then. I don’t want it to take forever for ships to go places, especially if I am the one moving them. About how wide is the Med in Pacific? Sea Zone wise that is. as long as it is 4 wide (from Gibraltar area to Suez area) everything should be good.
(As a side note… The Italians being able to reach the Caucasus really screwed me over last game I played. I was Russia and got into a nearly impossible take-retake battle over the Caucasus with all three Axis Powers. So I was tripled teamed, with little outside help. Bad position to be in.)